Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 515
Inner-biblical Quotations in Old Testament Narra-
tives: Some Methodological Considerations (e.g., 1
Sam 15:2 and Deut 25:17–19)*
CARSTEN VANG (FJELLHAUG INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE)
ABSTRACT
In the study of inner-biblical quotations in Old Testament narrative
literature, much insight can be gleaned from the scholarly endeavour
in the last twenty years of defining and interpreting allusions and
quotations in the prophetic literature. Author-intended quotations
from a precursor text should be distinguished from stock phrases and
the use of recurrent identical phrases. Among the viable criteria for
discerning the direction of dependence in quotations, it is relevant to
mention unfamiliar language usage in one part of the parallel, de-
pendence on context, and signs of interpretation for rhetorical pur-
poses. These criteria are used to test the case of the parallel locutions
in Deut 25:17–19 and 1 Sam 15:2–3. The article also stresses the
need for a thorough study of repeated phraseology in the narrative
literature.
KEYWORDS: Direction of Dependence, Formulaic Language,
Method, Quotation, Verbal Parallels
A INTRODUCTION
Many Old Testament narratives contain several literary parallels to other narra-
tives and legal texts in the Pentateuch. The textual parallels to the Pentateuch
cover a considerable range from long quotations of several phrases (e.g., 2 Kgs
14:6) by more or less obvious allusions to using a particular distinctive phrase-
ology recurring in certain narrative texts. This article
1
addresses the issue of stud-
ying the literary and textual connections between narrative texts in the Old Tes-
tament and legal texts in the Pentateuch in order to understand the literary rela-
tionship between them and the rhetorical function of the parallels. It will not deal
with the Book of Chronicles’ extensive reuse of written traditions from the Pen-
tateuch, Samuel–Kings and Psalms. Literary parallels in the narratives that are
* Submitted: 22/07/2020; peer-reviewed: 27/10/2020; accepted: 12/11/2020. Carsten
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations in Old Testament Narratives: Some Methodological
Considerations (e.g., 1 Sam 15:2 and Deut 25:17–19),” Old Testament Essays 33 no. 3
(2020): 515–537. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2020/v33n3a9.
1
An earlier version of this article was read at the Old Testament Narrative Literature
Session, Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, San Antonio 11/16/2016.
516 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
only thematic and do not also have a shared textual string, also fall outside the
scope of this study.
This article will address the issue of terminology in studying textual par-
allels. It will consider the question of how to distinguish between author-in-
tended textual parallels where an author reuses textual elements from an earlier
source, and shared locutions that are simply random. When the reader has estab-
lished that to all appearances a perceived parallel is author-intended and intends
to draw him or her to the other text, the question arises, what criteria do we have
to determine the direction of dependence in textual parallels in the narratives? A
related question concerns how to assess the phenomenon of shared phraseology
in the narratives and Pentateuch that consists of recurrent use of a specific set of
phrases and themes, disclosing a stylistic and conceptual relatedness.
B 1 SAM 15:2–3
1 Sam 15:2–3 provides us with an example of an obvious literary connection
between a narrative and a legal text in the Pentateuch.
1 Sam 15:2–3
2
2
Thus says YHWH Sebaot, ‘I will take
to account
3
what Amalek did to Is-
rael, how he opposed him on the way
when he came up from Egypt.
3
Now
go and strike Amalek and put under
ban all what he has. Do not have com-
passion with him, but kill man and
woman, child and infant, ox and
sheep, camel and donkey.’ (author’s
translation)
Deut 25:17–19
17
Remember what Amalek did to you
on the way when you went out from
Egypt,
18
how he surprised you on the
way and cut off all those who were
straggling behind you, because you
were faint and weary, and he did not
fear God.
19
Therefore, when YHWH
your God gives you rest from all your
enemies around you, in the land that
YHWH your God is giving you as an in-
heritance to possess, you must wipe
out the memory of Amalek from under
2
Shared locutions are marked in bold italic.
3
HALOT “.”
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 517
heaven; do not forget. (author’s trans-
lation)
In 1 Sam 15 the old prophet Samuel approaches king Saul and commands
him in a very solemn manner to put the Amalekites under a complete ban. The
reason for this harsh procedure is stated only in very general terms in v. 2 (“what
Amalek did to Israel while en route from Egypt”).
4
Saul/the readers are expected
to recognise and understand the veiled reference to a critical episode in the Am-
alekite-Israelite interrelationship that goes back to Israel’s very beginning as a
people having experienced a recent liberation from slavery. In Deut 25:17–19
the atrocities of Amalek are described in detail, how they attacked the Israelite
rearguard in a most unethical manner.
Several shared locutions can be observed between 1 Sam 15:2–3 and Deut
25:17–19: The particular phrase (“what Amalek did to
you”) is common to both,
5
the episode happened (“on the way”), and in both
instances, the attack is set in relation to Israel’s exodus from Egypt and it is
phrased in a similar manner ( ). On the thematic level also, there is
considerable overlap.
6
The structural order of grounds followed by a command
is identical for both parts of the parallel.
7
There appears to be a specific literary relationship between those two texts
in particular.
8
The big question is: Who is alluding to whom? Is Samuel quoting
4
For the theological aspects of the prophetic order, see Eric A. Seibert, “Recent Re-
search on Divine Violence in the Old Testament (with Special Attention to Christian
Theological Perspectives),” CBR 15/1 (2016): 8–40; and from a Jewish perspective, see
Diana Lipton, “Remembering Amalek: A Positive Biblical Model for Dealing with
Negative Scriptural Types,” in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theol-
ogy (eds. David Ford and Graham Stanton; London: SCM, 2003), 139–153.
5
This shared string of words is found nowhere else in OT.
6
Cf. Hans A. Tanner, Amalek. Der Feind Israels und der Feind Jahwes: Eine Studie
zu den Amalektexten im Alten Testament (Zurich: TVZ, 2005), 88: “Dtn 25,17 und
1Sam 15,2 haben nicht nur dasselbe Ereignis im Blick, sondern entsprechen sich auch
weitgehend in Wortwahl und Formulierung.”
7
Ulrich Berges, Die Verwerfung Sauls: Eine thematische Untersuchung (Würzburg:
Echter, 1989), 176.
8
It should be noted in passing that Deut 25:17–19 also has several literary links to
Exod 17:8–14. This manifests in the shared locution “blot
out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens” (Ex 17:14 and Deut 25:19) and in
the repeated use of the word “remember.” However, there appears to be no connec-
tions on the textual level between 1 Sam 15 and Exod 17:8–14. Apart from the gentilic
nouns “Amalek” and “Israel,” there are no shared phrases between Exod 17:8–14 and
1 Sam 15:2–3. When Diana Edelman claims that 1 Sam 15:2–3 “alludes directly to
Exod. 17.8–16 and Deut. 25.17–19” (Diana V. Edelman, “Saul’s Battle
518 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
phrases from the Amalekite Law in Deut 25:17–19? From the canonical order of
the books, many readers and some scholars would subscribe to that interpreta-
tion.
9
The question, however, ought to be raised: Are there any literary indica-
tions in the texts that would support such an urge? Could it be the other way
around that the Amalekite law in Deut 25 has been phrased with 1 Sam 15:2 in
view, in order to explain the nebulous reasons in Samuel’s command to Saul to
perform ḥerem?
10
Or are the linguistic and thematic similarities between our two
passages due rather to a shared Deuteronomistic redaction of both passages,
11
since most scholars today assume two or several comprehensive Deuterono-
mistic redactions of the so-called “Deuteronomistic History”?
12
This example illustrates the complexity of assessing conceivable literary
parallels in the narrative literature. For many years the Old Testament guild has
witnessed numerous intertextual studies on the prophets. The studies have fo-
against Amaleq (1 Sam. 15),” JSOT 35 [1985]: 75; cf. also Tanner, Amalek. Der Feind
Israels, 88). This, however, does not apply to Ex 17:8–16 as there is no textual basis
for her statement that 1 Sam 15:2 is alluding in the same manner to Exod 17:8–16.
9
For example, Berges, Die Verwerfung Sauls, 177–79; Daniel I. Block, The NIV Ap-
plication Commentary: Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 594; Kyle P.
McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 265; Brian N. Peterson, The Authors of the Deuteron-
omistic History: Locating a Tradition in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014),
274. According to Dietrich, this understanding is “gewöhnlich” (Walter Dietrich,
Samuel. Teilband 2: 1 Sam 13–26 [Neukirchen: Neukirchner Theologie, 2015], 154).
10
J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Volume II: The
Crossing Fates (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), 87; Philip D. Stern, “I Samuel 15: To-
wards an Ancient View of the War-Ḥerem,” UF 21 (1989): 414–416.
11
Bernhard Lehnart, Prophet und König im Nordreich Israel: Studien zur
sogenannten vorklassischen Prophetie im Nordreich Israel anhand der Samuel-,
Elijah- und Elischa-Überlieferungen (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 80; Thomas C. Römer, The
So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduc-
tion (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 132, 145; Tanner, Amalek. Der Feind Israels, 73–75,
103. — Norbert Lohfink asserts that Deut 25:17–19 is “undoubtedly a proleptic legiti-
mation of the narrative in 1 S. 15,” phrased by the Deuteronomists in their first Deuter-
onomistic redaction of the Dtr. History (Norbert Lohfink, “ ḥāram ḥērem,” The-
ological Dictionary of the Old Testament 5: 197). Based primarily on the literary con-
nection to Deut 25:17–19, Giercke-Ungermann assumes that not only 15:2–3 but most
of 1 Sam 15 comes from the Deuteronomistic milieu (Annett Giercke-Ungermann, Die
Niederlage im Sieg: Eine synchrone und diachrone Untersuchung der Erzählung von 1
Sam 15 [Würzburg: Echter, 2010], 254–57).
12
In his recent article “Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte
biblischer Erzählungen” ZAW 131 (2019), 43–57, the author Stephen Germany dis-
cusses Deut 25:17–19 and Ex 17:8–14, but not the relationship to 1 Sam 15:2–3.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 519
cused on the textual and thematic relationship between various prophetic cor-
pora
13
or on textual links between the prophets and Pentateuchal texts.
14
The re-
use of texts and traditions in the Book of Psalms has also commanded scholars’
attention for years.
15
When it comes to OT narratives, studies mainly focus on similarities in
plot and literary structure to argue for literary dependence.
16
However, only a
few literary studies have been done to study repetitions in the narratives of verbal
13
E.g. the influence of Proto-Isaiah and Jeremiah on Deutero-Isaiah, cf. Benjamin D.
Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press, 1998); Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in
the Prophets (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 240–329; idem, “Isaianic Intertex-
tuality and Intratextuality as Composition-Historical Indicators: Methodological Chal-
lenges in Determining Literary Influence,” in Bind Up the Testimony: Explorations in
the Genesis of the Book of Isaiah (eds. Daniel I. Block & Richard L. Schultz; Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2015), 33–63. Cf. also Risto Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord Has Spo-
ken: Inner-Biblical Allusions in the Second and Third Isaiah (Landham: University
Press of America, 2006).
14
The books of Zechariah and Malachi in particular have been the object of many
studies on their literary precursors, e.g. Mark J. Boda & Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bring-
ing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2003); Risto Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions
in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1996); Karl W.
Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of
Traditions in the Book of Malachi (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000). A thorough study on the
relationship between the Book of Ezekiel and the Holiness Code was published some
years ago by Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness
Code (New York: T&T Clark, 2009). Cf. also Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im
Ezekielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39 (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2008). Recently, Nathan Mastnjak published a comprehensive study on the
literary allusions in the Book of Jeremiah to Deuteronomy: Nathan Mastnjak, Deuter-
onomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2016). Dalit Rom-Shiloni has also done several studies on this topic, e.g. “The Forest
and the Trees: The Place of Pentateuchal Materials in Prophecy of the Late Seventh /
Early Sixth Centuries BCE,” in Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016 (eds. Louis C.
Jonker, Gideon R. Kotzé & Christl M. Maier; VTSup 177; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 56–92.
15
Cf. Alessandro Coniglio, “‘Gracious and Merciful Is Yhwh…’ (Psalm 145:8): The
Quotation of Exodus 34:6 in Psalm 145 and Its Role in the Holistic Design of the Psal-
ter,” LASBF 67 (2017): 29–50; Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allu-
sions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127/2 (2008): 241–65; Nahum M. Sarna, “Psalm
89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and Other Studies (ed. Alexander
Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29–46.
16
Cf. Cynthia Edenburg, Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of
Judges 19–21 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016); Paul R. Noble, “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph:
Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” VT 52/2 (2002): 219–52.
520 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
locutions and phrases from other texts.
17
To my knowledge, there has been only
a slight discussion of the particular challenge of how to make a distinction be-
tween proper textual allusions to earlier traditions and the occurrence of distinc-
tive repetitive phraseology in the narrative texts.
18
The challenge of defining the
direction of dependence in textual parallels that appear allusive, has not been
addressed either.
For several years, I have studied the shared locutions and themes in the
books of Hosea and Deuteronomy.
19
By focusing on locutions being peculiar and
distinct for Hosea and Deuteronomy, I have looked for literary signs in both parts
of the verbal parallels and their contexts that that may suggest who is quoting
whom. A meticulous and methodological rigorous study of the parallels seems
to show that in his judgment oracles Hosea is reusing an authoritative Deutero-
nomic tradition with a particular rhetorical aim. I hope that a few of the method-
ological considerations from the study of Hosea’s literary relationship to Deu-
teronomy may prove useful also for considering literary links in the narrative
literature.
C THE PROBLEM OF PROPER TERMINOLOGY
In the scholarly literature exploring the various forms of literary relationship be-
tween Old Testament texts, the terminology is often confusing. In a clear and
well-argued overview article about “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,”
Geoffrey Miller has argued that for the sake of clarity the term “intertextuality”
should be reserved for reader-oriented studies only, while literary studies scruti-
nising a given text’s dependence on and relation to precursor texts should be
17
A recent PhD-dissertation has studied allusions in the Book of Judges to the Penta-
teuch: Jillian L. Ross, “A People Heeds Not Scripture: A Poetics of Pentateuchal Allu-
sions in the Book of Judges.” (PhD thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deer-
field), 2015.
18
Mastnjak, Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority, 28–29, is a nota-
ble exception.
19
See my study, “When a Prophet Quotes Moses: On the Relationship between the
Book of Hosea and Deuteronomy,” in Sepher Torath Mosheh: Studies in the Composi-
tion and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (eds. Daniel I. Block & Richard L. Schultz;
Peabody: Hendrickson, 2017), 277–303.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 521
labelled differently.
20
Miller suggests that we use terms like “inner-biblical exe-
gesis” and “inner-biblical allusion” for literary studies concerning a biblical au-
thor’s reuse of phrases taken from precursor texts.
21
Among the most common literary terms being used in the literature are
terms such as “inner-biblical exegesis,”
22
“inner-biblical quotation,”
23
and “in-
ner-biblical allusion.”
24
In ordinary language usage, however, “exegesis” stands for explaining the
meaning of a text. “Inner-biblical exegesis” therefore hardly covers the reuse and
adaptation of verbal elements taken from older texts and traditions.
25
The terms
“quotation” and “allusion” are more appropriate here, and they are often used
interchangeably in the literature. What one scholar terms “allusion,” another pre-
fers to label as “quotation.” The fact that the term “allusion” not only covers the
hidden reuse of locutions taken from another textual source, but also may refer
to persons and events where no verbal parallel can be discerned in the texts,
means that I find it most satisfying to go with Richard Schultz’s definitions and
to speak of “inner-biblical quotations.” Schultz defines a quotation as an author-
20
Geoffrey D. Miller, “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” CurBR 9/3 (2011):
286–94. He differentiates between three uses of this term in the scholarly literature: 1)
“Intertextuality” in the Kristevan sense of the word as a synchronic reader-oriented
study of all sorts of literary connections that a modern reader may conceive when read-
ing texts. 2) “Intertextuality” as a term for the author-oriented, diachronic study of a
given text's citations from and allusions to precursor texts. 3) Literary studies that seek
to combine both the synchronic and the diachronic perspectives. Cf. also David M. Carr,
“The Many Uses of Intertextuality in Biblical Studies: Actual and Potential,” Congress
Volume Helsinki 2010 (ed. Martti Nissinen; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 531. Already 25 years
ago, Snyman underlined the contrast between intertextuality and studies in textual de-
pendence as to purpose, methodology, and presuppositions (Gerrie Snyman, “Who is
speaking? Intertextuality and textual influence,” Neot 30/2 [1996]: 427–49). He clearly
falls within Miller's category 1, but voices strong reservations against Miller's third
group.
21
Miller is followed by Russel L. Meek in “Intertextuality, Inner-Biblical Exegesis,
and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology,” Bib 95/2 (2014): 280–91.
22
Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon,
1985); idem, “Types of Biblical Intertextuality,” Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (eds.
André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 39–44; Sarna, “Ps 89: A Study
in Inner Biblical Exegesis”; Karl W. Weyde, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation: Methodo-
logical Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible,” SEÅ 70
(2005): 287–300. Fishbane is followed by Meek, “Intertextuality,” 284–89.
23
Schultz, Search for Quotation.
24
Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions”; Mastnjak, Deuteronomy and the
Emergence of Textual Authority, 13–18; Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue, 34–36; Ross,
“A People Heeds Not Scripture”; Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture.
25
Cf. Lyle Eslinger, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Ques-
tion of Category,” VT 42 (1992): 48.
522 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
intended repetition of interconnected words from another text “in which an exe-
getical purpose in reusing earlier material can be demonstrated or where an un-
derstanding of the earlier text and context is helpful, if not essential, for a proper
interpretation of the new text.”
26
Schultz here emphasises the functional aspects
of quotation and points out that the literary context of the shared locutions is
crucial for the interpretation and evaluation of the quotation.
What makes quotation differ from allusion is not the extent of shared lo-
cutions in the verbal parallel, but that allusion may cover many other referential
phenomena that do not show up in shared locutions. Thus, allusion is a broader
literary term than quotation. Schultz rightly stresses the functional aspects of
quotation: The inner-biblical quotation is more than a random repetition of
phrases from another source. It is more than an unconscious echo of a certain
text or repetition of characteristic phraseology from a particular theological tra-
dition. Quotation means that an author purposefully draws upon an earlier text
and reuses it in order to add to his message. Quotation has the power to activate
the listener or reader when he/she recognises the quotation, and it makes the con-
text of the precursor text ring in the background and adds to the interpretation of
the quoting text.
D TYPES OF SHARED LOCUTIONS AND INTENDED QUOTA-
TIONS
When studying inner-biblical quotations like 1 Sam 15:2–3 and Deut 25:17–19,
it is crucial to have transparent criteria for differentiating between verbal paral-
lels that are random, and parallels that are due to author-intended reuse of locu-
tions taken from a particular source. Every language has a certain pool of stock
phrases available.
27
Two accounts that deal with similar topics will also share
locutions to a certain degree. The consideration of cultic issues in the biblical
texts naturally will result in many cases of shared expressions that are not due to
an allusive literary adaptation of textual elements from an earlier priestly
source.
28
The use of similar metaphors will likewise result in degrees of similar
language and phrases, without this necessarily being a case of literary depend-
ence.
29
26
Schultz, Search for Quotation, 221; see also p. 227. Cf. also Lyons, From Law to
Prophecy, 56–59.
27
Salman Rusdie has a notion about “story streams” constantly evolving into new
stories, cf. Gerrie Snyman, “Intertextuality, story and the pretense of permanence of
canon,” OTE 8/2 (1995): 205–22. However, stock phrases in a language should be dis-
tinguished from “story streams.”
28
Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 70; Mastnjak, Deuteronomy and the Emergence of
Textual Authority, 17.
29
Schultz, “Isaianic Intertextuality and Intratextuality,” 56.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 523
There are other verbal parallels that do not display the distinctive referen-
tial character that quotations have, as in the many instances of recurrent phrase-
ology in certain narratives. For example, the continuing phrase
(“the city [house] that I have chosen to put my name there”)
in the Book of Kings
30
has a very close verbal equivalent in the so-called cen-
tralisation formula
(“the place that YHWH your God will choose to put his name there”) in Deut 12:5
and passim.
31
Another example is the characteristic hymnic locution
(“YHWH he is the God in the heavens above
and on the earth below”; Deut 4:39) that is repeated verbatim in Rahab’s mouth
in Josh 2:11 and in Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kgs 8:23; or the typical idiom
(“no word fell down from all the good word that
YHWH had spoken”) (Josh 21:45; 23:14; 1 Kgs 8:56).
These examples of shared phrases
32
are not to be explained as quotations
and reuses of textual elements from earlier texts, but as examples of formulaic
expressions from a certain theological mindset. The verbal convergence may be
extensive; however, the shared phrases do not function as a quotation from a
particular phrase in a precursor text (Deuteronomy) and its context. While a quo-
tation directs the reader (when it is recognised) back to an earlier source and
activates this particular text and its context in the mental process of reading or
hearing, the reuse of recurring phrases in the narratives do not have that function.
In the scholarly debate, two different explanations have been given for the
phenomenon of recurrent phrases with a particular Deuteronomic affinity: 1) A
certain literary “Deuteronomic” style existed in Ancient Israel for several centu-
ries, parallel to e.g. Assyria where a particular literary style with recurrent phra-
seology was used for centuries
33
; 2) a “Deuteronomistic school” has subjected
30
1 Kgs 8:16, 29; 11:32, 36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:27; cf. 1 Kgs 8:44, 48.
31
Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 26–27; 14:23–25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15–16; 17:8, 10; 18:6;
26:2; 31:11. The phrase varies as to what God will do with his name: to “put” it ()
on the location or to let it “dwell” () there.
32
The three examples mentioned here are listed by Weinfeld as “Deuteronomic phra-
seology” (Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, 1972], 324–25, 331, 350).
33
E.g. Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Ancient Orient, ‘Deuteronism,’ and the Old Testament,”
in New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Ed. J. Barton Payne; Waco: Word, 1970),
1–24; Alan Millard, “King Solomon in His Ancient Context,” in The Age of Solomon:
Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Ed. Lowell K. Handy; Leiden: Brill, 1997),
50–51; idem, “Deuteronomy and Ancient Hebrew History Writing in Light of Ancient
Chronicles and Treaties,” in For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influ-
ence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block (eds. Jason S. DeRouchie, Jason Gile
& Kenneth J. Turner; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 13; David T. Tsumura, The
First Book of Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 29.
524 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
the narratives to two or several redactions in a particular literary repetitive
style.
34
How is it possible then to distinguish true inner-biblical quotation from
recurrent theological phrases that are due to a certain literary style? Several cri-
teria can be applied here. The most important criterion is that the words in the
shared locution should be found in a similar syntactical construction, and that the
parallel should be distinctive for the two texts in question. It, therefore, concerns
the syntactical relatedness and distinctiveness of the verbal parallel.
35
The occur-
rences of two or several shared words in two texts that do not appear in a similar
syntactical relation are not indicative of a quotation. The observance of identical,
but isolated words cannot qualify for literary dependence.
36
Next, a verbal par-
allel that is distinctive to the two texts in question has a greater likelihood of
being a conscious quotation than a verbal parallel found in several biblical books.
Forming an assessment based on these criteria, the opening example from
1 Sam 15:2–3 and the Amalekite law in Deuteronomy appears to constitute an
example of inner-biblical quotation. The shared locution is phrased in a syntac-
tically similar manner, only with context-bounded modifications, other shared
words are used in a similar manner in the parallel, and the parallel is distinctive
and not found outside the two texts. Add to this that the structural order with
grounds followed by a command is identical for the two texts.
Schultz and Lyons add a further criterion;
37
if one part of the verbal par-
allel contains signs of reinterpretation or shows an awareness of the context of
the other part of the parallel, it is indicative of a purposeful reuse of this string
of phrases. Formulaic language and verbal imitation, on the other hand, do not
require knowledge of the context of the parallel locution(s) in order to be com-
prehended in full. Suppose one part of the parallel shows signs of having used
the other part for its own rhetorical purpose, or the context of the quoted text
adds to the interpretation of the quoting text. In that case, a referential quotation
seems to be in place. In our example above, Samuel’s command to Saul contains
34
E.g. Dietrich, Samuel; Jan C. Gertz et al., T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testa-
ment: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament
(London: T&T Clark, 2012), 310–11.
35
See Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 246–53; Lyons, From Law to
Prophecy, 68–69; Miller, “Intertextuality,” 295; Schultz, Search for Quotation, 223–
24. Cf. also Cynthia Edenburg, “How (Not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme
in 1 Sam 24; 26,” SJOT 12/1 (1998): 72.
36
On this basis, many of Sommer's examples of suggested inner-biblical allusions in
Deutero-Isaiah fall flat.
37
Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 69–70; Schultz, Search for Quotation, 224–27.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 525
hints of a reinterpretation of the Deuteronomic admonition to remember the Am-
alekite atrocities and to blot out any remembrance of Amalek. The verbal parallel
here seems to be a quotation.
In the scholarly debate about criteria for identifying inner-biblical quota-
tion (and allusion), it is sometimes stated that the sheer accumulation of several
shared locutions in a given paragraph indicates a stronger literary connection
than the incident of a single or few shared expressions, even if each parallel is
not very strong in itself.
38
However, many uncertain allusions do not make the probability of quota-
tion more secure. The strength of a cluster of conceivable literary connections
between two texts is only as strong as the verbal parallel with the best foundation
in the language of the texts. In the words of Schultz, “it is important to point out
that multiplying weak parallels may actually reduce the probability” (of the ex-
istence of an allusion).
39
If the evidence for quotation is ambiguous even for the
verbal parallel with the broadest verbal overlap, the accumulation of several
weaker possible allusions will not strengthen the probability of reuse of an older
source. One shared locution with reasonable evidence of quotational borrowing
is more persuasive than many uncertain parallels.
E CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE DIRECTION OF DEPEND-
ENCE
When we have found indications in a verbal parallel that the shared locution is
not random, but may be a quotation evoking another text for the reader (or lis-
tener), the next question arises: Do we have any literary criteria to determine the
direction of dependence in hidden quotations? Are there any guidelines that may
help us in assessing whether 1 Sam 15:2–3 or Deut 25:17–19 is the dependent
text? This question is important not only for antiquarian reasons. If it is possible
to reach a reliable answer, it will also tell us much about the purpose of the quo-
tation.
This question about defining the direction of borrowing is very difficult
to answer. It is almost impossible to say anything with confidence about who has
reused and reinterpreted whom. The fact that dating the texts is so contested in
OT scholarship increases the uncertainty about evaluating the direction of de-
pendence. Besides, some narratives show signs of redaction, e.g. in the so-called
Deuteronomistic History. A conscious textual reference to precursor texts may
therefore derive from several stages of the textual history.
38
Giercke-Ungermann, Niederlage im Sieg, 257; Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical
Allusions,” 253–55; Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 5.
39
Schultz, “Isaianic Intertextuality and Intratextuality,” 55.
526 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
Scholars often interpret the relationship from a preconceived understand-
ing of the date and provenance of the texts where the parallel is found. The di-
rection of borrowing is assumed on beforehand, often by appealing to some au-
thority within one’s own scholarly tradition. The verbal parallels are interpreted
in this light, without considering whether there could be any literary clues in the
two parallel texts and their contexts that would indicate the line of influence.
This may be illustrated with an example from the study of the literary
relationship between the Book of Hosea and Deuteronomy. Scholars who claim
that most of Deuteronomy is a covenant-document from before the inauguration
of kingship in Israel appeal to a certain cluster of verbal parallels between Hosea
and Deuteronomy that (in their view) demonstrate Hosea to be alluding to Deu-
teronomy through the device of quotation.
40
Other scholars working from the
assumption that the earliest possible date for Ur-Deuteronomium must be set in
the last decades of the Judahite kingdom refer to the same pool of parallel phrases
and ideas in order to show that Deuteronomy is dependent on Hosea’s preaching
and that Hosea is one of the sponsors of the Deuteronomistic movement.
41
The
same observation of the shared locutions and themes result in contrary conclu-
sions.
42
In order to get around the trap of assuming the direction of borrowing
from a preconceived theory of the date of the texts, one should make a meticulous
study of all literary aspects of the parallel, and in both parts of the parallel one
should look for clues of which text is referring to which one. It will be impossible
to reach any conclusion in many cases because the literary signs are inconclusive,
and the available data may be interpreted from both sides. However, in some
verbal parallels, literary indications may guide the scholar.
In the last 25 years, a few students of inner-biblical quotation have begun
to address the problem of using proper criteria for assessing the question of di-
rection of dependence.
40
Cf. Mark F. Rooker, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Hosea,” CTR 7
(1993): 51–66.
41
Cf. Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2013), 33–35; Hans W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea (4th ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), xxvi; Konstantin Zobel, Prophetie und Deuteronomium:
Die Rezeption prophetischer Theologie durch das Deuteronomium (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1992).
42
In his recent article, “How Have We Changed? Older and Newer Arguments about
the Relationship between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code,” in The Formation of the
Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America
(eds. Jan C. Gertz et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 1055–74, Michael A. Lyons
provides many further examples of this phenomenon in his study of the literary links
between the Book of Ezekiel and the Holiness Code.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 527
According to Schultz, if one part of a verbal parallel shows signs of rein-
terpretation of the other part or application of phraseology from the other part,
this may indicate the direction of borrowing. He says, “by making a discriminat-
ing use of word statistics and examining evidence of interpretive reworking, one
can suggest, at least in terms of degrees of probability, the direction and the na-
ture of the quotation.”
43
From his study of the literary relationship between Ezekiel and Leviticus
17–26, Michael Lyons has suggested four helpful criteria for evaluating who is
dependent on whom
44
: 1) Modification of the borrowed phrases, i.e. the author
of one of the texts has modified the shared material in accordance with his own
basic theological understanding. Modifications of the received material are
sometimes formal such that locutions appearing separately in one text are con-
flated in the borrowing text.
45
Another option is the so-called “split-up pattern,”
where a stock phrase is split up in two parallel lines in the borrowing text. 2)
Signs of incongruity in the parallel, that is parts of the shared material may be
only partly integrated in the new context but be totally incorporated in the context
of the other text. The observed incongruity indicates that this part of the parallel
is dependent on the other part. 3) Dependence on the context in such a way that
the reader must draw in information from the source text in order to comprehend
the borrowing text.
46
4) Expansions in the borrowing text that interpret the other
text. This criterion does not mean that the longer text of a parallel presumably is
the dependent text. Rather, if the longer text shows indications of an explanatory
and interpretative expansion in relation to the other part of the parallel, this
shorter part of the shared locutions is most probably the original one.
This means that in answering the question about the direction of depend-
ence, it is important to pay much attention to the contexts of both parts of the
parallel. How do the shared phrases interact with their contexts? Are there signs
of reinterpretation?
43
Schultz, Search for Quotation, 231.
44
Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 59–67. See also his reflections in “How Have We
Changed?” 1068–72. Leonard (“Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 257–64) too lists
several criteria. In his deliberations, however, he puts too much weight on dating the
texts beforehand in order to establish the line of quotation.
45
See the examples in David Carr, “Method in Determination of Direction of Depend-
ence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and Its Parallels,” in
Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (eds. Matthias
Köckert & Erhard Blum; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 133–35, and Ly-
ons, From Law to Prophecy, 95–97.
46
Leonard also refers to this criterion when he mentions the observation that one text
in a verbal parallel sometimes presupposes information from the larger context of the
other text (Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 261–62). Likewise, Eden-
burg, “How (Not) to Murder a King,” 73–74.
528 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
In my own study of the verbal parallels in Hosea and Deuteronomy, these
criteria have proved relevant, in particular Lyons’ first three criteria. For exam-
ple, Hos 13:5–6 appears to be a quotation of textual elements taken from Deut
8:11–14, since Hos 13:5–6 contains Deuteronomic elements, modifies the Deu-
teronomic command and is dependent on information in Deut 8. Hos 2:10 appar-
ently quotes Deut 8:13, because a split-up pattern of a Deuteronomic stock
phrase can be observed in Hos 2:10b.
47
The criteria are not always operational in all cases where a probable au-
thor-intended quotation may be observed. Whether they will be equally useful in
the narratives remains to be seen.
F QUOTATION IN 1 SAM 15
From these considerations, can we tell anything about who may have reused and
reinterpreted whom in the quotational parallel of 1 Sam 15:2–3 and Deut 25:17–
19? The Book of Kings does contain a longer explicit quotation from Deut 24:16
(in 2 Kgs 14:6). We may add to this several instances where many indirect quo-
tations from Deuteronomy with source reference may be identified in Joshua,
Judges and Kings (e.g. Josh 8:31; 10:40; 23:6; Judg 3:4; 1 Kgs 2:3; 8:56). As a
point of departure, there are reasons for assuming that the inner-biblical quota-
tions in the Books of Samuel are quotations from Deuteronomy and not vice-
versa.
48
However, this observation is not decisive. For the direction of influence
may not be the same in all cases in a major literary work containing many diverse
narratives and textual traditions.
The study of quotational parallels in the Books of Samuel faces a partic-
ular challenge: the question of text tradition behind the Samuel part of the paral-
lels. Besides MT and the Septuagint recensions we have three Hebrew Samuel
manuscripts from Qumran, where the longer one (4QSam
a
) sometimes supports
the LXX against the MT, sometimes goes with the MT against the Greek ver-
sions, and sometimes supports neither.
49
Therefore, the question of the proper
47
See the discussion in Vang, “When a Prophet Quotes Moses,” 288–97.
48
Cf. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 258.
49
For a short overview, cf. David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Nottingham: Apollos,
2009), 39–40. According to Pisano, a close study of 4QSam
a
and LXX shows that both
versions often have inserted expansions in the text. This does not preclude that from
time to time one of the LXX recensions or 4QSam
a
may have preserved a better text
than the one reflected in MT (Stephen Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books of
Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984], 283–85).
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 529
Hebrew text must be settled before the literary analysis of the parallels can begin.
In the case of 1 Sam 15:2, the Masoretic wording is supported by the LXX.
50
Several indications in this specific verbal parallel suggest that here it is
Samuel who by device of inner-biblical quotation refers Saul (and the readers)
to God’s command in Deuteronomy and not the other way around. In 1 Sam
15:2, the divine conflict with Amalek is substantiated from a particular event in
the remote past. It is what Amalek did to Israel when the people were en route
from Egypt. The term in 15:2 does not refer to the contemporary Israel or
to the king’s army
51
but to their ancestors right after the exodus from Egypt. The
suffixes in v. 2b are all 3rd sing. mask., suggesting that Samuel is not referring
to the present Israel. In Deut 25:17–18, it is the presumed recipients of the divine
call to remember that have had a personal experience with and an immediate
memory of the cruel Amalekite attack on them. It is what Amalek did to you,
while you were leaving Egypt. All suffixes in v. 17–18 are second singular or
plural suffixes, and Israel’s deep exhaustion after the exodus experience and sev-
eral days of walking in a dry desert is personalised (“you were faint and weary”).
A quotation in Deut 25 from the wording of 1 Sam 15:2 does not appear feasible.
Deut 25:17 begins with the verb of cognition (“remember”) in the inf.
abs. (imperative mood) followed by the object clause (“what he
did”). This is a typical Deuteronomic locution.
52
The next locutions are also typ-
ical for Deuteronomy, e.g. . 1 Sam 15:2a has not , but
which contain many possible meanings, but with the accusative marker it may
mean “observe” or “take to account.” This use of is without precedent in
Deuteronomy.
53
However, sometimes appears in a parallel construction with
(“remember”) in prophetic texts, always in the sequence – , see Hos
8:13; 9:9 and Jer 14:10. While Deut 25:17–19 urges Israel to remember and never
forget what Amalek did, 1 Sam 15 presents God as calling Saul to action because
of his active remembrance. Since 1 Sam 15:2 is cast in prophetic mode, it may
50
The LXX has ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ “met him (in a hostile manner) on the
road” for the Hebrew “opposed him on the way.” This phrasing is probably
a free rendering of the Hebrew idiom rather than a reflection of the Hebrew phrase in
Deut 25:18 “surprised you on the way,” since the Greek verb ἀπαντάω only
once renders the Hebrew (1 Sam 28:10). However, 4QSam
a
is not preserved for
15:2–3.
51
As opposed to 1 Sam 15:17, 26, 30, 35; 16:1; or chapters 13–14.
52
Cf. Deut 7:18; 8:2; 24:9; and Irene Schulmeister, Israels Befreiung aus Ägypten:
Eine Formeluntersuchung zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums (Frankfurt am Main:
Lang, 2010), 151–54.
53
Schulmeister here identifies as “Wahrnehmungsverb” (“perception verb”) in
line with and in Deut. and its parallels (Schulmeister, Israels Befreiung, 152).
However, it appears more natural to see together with her category of
“Weitergabeverb” (“transmission verb”) like and in Deut.
530 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
be seen as a prophetic reinterpretation of the request in Deut 25:17 on the people
to “remember.”
54
1 Sam 15:2 is also very vague as to what happened after the exodus,
and it gives no hint of the assault that could give grounds for the terrible require-
ment for unrestricted ḥerem on Amalek. The context of Deut 25:17, on the other
hand, explains the horrible incident in the Amalekite-Israelite relationship and
its effect on Israel then. The unique phrase in 1 Sam 15:2 is very vague
and ambiguous when read isolated: How can the act of setting oneself up in a
position against Israel in order to bar the road ( )
55
be considered a capital
crime many generations later? However, it receives its full meaning and signifi-
cance when read with the condensed narrative of Deut 25:17–19 as a backdrop.
Amalek not only tried to prevent the Israelites from passing through their terri-
tory. They attacked the people in a most unethical manner without respecting
God’s prior redemption of this people. The prophetic call on Saul in 1 Sam 15
for total ḥerem seems to be dependent on the context of Deut 25:17 in order to
be comprehensible.
Add to this the use of the Deuteronomic locution (“strike and put
to ban”; Deut 7:2) in 15:3. 1 Sam 15:2–3 combines the quotation from Deut
25:17 with another Deuteronomic locution. When the reader recognises the ver-
bal link to Moses’ call to remember, the harsh approach against Amalek becomes
understandable. The call on Saul for ḥerem is not due to some recent assaults on
Israel (1 Sam 14:48), but to a profound conflict between God and Amalek. The
quotation reinforces the command from Deut 25:19 to blot out any remembrance
of Amalek. Israel shall not only remember the misdeeds of the Amalekites and
act accordingly, but God himself has noticed and will take the desert tribe to
account. 1 Sam 15:2–3 reinterprets the demand in Deut 25:17–19 on Israel to
remember persistently what Amalek did into a statement of God’s active resent-
ment against this Bedouin tribe.
According to Lyons’ criterion three, 1 Sam 15:2–3 is dependent on the
context of its parallel. 1 Sam 15 has reused the Deuteronomic command of not
forgetting what Amalek once did to Israel in order to express God’s strong aver-
sion against this people. The quotation from Deuteronomy reinforces the pro-
phetic command to exterminate the tribe. In addition, it suggests that Samuel is
speaking in the authority of Moses.
56
The comprehension of the inner-biblical
54
Cf. Tsumura, First Samuel, 389.
55
Some scholars have suggested that should be understood as a technical mili-
tary term in the manner of 1 Kgs 20:12 (e.g., Hans J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis
[Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973], 284).
56
Thus, rightly Moshe Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Com-
parative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat Gan: Revivim Publishing House,
1985), 51.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 531
quotation in 1 Sam 15:2–3 thus adds several important aspects to the interpreta-
tion of 1 Sam 15.
57
G VERBAL PARALLELS AS THEOLOGICAL FORMULAIC LAN-
GUAGE
As noted above, the narratives also display many examples of repetitive formu-
laic language, both in parts of the so-called Deuteronomistic History and in the
Book of Chronicles. These verbal parallels are sometimes quite extensive, the
syntactical structure of the shared locutions is identical, and the context of the
parallels is often analogous. Yet these parallels are not cases of inner-biblical
quotation evoking earlier texts. The parallels do not have the characteristics of
quotation and allusion.
58
The phrases have not been adapted to a new context.
The shared phrase is not used in a new or transformed way because of a quota-
tion, and the reader is not referred to an earlier phrase and its context, the recog-
nition of which may enhance the interpretation of the borrowing text as such.
The above-mentioned criteria for detecting quotations in the narratives and for
assessing the direction of influence and the rhetorical significance of the quota-
tion are therefore not applicable here.
How are we to assess this group of verbal parallels with a particular sty-
listic and theological affinity taking after the language in, e.g., Deuteronomy?
The study of this kind of literary parallels must be different from the study of
quotations. Often scholars have settled for referring to lists of typical Deutero-
nomic phraseology and taken this as evidence of redactional strands in the nar-
ratives.
59
My suggestion would be to perform a detailed study of a large body of
significant shared locutions in the narratives and to scrutinise the verbal and syn-
tactical similarities on one hand and the subtle differences in vocabulary, syntax,
and meaning on the other. As in the study of quotations, it is important to pay
close attention to the context of each phrase in common in order to discern pos-
sible shifts in meaning and reference. A critical enquiry into the context of each
of the parallel phrases may occasionally give a hint of which one of the parallel
expressions may be the originator of the phrase.
60
Are the shared locutions used
57
It may be the case that the gentilic name in Est 3:1 intends to refer the reader to
the Amalekite king Agag in 1 Sam 15, so, e.g., Jon D. Levenson, Esther (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 66. However, the gentilicum may also refer to an
unknown Persian or Median clan. The often-supposed allusion in the Book of Esther to
the Saulide-Amalekite conflict is therefore rather questionable.
58
Cf. also Mastnjak, Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority, 28–29.
59
Many scholars refer to Weinfeld's overview in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 320–65.
60
In my article, “Israel in the Iron-Smelting Furnace? Towards a New Understanding
of the in Deut 4:20,” HIPHIL Novum 1/1 (2014): 27–28 [cited 7 July 2020;
532 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
indiscriminately over several narrative writings, from Deuteronomy to the Book
of Kings, Jeremiah, and later Biblical writings? Or is it possible to identify lin-
guistic developments in the use of the shared locutions? Another critical aspect
of the investigation is to pay attention to recurrent phraseology that appears only
in certain narratives but not in all literature being related to Deuteronomy.
61
As a matter of example, the recurrent phrase in Deuteronomy that YHWH
would choose the proper place of worship to put his name there (
, Deut 12:5 and par.) is reused several times
in Kings and in Jer 7. However, some modification of the shared expression takes
place in the Book of Kings, compared with Deuteronomy/Joshua. The grammat-
ical tense shifts from future tense (yiqtol , constant in Deuteronomy and
Joshua) to past tense (qatal , Kings and Chronicles
62
), and the subject shifts
from 3
rd
person (persistently in Deuteronomy and Joshua) to mostly 1st person:
The centralisation and name formula now appear as direct divine speech.
63
In
Kings and the Book of Nehemiah, the divine choice of the holy place is history.
And the term for the chosen place is no longer the indefinite “place,” but
either “city” or “house, temple.”
64
The same locutions appear to have
undergone a clear linguistic development corresponding to the changed historical
context.
If something similar can be observed in other shared fixed formulas, the
prevailing model of several “Deuteronomistic” redactional strands in the narra-
tives needs to be modified. The thesis that a Deuteronomic style of writing was
active for several centuries in Monarchic Israel may better explain the literary
evidence.
65
Instead of assuming several redactional layers with a Deuterono-
mistic theology, we probably should think in different writings being influenced
in various ways by Deuteronomy and by its Deuteronomic phraseology.
online https://hiphil.org/index.php/hiphil/article/view/59/34], I have argued from liter-
ary and contextual considerations that the metaphorical locution in Deut 4:20
appears to have the literary priority compared with the parallel phrase in 1 Kgs 8:51
and Jer 11:4.
61
For example, the frequent locution “burn offerings on the high places” (
) is found only in Kings, but neither in Deuteronomy, in other writings in the
“Deuteronomistic History,” nor in the Book of Jeremiah.
62
In Jer 7:12, also, past tense is used (). Cf. Neh 1:9; Ps 78:68.
63
1 Kgs 8:16, 29; 11:32, 36; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:27.
64
1 Kgs 8:16; 11:32, 36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:27. In 1 Kgs 8:29 both expressions are
combined.
65
Cf. note 33 above.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 533
H CONCLUSION
This article has argued for the necessity of distinguishing between inner-biblical
quotations and the incidence of stock expressions that imitate and express a cer-
tain theological outlook. The quotation can refer the reader to an earlier text or
tradition and activate this precursor text in the reader's mind. The scholarly dis-
cussion about feasible criteria to assess the direction of dependence in allusive
quotations is also useful for studying quotations in the narrative material. Taking
the shared locutions in Deut 25:17–19 and 1 Sam 15:2–3 as an example, the lit-
erary evidence suggests that 1 Sam 15 is quoting the Deuteronomic precept in
Deut 25:17–19 in order to stress the divine urgency of the call on king Saul. On
the other hand, the command on Israel not to forget the Amalekite atrocities in
Deut 25:17–19 has not been phrased with 1 Sam 15 in view.
When it comes to the many Deuteronomic formulaic locutions in the nar-
ratives, it appears to me that scholarly research till now has neglected a thorough
study of the conceivable literary development in the use of the shared phrases.
I BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berges, Ulrich. Die Verwerfung Sauls: Eine thematische Untersuchung. Forschung zur
Bibel 61. Würzburg: Echter, 1989.
Block, Daniel I. The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Boda, Mark J. & Michael H. Floyd, eds. Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Al-
lusion in Zechariah 9–14. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supple-
ment Series 370. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Carr, David. “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test
of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and Its Parallels.” Pages 107–40 in Gottes
Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias
Köckert & Erhard Blum. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001.
Carr, David M. “The Many Uses of Intertextuality in Biblical Studies: Actual and Po-
tential.” Pages 505–35 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010. Edited by Martti Nis-
sinen. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 148. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Coniglio, Alessandro. “‘Gracious and Merciful is Yhwh…’ (Psalm 145:8): The Quota-
tion of Exodus 34:6 in Psalm 145 and Its Role in the Holistic Design of the Psal-
ter.” Liber annus Studii Biblici franciscani 67 (2017): 29–50.
Dietrich, Walter. Samuel. Teilband 2: 1 Sam 13–26. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes
Testament VIII/2. Neukirchen: Neukirchner Theologie, 2015.
Edelman, Diana V. “Saul’s Battle against Amaleq (1 Sam. 15).” Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament 35 (1985): 71–84.
Edenburg, Cynthia. “How (Not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1 Sam 24;
26.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 12/1 (1998): 64–85.
Edenburg, Cynthia. Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–
21. AIL 24. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.
Eslinger, Lyle. “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of
Category.” Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992): 47–58.
534 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
Firth, David G. 1 & 2 Samuel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 8. Nottingham:
Apollos, 2009.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
Fishbane, Michael. “Types of Biblical Intertextuality.” Pages 39–44 in Congress Vol-
ume: Oslo 1998. Edited by André Lemaire & Magne Sæbø. Vetus Testamentum
Supplements 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Volume II: The
Crossing Fates. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 23. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986.
Garsiel, Moshe. The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures,
Analogies and Parallels. Ramat Gan: Revivim Publishing House, 1985.
Germany, Stephen. “Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte
biblischer Erzählungen,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131
(2019), 43–57.
Gertz, Jan C., Berlejung, Angelika, Schmid, Konrad, and Witte, Markus. T&T Clark
Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and
History of the Old Testament. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
Giercke-Ungermann, Annett. Die Niederlage im Sieg: Eine synchrone und diachrone
Untersuchung der Erzählung von 1 Sam 15. Erfurter Theologische Studien 97.
Würzburg: Echter, 2010.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. “Ancient Orient, ‘Deuteronism,’ and the Old Testament.” Pages
1–24 in New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne.
Waco: Word, 1970.
Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezekielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.
Lehnart, Bernhard. Prophet und König im Nordreich Israel: Studien zur sogenannten
vorklassischen Prophetie im Nordreich Israel anhand der Samuel-, Elijah- und
Elischa-Überlieferungen. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 96. Leiden: Brill,
2003.
Leonard, Jeffery M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 127/2 (2008): 241–65.
Levenson, Jon D. Esther. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox, 1997.
Lipton, Diana. “Remembering Amalek: A Positive Biblical Model for Dealing with
Negative Scriptural Types.” Pages 139–53 in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom:
Scripture and Theology. Edited by David Ford and Graham Stanton. London:
SCM, 2003.
Lohfink, Norbert. “ ḥāram ḥērem.” Pages 180–99 in vol. 5 of Theological Dic-
tionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck & Helmer Ring-
gren. 16 vols. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986.
Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. Library
of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 507. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.
Lyons, Michael A. “How Have We Changed? Older and Newer Arguments about the
Relationship between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code.” Pages 1055–74 in The
Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel,
and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz et al. Forschungen zum Alten Testa-
ment 2/111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 535
Mastnjak, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah.
Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/87. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes & Commen-
tary. Anchor Bible 8. Garden City: Doubleday, 1980.
Meek, Russell L. “Intertextuality, Inner-Biblical Exegesis, and Inner-Biblical Allusion:
The Ethics of a Methodology.” Biblica 95/2 (2014): 280–91.
Millard, Alan. “King Solomon in His Ancient Context.” Pages 30–53 in The Age of
Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy.
Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11. Leiden: Brill,
1997.
Millard, Alan. “Deuteronomy and Ancient Hebrew History Writing in Light of Ancient
Chronicles and Treaties.” Pages 3–15 in For Our Good Always: Studies on the
Message and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block. Edited by
Jason S. DeRouchie, Jason Gile and Kenneth J. Turner. Winona Lake: Ei-
senbrauns, 2013.
Miller, Geoffrey D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” Currents in Research:
Biblical Studies 9/3 (2011): 283–309.
Noble, Paul R. “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical Allu-
sions.” Vetus Testamentum 52/2 (2002): 219–52.
Nurmela, Risto. Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and
9–14. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1996.
Nurmela, Risto. The Mouth of the Lord Has Spoken: Inner-Biblical Allusions in the
Second and Third Isaiah. Landham: University Press of America, 2006.
Peterson, Brian N. The Authors of the Deuteronomistic History: Locating a Tradition
in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.
Pisano, Stephen. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses
and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts. Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 57. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.
Römer, Thomas C. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical
and Literary Introduction. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “The Forest and the Trees: The Place of Pentateuchal Materials in
Prophecy of the Late Seventh / Early Sixth Centuries BCE.” Pages 56–92 in Con-
gress Volume Stellenbosch 2016. Edited by Louis C. Jonker, Gideon R. Kotzé
and Christl M. Maier. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 177. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Rooker, Mark F. “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Hosea.” Criswell The-
ological Review 7 (1993): 51–66.
Ross, Jillian L. “A People Heeds not Scripture: A Poetics of Pentateuchal Allusions in
the Book of Judges.” PhD-diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2015.
Sarna, Nahum M. “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.” Pages 29–46 in Bib-
lical and Other Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Studies and Texts: Philip
W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies 1. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1963.
Schulmeister, Irene. Israels Befreiung aus Ägypten: Eine Formeluntersuchung zur
Theologie des Deuteronomiums. Österreichische Biblische Studien 36. Frankfurt
am Main: Lang, 2010.
Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 180. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1999.
536 Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537
Schultz, Richard L. “Isaianic Intertextuality and Intratextuality as Composition-Histor-
ical Indicators: Methodological Challenges in Determining Literary Influence.”
Pages 33–63 in Bind Up the Testimony: Explorations in the Genesis of the Book
of Isaiah. Edited by Daniel I. Block & Richard L. Schultz. Peabody: Hendrickson,
2015.
Seibert, Eric A. “Recent Research on Divine Violence in the Old Testament (with Spe-
cial Attention to Christian Theological Perspectives.” Currents in Biblical Re-
search 15/1 (2016): 8–40.
Snyman, Gerrie. “Intertextuality, story and the Pretense of Permanence of Canon.” Old
Testament Essays 8/2 (1995): 205–22.
Snyman, Gerrie. “Who is speaking? Intertextuality and Textual Influence.” Neotesta-
mentica 30/2 (1996): 427–49.
Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Contra-
versions. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Stern, Philip D. “I Samuel 15: Towards an Ancient View of the War-Ḥerem.” Ugaritic
Textbook 21 (1989): 413–20.
Stoebe, Hans J. Das erste Buch Samuelis. Kommentar zum Alten Testament VIII 1.
Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973.
Tanner, Hans A. Amalek. Der Feind Israels und der Feind Jahwes: Eine Studie zu den
Amalektexten im Alten Testament. TVZ Dissertationen. Zurich: TVZ, 2005.
Tsumura, David T. The First Book of Samuel. New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Vang, Carsten. “Israel in the Iron-Smelting Furnace? Towards a New Understanding of
the in Deut 4:20.” HIPHIL Novum 1/1 (2014): 25–34. Cited 7 July 2020.
Online: https://hiphil.org/index.php/hiphil/article/view/59/34.
Vang, Carsten. “When a Prophet Quotes Moses: On the Relationship between the Book
of Hosea and Deuteronomy.” Pages 277–303 in Sepher Torath Mosheh: Studies
in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy. Edited by Daniel I. Block
and Richard L. Schultz. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2017.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1972.
Weyde, Karl W. Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and
the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 288. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.
Weyde, Karl W. “Inner-Biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Re-
lationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 70
(2005): 287–300.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea. 4th edition. Biblischer Kommentar:
Altes Testament XIV/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990.
Zobel, Konstantin. Prophetie und Deuteronomium: Die Rezeption prophetischer The-
ologie durch das Deuteronomium. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 199. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.
Vang, “Inner-biblical Quotations,” OTE 33/3 (2020): 515-537 537
Prof. Carsten Vang, Fjellhaug International University College Aarhus, Katrinebjergvej
75, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark / Department of Biblical and Ancient Studies, University
of South Africa, Pretoria. Email: cv@teologi.dk. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-
7580-137X.
