Sorry, I cannot see Exodus and Deuteronomy as giving two different reasons for the Sabbath. What they do is giving explanations for two different aspects of the Sabbath. Why should we have one free day in seven, and not every tenth day or any other number? Here comes the Exodus explanation: because of God's creation in 7 days. OK, but why should the Sabbath respite from labor extend all the way down to children, slaves, beasts and foreigners, yeah, even foreigners? Here comes Deuteronomy to explain: because in Egypt you were slaves and (gulp) aliens. Exodus gives the reason for the time cycle, while Deuteronomy explains the social reach of the institution. They are not two different reasons for the same institution.
I don't deny that they "can" be complimentary to each other. I make that argument later toward the end of the article. However, from a historical or biblical studies point of view, they are indeed rival interpretations. The books of Exodus and Deuteronomy originally circulated separately from one another before they were later combined, and as such each is presenting a self-contained understanding of the Sabbath that does not presume the other interpretation. Furthermore, in the Second Temple period, we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that various Jewish groups did understand Exodus and Deuteronomy as rival traditions and some went with emphasizing one or the other. But again, as I said in the article, even if historically they were distinct, they exist together in the canon Christians and Jews have today and so they can and should be read together in complimentary ways. This article represented one way of attempting to do so.
No, Matthew, you missed my point. Most everybody sees the Exodus and Deuteronomy "reasons" as complementary. Not me. I hope I showed that they do not interpret the same institution. They are speaking about different things: one, the "seventhness" of Sabbath, the other, its inclusiveness. Therefore, they cannot be rival interpretations. Both forms of the commandment are equally inclusive and equally insisting on its seventhness. They only differ in specifying an explanation for features common to both.
Sorry, I cannot see Exodus and Deuteronomy as giving two different reasons for the Sabbath. What they do is giving explanations for two different aspects of the Sabbath. Why should we have one free day in seven, and not every tenth day or any other number? Here comes the Exodus explanation: because of God's creation in 7 days. OK, but why should the Sabbath respite from labor extend all the way down to children, slaves, beasts and foreigners, yeah, even foreigners? Here comes Deuteronomy to explain: because in Egypt you were slaves and (gulp) aliens. Exodus gives the reason for the time cycle, while Deuteronomy explains the social reach of the institution. They are not two different reasons for the same institution.
I don't deny that they "can" be complimentary to each other. I make that argument later toward the end of the article. However, from a historical or biblical studies point of view, they are indeed rival interpretations. The books of Exodus and Deuteronomy originally circulated separately from one another before they were later combined, and as such each is presenting a self-contained understanding of the Sabbath that does not presume the other interpretation. Furthermore, in the Second Temple period, we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that various Jewish groups did understand Exodus and Deuteronomy as rival traditions and some went with emphasizing one or the other. But again, as I said in the article, even if historically they were distinct, they exist together in the canon Christians and Jews have today and so they can and should be read together in complimentary ways. This article represented one way of attempting to do so.
No, Matthew, you missed my point. Most everybody sees the Exodus and Deuteronomy "reasons" as complementary. Not me. I hope I showed that they do not interpret the same institution. They are speaking about different things: one, the "seventhness" of Sabbath, the other, its inclusiveness. Therefore, they cannot be rival interpretations. Both forms of the commandment are equally inclusive and equally insisting on its seventhness. They only differ in specifying an explanation for features common to both.