Ancient Israelite And Early Jewish Literature: Tenth, Completely Revised Edition Of De Literatuur Van Oud-israel

Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature Translated by Brian Doyle ...

Author: T.C. Vriezin | A.S. van der Woude

47 downloads 1355 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature

Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature Translated by Brian Doyle

by

T.C. Vriezen A.S. van der Woude

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005

Translated with ﬁnancial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientiﬁc Research (NWO) This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data Vriezen, T.C. (Theodoor Christiaan), 1899–1981. [Oudisraëlitische en vroegjoodse literatuur. English] Ancient Israelite and early Jewish literature / translated by Brian Doyle ; by T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-14181-2 (alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T.—Introductions. 2. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha—Introductions. 3. Apocryphal books (Old Testament)—Introductions. 4. Dead Sea scrolls. I. Woude, A.S. van der. II. Title. BS1140.3.V7513 2004 296.1—dc22 2004057552

ISBN 90 04 14181 2 © Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoﬀ Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright ©1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used with permission. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 09123, USA. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Translator’s Note ........................................................................

ix

A. Ancient Israelite and Ancient near Eastern Literature 1. The sources of Ancient Israel’s literature ............................ 2. Ancient Israelite literature in its Ancient Near Eastern context ...................................................................... 3. Authors and authorship ........................................................

3 21 40

B. The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) 4. The Old Testament as canon .............................................. 5. The transmission of the Old Testament ............................ 6. The literary genres of the Old Testament .......................... a. Poetry ................................................................................ 1. Introduction .................................................................. 2. Profane poetry .............................................................. 3. Religious poetry .......................................................... b. Prose .................................................................................. 1. Legal material .............................................................. 2. Oﬃcial records ............................................................ 3. Narrative literature ...................................................... 7. The problem of dating ........................................................ 8. Israel’s grand historical masterpiece: (Genesis—II Kings) .. a. Introduction ...................................................................... b. The history of Pentateuch research ................................ c. Origins and evolution ...................................................... d. The Book of Genesis ...................................................... 1. Content ........................................................................ 2. The primeval history (Genesis 1–11) ........................ 3. The patriarchal narratives (Genesis 12–50) .............. e. Exodus and Numbers ......................................................

53 71 102 102 102 107 111 119 119 121 123 129 136 136 141 169 182 183 188 198 211

vi

contents

1. Content .................................................................... 2. The Exodus narratives ............................................ 3. The narratives in Numbers and Deuteronomy 31 ...................................................... f. The laws of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers .............. 1. The Decalogue ........................................................ 2. The Book of the Covenant .................................... 3. Legislation concerning the tabernacle .................... 4. The sacriﬁcial laws .................................................. 5. The puriﬁcation laws .............................................. 6. The Holiness Code .................................................. 7. Various levitical and priestly laws .......................... g. Deuteronomy .................................................................. h. Joshua .............................................................................. i. Judges .............................................................................. j. I–II Samuel .................................................................... k. I–II Kings ........................................................................ 9. The prophetic literature ...................................................... a. Introduction .................................................................... b. The Major Prophets ...................................................... 1. Isaiah ........................................................................ a) Proto-Isaiah (Isaiah 1–39) .................................. b) Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55) ............................ g) Trito-Isaiah (Isaiah 56–66) ................................ 2. Jeremiah .................................................................... 3. Ezekiel ...................................................................... c. The Twelve Minor Prophets ........................................ 1. Hosea ........................................................................ 2. Joel ............................................................................ 3. Amos ........................................................................ 4. Obadiah .................................................................... 5. Jonah ........................................................................ 6. Micah ........................................................................ 7. Nahum ...................................................................... 8. Habakkuk .................................................................. 9. Zephaniah ................................................................ 10. Haggai ...................................................................... 11. Zechariah .................................................................. a) Zechariah 1–8 .................................................... b) Deutero-Zechariah (9–14) .................................. 12. Malachi ....................................................................

213 217 229 230 231 237 240 242 244 246 250 252 264 276 284 296 305 305 312 312 313 325 332 334 344 351 353 360 364 371 374 378 386 390 395 399 402 403 408 412

contents 10. The remaining literature (The Writings) .......................... a. The Psalms ...................................................................... b. Job .................................................................................... c. Proverbs .......................................................................... d. The ﬁve megilloth (scrolls) ............................................ 1. Ruth ............................................................................ 2. Songs of Songs .......................................................... 3. Qoheleth .................................................................... 4. Lamentations .............................................................. 5. Esther .......................................................................... 6. Daniel ........................................................................ e. The Chronistic history .................................................. 1. Ezra-Nehemiah .......................................................... 2. Chronicles ..................................................................

vii 417 417 427 438 446 447 451 457 462 466 472 483 485 495

C. The Literature of Early Judaism 11. Introduction .......................................................................... a. The Elephantine papyri ................................................ b. The Samaritan papyri .................................................... c. The Zenon papyri .......................................................... 12. Apocrypha ............................................................................ a. III Ezra ............................................................................ b. Tobit ................................................................................ c. Judith .............................................................................. d. The Wisdom of Solomon .............................................. e. Jesus Sirach .................................................................... f. I Baruch .......................................................................... g. The Letter of Jeremiah .................................................. h. Additions to the Book of Esther .................................. i. Additions to the Book of Daniel .................................. j. The Prayer of Manasseh .............................................. k. I Maccabees .................................................................... l. II Maccabees .................................................................. m. III Maccabees ................................................................ 13. Pseudepigrapha .................................................................... a. Introduction .................................................................... b. The Letter of Aristeas .................................................... c. Jubilees ............................................................................ d. The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah ....................

503 506 509 510 512 516 520 524 529 532 538 542 544 546 551 554 557 561 564 566 571 575 581

viii

contents

e. The Psalms of Solomon ................................................ f. IV Maccabees ................................................................ g. The Sibylline Oracles .................................................... h. I Enoch ............................................................................ i. II Enoch .......................................................................... j. The Assumption of Moses ............................................ k. IV Ezra ............................................................................ l. II Baruch ........................................................................ m. III Baruch ...................................................................... n. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs .................. o. The Life of Adam and Eve .......................................... p. Other pseudepigraphal documents ................................ q. Fragments of Jewish-Hellenistic works .......................... 14. The Dead Sea Scrolls ........................................................ a. The manuscripts of Qumran ........................................ 1. Introduction .............................................................. 2. Biblical manuscripts ................................................ 3. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ............................ 4. Bible commentaries .................................................. 5. Targums .................................................................... 6. Para-Biblical literature ............................................ 7. Legislative literature and rules of order ................ 8. Poetic texts .............................................................. 9. Liturgical texts .......................................................... 10. Texts associated with the endtime ........................ 11. Astronomical texts, calendars and horoscopes ...... 12. The Copper Scroll .................................................. b. The manuscripts of Chirbet Mird ................................ c. The discoveries at Wadi Murabba"at .......................... d. The discoveries at Masada ............................................ Introductions to the Old Testament and other reference works ...................................................................... Chronological tables .................................................................. List of abbreviations .................................................................. Index ............................................................................................

584 587 590 592 603 605 609 616 622 624 629 632 648 659 660 660 664 666 666 669 670 671 678 684 686 690 691 692 692 693 695 698 701 705

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE

The present English Edition of the work of Th. C. Vriezen and A. S. van der Woude represents three years of translation based entirely on the tenth completely revised Dutch language edition of Oud-Israëlitische en vroeg-joodse literatuur, published by J. H. Kok in 2000. The fact that both authors were already deceased at the time of translation, Vriezen in 1981 and van der Woude, who had continued and revised the latter’s work, in 2000, presented a number of challenges for the translator and burdened him with a greater degree of editorial responsibility than would have been the norm had the authors been available for consultation. Notwithstanding my endeavours to engage in mental conversation with Vriezen and van der Woude on the basis of the work provided here in translation and other relevant publications, frequent reference to Dutch native speakers with expertise in the ﬁeld of biblical studies proved essential from time to time. I am thus grateful for the generous assistance provided by so many in this regard. The New Revised Standard Version was used throughout for Scriptural quotations together with the most recent critical editions of relevant non-biblical texts where these were available. All editorial decisions related to the present English translation were made in conjunction with F. García Martínez, who, after the death of van der Woude, edited the Dutch language version of the book. We take full responsibility for any potential misreading of the original Dutch text. This translation was made possible in part by a generous subsidy provided by the Dutch Fund for Scientiﬁc Research (NWO). Their contribution is gratefully acknowledged. Leuven, May 2004 Brian Doyle Translator

A. ANCIENT ISRAELITE AND ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN LITERATURE

CHAPTER ONE

THE SOURCES OF ANCIENT ISRAEL’S LITERATURE

Modern text editions of the Hebrew Bible: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), Stuttgart 1984 (a new text edition Quinta is in preparation). Translations of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) include the New Revised Standard Version (Oxford-New York 1989; employed for English quotations in the present volume unless otherwise stipulated); La Bible de Jérusalem (Paris 1973); Einheitsübersetzung (Stuttgart 1980); Traduction oecuménique de la Bible (TOB). Ancien Testament (Paris 1983); NBG (a new Dutch translation to be completed in 2004); KBS (second edition, Den Bosch 1995); Nije Fryske Bibeloersetting (Amsterdam-Boxtel 1978). Hebrew inscriptions: D. Diringer, Le iscrizione antico-ebraiche palestinesi, Florence 1934; Th. C. Vriezen and J. H. Hospers, Palestine Inscriptions (Textus minores XVII), Leiden 1951; H. Donner und W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften I–III (KAI), Wiesbaden 19733; J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions I. Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions, Oxford 19732; R. Hestrin e.a., Inscriptions Reveal. Documents from the Time of the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud, Jerusalem 1973; A. Lemaire, Les ostraca hébreux de l’époque royale israélite, Paris 1973; id., Inscriptions hebraïques I. Les ostraca, Paris 1977; Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, Jerusalem 1981; K. Jaro“, Hundert Inschriften aus Kanaan und Israel. Für den Hebräischunterricht bearbeitet, Fribourg 1982; D. Pardee e.a., Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters, Chico 1982; K. A. D. Smelik, Behouden schrift. Historische documenten uit het oude Israël, Baarn 1984 (lit.!); R. W. Suder, Hebrew Inscriptions: A Classiﬁed Bibliography, Selinsgrove 1984; N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive, Jerusalem 1986; J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods. Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (Harvard Semitic Studies 31), Atlanta GA 1986; G. I. Davies e.a., Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Corpus and Concordance, Cambridge 1991; J. Renz und W. Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, Band I: J. Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 1. Text und Kommentar, Darmstadt 1995; Band II/1: J. Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 2. Zusammenfassende Erörterungen, Paläographie und Glossar, Darmstadt 1995; Band III: J. Renz, Texte und Tafeln, Darmstadt 1995 (lit.!).

The primary source of our knowledge of Ancient Israelite literature is the Hebrew Bible, referred to in Christian circles as the Old Testament.1 The 39 books collected therein, however, constitute only 1

For the Roman Catholic tradition, the Old Testament also includes the Apocryphal

4

chapter one

a fraction of the literature produced by Ancient Israel. This fact is supported by the Old Testament itself, which frequently makes reference to literature that we no longer have at our disposal, details from which the biblical authors borrowed from time to time. Among these lost works was the Book of the Righteous,2 which appears to have contained a number of ancient national songs. The document, which is quoted twice in the Old Testament, probably dates from the time of David and Solomon. The ﬁrst quotation can be found in Josh. 10:12b–13a: “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

The second quotation from the Book of the Righteous can be found in the context of David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan passed on to us in 2 Sam. 1:19–27: Your glory, O Israel lies slain upon your high places! How the mighty have fallen! Tell it not in Gath, Proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon, Or the daughters of the Philistines will rejoice, the daughters of the uncircumcised will exult! You mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew or rain upon you, nor bounteous ﬁelds! For there the shield of the mighty was deﬁled, the shield of Saul, anointed with oil no more. From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan did not turn back, nor the sword of Saul return empty. Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! In life and in death they were not divided; they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Books that are referred to as Deuterocanonical (see further the introduction to part III of the present volume). For our own purposes we will employ the concept Old Testament or Hebrew Bible in line with the Protestant tradition and its understanding of the contents thereof. 2 Cf. J. R. Halliday Jr., “The Day(s) the Moon Stood Still”, JBL 87 (1968), 166–178; M. Balában, “Kosmische Dimensionen des Wunders von Gibeon”, Communio Viatorum 12 (1969), 51–60. See further J. A. Soggin, Joshua (OTL), London 1972, p. 122.

the sources of ancient israel’s literature

5

who clothed you with crimson, in luxury, who put ornaments of gold on your apparel. How the mighty have fallen, in the midst of the battle! Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother, Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. How the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished!

If we are to believe the Septuagint (see chapter V for further information on this Greek translation of the Old Testament), the words spoken by Solomon on the occasion of the inauguration of the Temple in Jerusalem quoted in 1 Kgs 8:12–13 also stem from the Book of the Righteous:3 The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness. I have built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever.

An even older document, related to the Book of the Righteous, is the no longer extant Book of the Wars of YHWH.4 The latter is quoted in Num. 21:14–15, in a not altogether clear text that makes reference to Wadi Arnon, which constituted the northern boundary of Moab for many a year: . . . Waheb in Suphah and the wadis. The Arnon and the slopes of the wadis that extend to the seat of Ar, and lie along the border of Moab.

It is also possible that the so-called Song of the Springs in Num. 21:17–18 stems from the same source (see further below). The well-known Song of Deborah,5 which has been transmitted to us in Judges 5, may have belonged to this or a related collection of 3 The text is found in the Septuagint after 8:53 and speaks of “the book of the song”. It would appear, however, that the translator incorrectly read the Hebrew term y“r (“righteous”) as “yr (“song”). 4 Cf. W. H. Gispen, “Het boek van de oorlogen van Jahwe”, GTT 59 (1959), 129–137. 5 O. Grether, Das Deboralied, Gütersloh 1941; G. Gerleman, “The Song of Deborah in the Light of Stylistics”, VT 1 (1951), 168–180; A. Weiser, “Das Deboralied— eine gattungs- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studie”, ZAW 71 (1959), 67–97; H. P. Müller, “Der Aufbau des Deboraliedes”, VT 16 (1966), 446–459; A. Globe, “The

6

chapter one

poetic works. This impressive poem is considered to be one of the earliest products of Ancient Israelite poetry dating most probably from the time of the judges or shortly thereafter. Next to David’s lament over Jonathan and Saul cited above, it constitutes a ﬁne example of the high level of poetic artistry achieved by Ancient Israel in its earliest days. The conclusion of the poem oﬀers an expressive portrayal of the way in which the mother of the battle general Sisera, who had been defeated by a few Israelite tribes, looks forward to the triumphant return of her son together with her ladies, not knowing that he has been killed by Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite (cf. Judg. 4:17ﬀ.): Out of the window she peered, the mother of Sisera gazed through the lattice: “Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the hoof beats of his chariots”? The wisest ladies make answer, indeed, she answers the question herself: “Are they not ﬁnding and dividing the spoil? A girl or two for every man, spoil of dyed stuﬀs for Sisera, spoil of dyed stuﬀs embroidered, two pieces of dyed work embroidered for my neck as spoil?”. ( Judg. 5:28–30)

Besides poetic texts, Ancient Israel likewise possessed a number of historical works that have not been passed down to us. The Old Testament makes frequent reference, for example, to the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (cf., for example, 2 Kgs 15:31) and to the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (cf., for example, 2 Kgs 16:19), documents that were apparently composed in the form of an ongoing history of the northern and southern kingdoms respectively. Similar reference is made to the Book of the History of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41), which may have taken the form of a biography intended to glorify the wisdom of the king. The story of Solomon’s wise judge-

Literary Structure and History of the Song of Deborah”, JBL 93 (1974), 493–512; M. D. Coogan, “A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah”, CBQ 40 (1978), 143–166; D. N. Freedman, “Early Israelite Poetry and Historical Reconstructions”, in: id., Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, Winona Lake IN 1980, pp. 167–178; B. Lindars, “Deborah’s Song: Women in the Old Testament”, BJRL 65 (1983), 158–175; id., Judges 1–5. A New Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh 1995), 209–87.

the sources of ancient israel’s literature

7

ment passed on to us in 1 Kgs 3:16–28 and the description of the visit of the queen of Sheba in 1 Kgs 10:1–13 may have been borrowed from this document. The author of Chronicles makes reference to the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chron. 16:11; 25:26; 28:26; 32:32) c.q. the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chron. 27:7; 35:27; 36:8), the Book of the Kings of Israel (1 Chron. 9:1; 2 Chron. 20:34), the History of the Kings of Israel (2 Chron. 33:18) and the Explanation of the Book of Kings (2 Chron. 24:27). While it is possible that these references apply to one and the same document, the latter should not be identiﬁed with the Old Testament books of 1–2 Kings. The fact that prophetic legends circulated in written form in Ancient Israel is virtually beyond doubt. The narratives concerning Elijah and Elisha preserved in 1–2 Kings would appear, at least in part, to have been borrowed from such literature. Independent documents are not being referred to, however, when the Chronicler speaks of the history of Samuel the seer (1 Chron. 29:29), the history of the prophet Nathan (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29), the history of Gad the seer (1 Chron. 29:29), the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29), the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 9:29), the history of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chron. 12:15) etc. In each of these instances the author would appear to be referring to segments from the books of 1–2 Kings in which the aforementioned individuals feature.

It is also important to be aware of the fact that much of the Old Testament owes its existence to earlier material, even when no explicit mention is made thereof. The biblical authors regularly borrowed material from older sources, taking over what they considered to be of religious or other value from their Vorlagen. Given the aforementioned references to existing if no longer extant documents together with the literary traditions of the Ancient Near Eastern world, any suggestion that the biblical authors based themselves more or less exclusively on oral traditions is untenable. What we have said so far should be suﬃcient to allow us to realise that the literature of Ancient Israel was much more extensive than that which has been preserved in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the suggestion that the literature transmitted therein stems primarily from Judean authors and the stockpiling activities of Jerusalem based scholars, priests and sages, is also subject to serious doubt. Beside the temple in Jerusalem, the period of the kings also gave rise to two

8

chapter one

state sanctuaries in the Northern Kingdom (Bethel and Dan), where there can be little doubt that literature was also produced over a period of several centuries. If one bears in mind, furthermore, that literature was also produced at the royal court and elsewhere, then one can imagine the true extent of Ancient Israel’s literary treasures and the fact that so much thereof has been lost to us. As with much of the rest of the Ancient Near Eastern world, Israel committed a great deal of material to writing in the form of letters, lists of names, receipts, votive inscriptions etc. that cannot be considered literature in the narrow sense of the term. Archaeological discoveries have provided us with examples of such material which, given their cultural, historical and, on occasion, religious signiﬁcance should not be left unmentioned. The climate of Palestine is not conducive to the preservation of documents written on papyrus or leather. While it is true that we presently have papyri from the Persian period and the Ptolemaic kingdom (see further ch. XI) as well as leather or papyrus manuscripts from the beginning of the Common Era (the Dead Sea Scrolls: see further ch. XIV) at our disposal, such documents remain relatively late. With a few exceptions, the only texts that have survived from earlier periods are those that were written on durable material. Dating from the twelfth century BCE, a potsherd inscribed with eighty or so letters was discovered at "Izbet Sartah, near the ancient city of Apheq on the Saron plain. One of the lines of the inscription contains more or less the entire Hebrew alphabet. The text would appear to be a writing exercise.6 The so-called Agricultural Calendar of Gezer, written on white limestone, would appear to be similar in character. The text, which probably dates from the tenth century BCE and seems to have been copied by a schoolboy, makes reference to the annual sowing and harvesting seasons:7 6 M. Kochavi, “An Ostracon from the Period of Judges from "Izbet Sartah”, Tel Aviv 4 (1977), 1–13; A. Demsky, “A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary Dating from the Period of Judges and its Implications for the History of the Alphabet”, ibid., 14–27; F. M. Cross, “Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts”, BASOR 238 (1980), 1–20, esp. pp. 8–15; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 27–28. 7 ANET, p. 320; KAI II, pp. 181–182; S. Talmon, “The Gezer Calendar and the Seasonal Cycle of Ancient Canaan”, JAOS 83 (1963), 177–187. See also H. P. Müller, “Notizen zu althebräischen Inschriften I”, UF 2 (1970), 229–242, esp. pp. 229–231; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 28–34.

the sources of ancient israel’s literature His His His His His His His His

9

two months are (olive) harvest, two months as planting (grain), two months are late planting; month is hoeing up the ﬂax, month is harvest of barley, month is harvest and feasting; two months are vine-tending, month is summer fruit.

It is apparent from the text that the agricultural year commenced in September/October. The Siloam Inscription,8 discovered by accident in 1880 six meters in front of the southern exit of the underground canal constructed between the waters of Gichon and the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem on the orders of King Hezekiah towards the end of the eighth century BCE (cf. 2 Chron. 32:30), contains the following: [. . . when] (the tunnel) was driven through. And this was the way in which it was cut through: While [. . .] (were) still [. . .] axe(s), each man toward his fellow, and while there were still three cubits to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice of a man calling to his fellow, for there was an overlap in the rock on the right [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was driven through, the quarrymen hewed (the rock), each man toward his fellow, axe against axe; and the water ﬂowed from the spring towards the reservoir for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the head(s) of the quarrymen was 100 cubits.

Excavations conducted in 1967 at the trans-Jordanian Deir 'Alla under the leadership of Dr. H. J. Franken produced numerous fragments of an Aramaic text inscribed in limestone plaster containing a prophetic narrative in which Bileam the son of Beor played a primary role (cf. Numbers 22–24). While the discovered text dates from the eighth century BCE, it would appear to be based on an earlier

8

ANET, p. 321; KAI II, pp. 186–188; H. J. Stoebe, “Überlegungen zur Siloahinschrift”, ZDPV 71 (1955), 124–140; G. Levi della Vida, “The Shiloah Inscription Reconsidered”, in: M. Black & G. Fohrer (eds.), In memoriam Paul Kahle (BZAW 103), Berlin 1968, pp. 162–166; H. P. Müller, “Notizen zu althebräischen Inschriften I”, UF 2 (1970), 229–242, esp. pp. 232–234; E. Puech, “L’inscription du tunnel de Siloé”, RB 81 (1974), 196–214; V. Sasson, “The Siloam Tunnel Inscription”, PEQ 114 (1982), 111–117; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 65–72. Ph. Davies and J. Rogerson have defended the thesis that the tunnel and the inscription date from the Hasmonean period (second century BCE), cf. BiAr 59 (1996), 138–149. See, however, S. Norin, “The Age of the Siloam Inscription and Hezekiah’s Tunnel”, VT 48 (1998), 37–48.

10

chapter one

scroll. To give an impression of the content of this heavily damaged Bileam text 9 we oﬀer a segment thereof in translation:10 (This is the wr)iting (concerning Bile)am, (the son of Beo)r, the seer of the gods. The gods came to him by night (and they spoke to) him according to the declaration of [god] El. They spoke to (Bilea)m, the son of Beor, as follows: ?? . . . Then Bileam stood up in the morning . . . He was not abl(e to eat; he fas)ted, as he wept bitterly. His people came to him and th(ey spoke) to Bileam, the son of Beor: Why do you fast? He spoke to them: Go and sit down! I shall tell you what the Shadda(in . . .). Well then, see what the gods are going to do. The go(d)s came together and the Shaddai-gods held a meeting. They said to Sha(msh): May you break the bars of heaven, may there be darkness in your cloud and no glimmer of light, darkness (?) and not your shafts of light (?). May you ready terror (by) dark (clo)uds, but do not be wrathful forever! For the kestrel scoﬀs at the eagle, the vulture’s brood at the ostrich. The sto(rk . . .) the young of the falcon and the owl the heron’s chicks The swallow . . . the dove and the sparrow the . . . staﬀ. Where the rod once strove to lead sheep, [now] hares devour the (g)rass . . . The (. . .) drink wine. The hyenas obey orders. The youth of . . . while (a . . .) laughs at the wise. A poor woman prepares myrrh ointment and a priestess . . .

The text is interesting for a variety of reasons. The Shaddai-gods who gave the sun god Shamsh permission to exercise judgement by allowing the waters of the heavenly ocean to have their freedom and to fall upon the earth, are reminiscent of the term El Shaddai, which is frequently used in the Old Testament for the God of the patriarchs (NRSV: “God, Almighty”). Bileam gives notice of the terrors about to overcome the people as the world is order thrown into reverse: interaction between the birds is completely confused, the

9 J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.), Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alla (DMOA 19), Leiden 1976; id. (eds.), The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alla Re-evaluated. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, Leiden 1991; H. P. Müller, “Die aramäische Inschrift von Deir 'Alla und die älteren Bileamsprüche”, ZAW 94 (1982), 214–244; H. und M. Weippert, “Die Bileam-Inschrift von Tell Der 'Alla”, ZDPV 98 (1982), 77–103; M. Weippert, “The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla and the Study of the Old Testament”, in: J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij (eds.), The Balaam Text, pp. 151–184 (The latter two articles can also be found in M. Weippert, Jahwe und die anderen Götter (FAT 18), Tübingen 1997, pp. 131–188); J. A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alla (Harvard Semitic Monographs 31), Chico CA 1984; id., “Some Observations on the Balaam Tradition at Deir 'Alla”, BiAr 49 (1986), 216–222; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 79–87. 10 The translation (our own) is open to discussion at points on account of the extremely fragmentary character of the text.

the sources of ancient israel’s literature

11

grasslands have been handed over to the hares; the wise are the object of laughter and a poor woman prepares costly ointment! While opinions diﬀer as to the Israelite origin of the Bileam text, the Mesha Stone from the Moabite city of Dibon is clearly not Israelite.11 The latter text is inscribed on a stele of black basalt and contains a description of the victory of King Mesha, a contemporary of Ahab and his sons (cf. 2 Kgs 3:4ﬀ.), over Israel around the middle of the ninth century BCE. Up to the present, the inscription constitutes the most important textual source of our knowledge of the Moabite language, which is closely associated with Hebrew. It deserves special mention on account of its remarkably close agreement with Ancient Israelite historiography as will be evident from the following translation: I am Mesha, the son of Chemosh-[. . .], king of Moab, the Dibonite— my father reigned over Moab for thirty years, and I reigned after my father,—(who) made this high place for Chemosh in Qarhoh [. . .] because he saved me from all the kings and caused me to triumph over all my adversaries. As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years (lit., days), for Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son followed him and he also said, “I will humble Moab.” In my time he spoke (thus), but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished for ever! Omri had occupied the land of Medeba, and (Israel) had dwelt there in his time and half the time of his son (Ahab), forty years; but Chemosh dwelt there in my time [lines 1–9]. And Chemosh said to me, “Go, take Nebo from Israel!” So I went by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and slaying all, seven thousand men, boys, women, girls and maid-servants, for I had devoted them to destruction for (the god) Ashstar-Chemosh. And I took them from the [. . .] of Yahweh, dragging them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel had built Jahaz, and he dwelt there while he was ﬁghting against me, but Chemosh drove him out before me. And I took from Moab two hundred men, all ﬁrst class (warriors), and set them against Jahaz and took it in order to attach it to (the district of ) Dibon [lines 14–21].

Fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription12 discovered in 1993–1994 and dating from the second half of the twelfth century BCE are also of 11 ANET, 320–321; KAI II, 168–179; M. Miller, “The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stela”, PEQ 106 (1974), 9–18; S. Timm, Die Dynastie Omri, Göttingen 1981, pp. 158–180; C. H. J. de Geus, “Koningsinscripties uit Moab uit de 9e eeuw v. Chr.”, in: K. R. Veenhof (ed.), Schrijvend verleden, Leiden 1983, pp. 25–31; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 35–53; A. Dearman (ed.), Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2), Atlanta GA 1989. 12 W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, The Context of Scripture. Monumental Inscriptions

12

chapter one

great signiﬁcance. The inscription is associated with King Hazael of Damascus, mentioned in 2 Kgs 8:7–15, and recounts how he killed Joram the king of Israel and Ahaziah the king of Judah: Then my father lay down and went to his [fathers]. There came up the king of I[s]rael beforetime in the land of my father, [but] Hadad [ma]de [me] king [ ] x [ch]ariots and thousands of horsemen. [ ]rm son of [ ] king of Israel and kill[ed ]yahu son of [I overthr]ew the house of David. I set/imposed [tribute]

The content of the inscription only agrees in part with what we are told of Joram and Ahaziah in 2 Kgs 8:28–29 and 9:16–29, which maintains that Jehu was responsible for the death of both kings. It is not improbable, however, that Hazael wanted to take the credit for the deﬁnitive elimination of Joram and Ahaziah, based on the injuries he inﬂicted on Joram during the battle described in 2 Kgs 8:28. The inscription is evidently nothing more than a propagandist bluﬀ.13 Archaeological excavations have provided us with a great many ostraca (potsherds) inscribed as a rule with ink (a few are engraved). Particular mention deserves to be made of the ostraca that stem from the royal palace of Samaria, the so-called Lachish Letters, the Arad Ostraca and the Complaint of Mesad Hashavyahu. The more than one hundred Samaria Ostraca14 discovered in 1910 consist for the most part of receipts for the delivery of oil and wine from the Biblical World, Leiden 2000, pp. 161–162; A. Biran and J. Naveh, “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan”, IEJ 43 (1993), 81–98; id., “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment”, IEJ 45 (1995), 1–18; B. Becking, “Het “Huis van David” in een pre-exilische inscriptie uit Tel Dan”, NTT 49 (1995), 108–123; C. H. J. de Geus, “Een belangrijke stèle uit Tel Dan, Israël”, Phoenix 41 (1995), 119–130; W. M. Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stele: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt”, BASOR 302 (1996), 75–90; I. Kottsieper, “Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan und die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Aram-Damaskus und Israel in der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus”, in: M. Dietrich und I. Kottsieper (eds.), Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient, Munster 1998, pp. 475–500; A. Lemaire, “The Tel Dan Stele as a Piece of Royal Historiography”, JSOT 81 (1998), 3–14 (lit.!); K. L. Noll, “The God who is among the Danites”, JSOT 80 (1998), 3–23. 13 This hypothesis no longer holds if we accept the suggestion of J. W. Wesselius, “De eerste koningsinscriptie uit het oude Israël. Een nieuwe visie op de Tel-Daninscriptie”, NTT 53 (1999), 177–190 that the inscription stems from Jehu. The present author is inclined, however, to consider Wesselius’ thesis improbable. 14 ANET, 321; KAI II, 183–186; A. F. Rainey, “The Samaria Ostraca in the Light of Fresh Evidence”, PEQ 99 (1967), 32–41; id., “The Sitz im Leben of the Samaria Ostraca”, Tel Aviv 6 (1979), 91–94; A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques, Tome I:

the sources of ancient israel’s literature

13

in the ninth, tenth, and ﬁfteenth year of the reign of an unnamed king who should probably be identiﬁed with Jeroboam II (786–746 BCE). The interpretation of the short texts they contain is diﬃcult and up to the present has not led to much agreement among scholars (accounts of tithes that were delivered to the royal palace in kind? Receipts for products from the royal domains intended for the use of the court? Memoranda concerning palace supplies?). The ostraca do not only provide valuable topographical information,15 they are also useful for the study of personal names.16 The potsherds inscribed with a number of letters (and a few lists of names) discovered during excavations at Lachish in 1935 are also of interest.17 They contain, among other things, the correspondence between Hoshaiah, the commandant of a military post in the neighbourhood of Lachish, and Yaosh, apparently the city’s commanding oﬃcer; the letters date from the period immediately prior to Nebuchadnezzar’s expedition against Jerusalem in 588, which was to lead to the fall of the city a year later in 587 BCE. They give the impression that while the situation in Judah was tense, the Babylonians had not yet entered the land: unhindered movement between West Judean garrison towns and Jerusalem was still possible and a Judean army commander would be at liberty to travel to Egypt. While some scholars maintain on the basis of a single ostracon that the remainder were written at a point in the campaign when, beside Jerusalem, only the strongholds of Lachish and Azekah continued to oﬀer any resistance to the Babylonians (cf. Jer. 34:7), Les ostraca, Paris 1977, pp. 21–81; W. H. Shea, “The Date and Signiﬁcance of the Samaria Ostraca”, IEJ 27 (1977), 16–27; I. T. Kaufman, “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing”, BiAr 45 (1982), 229–239; G. I. Davies, op. cit., 1991, pp. 39ﬀ.; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 54–64; J. Renz, op. cit., I, 1995, pp. 79–109. 15 M. Noth, “Der Beitrag der samaritanischen Ostraka zur Lösung topographischer Fragen”, PJ 1932, pp. 54–67. The districts referred to in the ostraca have a parallel in the Old Testament lists of the generations of Manasseh (cf. Num. 26:29–34 and Josh. 17:1–3, cf. J. Renz, op. cit., I, 1995, pp. 86–89. 16 Side by side with names of Egyptian origin, the ostraca also contain personal names in combination with Baal and (an abbreviated version of ) yhwh. 17 ANET, 321–322; KAI II, 189–199; H. Torczyner, Lachish I, The Lachish Letters, London 1938; A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques. Tome I. Les ostraca, Paris 1977, pp. 83–143; C. H. J. de Geus, “Lachis in Juda. Opgravingen en koningsstempels”, Phoenix 26 (1980), 6–47; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 112–126; J. Renz, op. cit., I, 1995, pp. 405–440. The letters are numbered in scientiﬁc literature. Numbers 10, 14, 15 and 21 are virtually illegible. Number 20 is an inscription on a pot. Numbers 1, 11, 19 and 22 are lists of personal names.

14

chapter one

the letter in question (nr. 4) would appear rather to refer to military preparations in view of an imminent Babylonian attack: May Yahweh cause my lord to hear this very day tidings of good! And now according to everything that my lord hath written, so hath thy servant done; I have written on the door according to all that my lord hath written to me. And with respect to what my lords hath written about the matter of Beth-haraphid, there is no one there. And as for Semachiah, Shemaiah hath taken him and hath brought him up to the city. And as for thy servant, I am not sending anyone thither [today (?), but I will send] tomorrow morning. And let (my lord) know that we are watching for the signals of Lachish, according to all the iindications which my lord hath given, for we cannot see Azekah.18

Reference is made in another letter (nr. 3) to a written warning from a prophet. Whether this letter alludes (as is often thought) to Jeremiah or Uriah (cf. Jer. 26:20–23) remains unclear: Thy servant Hoshaiah hath sent to inform my lord Yoash: May Yahweh cause my lord to hear tidings of peace! And now thou hast sent a letter, but my lord did not enlighten thy servant concerning the letter which thou didst send to thy servant yesterday evening, though the heart of thy servant hath been sick since thou didst write to thy servant. And as for what my lord said, “Dost thou not understand?— call a scribe!”, as Yahweh liveth no one hath ever undertaken to call a scribe for me; and as for any scribe who might have come to me, truly I did not call him nor would I give anything at all for him! And it hath been reported to thy servant, saying, “The commander of the host, Coniah son of Elnathan, hath come down in order to go into Egypt; and unto Hodaviah son of Ahijah and his men hath he sent to obtain . . . for him.” And as for the letter of Tobiah, servant of the king, which came to Shallum son of Jaddua through the prophet, saying, “Beware!”, thy servant hath sent it to my lord.

The roughly 170 ostraca discovered at Arad,19 a city in Southern Judah, between 1962 and 1967 (a few in later years) and written partly in 18 If reference is being made here to the fall of Azekah (as is sometimes presumed), the text would probably have read: “we can no longer see Azekah”. 19 ANET, 568–569; Y. Aharoni, “Hebrew Ostraca from Tel Arad”, IEJ 16 (1966), 1–7; id., “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple”, BiAr 31 (1968), 2–32; id. Arad Inscriptions ( Judaean Desert Studies), Jerusalem 1981; A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques, Tome I: Les ostraca, Paris 1977, pp. 145–235; D. Pardee, “Letters from Tel Arad”, UF 10 (1978), 289–336; G. I. Davies, op. cit., 1991, pp. 11–38; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 99–111; J. Renz, op. cit., I, 1995, pp. 290–306, 347–403.

the sources of ancient israel’s literature

15

Aramaic and partly in Hebrew are likewise worthy of note. The Aramaic texts date from around 400 BCE, contain lists of goods and persons, and stem from the Persian garrisons encamped at Arad at that time. The Hebrew texts bring us to the pre-exilic period, during which time Arad was an important Judean stronghold. The socalled archives of Eliashib, who was commander of the stronghold around 600 BCE, speak of (the provision of rations for) “Kittites”, mercenaries of Greek origin, and of military ordinances to be observed with a view to potential incursions on the part of Edom. Of a diﬀerent nature in terms of its content, the Juridical Plea from Mesad Hashavyahu,20 discovered in 1960 one and a half kilometres south of Yavneh-Yam, is likewise written on an ostracon. The text dates from the seventh century BCE and contains the complaint of an agricultural labourer who apparently worked on one of the royal estates that served to supply provisions for a military fort. The labourer lodges his complaint against the foreman who, on a particular day, had taken his cloak from him and not returned it before nightfall (in breach of Exod. 22:26–27 [Hebr. 22:25–26] and Deut. 24:12–13, cf. Amos 2:8): Let my lord commander hear the case of his servant! As for thy servant, thy servant was harvesting at Hazar-susrim (?). And thy servant was (still) harvesting as they ﬁnished the storage of grain, as usual before the Sabbath. While thy servant was ﬁnishing the storage of grain with the harvesters, Hoshaiah son of Shobai came and took thy servant’s mantle. (It was) while I was ﬁnishing with my harvesters (that) this one for no reason took thy servant’s mantle. And all my companions will testify on my behalf—those who were harvesting with me in the heat (?) [. . .] all my companions will testify on my behalf! If I am innocent of gui[lt, let him return] my mantle, and if not, it is (still) the commander’s right to take [my case under advisement (?) and to send word] to him [(asking) that he return the] mantle to thy servant. And let not [the plea of his servant] be displeasing to him!

20 ANET, 568; J. Naveh, “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century BC”, IEJ 10 (1960), 129–139; J. D. Amusin and M. L. Heltzer, “The Inscription from Mesad Hashavjahu: Complaint of a Reaper of the Seventh Century BC”, IEJ 14 (1964), 148–157; S. Talmon, “The New Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century BC in Historical Perspective”, BASOR 176 (1964), 29–38; D. Pardee, “The Juridical Plea from Mesad Hashavjahu (Yavneh-Yam). A New Philological Study”, Maarav 1 (1978), 33–66; G.I. Davies, op. cit., 1991, pp. 76–77; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 91–98; J Renz, op. cit., I, 1995, pp. 315–329.

16

chapter one

A further petition of unknown origin, although likewise dated by its publishers in the seventh century BCE,21 is of disputed authenticity. The text is written by a widow: May yhwh bless you in peace. Well now, my lord, may the (supervisor) give ear to (his) maidservant. My husband is dead. There are no children. Let your hand be with me and may you give into the hand of your maidservant the inheritance you promised to Amasyahu. And the cornﬁeld that is in Na‘ama, may you give to his brother.

The following text, the authenticity of which is similarly in doubt, is by the same hand:22 As "Ashyahu23 the king (has) commanded you to give in the hand of Zakaryahu24 silver of Tarshish25 for the house of Yahweh: three sheckels.

A papyrus discovered at Saqqara (near Memphis) in 1942 and dating from around 600 BCE, contains a request on the part of the Philistine king Adon (possibly the ruler of Ekron) inviting the pharaoh to send military assistance against the advancing Babylonian army. The text of the Letter of Adon26 is only partly preserved and is written in Aramaic: To the Lord of Kings, the Pharaoh, your servant "Adon, the king of [Ashkelon. May X, the Lord of] the heavens and earth and Ba'alshamayn, [the great] god, [seek the welfare of my lord at all times and make the throne] of Pharaoh (as) enduring as the days of heaven. Since

21 P. Bordreuil e.a., “Deux ostraca paléo-hébreux de la collection Sh. Moussaïeﬀ: I) Contribution ﬁnancière obligatoire pour le temple de yhwh, II) Réclamation d’une veuve auprès d’un fonctionnaire”, Semitica 46 (1977), 49–76. For doubts concerning the authenticity of the ostraca see Angelika Berlejung and Andreas Schüle, “Erwägungen zu den neuen Ostraka aus der Sammlung Moussaïeﬀ ”, ZAH 11 (1998), 68–73 and I. Eph'al and J. Naveh, “Remarks on the Recently Published Moussaieﬀ Ostraca”, IEJ 48 (1998), 269–273. 22 Cf. W.W. Hallo e.a. (eds.), The Context of Scripture. Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, Vol. 2, Leiden 2000, p. 174. 23 King Josiah is probably intended here. An inscription stemming from Kuntillet 'Ajrud makes reference to King '[“y]w and would appear to intend King Joash of Israel (see 2 Kgs 13:10–13). Here also (if the text reconstruction is correct) the consonants have been transposed. 24 Cf. 2 Chron. 24:20; 35:8. 25 Cf. Jer. 10:9. 26 KAI II, pp. 312–315; tr. Eng. in J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Letter of Adon to the Egyptian Pharaoh”, Biblica 46 (1965), 41–55; W. H. Shea, “Adon’s Letter and the Babylonian Chronicle”, BASOR 223 (1976), 61–64; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, p. 119.

the sources of ancient israel’s literature

17

[ the troops] of the king of Babylon have come (and) and have arrived (at) Aphek, and have enca[mped ] [. . . .] and have taken .L. LW. .L [ ] for the Lord of Kings, the Pharaoh, knows that [your] servant [cannot withstand him. May my lord be pleased] to send an army to rescue me. May [the Lord of Kings, the Pharaoh], not forsake m[e, for] your servant has guarded [his oath] and his good relations.

Included among the documents found at Wadi Murabba'at in the Judean desert (see further ch. XIV) is a palimpsest (a sheet of papyrus upon which a new text is written after the original text has been scratched away) dating from the seventh century BCE and containing the remains of a letter and a list of personal names together with a number of grain measures.27 Two silver plates discovered in 1979 in a grave at the Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem and containing, almost word for word, an Old Hebrew text of the so-called Aaronic Blessing of Num. 6:24–26, can be dated according to the archaeological context to the seventh century BCE.28 It is extremely probable that the plates in question once served as amulets. The text of a memorial inscription discovered at Khirbet el-Kôm, fourteen kilometers west of Hebron29 and dating from the eighth century BCE is exceedingly interesting on account of the fact that it makes reference not only to yhwh but also to his Asherah.30 In Ugarit (see further ch. II), Asherah was the wife of the god El and 27 Cf. P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabba'at (DJD II), Oxford 1961, pp. 93–100; F. M. Cross, “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries BC: II. The Murabba‘at Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-Yam”, BASOR 165 (1962), 34–46. 28 J. Renz, op. cit., 1995, I, pp. 447–456 (lit.!); Ada Yardeni, “Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem”, VT 41 (1991), 176–185 (she dates the amulets in the early decades of the sixth century BCE). The plates also contain a second text in places, but this is diﬃcult to decipher and interpret. 29 W. G. Dever, “Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet elKôm”, HUCA 40/41 (1969–1970), 139–204; A. Lemaire, “Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qôm et l’ashérah de yhwh”, RB 84 (1977), 595–608; id., Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël (OBO 39), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1981, pp. 25–32; B. Becking and M. Dijkstra (red.), Eén God alleen . . .? Over monotheïsme in Oud-Israël en de verering van de godin Asjera, Kampen 1998 (lit.!). See further S. Mittmann, “Die Grabinschrift des Sängers Uriahu”, ZDPV 97 (1981), 139–152, Judith M. Hadley, “The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription”, VT 37 (1987), 50–62 together with G. I. Davies, op. cit., 1991, pp. 105–106, K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 143–146 and J. Renz, op. cit., 1995, I, pp. 202–211. 30 Cf. Tilde Binger, Asherah. Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (Suppl. JSOT 232), Sheﬃeld 1998.

18

chapter one

the mother of the gods. In the Old Testament, however, the term not only refers to a goddess (cf. 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Kgs 21:7, 23:7), it is also used to refer to a cultic symbol (stylised, cf. Deut. 16:21).31 While the translation of the inscription in question is open to dispute, the following provides the gist of its content: Uriyahu the rich wrote it. Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh. For from his enemies by his (yhwh’s) asherah he (yhwh) has saved him . . . by Oniyahu . . . and by his asherah . . . his a[she]rah.

The use of the possessive pronoun (“his Asherah”) in this instance does not exclude the possibility of interpreting “Asherah” as a personal name.32 The text conclusively reveals that at least in certain circles, Yahwism was not completely monotheistic in the period of the kings and that yhwh and Asherah were worshiped as a divine couple. The religion of El clearly continued to inﬂuence Yahwism for several centuries. Reference is likewise made to yhwh and his Asherah in texts found on potsherds of storage jars discovered during an Israeli excavation at Kuntillet 'Ajrûd 33 (“hill of the water source”), a stopping point in the Sinai desert roughly ﬁfty kilometers south of Kades Barnea, in 1975–1976. The texts date from the end of the ninth century or the beginning of the eighth century BCE and contain a number of letter headings:

31 The ﬁrst register on the cultic standard found in Tenak (illustrated in B. Becking and M. Dijkstra (eds.), Eén God alleen . . .?, Kampen 1998, p. 55) contains the ﬁgure of a naked woman (= Asherah) ﬂanked by two lions. The third register contains a tree symbolising the goddess, likewise ﬂanked by two lions, with he-goats grazing at either side. 32 Cf. further P. Xella, “Le dieu et ‘sa’ déesse: l’utilisation des suﬃxes pronominaux avec des théonymes d’Ebla à Ugarit et à Kuntillet 'Ajrud”, UF 27 (1995), 599–610. 33 See Hallo, op. cit., pp. 171–172; Z. Meshel, Kuntillet 'Ajrûd: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai (Israel Museum Catalogue 175), Jerusalem 1978; id., “Did Yahweh Have a Consort? The New Religious Inscriptions from Sinai”, BAR 5/2 (1979), 24–34; J. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud”, ZAW 94 (1982), 2–20; W. G. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?”, BASOR 255 (1984), 21–37; G. I. Davies, op. cit., 1991, pp. 78–82; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 146–151; J. Renz, op. cit., 1995, I, pp. 47–64; M. Dijkstra, “Ik heb u gezegend bij JHWH van Samaria en zijn Asjera”, in: B. Becking and M. Dijkstra (eds.), Eén God alleen . . .? Over monotheïsme in Oud-Israël en de verering van de godin Asjera, Kampen 1998, pp. 11–30.

the sources of ancient israel’s literature

19

Utterance of "Ashyaw the king: “Say to Yehallel and to Yaw'asah and to [. . .]: ‘I bless you by the name of Yahweh of Samariah and his asherah!’”. Utterance of "Amaryaw, “Say to my lord: ‘Is it well with you? I bless you by Yahweh of Teman and his asherah. May he bless you and keep you, and may he be with my lord!’”

In the same way as we speak of Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Montserrat, yhwh would appear to be associated with speciﬁc locations in these texts (cf. El-bethel in Gen. 35:7). One of the texts inscribed in plaster and found at the same location also mentions yhwh and his Asherah: . . . length (?) of days and may they satisfy (him [?] with all the good things whereby) yhwh (and) his Asherah have blessed (him) . . .

A further (poetic) text that has survived in fragmentary form makes reference to the Canaanite gods El and Baal: . . . when El appears on the t(ops of the mountains . . .), . . . then the mountains melt and the hills are crushed . . . and my god has uprooted . . . . . . to bless Baal on the day of bat(tle . . .) . . . to bless the name of El on the day of bat(tle . . .)

Alongside the aforementioned texts, we also possess ostraca from Tel Qasile, Hazor and the Ophel of Jerusalem as well as numerous inscriptions on stamps and seals,34 designations on weights and inscriptions on utensils together with graﬃti and grave inscriptions. While it would be impossible in the present context to oﬀer a broader treatment of such material, exception must be made of the seal of Shema, the courtier of King Jeroboam II, with its inscription “[property] of Shema, servant of Jeroboam”,35 and the embossed seals (bullae) published by Avigad and dating from the time of the prophet Jeremiah, one of which contains reference to the latter’s friend and secretary Baruch.36

34 Cf. R. Hestrin and M. Dayagi – Mendels, Inscribed Seals, First Temple Period, Jerusalem 1979: G. I. Davies, op. cit., 1991, pp. 118–246; N. Avigad – B. Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem 1997. 35 Cf. G. I. Davies, op. cit., 1991, p. 129. 36 N. Avigad, “Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. Remnants of a Burnt Archive”, Jerusalem 1986, pp. 28–29.

20

chapter one

Special mention ought also to be made of the graﬃti discovered in 1961 in a grave near Khirbet Beit Lei, eight kilometers east of Lachish and dating from the seventh century BCE.37 The following are included among these short texts: Yahweh is the god of the whole earth. The highlands of Judah belong to the god of Jerusalem. Intervene, O compassionate god! Absolve, O Yahweh!

For the numerous Jewish texts stemming from the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods see chapters XI–XIV.

37 W. W. Hallo, op. cit., p. 180; J. Naveh, “Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave”, IEJ 13 (1963), 74–92; F. M. Cross, “The Cave Inscriptions from Khirbet Beit Lei”, in: J. A. Sanders (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, New York 1970, pp. 229–306; G. I. Davies, op. cit., 1991, pp. 88–89; K. A. D. Smelik, op. cit., 1984, pp. 153–155; J. Renz, op. cit., 1995, I, pp. 242–251.

CHAPTER TWO

ANCIENT ISRAELITE LITERATURE IN ITS ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CONTEXT

ANET; ANEP; KAI; TUAT; COS; DDD; E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, Giessen 1872, 18832 (revised by H. Zimmern and H. Winckler under the same title: Berlin 1903); H. Winckler, Keilinschriftliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, Leipzig 1892, 19093; A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients, Leipzig 1904, 19304; H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament, Tübingen 1909, BerlinLeipzig 1926–19272; R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, New York 1912, 19262; G. A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, Philadelphia 1916, 19377; H. A. Brongers, De literatuur der Babyloniërs en Assyriërs, Den Haag 1937; A. Falkenstein und W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete, Zurich 1953; W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Baltimore 19564; L’Ancien Testament et l’Orient, Leuven 1957; G. Ernest Wright, De bijbel ontdekt in aarde en steen, Baarn 1958, 19602; D. Winton Thomas (ed.), Documents from Old Testament Times, New York 19612; J. Gray, Archaeology and the Old Testament World, Edinburgh 1961; F. Michaeli, Textes de la Bible et de l’Ancien Orient (Cahiers d’archéologie biblique 13), Neuchâtel 1961; J. B. Pritchard, Archeologie en het Oude Testament, Baarn 1962; M. Noth, Die Welt des Alten Testaments, Berlin 19624; K. H. Bernhardt, Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments I. Die Quellen und ihre Erforschung, Gütersloh 1967; D. Winton Thomas (ed.), Archaeology and Old Testament Study, Oxford 1967; D. J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of Old Testament Times, Oxford 1973; M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings I–III, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1973–1980; W. Beyerlin e.a., Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, Göttingen 1975; J. Briend et M. J. Seux, Textes du Proche Orient ancien et histoire d’Israël, Paris 1977; K. Galling e.a., Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels, Tübingen 19793; J. Gray, “Recent Archaeological Discoveries and their Bearing on the Old Testament”, in: G. W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition & Interpretation, Oxford 1979, pp. 65–95; H. Ringgren, Die Religionen des Alten Orients (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament. ATD-Ergänzungsreihe, Sonderband), Göttingen 1979; K. R. Veenhof (ed.), Schrijvend verleden. Documenten uit het Oude Nabije Oosten vertaald en toegelicht, Leiden-Zutphen 1983; H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretation. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, Jerusalem 1983; K. van den Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 22), Assen 1985; A. Barucq e.a., Ecrits de l’Orient ancien et sources bibliques (Petite bibliothèque des sciences bibliques: Ancient Testament 2), Paris 1986; S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford 1989; W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones and

22

chapter two

G. L. Mattingly (eds.), The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature. Scripture in Context III (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8), Lewiston NY 1990; H. P. Müller (ed.), Babylonien und Israel. Historische, religiöse end sprachliche Beziehungen (Wege der Forschung 633), Darmstadt 1991 (lit.!); K. L. Younger Jr., W. W. Hallo and B. F. Batto (eds.), The Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11), Lewiston NY 1991; V. H. Matthews and D. C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels. Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, Mahwah NJ 1991, 19972; B. Janowski e.a. (eds.), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament (Internationales Symposium Hamburg 17.–21. März 1990 = OBO 129), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1993; B. R. Foster, Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature: I Archaic, Classical, Mature, II Mature, Late, Bethesda MD 1993; id., From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia, Bethesda MD 1995; A. J. Hoerth e.a., Peoples of the Old Testament World, Grand Rapids MI 1994, Cambridge/Grand Rapids 19962; K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel, Leiden 1996; M. Görg, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen bis zum Exil (EdF 290), Darmstadt 1997; A. J. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 1998; K. van der Toorn, “Cuneiform Documents from SyriaPalestine. Texts, Scribes, and Schools”, ZDPV 116 (2000), 97–113. Reference should also be made to relevant articles in the encyclopaedia: B. Reicke und L. Rost (eds.), Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch I–IV, Göttingen 1962–1979, K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon, Tübingen 1939, 19772, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible I–IV, Nashville-New York 1962 (Supplementary Volume V, Nashville 1976) and in particular to the recent volume of D. N. Freedman e.a. (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary I–VI, New York-LondonToronto-Sydney-Auckland 1992.

The important archaeological discoveries that were made during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the Near East have shed signiﬁcant new light on Ancient Israelite literature in general and on the Old Testament in particular. Where commentators in the past endeavoured to understand the Old Testament as an entirely unique document, archaeological discoveries have made it apparent that the literary genres encountered in the Hebrew bible exhibit, as a rule, various degrees of kinship with other Ancient Near Eastern literature. The characteristics that the documents of the Old Testament share with those stemming from the Mesopotamian, Hittite, Egyptian and Canaanite world are numerous indeed. For this reason we are obliged to admit that from the literary perspective the Old Testament is an Ancient Near Eastern book. This, of course, is hardly surprising. Ancient Israel did not exist in cultural isolation with its own typical and entirely unique civilisation. On the contrary, the mediation of Canaanite urban culture and the presence of merchants, diplomats, migrants

ancient israelite literature

23

and soldiers of foreign origin saw to it that Israel did not remain untouched by the highly developed civilisations of its Umwelt. Points of agreement between Ancient Israelite and remaining Ancient Near Eastern literature establish the latter as the pre-eminent commentary on Israel’s literary heritage. Impressive as this literary kinship may be, however, one must not loose sight of the fact that signiﬁcant diﬀerences exist between the Old Testament and the remaining literature of the region. The study of the latter tends rather to focus our attention on the distinctive features of the Old Testament, especially the unique religious tradition to which it gives voice. After George A. Smith (1840–1876) announced in the second half of the nineteenth century that the ﬂood narrative from the eleventh song of the Gilgamesh Epic (see below) exhibited signiﬁcant agreements with Genesis 6–9, much attention was not only drawn to study of Assyriology but the starting volleys were ﬁred for what came to be known as the Babel-Bibel-Streit,1 a dispute that was to rage in Germany between 1902 and 1920. Those who engaged in the BabelBibel-Streit tended either to exaggerate the agreements between AssyrianBabylonian texts and the Old Testament or to trivialise them. Renowned Assyriologists such as Peter Jensen (1861–1936) and Friedrich Delitzsch (1850–1922) concluded from the surprising discoveries in Mesopotamia that the literature of the Old Testament constituted a late layer of Ancient Near Eastern literature as a whole. The ideas proposed by these scholars were shared by the so-called pan-Babylonian school, to which names such as Hugo Winckler (1863– 1913) and Alfred Jeremias (1864–1935) were to become associated. Just as the beginning of the twentieth century witnessed a not infrequent tendency to overestimate the value of Assyrian-Babylonian material for the interpretation of the Old Testament, so the discoveries of Ancient Canaanite texts at Ugarit (Ras Shamra) in northern Syria (since 1929) led to a similar tendency. Numerous exegetes of the Hebrew Bible have rightly warned against so-called pan-Ugaritism and the suggestion that Ugarit provided a unique key to our understanding of the Old Testament. The evident importance of the texts found at Ugarit for our understanding of the religious history and literature of Ancient Israel should likewise not blind us to the unique features of Ancient Israelite religion and the Old Testament. 1 K. Johanning, Der Babel-Bibel-Streit. Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie (EHS 23/343), Frankfurt am Main 1988.

24

chapter two

The fact that important archaeological discoveries, especially with respect to otherwise unknown texts, were cause for enthusiasm is quite understandable. It remains surprising, nevertheless, that initial excitement often led to an overvaluation of the signiﬁcance of such ﬁnds. The unearthing of texts on clay tablets from Mesopotamia and Ugarit and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (see further ch. XIV) have taught us, however, that many of our initial conclusions often have to be abandoned on further inspection. It seems appropriate, therefore to temper initial enthusiasms by maintaining a degree of detachment in order to allow for the evaluation of the true value of new discoveries. The same caution will have to be observed with respect to the texts discovered (since 1969) at Ebla (Tell Mardich) in Northern Syria.2 The texts in question date from the third millennium BCE and are written for the most part in Sumerian, a west Semitic dialect akin, however, to (later) Hebrew. In spite of the many points of agreement, it remains worthy of note that the Old Testament, which bears the hallmark of orthodox Yahwism, rarely if ever employs certain literary genres. Epic poems and myths, for example, are almost entirely absent, while self-aggrandisement inscriptions and omen literature are completely lacking. Next to the epic and mythic literature, which is richly represented in Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite and Ugaritic writings, the Old Testament has little to oﬀer of a similar status. Epic literature in the strict sense of the word is lacking (as would also appear to be the case in the Egyptian literature we have at our disposal). Some scholars have maintained that this literary genre can be reconstructed on the basis of Old Testament transmission, but their hypotheses have remained unconvincing. While it is true that the Old Testament 2 Cf. G. Pettinato, “The Royal Archives of Tell Mardich—Ebla”, BiAr 39 (1976), 44–52; id., The Archives of Ebla. An Empire Inscribed in Clay, Garden City NY 1981; id., Ebla. A New Look at History, Baltimore-London 1991; K. R. Veenhof, “Ebla— Tell Mardich”, Phoenix 23 (1977), 8–25; Ch. Bermant and M. Weitzman, Ebla, Haarlem 1979; D. N. Freedman, “Ebla and the Old Testament”, in: T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, Winona Lake IN 1982, pp. 309–335; P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla (Quaderni di Semitistica 18), Florence 1992. Cf. also A. Archi (ed.), Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving (Archivi Reali di Ebla, Studi 1), Rome 1988, M. Krebernik, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: eine Zwischenbilanz (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 7), Berlin 1988, the contributions to the journal Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and the Eblaite Language, Winona Lake IN, 1 (1987), 2 (1990), 3 (1992) and the exhaustive bibliography in D. N. Freedman e.a. (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary 2, New York etc. 1992, pp. 267–270 (Biggs).

ancient israelite literature

25

does contain a number of fragments (e.g. 2 Sam. 21:15–22; 23:8–23) that would appear to point in the direction of hero gloriﬁcation, it is striking that even these text segments emphasise the fact that the victory they narrate is to be ascribed to yhwh and not to some human agent (2 Sam. 23:10,12). Narratives likewise exist that exhibit elements of epic style, such as those concerning a number of judges (Gideon, Jephthah, Samson) and David (especially the narrative of his struggle with Goliath in 1 Samuel 17), but these, once again, do not constitute epic literature in the strict sense of the term. Indeed, the speciﬁc character of Israel’s religion would appear to have impeded the development of this literary genre. Figures such as Gideon, Jephthah and Samson tend to be portrayed as emissaries sent and inspired by God rather than as heroes in their own right. Myths have been similarly limited by the Yahwistic character of the Old Testament.3 In spite of the fact that the occasional echo of a mythical element can still be discerned (cf., for example, the paradise narrative of Genesis 2–3, Job 26:12; Ps. 89:11; Isa. 51:9; Ezek. 28:12ﬀ.), such material tends, for the most part, either to have been eliminated or historicized (cf. Gen. 6:1ﬀ.). No single example of the copious self-aggrandisement inscriptions found in Mesopotamia and Egypt, which are written in the ﬁrst person and tend to glorify the king and his heroic deeds, can be found in Ancient Israel. This fact can also be explained on the basis of Israel’s spiritual awareness, which placed historiography in the light of an ethical and religious pragmatism and valued the monarchy in it own particular way: Yahwism tended to perceive the ideal king as servant rather than son of God, more as servant of the people rather than absolute monarch. The Old Testament similarly lacks examples of the omen literature richly represented in the Mesopotamian Empire and the countless incantation texts found throughout the Ancient Near Eastern world. Once again this absence can be ascribed to the speciﬁc character of Yahwistic religion that ﬁrmly abjured the use of magic and the consultation of the dead from its earliest beginnings (cf. Lev. 19:31 and 1 Sam. 28:3b). Having conﬁrmed the virtual or total absence of a number of Ancient Near Eastern literary genres in the Old Testament, however, our attention must also be drawn to the speciﬁc nature of those 3

Cf. B. S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (SBT 27), London 19622.

26

chapter two

literary genres that Israel did have in common with its Umwelt. Besides its historiography, Old Testament prophetic literature also appears in many respects to have had its own unique character. Other Ancient Near Eastern peoples have passed on their numerous historical texts in the form of annals and inscriptions that portray the military operations, temple building and other major deeds ascribed to their respective monarchs. While the gods evidently had a role to play in such activities (cf. for example, the Mesa inscription referred to in the preceding chapter), suﬃcient latitude clearly remained for the personal gloriﬁcation of the king and his reported deeds. In comparison, the historiography of the Old Testament, with its Yahwistic inspiration and prophetic spirit, is both critical and “democratic”. Indeed, the Old Testament does not only refer to the kings and their great deeds, it also focuses signiﬁcant attention on the role of the prophets and men of God. Monarchs were placed under prophetic critique in a manner unique in the Ancient Near Eastern world. A familiar example of this tendency can be found in the prophet Nathan’s chastisement of David in 2 Sam. 12:1–14. Counter to the thesis of Von Rad (Theologie des Alten Testaments I, Munich 1957, p. 112), which maintains that both the literature of the Old Testament and the faith of Israel are “grundsätzlich geschichtstheologisch fundiert”, Vriezen (Kerk en Theologie 16 (1965), 97–113, 210–218) proposed that the Ancient Israelite credo was more likely to be found in texts such as 1 Kgs 18:39, Exod. 34:6ﬀ. and Deut. 6:4. Vriezen placed particular accent on the fact that the prophetic word in the Old Testament precedes God’s intervention in history, even although the latter conﬁrms the former. In his study History and the Gods, Lund 1967, B. Albrektson insisted that other Ancient Near Eastern peoples besides Israel were also acquainted with genuine historiography. His thesis was countered by W. G. Lambert, Destiny and Divine Intervention in Babylon and Israel, OTS 17 (1972), 65–72, who maintained that the Babylonians (and others) lacked any theological perspective (cf. also A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, Chicago/London 1964, 19725, pp. 19–20). Israel was unique in attaining a continuous portrayal of human history because its faith in the one God made it possible to conceptualise creation, history and future in a single vision. While the Ancient Near Eastern world evidently possessed prophetic texts that may shed light on the phenomenon of prophecy in Ancient Israel, points of agreement between the two remain, nevertheless, of a primarily formal nature. We will return to this matter in our introduction to the classical prophetic literature of the Old Testament in ch. IX.

We conclude the present chapter with a brief survey of the most signiﬁcant points of contact exhibited by the Old Testament with

ancient israelite literature

27

the Ancient Near Eastern world. Attention will be drawn in this regard to literary as well as religious and historical data that are important for a better understanding of the Old Testament. At the very beginning of the Hebrew Bible, the proto-history of Genesis 1–11 constitutes an important location for comparative literary and religio-historical research.4 The Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (“when the skies above . . .”, the ﬁrst words of this creation narrative dedicated to the gloriﬁcation of the god Marduk)5 oﬀers a prime illustration of the diﬀerent way in which the Babylonian world and the Old Testament conceptualised and related the beginning of the world and of the human race.6 In the Babylonian epic, the birth of the gods and the polemic between them precedes the creation of the world and of humanity, a theme that is completely surpassed in Genesis. Monotheistic Yahwism had, per deﬁnition, no place for theogeny or any form of battle between the gods. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic,7 which has its roots in the Sumerian tradition, relates the adventures of Gilgamesh, the king of Erech and his friend Enkidu, who lives initially as primal human being with the animals of the ﬁeld but later achieves wisdom (culture) through contact with a woman. After the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh departs 4 On Genesis 2–3 see, for example, Th. C. Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstellingen bij de oude Semietische volken, (diss. Utrecht), Wageningen 1937, and H. Bergema, De boom des levens in Schrift en historie, Hilversum 1938. 5 Translations with commentary: ANET, pp. 60–72, 501–503; COS I, pp. 390–402; A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, Chicago & London 19654. See further W. G. Lambert and S. B. Parker, The Babylonian Epic of Creation, Birmingham 1966/1974; W. G. Lambert, “The Cosmology of Sumer and Babylon”, in: C. Blacker and M. Loewe (eds.), Ancient Cosmologies, London 1975, pp. 42–65; W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks (AOAT 213), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982. 6 See, for example, B. W. Anderson (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament (Issues in Religion and Theology 6), Philadelphia/London 1984; F. Blanquart (ed.), La création dans l’Orient ancien (Lectio Divina 127), Paris 1987. 7 Translations with commentary: ANET, pp. 72–99, 503–507; COS I, pp. 458–460 (11th table); F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl, Het Gilgamesj-epos. Nationaal heldendicht van Babylonië, Amsterdam and Antwerp 19522; A. Schott und W. von Soden, Das Gilgamesch-epos, Stuttgart 1958; A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, Chicago & London 19634; J. Garner and J. Maier, Gilgamesh, New York 1984; M. Gallery Kovacs, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Stanford CA 1989; J. Bottéro, L’épopée de Gilgame“, Paris 1992; R. J. Tournay et A. Shaﬀer, L’épopée de Gilgamesh (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 15), Paris 1994. Text edition: R. C. Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamesh. Text, Transliteration, and Notes, Oxford 1930; R. Borger, Babylonischassyrische Lesestücke I–III (Analecta Orientalia 54), Rome 19792, pp. 105–111, 344–350 (cuneiform text and transcription of the eleventh table). See also P. Garelli (ed.), Gilgame“ et sa légende (Cahiers du Groupe François Thureau-Dangin 1), Paris 1960; K. Oberhuber (ed.), Das Gilgamesch-Epos (Wege der Forschung 215), Darmstadt 1977; J. H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Philadelphia 1982.

chapter two

28

profoundly dismayed in search of the ‘food of life’ that “makes the aged young again”. While he initially succeeds in his search, he is later robbed of his discovery by a snake. He is directed to the ‘food of life’ by Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, to whom the gods had granted eternal life. Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh the story of the ﬂood that (as we noted above) exhibits striking parallels with Genesis 6–9 (eleventh song of the Gilgamesh Epic). The Atrahasis Epic 8 is of similar importance with respect to the primal history of the Old Testament. It narrates the creation of human beings, their task as servants of the gods, their enormous increase, the noise they made which irritated the gods (especially Enlil) and the ﬂood sent to punish them. What is striking here is the fact that both creation and the ﬂood are treated together. Only Atra-Hasis and his family survive, having been warned of the ﬂood in advance by the god Enki who advised him to build a ship (Cf. Genesis 6–8). The ﬂood is also a prominent element in the “Sumerian King List”, dating from the second millennium BCE, which contains the names of 140 rulers who governed in succession in Mesopotamia before and after the ﬂood.9 The reigns ascribed to the kings who lived prior to the ﬂood are exorbitantly lengthy (some for tens of thousands of years). The list is illustrative of similar lists found in Genesis 5 (and 11), in which the patriarchs are ascribed similarly long years. Of similar interest is the passage contained in the Sumerian epic “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta”,10 which speaks of a forthcoming “unscrambling” of languages in contrast to the (Babylonian) confusion of languages referred to Gen. 11:1–9. Through the intervention of Enki, the god of wisdom, the language of humanity will become one (cf. also Isa. 19:18): Sumerian.11 We have also been brought a step closer to the Narratives of the Patriarchs by the so-called Mari Letters.12 Mari was a city located at 8

Translation with notes: ANET, pp. 104–106, 512–514; COS I, pp. 450–452; S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford 1989, pp. 1–38; see also Foster in the articles referred to above (BM I, pp. 16–185; FDD, pp. 52–77). Text edition with introduction, translation and notes: W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-Hasis. The Babylonian Story of the Flood, Oxford 1969. The personal name Atrahasis means “the very wise”. 9 ANET, pp. 265–266; H. Zimmern, “Die altbabylonischen vor- und nachsintﬂutlichen Könige”, ZDMG 78 (1924), 18ﬀ. 10 Translation with notes: COS I, pp. 547–550. 11 Cf. W. Beyerlin (ed.), op. cit., 1975, pp. 112–113. 12 ANET, pp. 482–483, 623–626. Edition with transcription and translation published in the series “Archives royales de Mari: Textes cunéiformes du Louvre” by

ancient israelite literature

29

the central section of the Euphrates, which experienced prosperity during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries BCE. The thousands of clay tablets discovered at the Mari royal palace provide us with interesting information concerning the history of the period, its prevailing social structures and use of personal names. Rites for the establishment of covenants, which are reminiscent of Genesis 15, and theophoric names written, for example, in combination with Ja'qub ( Jacob), together with the mention of the “city of Nahor” (cf. Gen. 24:10) are evocative of the period of the patriarchs.13 The contents of the clay tablets discovered at Nuzi, a city located roughly thirteen kilometers south west of present day Kirkuk,14 have also been quoted by several scholars to help explain a variety of customs dating from the time of the patriarchs. Special mention of E. A. Speiser’s commentary on Genesis (AB 1, 1964) should be made in this regard. Recent publications, however, have increasingly tended to call the accepted parallels into doubt.15 The El Amarna Letters16 from the archives of the pharaohs Amenophis III and Amenophis IV/Ichnaton (around the beginning of the G. Dossin e.a., Paris 1950ﬀ., cf. D. Pardee, “The Mari Archives”, BiAr 47 (1984), 88–99. See also G. E. Mendenhall, Mari, BiAr 11 (1948), 1–19; J. R. Kupper, Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari, Paris 1957; J. R. Kupper (ed.), La civilisation de Mari (XVe rencontre assyriologique internationale), Université de Liège 1967; M. Noth, “Die Mari-Texte und das Alte Testament”, in: id., Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde, herausgegeben von H. W. Wolﬀ, II, NeukirchenVluyn 1971, pp. 211–272; R. de Vaux, Histoire ancienne d’Israël, Paris 1971, pp. 213–243; A. Parrot, Mari, capitale fabuleuse, Paris 1974; A. Marzel, Gleanings from the Wisdom of Mari (Studia Pohl 11), Rome 1976; A. Malamat, Early Israelite Experience (The Schweich Lectures 1984), Oxford 1989; id., Mari and the Bible, Leiden-BostonCologne 1998; G. D. Young (ed.), Mari in Retrospect. Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies, Winona Lake IN 1992. See also the series Mari. Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires, Paris 1 (1982), 2 (1983), 3 (1984), 4 (1985), 5 (1987), 6 (1990), 7 (1993). For bibliographical information see J. G. Heinz e.a., Bibliographie de Mari. Archéologie et textes (1933–1988), Wiesbaden 1990. 13 Cf. R. de Vaux, “Les patriarches hébreux et les découvertes modernes”, RB 53 (1946), 321–348; 55 (1948), 321–347; 56 (1949), 5–36; J. M. Holt, The Patriarchs of Israel, Nashville 1964. 14 Cf. E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1), Garden City NY 1964, pp. xxxvii–xliii; M. Dietrich und O. Loretz, Nuzi-Bibliographie (AOAT Sonderreihe 11), Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972; T. Frymer-Kensky, “Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law”, BiAr 44 (1981), 209–214. See also W. Mayer, Nuzi Studien I: Die Archive des Palastes und die Prosopographie der Berufe (AOAT 205/1), Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978. 15 Cf. R. de Vaux, Histoire ancienne d’Israël, Paris 1971, pp. 224–243; Th. L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW 133), Berlin 1974; J. van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven-London 1975. 16 J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln I–II, Leipzig 1915, reprint Aalen 1964; A. F. Rainey, El Amarna Tablets 359 –379. Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon, Die

30

chapter two

fourteenth century BCE), discovered in Egypt in 1887 and written in Akkadian, the language of international diplomacy of the day, stem for the most part from Egyptian vassals in Canaan. The letters provide us with material concerning the geographical, historical and cultural circumstances in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Israelites. Canaanite glosses in the letters, moreover, aﬀord us interesting information concerning the language spoken in the land at that time.17 Of special interest are the references that the texts contain concerning the Hapiru. In spite of the fact that scholars have frequently identiﬁed the Hapiru with the Hebrews, the term would appear rather to refer to fugitive outlaws who passed their days as bandits beyond the control of the city authorities. As such, therefore, the term does not apply to an ethnically deﬁned group. The Hapiru are also referred to in Babylonia, Ugarit ('pr) and Egypt ('pr.w).18 The texts unearthed since 1929 at the Northern Syrian site of Ugarit and dating from the period between 1400 and 1200 BCE19 El-Amarna Tafeln (AOAT 8), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970, 19782; W. L. Moran, Les lettres d’El Amarna: correspondence diplomatique du pharaon (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 13), Paris 1987. See further E. F. Campbell Jr., The Chronology of the Amarna Letters, Baltimore 1964; W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Wiesbaden 19712; R. S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names (ASOR Dissertation Series 9), Winona Lake IN 1993. 17 Cf. A. F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan I–IV, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996. 18 Cf. J. Bottéro, Le problème des Habiru à la 4e Recontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 1954; M. Greenberg, The Hab/piru, New Haven 1955; R. Borger, “Das Problem der 'apiru (“Habiru”)”, ZDPV 74 (1958), 121–132; R. de Vaux, “Le problème des Hapiru après quinze années”, JNES 27 (1968), 221–228; id., Histoire ancienne d’Israël, Paris 1971, pp. 106–112; M. Weippert, Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stämme in der neueren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion (FRLANT 92), Göttingen 1967, pp. 66–102; G. E. Mendenhall, “The 'Apiru Movements in the Late Bronze Age”, in id., The Tenth Generation, Baltimore 19762, pp. 122–141; O. Loretz, Habiru-Hebräer. Eine soziolinguistische Studie über die Herkunft des Gentiliziums `ibrî vom Appellativum habiru (BZAW 160), Berlin-New York 1984. 19 Text editions: A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 (Mission de Ras Shamra 10), Paris 1963; C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (AnOr 38), Rome 1965; C. F. A. Schaeﬀer, Le palais royale d’Ugarit I–VI, Paris 1968; L. R. Fischer, The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets (AnOr 48), Rome 1971; M. Dietrich – O. Loretz – J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit I (AOAT 24), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976. Translations: ANET, pp. 129–155; COS I, pp. 239–365; C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature, Roma 1949; A. Jirku, Kanaanäische Mythen und Epen aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit, Gütersloh 1962; J. Aistleitner, Die mythologischen und kultischen Texte aus Ras Schamra, Budapest 19642; A. Caquot e.a., Textes ougaritiques: I. Mythes et légendes, Paris 1974, II. Textes religieux, rituels, correspondance, Paris 1989; G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, Edinburgh 1956, revised and republished under the same title by J. C. L. Gibson, Edinburgh 1978; J. C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit

ancient israelite literature

31

are also of interest, at least in part, for the study of the patriarchal period.20 Special attention should be aﬀorded in this regard to the BaalAnat Cycle,21 in which El22 is referred to as the king of the gods and presented in the form of a bull as symbol of his enormous procreative capacities. The god Baal,23 the son of Dagon ( Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:2ﬀ.), is similarly represented as having intercourse with the goddess Anat who is portrayed as a cow.24 Baal is the lord of fertility and identical to the west Semitic rain and storm god Hadad. (Nisaba 16), Leiden etc. 1987; S. Parker (ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 9), Atlanta GA 1997; N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit. The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues (The Biblical Seminar 53), Sheﬃeld 1998. Modern grammars: D. Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, Leiden-New YorkCologne 1997. Bibliographical information: M. Dietrich e.a., Ugarit-Bibliographie 1928–1966 (AOAT 20/1–4), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973 and Ugarit-Bibliographie 1967–1971 (AOAT 20/5), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986. The series UgaritForschungen (UF) published since 1969 tracks progress in the ﬁeld of Ugaritology. A general introduction to the discoveries at Ugarit can be found in J. P. Lettinga, Oegarit (Cultuurhistorische Monograﬁeën 11), Den Haag 1948, A. S. Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament, Oxford 1965, E. Jacob, Ras Sjamra-Ugarit en het Oude Testament, Nijkerk 1962, D. Kinet, Ugarit—Geschichte und Kultur einer Stadt in der Umwelt des Alten Testaments (SBS 104), Stuttgart 1981 and G. Saadé, Ougarit: Métropole cananéenne, Beirut 1979. See also A. Curtis, Ugarit (Ras Shamra) (Cities of the Biblical World), Cambridge 1985. Cf. likewise J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan. The Ras Shamra Texts and their Relevance to the Old Testament (SVT 5), Leiden 19652; O. Loretz, Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanäische Götter und Religionen im Alten Testament, Darmstadt 1990; G. J. Brooke e.a. (eds.), Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992 (Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 11), Münster 1994; M. Dietrich und O. Loretz (eds.), Ugarit. Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung, Band I: Ugarit und seine orientalische Umwelt (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 7), Munster 1995; N. Wyatt e.a. (eds.), Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edinburgh July 1994 (FS J. C. L. Gibson; Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 12), Munster 1996. 20 See G. D. Young (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect. Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, Winona Lake IN 1981. 21 Translation: ANET, pp. 129–142; COS I, pp. 241–273 (lit.!); J. C. de Moor, op. cit., 1987, pp. 1–116. See further M. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. I: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU I.1–I.2 (SVT 55), LeidenNew York-Cologne 1994 (lit.!). 22 M. H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (SVT 2), Leiden 1955; W. H. Schmidt, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 80), Berlin 19662; DDD, col. 522–533 (Herrmann). 23 P. J. van Zijl, Baal. A Study of Texts in Connection with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972; DDD, col. 249–263 (Herrmann). 24 A. S. Kapelrud, The Violent Goddess. Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts, Oslo 1969; N. H. Walls, The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth (SBL Diss. Series 135), Atlanta GA 1992; DDD, col. 62–77 (Day).

32

chapter two

He defeated prince Sea (Nahar) and Lotan (Leviathan), the “twisting serpent” (cf. Ps. 74:14; Isa. 27:1). The god of fertility, however, was forced into albeit temporary defeat at the hands of Mot (Death) and his descent into the underworld heralded a period of drought on earth. After a period of time, Mot likewise tasted defeat and Baal was freed to resume his royal dominion. The text would appear for the most part to refer to a fertility myth representing the course of the seasons with their periods of rain and their summer droughts.25 The Legend of Aqhat 26 is another interesting text from Ugarit. A son is promised to the wise and just but childless Daniel (cf. Ezek. 14:14, where he is mentioned together with Noah and Job) and the child born to him is named Aqhat. During a visit from Kothar waKhasis, the craftsman of the gods, Aqhat is given the gift of a magniﬁcent bow with which he goes oﬀ hunting. In her desire to possess the bow, the goddess Anat promises Aqhat eternal life in exchange. Aqhat does not accept the goddess’s oﬀer, however, and accuses her of lying since no human being can escape death. Incensed by his rejection Anat gets permission from El to kill Aqhat. Yatpan, one of Anat’s warriors, is transformed by the goddess into an eagle and he murders Aqhat. As a consequence thereof a drought engulfs the land for several years. When Daniel ﬁnally gets to know what happened he turns to Baal for help but the latter is unable to bring Aqhat back from the dead. At the end of the preserved text of the legend we ﬁnd Daniel summoning the spirits of the dead in the hope that with their help he will once again be able to embrace his son. Beside the motifs of the promise of a son (cf. Gen. 15:4–6; 18:1–15) and the withering of the vegetation, the capriciousness of the gods constitutes a striking element of the legend. The primary theme of the Ugaritic Legend of Keret (Kirtu)27 is the continuation of the dynasty. In addition to his brothers, King Keret loses no less than seven wives before they are able to grant him an heir. In the midst of his profound sadness at what has overcome

25 J. C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba'lu (AOAT 16), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971. 26 Translation: ANET, pp. 149–155; COS I, pp. 343–356; J. C. de Moor, op. cit., 1987, pp. 224–273. See also B. Margalit, The Ugaritic Poem of Aqht. Text, Translation, Commentary (BZAW 182), Berlin 1989 and K. T. Aitken, The Aqhat Narrative ( JSS Monograph 13), Manchester 1990. 27 Translation: ANET, pp. 142–149; COS I, pp. 333–343 (lit.!); J. C. de Moor, op. cit., 1987, pp. 191–223.

ancient israelite literature

33

him, the god El appears to him in a dream thinking that Keret desires to possess divine kingship. The latter, however, is more interested in siring a multitude of sons. Following El’s instructions, an expedition is prepared with the intention of fetching Harriya from Udum (possible located in Bashan) as a bride for Keret. On the journey, Keret promises the goddess Asherah that he will grant her several times the weight of his intended bride in silver and gold if he is able to bring Harriya safely back to his palace. The latter does indeed become Keret’s bride and during the marriage feast, to which the gods are also invited, El promises Keret two sons and six daughters, the youngest daughter to be made a ‘ﬁrstborn’ by El. After the children are born, Keret is stricken with a serious illness because he did not fulﬁl his promise to Asherah. While he recovers from his illness upon El’s intervention, Keret then gets involved in a conﬂict with his eldest son who accuses him of no longer fulﬁlling his obligations as king. Intent on seizing the throne for himself, Keret’s son is cursed by his father. While the remaining tablet of the legend is lost to us, it probably reports how Keret was forced once again to relinquish his children to death with the exception of his youngest daughter who thus became ‘ﬁrstborn’ as El had indeed foretold. The narrative combines a number of motifs, including that of the sacred character of kingship and the status of a king who is unable to prove his authority on the basis of his many descendants. It is possible that the legend constitutes some form of protest against current ideas of divine governance: Keret is ultimately the victim of divine caprice!28 The theme of childlessness, which has a signiﬁcant role to play in the patriarchal narratives, is likewise a feature of the Babylonian Legend of Etana.29 Etana is predestined to provide humanity with the security that the monarchy can oﬀer, but his life is embittered by the fact that he has no children. The only solution to his problem would appear to be a “fertility plant”, which he must fetch from heaven. Etana is able to secure the assistance of an eagle but the ﬂight miscarries and he falls to the earth. Although he is miraculously saved and ultimately granted a son, it would appear that his much desired oﬀspring was later also to be his murderer. 28 Cf. further J. C. de Moor, “The Crisis of Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit”, OTS 24 (1986), 1–20; id., The Rise of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (BEThL 91), Leuven 19972, pp. 41–102. 29 Translations: ANET, pp. 114–118; COS I, pp. 453–457. See also J. V. Kinnier Wilson, The Legend of Etana: A New Edition, Warminster 1985.

34

chapter two

The texts discovered at Ugarit have also contributed to a better understanding of the vocabulary of the Old Testament. It would appear, for example, that the cultic term 'i““è, which was once translated as “burnt oﬀering”, actually signiﬁed “rich gift”.30 Parallels have of course been sought in Egypt for the account of Joseph and in particular for the seduction of Joseph by the wife of Potiphar (Gen. 39:11–20) found in the Egyptian narrative of the two brothers.31 The historical background of the Old Testament account of Joseph is the subject of dispute.32 Egyptian sources provide us with information concerning a variety of situations in Canaan, which can be of importance for our reconstruction of Israel’s earliest history. A not unimportant place among them must be aﬀorded to the so-called Israel Stela of pharaoh Mer-ne-Ptah dating from around 1230 BCE, in which the praises are sung of an Egyptian victory over Canaan.33 The stele contains the following text: Plundered is Canaan with every evil; Carried oﬀ is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together, they are paciﬁed; Everyone who was restless, he has been bound By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Ba-en-Re Meri-Amon; the Son of Re: Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, given life like Re every day.

This constitutes the only Egyptian source in which “Israel” is speciﬁcally mentioned. While reference is clearly being made in this regard to a people dwelling in Canaan, the stela does not provide us with suﬃcient information to determine precisely where in Canaan it has in mind. We are equally at a loss as to whom we might identify this “Israel” with. A report by an Egyptian border controller to his superior from a 30 See. J. Hoftijzer, “Das sogenannte Feueropfer”, in: Hebräische Wortforschung (FS W. Baumgartner; SVT 16), Leiden 1967, pp. 114–134. 31 ANET, pp. 23–25; COS I, pp. 85–89; G. Lefebvre, Romans et contes égyptiens de l’époque pharaonique, Paris 1949, pp. 137–158; J. F. Borghouts, Egyptische sagen en verhalen, Bussum 19833, pp. 86–97. 32 See further our discussion of the Joseph novel in the paragraph on the book of Genesis (ch. VIII). 33 Translation: ANET, pp. 376–378.

ancient israelite literature

35

slightly later date (around 1190 BCE) makes reference to a group of nomads who had been driven to the land of the Nile by famine:34 . . . We] have ﬁnished letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom Pass the Fortress [of ] Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat—life, prosperity, heatlh!— which is in Tjeku, to the pools of Per-Atum [of ] Mer-ne-Ptah, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive, through the geat ka of Pharaoh—life, prosperity, health!—the good sun of every land . . .

The Journey of Wen-Amon35 dating from around 1075 BCE provides a ﬁrst person account of a journey to Canaan and Phoenicia and makes reference to the activities of an ecstatic prophet in Byblos. A similar narrative is that of Si-nuhe, who ﬂed from Egypt to Syria and Palestine but was later fortunate to be able to return to his own land.36 With regard to the Old Testament presentation of the Mosaic Period, partial similarities between the Akkadian Legend of Sargon and the narrative of Moses in the papyrus basket (Exod. 2:1–10) are clearly evident:37 Sargon, the mighty king, king of Agade, am I My mother was a changeling, my father I knew not. The brother(s) of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose not (over) me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, [took] as his son (and) reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me (her) love, And for four [. . .] years I exercised kingship.

The account of King Idrimi of Alalach (Northern Syria) and the return to his fatherland38 oﬀers striking parallels with the narrative of Moses’ ﬂight to Midian in Exod. 2:11–22. 34

Translation: ANET, p. 259. ANET, pp. 25–29; COS I, pp. 89–93; H. Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun ( John Hopkins Near Eastern Studies), Baltimore/London 1975; Lichtheim, op. cit., (AEL II), pp. 224–230. 36 ANET, pp. 18–22; COS I, pp. 77–82; Lichtheim, op. cit., (AEL I), pp. 222–235. 37 ANET, p. 119; COS I, p. 461; B. Lewis, The Sargon Legend. A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero who was Exposed at Birth (ASOR Diss. Series 4), Cambridge MA 1980. 38 S. Smith, The Statue of Idrimi, London 1949; ANET, pp. 557–558. 35

36

chapter two

Reference must be made with respect to the giving of the law and the establishment of the covenant on Mount Sinai to Ancient Near Eastern treaties and legal codices. In 1955, Mendenhall pointed to the close literary aﬃnity between the Decalogue (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5) and Hittite civil treaties. In addition to an historical review of the king’s benefactions towards his vassal as well as the stipulations of the treaty, such treaties also contained blessing and curse formulations.39 We are familiar with similar texts from the Assyrian and West Semitic world.40 By way of example we oﬀer a portion of the treaty of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BCE), which he established with at least nine vassals for the beneﬁt of his son and future successor Ashurbanipal:41 (This is) the treaty which Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, has established with you before the great gods of heaven and earth, on behalf of the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal, the son of your lord Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, who has designated and appointed him for succession. When Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, departs from the living, you will seat the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal upon the royal throne, he will exercise kingship and overlordship of Assyria over you. (If ) you do not serve him in the open country and in the city, do not ﬁght and even die on his behalf, do not always speak the full truth to him, do not always advise him well in full loyalty, do not smooth his way in every respect; if you remove him, and seat in his stead one of his brothers, younger or older, on the throne of Assyria, if you change or let anyone change the decree of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, if you will not be subject to this crown prince designate Ashurnabipal, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord, so that he cannot exercise kingship and lordship over you (lines 41–61) . . . May Ashur, king of the gods, who determines the fates, decree for you an evil, unpropitious fate, and not grant you fatherhood, old age, . . . ripe old age. May Ninlil, his beloved wife, induce him to pronounce evil for you and may she not intercede for you. May Anu, king of the gods, rain upon all your houses disease, exhaustion, di’udisease, sleeplessness, worries, ill health. May Sin, the luminary of

39 G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh 1955. For Hittite civil treaties see V. Koro“ec, Hethische Staatsverträge. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung (Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien), Leipzig 1931. For examples see ANET, pp. 199–206, 529–530. 40 ANET, pp. 531–541; S. Parpola and K. Watanabe (eds.), Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Oaths (State Archives of Assyria 2), Helsinki 1988. 41 ANET, pp. 534–541; D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, London 1958; K. Watanabe, Die adê-Vereidigung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons (Baghdader Mitteilungen, Beiheft 3), Berlin 1987.

ancient israelite literature

37

heaven and earth, clothe you in leprosy and (thus) not permit you to enter the presence of god and king; roam the open country as a wild ass or gazelle! May Shamash, the light of heaven and earth, not give you a fair and equitable judgment, may he take away your eyesight; walk about in darkness! May Ninurta, leader of the gods, fell you with his ﬁerce arrow, and ﬁll the plain with your corpses, give your ﬂesh to eagles and vultures to feed upon. May Venus, the brightest among the stars, let your wives lie in the embrace of your enemy before your very eyes, may your sons not have authority over your house, may a foreign enemy divide your possessions (lines 414–430) . . . May all the gods who are named in this treaty tablet reduce your soil in size to be as narrow as a brick, turn your soil into iron, so that no one may cut a furrow in it. Just as rain does not fall from a copper sky, so may there come neither rain nor dew upon your ﬁelds and meadows, but let it rain burning coals in your land instead of dew (lines 526–532) . . .

More than a few scholars have endeavoured to establish associations between such treaty texts and the covenant texts found in Joshua 24, Exod. 19:3–8, Exod. 24:3–4a,742 and in the book of Deuteronomy.43 Most striking are the agreements between the cursing formulae of the Ancient Near Eastern civil treaties and those of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26.44 Among the legal codices which have been passed on to us from the Mesopotamian world,45 the Codex of Hammurabi46 dating from the eighteenth century BCE has perhaps become the most familiar. His collection of judgements, discovered on a pillar at Susa in 1910, represents an ideal rather than prevailing justice.47 The close kinship between the juridical stipulations and several of those found in the

42 See, for example, K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen 1960; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant. A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and the Old Testament (Analecta Biblica 21), Rome 1963. 43 Cf. R. Frankena, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy”, OTS 14 (1965), 122–154. 44 Cf. D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Biblica et Orientalia 16), Rome 1964. 45 ANET, pp. 159–198, 523–528. Cf. G. Driver and J. Miles, The Assyrian Laws, Oxford 1935 (reprint Aalen 1975); id., The Babylonian Laws, Oxford 1955; H. A. Brongers, Oud-Oosters en Bijbels recht, Nijkerk 1960; G. Cardascia, Les lois assyriens, Paris 1969. Cf. also H. R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna, Jerusalem-Leiden 19882. 46 Text and transcription in R. Borger, Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke I–III, Rome 1963. Translation: W. Eilers, Die Gesetzesstele Chammurabis (Der Alte Orient 31/III–IV), Leipzig 1932; ANET, pp. 163–180. 47 Cf. F. Kraus, “Ein zentrales Problem des altmesopotamischen Rechtes: was ist der Codex Hammurabi?”, Geneva 8 (1960), pp. 283ﬀ.

38

chapter two

book of the Covenant (Exodus 21–23) attracted immediate attention. While one should not speak of literary dependence between the book of the Covenant and the aforementioned codex, it is apparent, nevertheless, that daily life in Israel was based on a similar social and legal structure to that of its neighbours. Ritual texts from Ugarit and Mesopotamia sometimes shed light on religious customs referred to in the Old Testament. This is particularly the case with respect to the rituals surrounding the Great Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).48 The despatch of a scapegoat into the wilderness, for example, is already mentioned in texts from Ebla, dating from 2400 to 2300 BCE.49 The year of release (Sabbath, Deut. 15:1–11) and the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:10) would appear to have very ancient parallels in Mesopotamia.50 Extra-biblical data is likewise available for the period of the monarchy, although information concerning the later monarchy is more copious than that concerning the early monarchy. Illustrative with respect to the former is the inscription of pharaoh Shishak on the temple wall of Karnak in Southern Egypt, in which the pharaoh describes his victories in Canaan (cf. 1 Kgs 14:25–26).51 Assyrian campaign reports and annals52 frequently shed light on the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Of special interest in this regard are the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (858–824), Tiglath-pileser III (744–727),53 Sargon II (721–705), Sennacherib (704–681), Esarhaddon (680–669) and Ashurbanipal (668–633).54 To

48

Cf. B. Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals”, JCS 17 (1963), 105ﬀ. Cf. Ida Zatelli, “The Origin of the Biblical Scapegoat Ritual: The Evidence of Two Eblaite Texts”, VT 48 (1998), 254–263. 50 Cf. M. Weinfeld, Getting at the Roots of Wellhausen’s Understanding of the Law of Israel on the 100th Anniversary of the Prolegomena (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Report No. 14/79), pp. 35–38. 51 Cf. W. Albright, BASOR 153 (1953), 4–11; S. Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Jerusalem-Leiden 1984. 52 ANET, pp. 274–317; A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Records of the Ancient Near East) I. From the Beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi I, Wiesbaden 1972, II. From Tiglath-pileser I to Ashur-nasir-apli II, Wiesbaden 1976; id., Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5), Locust Valley NY 1975; id., Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies 3), Toronto 1975. The work of D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia I, Chicago 1925 (reprint New York 1968, 19752), II, Chicago 1927 (reprint New York 1968), is partly dated. 53 H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary, Jerusalem 1994. 54 Cf. ANET, pp. 276–301. 49

ancient israelite literature

39

give an example of the nature of these texts we quote a segment from Sennacherib’s report of his military campaign against Judah in 701 (cf. 2 Kings 18–19): As to Hezekiah of Judah, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of well-stamped (earth-)ramps, and battering-rams, brought (thus) near to (the walls), (combined with) the attack of foot soldiers, (using) mines, breeches as well as sapper work. I drove out (of them) 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered (them) booty. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthwork in order to molest those who were leaving his city’s gate. His towns which I had plundered I took away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Asdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Sillibel, king of Gaza . . .

Such inscriptions and annals are not infrequently of value for the establishment of dates. The same can be said for the fragments of the so-called “Babylonian Chronicle”55 that conﬁrm the keeping of a chronicle of the most important national events in Babylon from the middle of the second millennium BCE up to the Seleucid period. The chronicle in question sheds welcome light on the fall of Jerusalem under King Jehoiakin in 597 BCE. We will examine parallels between Ancient Israel’s prophetic, wisdom and psalmic literature and similar literary products of the Ancient Near East in chapters IX and X.

55

ANET, pp. 301ﬀ. See also D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 BC) in the British Museum, London 1956, reprint 1961; D. N. Freedman, “The Babylonian Chronicle”, BiAr 19 (1956), 50–60.

CHAPTER THREE

AUTHORS AND AUTHORSHIP

J. Begrich, “Sofer und Mazkir. Ein Beitrag zur inneren Geschichte des davidisch-salomonischen Grossreiches und des Königreiches Juda”, ZAW 58 (1940–1941), 1–29 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB 21), Munich 1964, pp. 67–98); S. N. Kramer, Schooldays, Philadelphia 1949; R. C. Dentan (ed.), The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, New Haven and London 1955, 19663; H. Brunner, Altägyptische Erziehung, Wiesbaden 1957; V. Burr, Bibliothekarische Notizen zum Alten Testament, Bonn 1969; J. P. J. Olivier, “Schools and Wisdom Literature”, JNSL 4 (1975), 49–60; B. Lang, “Schule und Unterricht im alten Israel”, in: M. Gilbert (ed.), La sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BEThL 51), Leuven 1979, pp. 186–201; A. Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël (OBO 39), Fribourg-Göttingen 1981; id., “Sagesse et écoles”, VT 34 (1984), 270–281; M. Haran, “BookScrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times”, JJS 33 (1982), 161–173; id., “More Concerning Book-Scrolls in Pre-Exilic Times”, JJS 35 (1984), 1–11; F. W. Golka, “Die israelitische Weisheitsschule oder ‘des Kaisers neue Kleider’”, VT 33 (1983), 257–270; J. L. Crenshaw, “Education in Ancient Israel”, JBL 104 (1985), 601–615; R. S. Hanson, “Ancient Scribes and Scripts and the Clues They Leave”, BiAr 48 (1985), 83–88; E. Lipi…ski, “Scribes d’Ugarit et de Jérusalem”, in: Scripta signa vocis (FS J. H. Hospers), Groningen 1986, pp. 143–154; id., “Royal and State Scribes in Ancient Jerusalem”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT 40), Leiden etc. 1988, pp. 157–164; M. Haran, “On the Diﬀusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel”, ibid., pp. 81–95; E. Puech, “Les écoles dans l’Israël préexilique: données épigraphiques”, ibid., pp. 189–203; W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy, Cambridge MA 1989; E. Wente, Letters from Ancient Egypt (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 1), Atlanta GA 1990; D. W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. A Socio-Archaeological Approach, Sheﬃeld 1991; Opleiding in het Oude Nabije Oosten, Phoenix 38/3 (1992), 6–50 (a series of articles in Dutch written by Th. P. van den Hout, J. J. Janssen, Th. J. H. Krispijn and M. Dijkstra); “Brieven uit het Oude Nabije Oosten”, Phoenix 39/3 (1993), 128–184 (with contributions from L. M. J. Zonhoven, M. Folmer, Th. P. J van den Holt and K. R. Veenhof ); S. Parpola (ed.), Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria 10), Helsinki 1993; P. Michalowski, Letters from Early Mesopotamia (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 3), Atlanta GA 1993; E. W. Heaton, The School Tradition of the Old Testament, Oxford 1994; J. M. Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 4), Atlanta GA 1994; Christine Schams, The Status

authors and authorship

41

and Functions of Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period ( JSP Suppl. Series 34), Sheﬃeld 1998.

As a rule, the identity of the authors of the various documents that have been passed on to us from the Ancient Semitic world is completely unknown. In a certain sense, the epistolary literature constitutes an exception in this regard. Letters usually begin with reference to the author(s) and the addressee(s): “Speak to N. N.: thus (says) N. N.”1 (often followed by some form of salutation,2 and then the contents of the message). It should be remembered, however, that the person sending the letter was not the author of the letter as such. In most instances letters were either dictated or the sender would tell his scribe what he wanted to see included in the letter. The scribe/secretary thus remained anonymous. In addition to writers of business documents, there were also copyists who duplicated existing texts in temple schools (referred to in the Mesopotamian world as “the house of tablets” [edubba]) side by side with their pupils who would have busied themselves with training exercises, writer-collectors who frequently codiﬁed orally transmitted traditions and independent authors whose work, while original, was frequently based on older material. Among the latter group special reference should be made to the writers of wisdom literature. We know more about the training of scribes in the Hittite, Egyptian and Mesopotamian world than we do about the scribes of Ancient Israel (cf. the survey in Phoenix 1992). The young man who, according to Judg. 8:14, oﬀered Gideon a list of the oﬃcials and elders of Succoth was evidently not just any young man but a fairly advanced pupil from a scribal school. Reference to the aforementioned list serves as evidence of the fact that young people were being trained as scribes in the earliest periods of Israel’s existence in line with its neighbouring nations. 1 Letters to a superior do not as a rule mention the recipient’s name; cf., for example, the El-Amarna Letter 103 ( J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln I, Leipzig 1915, reprint Aalen 1964, pp. 458–459): “to the king, my lord, my sun, thus [says] Rib-Addi, your servant: At the feet of my lord, my sun, I fall seven times seven times”. Cf. further the letters from scholars to the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal I (AOAT 5/1), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970): “to the king, my lord, your servant N. N.”. For the introductory formulae employed in Ancient Israelite letters see the examples provided in ch. I. 2 E. Salonen, Die Gruss- und Höﬂichkeitsformeln in babylonisch-assyrischen Briefen (Studia Orientalia 38), Helsinki 1967.

42

chapter three

Among the people of the Ancient Near Eastern world as a whole, the vast majority of whom were illiterate,3 the scribe was thus highly esteemed and belonged to the intellectual elite. Oﬃcial appointments such as that of “scribe” (sôfer) and “chancellor” (mazkîr) were introduced by David based on Egyptian examples. Although their speciﬁc task is diﬃcult to describe (cf. further Begrich 1940), the “scribe” apparently served as the private secretary of the king, writing his decrees and taking responsibility for their publication. With the help of his subordinates he also took care of diplomatic correspondence with foreign nations “in the secretary’s chamber” ( Jer. 36:12,20), supervised the monies donated to the temple on behalf of the state (2 Kgs 12:10, Hebr. 12:11; 2 Kgs 22:3,9) and served among the ministers who were responsible for negotiations with foreign emissaries (2 Kgs 18:18,37). Royal scribes are generally referred to by name in the Old Testament: Seraiah (2 Sam. 8:17; cf. also 2 Sam. 20:24; during the reign of King David), Elihoreph and Ahijah (1 Kgs 4:3; during the reign of King Solomon), Shebna (2 Kgs 18:18,37; Isa. 36:3,11,22; during the reign of King Hezekiah), Shaphan (2 Kgs 22:3ﬀ.; during the reign of King Josiah); Elishama ( Jer. 36:12,20; during the reign of King Jehoiakim); Jonathan ( Jer. 37:15,20; during the reign of King Zedekiah). Reference must also be made to the priestly scribes associated with the sanctuary who not only recorded cultic regulations but also ancient historical traditions and (sometimes self-penned) songs in line with their counterparts in Ancient Israel’s Umwelt. The Old Testament also provides evidence of the existence of private scribes who wrote down texts dictated by third parties ( Jer. 36:4; 45:1) or (at least during the time of the later kings) drafted juridical documents such as letters of divorce and deeds of purchase (cf. Jer. 32:10–14; Deut. 24:2; Isa. 50:1).

Many documents from the Ancient Near Eastern world contain colophons attached to the end of a text that contain information relevant to the document in question such as the identity of the patron who commissioned the copy, the scribe himself, the date of the copy etc.4 A good example of a colophon can be found in the Baal myth from Ugarit:5

3 A. Demsky, “On the Extent of Literacy in Ancient Israel”, in: A. Biran (ed.), Biblical Archaeology Today, Jerusalem 1985, pp. 349–353; I. M. Young, “Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence”, VT 48 (1998), 239–253. 4 Cf. H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (AOAT 2), Kevelaer/NeukirchenVluyn 1968. 5 Cf. W. W. Hallo, op. cit., p. 273.

authors and authorship

43

The scribe Ilimilku, the Shubbanite, Disciple of Attanu-purulini,6 who is chief of the priests, (and) chief of the cultic herdsmen; ta‘iyu-oﬃcial of Niqmaddu, (who is) king of Ugarit,7 lord (of ) YRGB, (and) master (of ) TRMN.

The poets responsible for major epic, historical and cultic texts are virtually never identiﬁed. While a few names are known to us from the Mesopotamian world, we cannot be certain if the individuals in question were secretaries or the independent authors of the texts with which they are associated. Scholars tend for the most part to opt for the former. One of the versions (the Middle Babylonian) of the frequently redrafted Gilgamesh Epic (see ch. II) is ascribed to Sinleqi-unnini, another (the Ninevite version from the time of Assurbanipal) to Nabu-zuqup-kena.8 The author of the so-called Babylonian Theodicy betrays his identity in an acrostic, formed by the initial letters of each strophe, which reads: “I, Saggil-kinam-ubbib, the priest of invocations, am a worshipper of God and the king”.9 The author of the Poem of Erra and Ishum10 (Kabti-ilani-Marduk) is likewise mentioned together with the report that the divinity revealed the poem to him at night and that he wrote it down in the morning without the addition or omission of a single line.11 The formulation of the text in question reveals that the collection of myths and traditions in Babylonia was considered to be a religious activity. This is in harmony with the fact that certain writings were ascribed to divine authorship.12

6

According to J. C. de Moor (An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit [Nisaba 16], Leiden etc. 1987, p. 99, n. 481), the fact that Ilimilku mentions his master’s name may suggest that the Baal myth had been transmitted orally up to that point. Ilimilku is also the writer of the Keret and Aqhat legends. 7 Niqmaddu II reigned over Ugarit from around 1365–1335 BCE. 8 Cf. F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl, Reallexikon der Assyrologie III (1968), p. 368; P. Garelli (ed.), Gilgames et sa légende (Cahiers du Groupe François-Thureau Dangin 1), Paris 1960. 9 Cf. W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford 1960, pp. 63–91. 10 Cf. COS I, pp. 404–416; P. F. Gössmann, Das Era-Epos, Würzburg z.j. (1956) and L. Cagni, L’epopea di Erra, Rome 1969 (English edition: id., The Poem of Erra, Malibu 1977). 11 According to R. Frankena (BiOr 14 (1957), 6), the lines in which this statement is made (V 42–44) were added at a later date. W. W. Hallo (IEJ 12 (1962), 13–26, esp. p. 15) considers the appeal to divine inspiration as an indication that Kabti had received the epic from an older authority. One might consider the possibility that he was the ﬁrst to write down an older oral tradition (Vriezen). 12 Cf. W. W. Hallo, op. cit., p. 16.

44

chapter three

Their sacred character points not only to the cultivation of such literature in temple circles, it also explains the highly traditionalistic bias that tended to govern the transmission of literary material. A number of fables have also survived from the Mesopotamian world, which identify the author or the person responsible for passing on the material.13 The stele of King Idrimi of Alalakh, found at Tell Atchana in Northern Syria, contains (as noted) an historical text in autobiographical style concerning the fortunes of the monarch.14 The conclusion to the text mentions the scribe Sharruwa over whom a blessing is pronounced.15 The king who commissioned the inscription apparently wanted to honour his secretary in this exceptional fashion. In principle, the image oﬀered to us by Egypt is no diﬀerent to that of ancient Mesopotamia. With the exception of the authors of “lessons in life” Egyptian literature, together with its plastic arts, is anonymous. The anonymous character of the literature of the Ancient Near East can be explained primarily on the basis of the fact that the culture of the time strove to preserve ancient forms and traditions. Writers and narrators were ﬁrst and foremost transmitters, expected to pass on what everyone had always and everywhere believed: they did not present themselves as individuals, intent on launching their own new ideas. This is most evident with respect to religious literature such as psalms and rituals, mythical narratives and incantation texts. In a fashion similar to our own liturgical texts, which contain elements drawn from centuries of tradition, such material remained unsigned and was so dependent on the tradition that reference to authorship was ultimately uncalled for. The poets responsible for the major epics were likewise aware of their debt to the tradition and tended to be regarded as collectors and publishers rather than creators of new texts. In saying this, however, we do not intend to deny that creative (or at least re-creative) minds lay behind certain songs and poetic compositions. The ﬁrst person inscriptions of Ancient Near Eastern monarchs were drafted by court scribes and elaborated as memoirs of the king himself. The name of the actual author thus remained unmentioned. 13 14 15

Cf. W. G. Lambert, op. cit., pp. 164 and 186. Cf. S. Smith, The Statue of Idrimi, London 1949. ANET, pp. 557–558.

authors and authorship

45

The fact that collections of proverbs from both Babylon and Egypt are often ascribed to speciﬁc men of letters can be explained to a degree on the basis of the individual contribution of the wise men in question and the high esteem in which they tended to be held by the royal court and the priesthood. The “master” was apparently something of a demi-god in the eyes of his pupils,16 a man highly respected by one and all.17 The “school” had a certain independence and authority beside the king and the priesthood,18 although it would have been involved with both and would have depended on the court for support.19 For a correct evaluation of the genesis and evolution of Old Testament documents, an understanding of the way texts were treated in the Ancient Near Eastern world is not unimportant. On the basis of material from a number of texts dating from several diﬀerent centuries, it is possible to establish in outline how documents tended to be revised and passed on. W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, for example, have shown with respect to the Myth of Atrahasis that the poem existed in several diﬀerent editions dating from the old to the new Babylonian periods. While the younger editions tended to follow the essentials of the ancient text, those responsible for its transmission were unrestrained in the way they dealt with certain turns of phrase and old formulations, even granting themselves the freedom to omit and rearrange material.20 The Gilgamesh Epic was subject to even more intense revision in the course of the centuries.21 One would be justiﬁed in asking whether the careful replication of speciﬁc texts or the revision thereof was (also) related to the literary genre in question (Atrahasis as divine myth, Gilgamesh as heroic epic). Whatever our response, it is evident that certain texts were later updated or actualised. In the Assyrian versions of the creation epic Enuma Elish, for example, the name of Marduk, the king of the Babylonian gods was replaced by Assur, the head of the Assyrian Pantheon. 16

Cf. J. J. A. van Dijk, La sagesse suméro-accadienne, Leiden 1953, p. 24. S. N. Kramer, “Schooldays”, JAOS 69 (1949), 199–215; C. J. Gadd, Teachers and Students in the Oldest Schools, London 1956. 18 Cf. J. J. A. van Dijk, op. cit., p. 22. 19 W. W. Hallo, op. cit., pp. 25ﬀ. 20 W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atrahasis. The Babylonian Story of the Flood, Oxford 1969, pp. 31–39. 21 Cf. A. Falkenstein and F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl in their article “Gilgamesh” in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie III. 17

46

chapter three

A similar tradition history would appear to have been at work with respect to the Old Testament. While it is reasonable to assume that certain documents remained virtually unchanged in the course of their transmission, it is equally clear that other texts were later revised and supplemented. The primary diﬀerence with literature stemming from Mesopotamia lies in the fact that our research into the writings of Ancient Israel does not have several editions of a particular text that can be dated sequentially according to script and language at its disposal in order to establish its evolution with any degree of accuracy. Although a limited number of parallel texts in the Old Testament can be shown to have evolved from the same original (cf. Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22; Psalm 14 and 53; several chapters from the books of Samuel/Kings and Chronicles), information is still lacking with respect to time and place of origin that we often do possess in the case of Mesopotamian sources. This fact constitutes a major handicap for our research into the literary evolution of Old Testament writings. Beyond stylistic and (oft disputed) content-based characteristics, we do not, as a rule, have much in the way of clear and undisputed data at our disposal. A further diﬀerence with respect to Mesopotamian and Egypt lies in the fact that the anonymous character of Old Testament wisdom literature remains intact. While a signiﬁcant amount of such material was later ascribed to Solomon, it clearly did not begin with him. Old Testament prophetic literature on the other hand tends to exhibit strong associations with a particular person in a manner unparalleled in similar literature of the Ancient Near East. One can conclude, therefore, that in the cultural and spiritual life of Mesopotamia and Egypt, school and wisdom was considered to be primary, while the cult together with prophetic revelation rooted in direct, personal contact with God tended to hold pride of place in Israel and to dominate its spiritual life. School and wisdom would indeed appear to have left their mark on the public life of Ancient Israel at a somewhat later stage in its history. In Jeremiah’s time, the sages together with the priests and the prophets formed an inﬂuential class (cf. Jer. 18:18). While charismatic ﬁgures ( judges, prophets) exercised signiﬁcant inﬂuence in Ancient Israel from the earliest stages of its history, it remains diﬃcult to determine the extent thereof. In line with Th. C. Vriezen (Hoofdlijnen der theologie van het Oude Testament, Wageningen 19663, p. 53) one should note that the Old Testament is limited for the most part to Ancient Israelite

authors and authorship

47

writings “from the bankrupt remains following the catastrophe of 587 that were able to withstand prophetic critique”. As a consequence, therefore, the Old Testament cannot simply be designated “the charter of Israelite religion”. Indeed, “a library of documents relating to Israelite religion or a collection of traditions would have had a quite diﬀerent appearance”. As such, therefore, the Old Testament is dominated by prophetic witness and oﬀers us a rather one-sided historical image of Ancient Israel’s religious past. In fact, the cult and the recitation of God’s salviﬁc deeds and commandments in the sanctuaries will have had a signiﬁcant role to play and will have been determinative of the spiritual life of the average Israelite (cf. Amos 4:4–5; 5:5 and Psalms 50, 80 and 81).

In any event, we can be fairly certain that, with a few late exceptions (e.g. Baruch’s portrayal of the life of Jeremiah and the memoirs of Nehemiah), the authors of Israel’s historical and poetic literature remain unknown. As a rule, therefore, the author tended to fade into the background, hiding in the shadow of the material he produced, and not only in the case of those who considered themselves in service of the temple (such as the Chronist, the author of the books of Chronicles). It is unnecessary to insist that the authors of the historical books of the Old Testament served at the royal court or were associated with one or other sanctuary. Their work ought better to be understood as independent of monarchy and cult, as an autonomous and critically written trajectory that judged Israel’s ancient history in the spirit of the prophets and in the light of the relationship established by God with his people. While it is fair to suggest that the royal court had scribes in its service prior to the exilic period, it is probable that they were responsible for the annals which served as a source for the authors of the books of Samuel and Kings, a few specimens of which have survived to the present day (cf. 2 Samuel 8). In the endeavour to reconstruct the literary history of the Old Testament, scholars have tried to distinguish the authors of the ancient historical books from one another on the basis of style and religiohistorical tendencies. In so doing, recourse was made to abbreviations (sigla). The presumed authors of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) were thus designated with the letters J, E, D and P (abbreviations for Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomy and the Priestly Codex; see further ch. VIII). It has become increasingly evident, however, that the “source texts” delimited along these lines are not uniform in the literary sense. It is apparent that a variety of authors were responsible

chapter three

48

for these respective works and others continued and supplemented them at a later date. It is striking that the songs included in the book of Psalms, for example, are ascribed as a rule to speciﬁc poets, especially King David. This manner of identifying an author is unique in the Ancient Near Eastern world. It is perhaps best explained by the custom of ascribing certain literary works to important ﬁgures from the past, a tendency which is keenly evident with respect to later Jewish writings. While uncertainty concerning the authors of large segments of the Old Testament tends to be the rule, the prophetic literature (as we already noted) contained therein forms an exception in various respects. Although it remains impossible to identify the direct author of such material, i.e. the collector-publisher thereof, we do possess information concerning the original ﬁgure behind its content. The book of Jeremiah remains the only work of which the name of the prophet to whom the book is ascribed and the collector-publisher thereof are known to us: Jeremiah’s friend and secretary Baruch (cf. Jer. 36:32). The autobiographical style encountered in several of the prophetic works (e.g. the Denkschrift of Isaiah 6:1–8:18, Hosea’s report of his marital life [Hosea 3], the visions of Amos [7:1–9; 8:1–3; 9:1–6]), leads us to suspect that the segments in question were written either by the prophet himself or drafted by a secretary in his service. One cannot exclude the possibility, however, that a particular prophet may have been directly responsible for writing down part of, or indeed the entirety of his message (cf. for example, Nahum). In any event, it is clear from the information we have at our disposal that the classical prophets played a pronounced personal role based on their divine vocation and not on the authority of the temple or the royal court. It is in the prophetic literature that the unique character of Ancient Israel’s writings is most evident. While the Egyptian tradition contains a number of prophecies in which the original speaker is mentioned by name,22 these cannot be compared in terms of quantity or quality with Ancient Israel’s prophetic literature. The personal element evidently played a much more signiﬁcant role in Ancient Israel’s culture and religion than was the case elsewhere in the Ancient Near Eastern world, a fact which can be ascribed to

22

Cf. ANET, pp. 441ﬀ.

authors and authorship

49

Israel’s religion and its immediate appeal to the entire person of the believer in his or her religio-ethical existence. The study of Old Testament literature, therefore, obliges us to distinguish between three levels of publishing activity: a) authors in the sense of autonomous writers such as the author of the history of Saul and David and the prophetic author of an autobiographical report; b) collectors-publishers who revised and actualised existing writings and placed them in a diﬀerent light; c) redactors who combined existing writings while adding their own textual segments in the process. The activities of these three groups cannot always be strictly distinguished from one another. Our capacity to discern the evolution of a text together with the authors who may have contributed thereto is based for the most part on questions of style and content. As such, therefore, all our attempts at reconstruction remain decidedly hypothetical. As we already noted, we can only make conditional use of stylistic criteria since Ancient Near Eastern authors tend as a rule to be part of a process. Our evaluation of (religio-)historical information is not infrequently subject to circular argumentation. One only has to examine a few scientiﬁc commentaries on one or other prophetic document to realise the extent to which scholars diﬀer in ascribing portions thereof to the person of the prophet in question. In other words, whatever the biblical book one is studying, the establishment of a boundary between authentic utterances and later interpolations remains a formidably diﬃcult task. The work of the copyists who reproduced the sacred books at a later date cannot be distinguished with watertight certainty from the various levels of authorship outlined above. While copyists as a rule tended to follow their Vorlagen as carefully as possible, they often aﬀorded themselves the freedom to emend or add to the text they had before them. This partly explains why we have such a variety of textual recensions at our disposal (see, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, further in ch. XIV). We will be obliged to return to this subject in ch. V.

B. THE OLD TESTAMENT (HEBREW BIBLE)

CHAPTER FOUR

THE OLD TESTAMENT AS CANON

The question of the structure of canon can only follow upon the question of the function of canon ( J. A. Sanders) G. Wildeboer, Het ontstaan van den kanon des Ouden Verbonds. Historisch-kritisch onderzoek, Groningen 19084; E. König, Kanon. und Apokryphen, Gütersloh 1917; J. Hänel, Der Schriftbegriﬀ Jesu. Studie zur Kanongeschichte und religiösen Bewertung des Alten Testaments (BFchTh 24. 5/6), Gütersloh 1919; H. Bornkamm, Luther und das Alte Testament, Tübingen 1948; G. Östborn, Cult and Canon. A Study in the Canonization of the Old Testament (UUÅ 1950, 10), Uppsala 1950; P. Katz, “The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria”, ZNW 47 (1956), 191–217; E. Flesseman-van Leer, “Prinzipien der Sammlung und Ausscheidung bei der Bildung des Kanons”, ZThK 61 (1964), 404–420; A. C. Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church (HThS 20), Cambridge, Mass. and London 1964; J. L. Koole, “Die Bibel des Ben-Sira”, OTS 14 (1965), 374–396; H. van Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tübingen 1968; J. C. H. Lebram, “Aspekte der alttestamentlichen Kanonbildung”, VT 18 (1968), 173–189; G. W. Anderson, “Canonical and Non-Canonical”, in: P. R. Ackroyd and C. E. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume I: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970, pp. 113–159; J. A. Sanders, Torah and Canon, Philadelphia 1972; id., “Torah and Canon: Concepts and Method”, JBL 98 (1979), 5–29; id., From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm, Philadelphia 1987; R. Meyer, “Bemerkungen zum literargeschichtlichen Hintergrund der Kanontheorie von Josephus”, in: O. Betz e.a. (eds.), Josephusstudien (FS O. Michel), Göttingen 1974, pp. 285– 299; S. Z. Leiman (ed.), The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible. An Introductory Reader, New York 1974; id., The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, Hamden 1976; E. Jacob, “Principe canonique et formation de l’Ancien Testament”, Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT 28), Leiden 1975, pp. 101–122; P. Schäfer, “Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne”, Judaica 31 (1975), 54–64, 116–124 (= id., Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums (AGAJU 15), Leiden 1978, pp. 45–64); S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: the Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, Hamden CT 1976; J. L. Koole, “Die Gestaltung des alttestamentlichen Kanons”, GTT 77 (1977), 224–238; J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon. A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins, Notre Dame 1977; G. W. Coats and O. L. Burke (eds.), Canon and Authority. Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia 1977; G. Stemberger, “Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne und das frühe Christentum”, Kairos 19 (1977), 14–21; B. S. Childs, “The Exegetical Signiﬁcance of Canon for the Study of the

54

chapter four

Old Testament”, Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (SVT 29), Leiden 1978, pp. 66–80; id., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia 1979 (cf. the reactions to this volume in JSOT 16 (1980), 2–60); A. Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël (OBO 39), Fribourg CH/ Göttingen 1981; J. Barr, Holy Scripture. Canon, Authority, Criticism, Oxford 1983; J. L. Koole, “Het Oude Testament als heilige Schrift”, in: A. S. van der Woude e.a. (eds), Bijbels Handboek IIB, Kampen 1983, pp. 192–246; J. D. Kaestli et O. Wermelinger (eds.), Le canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire, Geneva 1984; I. Baldermann e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons ( JBTh 3), Neukirchen 1988; R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids MI 1985; id., “Formation of the Hebrew Bible”, in M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra (CRINT II/1), Assen and Philadelphia 1988, pp. 39 –86; G. Veltri, “Zur traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung des Bewußtseins von einem Kanon: die Yavneh-Frage”, JSJ 21 (1990), 210–226; O. H. Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (BThS 17), Neukirchen 1991; D. G. Dunbar, “The Biblical Canon”, in: D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, Grand Rapids 1995, pp. 295–360; A. van der Kooij, “De canonvorming van de Hebreeuwse bijbel, het Oude Testament. Een overzicht van recente literatuur”, NTT 49 (1995), 42–65; P. M. Venter, Wat beteken ‘kanon’ vandag?, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 54 (1998), 505–528; K. D. Jenner, G. A. Wiegers (red.), Heilig boek en religieus gezag. Ontstaan en functioneren van canonieke tradities (Leidse studiën van de godsgienst, deel 2), Kampen 1998.

With the exception of a number of segments written in Aramaic,1 the Hebrew Bible passed on to us by the tradition consists of 39 books that can be divided in three groups: a) the Torah (the Law): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; b) the Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings; and the Latter Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; c) the Writings, also known as Hagiographa: Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles.

1 The Aramaic segments of the Old Testament are restricted to Jer. 10:11; Ezra 4:8–6:18, 7:12–26; Dan. 2:4b–7:28.

the old testament as canon

55

With the exception of the Torah, the Septuagint and the Vulgate (for more on these translations of the Old Testament see the following chapter) present the above mentioned books in a diﬀerent order and also contain a number of other books referred to by Jerome as the Apocrypha (see the end of the present chapter). The latter were not accorded the same canonical status as the books of the Hebrew Bible as such. Rejected by rabbinic Judaism, these books were granted the status of foundational literature by many members of the early Christian church, although not without varying degrees of hesitation and caution (full details can be found in M. Hengel, Die Septuaginta als “christliche Schriftensammlung”, in: id. and Anna Maria Schwemer, Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT 72), Tübingen 1994, pp. 182–284). It has often been thought that the Septuagint, sometimes referred to as the so-called Alexandrine canon, represented the collection of authoritative books maintained by the Jewish-Hellenistic diaspora. Katz (1956) and Sundberg (1964) have rightly shown, however, that such a hypothesis raises a number of problems. Our familiarity with this collection of documents is based exclusively on information provided by Christian sources dating from the second century CE (which also exhibit further variations in their enumeration of the books in question) A number of books, moreover, which are represented in the Septuagint but excluded from the Hebrew canon, would appear to be based on a Semitic original written in Palestine, a number of which seem to have enjoyed considerable prominence and respect within the broad circles of the Judaism of the day (e.g. Jesus Sirach and 1 Maccabees). The origin of the Christian canon of the Septuagint should, therefore, be located primarily in Palestine rather than in Alexandria. Together with its adoption of the Hebrew canon, the early Christian community apparently made an independent selection from the alternative Jewish writings at its disposal (Sundberg 1964, p. 82). Why the Septuagint contains a number of apocryphal books (to be treated in chapter XII) and not other Jewish books, such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, remains something of a mystery.

The expression “Old Testament” is of Christian origin and is borrowed from 2 Cor. 3:14. In the middle of the second century CE, Melito of Sardis made reference to “the books of the Old Covenant” (cf. Eusebius, History of the Church IV 26,13–14), while Clement of Alexandria spoke of the “Old and New Covenant” around 200 CE (Stromata V 85,1). Together with Paul, Christians considered themselves participants in the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus (cf. Jer. 31:31; Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25) and thus applied the expression “Old Covenant/Testament” to the collection of books they had inherited from Judaism (including the apocryphal books).

56

chapter four

The term “testament” is taken from the Latin testamentum, which serves in the Vetus Latina (the Old Latin translation related to the Septuagint, see chapter V) as the translation of the Greek term diathèkè, which in turn represents the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew concept berît (covenant). As a rule, the terms testamentum and diathèkè refer to a last will (and testament).2 Aquila and Symmachus (see chapter V), therefore, employed the Greek term synthèkè (covenant in the sense of agreement/treaty) for the Hebrew berît. In line with this, Jerome translated berît in the Vulgate as foedus (covenant) or pactum (agreement/treaty). These terms suﬀer from the disadvantage that they tend to place the accent on a two-sided agreement rather than on the unilateral character of the covenant established by God represented by the concepts diathèkè and testamentum. While it would be better to speak of the books of the Old and New Covenant in the sense of berît, the term Testament has become so commonplace that its use is virtually unavoidable. The designations “Old and New Covenant/Testament” have given rise to a shift in meaning from idea of the allocation of salvation to that of the charter of the covenant. This shift in meaning, however, is already to be found in Paul (2 Cor. 3:14) and is in fact a minor shift since the charter in which the covenant was set out had a unique role to play in the establishment of the covenant as such (Koole 1983, p. 201). The terminology “Old and New Covenant/Testament” suggests that both segments of the Christian Bible are to be seen as a unity: the Old Testament as witness to the God of Israel and Israel as the people of God, the New Testament as a collection witnessing to Jesus Christ as Son of the same God. The word “old” should thus be understood in terms of seniority: as “worthy of reverence”, rather than “obsolete” (as “ancien”,3 rather than “vieux”). In recent decades, some have preferred to employ the terms “First” and “Second Testament” instead of Old and New Testament in order to express the idea that the second is fundamentally based on the ﬁrst. Given Heb. 8:13 and the quotation from Jer. 31:31–34 that precedes it, the suggestion that this terminology should be considered more biblical than “Old” and “New Testament” on account of Heb. 9:1, 15, 18 is open to question. The author of the letter to the Hebrews employed “the ﬁrst covenant” in the sense of the allocation of salvation (not of books) and stated that this was obsolete and out of date (8:13). Where the New Testament refers to the Old Testament as Scripture it employs the expression “Old Covenant” (2 Cor. 3:14). An additional objection to the use of the terminology “First” and “Second Testament” stems from the fact that no single ecclesial tradition supports it. The terminology as such is rooted in modern Jewish-Christian

2

In Aristophanes (Aves 440f.), however, we encounter the meaning “agreement, treaty”. 3 The expression Ancien Testament is employed in French.

the old testament as canon

57

dialogue and reﬂects a particular theological perspective on the relationship between the Old and the New Testament.4 The expression “Hebrew Bible” is chosen in order to distinguish between the books that (besides the segments passed on to us in Aramaic) have come down to us in Hebrew and the apocryphal books that have been transmitted in Greek in the Septuagint and in Latin in the Vulgate. In line with the Protestant tradition, the present volume will employ the designation “Old Testament” for the books of the Hebrew Bible.

Before the expression “Old Testament” became customary in Christian circles, Israel’s sacred writings were referred to as “the Law and the Prophets” (Mt. 5:17; Lk. 16:16) or “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Lk. 24:44), or in abbreviated form as “the Law” ( Jn. 12:34; 1 Cor. 14:21), or “the Scripture” (Gal. 3:8, 22) or “the (sacred) Scriptures” (Rom. 1:2; 2 Tim. 3:15; Lk. 24:27; Act. 17:2, 11). In the second century BCE, the grandson of Jesus Sirach spoke of “the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our forefathers” ( Jesus Sirach: prologue; see further chapter XII). Since the middle ages, Jewish circles have employed the term miqra (“reading”, referring to the recitation of the Scriptures in the presence of the assembled community) as well as the artiﬁcial term TNK (Tenak), an acronym for Torah (Law), Nebî "îm (Prophets) and Ketubîm (Writings) for the three main divisions of the Hebrew Bible. As will already be apparent from the word “bible” itself, which is borrowed from the Greek term biblia (books), the Old Testament (as the New) constitutes a collection of writings dating from a variety of diﬀerent periods and of diverse origins. It should be noted, however, that this “library” of books is not the result of a sort of arbitrary selection from among the literary works of Ancient Israel: the Old Testament contains those writings that were maintained as authoritative for the particular identity and life praxis of the leading Jewish circles in Jerusalem and Babylon after the Babylonian exile. The concept canon is borrowed from the Greek in which it means, among other things, “reed staﬀ ” as well as the ﬁgurative “measuring

4 The designation “second testament” tends to place the emphasis on the conﬁrmation of the ﬁrst covenant by the second and the extension of the group addressed by the ﬁrst covenant (Israel) to non-Jews. Such usage, however, pays insuﬃcient terminological attention to the new and critical elements raised by Christ’s revelation with respect to the old distribution (cf. Hebr. 8:13) and the normativity of the new covenant is aﬀorded insuﬃcient accent (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14–16).

58

chapter four

stick” or criterium, norm, law or rule (cf. Gal. 6:16). A canonical book is a document that is accepted by a particular community as authoritative for its religious practise and teaching, whereby the said authority is binding for all generations. It is intended for both private and public study and interpretation (Leiman 1976, p. 14). In the biblical sciences, the concept ‘canon(ical)’ is employed for books that are considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired as well as (in the stricter sense of the term) for a list of biblical books determined as a deﬁnitively closed and deﬁned collection. Barr (1983) and Ulrich (1992) are of the opinion that one can only speak of a canon (in the latter sense of the term) with respect to the Hebrew Bible from the second century CE. Sanders (1987) draws attention to the fact that the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) only evolved from a sacred narrative into a sacred and standardised text at the end of the ﬁrst century CE. In the opinion of the present author, however, there are indications that the deﬁnitive canonisation of the Hebrew Bible in the stricter sense of the term had already taken place among the Pharisees prior to the Common Era (Van der Woude 1992). It should be noted, nevertheless, that divergent canonical collections existed side by side within early Judaism. The Sadducees, for example, only considered the Pentateuch and possibly the book of Job (ascribed to Moses) as authoritative (cf. b. Baba bathra, fol. 14b), while the Essenes would appear to have ascribed authority to a large number of writings outside the Hebrew Bible (in particular 1 Enoch and Jubilees), although they evidently did not ascribe canonical status to the book of Esther. Among the books that ultimately did not ﬁnd their way into the Old Testament canon there will undoubtedly have been documents that were considered sacred in certain Ancient Israelite circles at one time or another. The literature surrounding the temples at Bethel and Dan, for example, should be considered as such together with the writings of the prophets whose principled and unconditional proclamations of salvation (cf. Jer. 8:11) would have been left dated by the fall of the southern kingdom.

As representatives of the community of Israel, the leading Jewish clergy only accepted those documents as canonical that were already considered to be authoritative. There was evidently an ongoing interchange between the authoritative book and the faith community that established the list of authoritative books and styled it as a canon.

the old testament as canon

59

In terms of content, primary consideration should be given in this regard to the literature that survived in the presence of prophetic critique among the assets remaining after the catastrophe of 587 (the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Solomonic temple) together with the witness of those pre-exilic prophets whose preaching was proved valid at the time in contrast to that of the so-called “false prophets”. Included among these sacred books were the writings of exilic and post-exilic prophets who built upon the preaching of their pre-exilic predecessors as well as the Psalms and the Wisdom books that, together with a number of other documents, can be described for the most part as a response on the part of faithful Israel to the revelation granted to the people. The literature accepted as enjoying spiritual authority, therefore, can be summarised as follows: a) everything that could claim to have its roots in what appeared to be reliable priestly torah (instruction) or its equivalent: legal texts that enjoyed normative value in the community and/or the sanctuary in Jerusalem; b) everything that could claim to have its roots in what appeared to be reliable prophetic revelation; not only the prophecies as such but also the historical books that were written in a criticalprophetic spirit; c) the songs employed in the cult as a response to and in interaction with divine revelation (Psalms; cf. also Lamentations); d) Wisdom literature, since Israel, together with the rest of the Ancient Near East, considered Wisdom in general to be divinely inspired. The two latter categories enjoyed a more or less secondary signiﬁcance and were thus included among the Writings (the Ketubîm). The canonisation of the books of the Old Testament does not rest upon the authority of an assembly or another instance at a particular moment in time but is the result rather of a centuries long process, which took place in various stages and ultimately led to a standardised text. This process can only be reproduced in terms of its primary characteristics. Its beginning is actually impossible to determine. Its concluding phase is often associated with the so-called synod of Jamnia ( Javne) that is said to have taken place around the end of the ﬁrst century CE. It is maintained that the rabbis came to a ﬁnal decision during the synod as to whether the Song of Songs and Qoheleth “soil the hands” (meaning

60

chapter four

most likely: enjoyed canonical status), cf. Mishna Yadayim 3:5.5 Recent studies have shown, however, that such a “synod” never took place (cf. Schäfer 1975; Stemberger 1977). Moreover, it appears that at the end of the ﬁrst century CE the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and the author of 4 Ezra were familiar with the same number of canonical books as we now ﬁnd in the Hebrew Bible. While debate raged from time to time as to whether a particular book or books of the Hebrew Bible deserved a place in the canon, it would appear to be the case that the present extent thereof must have been already established around the beginning of the common era among Pharisaic circles, the Jewish religious movement that was to survive the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.6 Around the year 95 CE, Flavius Josephus wrote in his apologetic work Contra Apionem I,37–437 that the prophets had acquired their knowledge of the past by divine revelation and of their own time by careful observation. Of these 22 books, ﬁve stem from Moses and contain the laws and history of humanity up to his death. In thirteen other books, the prophets depicted history from Moses up to and including the Persian ruler Artaxerxes I (465–424 BCE). The remaining four books contain hymns addressed to God and instruction for human existence. While history was also depicted after Artaxerxes I, the documents which narrate it do not enjoy the same plausibility because they cannot lay claim to strict prophetic succession. For

5 Although not entirely clear in every respect, the expression evidently has concrete sacramental signiﬁcance in the sense that the sacred is “infectious”. Leiman (1976) is of the opinion that the expression “soil the hands” had to do with a book’s inspired character and not with its canonical status. 6 It is for this reason that the frequently defended thesis that the deﬁnitive closure of the canon was accelerated by the emergence and spread of Christianity together with the dangers associated with various sorts of apocalyptic and adventistic movements is open to discussion. The observation that the Law and the Prophets were already canonised in pre-Christian times, that Christians maintained the so-called Pharisaic canon (together with the apocryphal books) and that the youngest book of the Old Testament to ﬁnd its way into the canon exhibited explicitly apocalyptic features (Daniel), all serve to undermine the said thesis. It is more likely that the existing Pharisaic canon became normative for Judaism as a whole after 70 CE. Rather than turning against emerging Christianity and apocalyptic inﬂuence, the Pharisaic canon tended on the one hand to oppose the Sadducees, who only considered the Torah (and possibly Job) to be authoritative, and on the other to oppose factions such as that associated with Qumran, a great many of whom held documents to be sacred that were later designated apocryphal or pseudepigraphal. Data relevant to the textual history of the Old Testament tends to support this hypothesis (see the following chapter). 7 For a modern Dutch translation see F. J. A. M. Meijer and M. A. Wes, Tegen de Grieken [Contra Apionem], Amsterdam-Leuven 1999, pp. 113–114.

the old testament as canon

61

Josephus, therefore, Ezra is the last of the prophets. The number 22 (agreeing with the number of consonants in the Hebrew alphabet) was apparently achieved on the basis of the fact that the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles together with the Minor Prophets were considered to be one document while the book of Ruth was taken together with Judges and Lamentations together with Jeremiah. The four last books evidently refer to the Psalms, the Song of Songs, Proverbs and Qoheleth ascribed to David and Solomon respectively. Josephus was thus already familiar with a threefold division of the Old Testament, albeit in a diﬀerent order (with the exception of the Pentateuch) to that found in the Hebrew Bible of today. This order, however, is apparently not older than the present order (Mt. 23:35 already suggests that Chronicles was the last book of the canon), but has its roots in the character of Josephus’ historical work that focused initially on the historical books and thereafter on the remaining material. Stemming from more or less the same period as that of Josephus’ reference to the sacred books of the Jews, 4 Esdras 14 (see further chapter XIII) tells the story of Ezra who dictated 94 books to ﬁve men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit over a period of forty days after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. 24 of these books were accessible to everyone while the remaining seventy were preserved for the wise. The said 24 books evidently referred to the Hebrew Bible, whereby Samuel, Kings, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles were counted respectively as a single book. As 2 × 12, the number 24 apparently refers to the twelve months of the year or the twelve tribes of Israel and is achieved by counting Ruth and Lamentations as separate books.

Not counting the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) and the Former Prophets ( Joshua to 2 Kings, with the exception of Ruth), the order of which can be determined on the basis of content, the arrangement of the remaining Old Testament writings varied for a considerable period of time. This was due, in part, to the fact that a book tended as a rule to be conﬁned to a single scroll and that scrolls could be arranged and classiﬁed diﬀerently. The order of books in the Septuagint varies considerably from that of the Hebrew Bible. This was probably due, however, to Christian intervention: by placing the prophets at the end, their role in predicting the coming of the Messiah became all the more explicit. In the tractate Baba Bathra fol. 14b, which belongs to the Babylonian Talmud, we ﬁnd the sequence Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Twelve Minor Prophets, together with Ruth, the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Qoheleth, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. In the Codex Leningradensis (see the following chapter), Chronicles is located at the beginning of the Writings. In his prologus galeatus to 1–4 Kings (= Samuel and Kings) in the Vulgate, Jerome provides the following order of books: the ﬁve books of

62

chapter four

Moses (Genesis-Deuteronomy); the Prophets, whereby Ruth is located after Judges and Lamentations forms part of Jeremiah; the Writings (Hagiographa): following Job, the Psalms of David, Proverbs, Qoheleth, the Song of Songs (books ascribed to Solomon), Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther. The not infrequently geographical diﬀerences in the order of the individual books of the Writings, often determined by particular ( Jewish) schools, was later discontinued, at least for the most part, on account of the fact that the scrolls read in the synagogue during major feasts (the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Qoheleth, Esther; see further chapter X) tended to be placed together, albeit initially in a variety of diﬀerent sequences.

Valuable information concerning the canonisation process is to be found in Jesus Sirach (around 180 BCE). It would appear from his “Praise of the Fathers” ( Jesus Sirach 44–49) that the author was familiar with the Law of Moses (Genesis-Deuteronomy), the Former ( Joshua-Kings) and Latter Prophets (Isaiah-Malachi), the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ezra and Nehemiah. Jesus Sirach’s grandson speaks accordingly of “the Law, the prophets and the other books of our fathers” in his Greek translation of his grandfather’s work, thereby indicating that the threefold division of the canon was already a fact in the second century BCE and further suggesting that both the Law and the Prophets enjoyed canonical status at that time. The third division would appear not to have acquired a name at this juncture, however, indicating in turn that it was not yet closed. The fact that book of Daniel only came into existence, at least in its ﬁnal redaction, a number of decades later (165 BCE) thus explains its absence from Jesus Sirach’s list. 4QMMT, a text found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dating from the second half of the second century BCE (see further chapter XIV), oﬀers a similar picture to that of Jesus Sirach, referring to “the book of Moses (and) the writi(ngs of the pro)phets and of Davi(d . . . the annals of ) every generation” (C 10–11).8 The fact that the Law of Moses (Torah) was translated into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (284–247 BCE), conﬁrms the suggestion that it must already have enjoyed canonical authority for a signiﬁcant time prior to the third century BCE. The nature of this translation, however, is the subject of dispute. If, in line with

8 Cf. F. García Martínez and A. S. van der Woude, De rollen van de Dode Zee ingeleid en in het Nederlands vertaald I, Kampen-Tielt 1994, p. 131.

the old testament as canon

63

the narrative found in the letter of Aristeas (see further chapter XIII), the initiative to make the translation came from a non-Jewish source with the intention of making the Jewish patriarchal laws accessible in Greek, then one need not assume that the Pentateuch alone enjoyed canonical authority at the time. There is much to be said for the suggestion that the writings of the (Former and Latter) Prophets were also considered to be canonical literature side by side with the Pentateuch at this juncture in history. In addition to the above-mentioned data, we also have to rely on reconstructions based on the results of literary and historical-critical research in our endeavour to sketch the various stages in the process of canonisation. Scholars tend to give priority to the destruction of the temple of Solomon in 587 BCE as the initial phase of the process. This event gave rise to a desire to collect the sacred books together and to establish traditions familiar to the priests and wise men. Forty years earlier, however, 2 Kgs 23:3 informs us that King Josiah and the people of Jerusalem and Judah had already accepted the book of the covenant (see further chapter VIII under Deuteronomy) found in the temple as authoritative Scripture (cf. also Deut. 31:24–26). In any event, we can presume that the destruction of the Solomonic temple and the Babylonian exile must have accelerated the deﬁnitive establishment of ancient temple traditions, prophetic utterances and classical witnesses relating to Israel’s history. The catastrophe that confronted Jerusalem and Judah at the time must, of necessity, have led to a reconsideration of the religious tradition and would have promoted its ultimate codiﬁcation as a support to the identity of the people of God that had lost its national independence. A good example thereof is Israel’s historical opus stretching from Genesis to Kings with its core in Deuteronomy that acquired its more or less ﬁnal form during the Babylonian exile based on numerous already existing documents (see further chapter VIII). It is diﬃcult to draw an exact line between the beginning of the process of collection of classical books, which had already been underway for a considerable time before the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, and their canonisation in the sense that they came to determine the identity of Israel and became binding for faith and life as a whole. One indication in support of an early collection can be found in the reference in Prov. 25:1 to the fact that “proverbs of Solomon” were collected during the reign of Hezekiah. The same can be said for certain prophetic utterances to say nothing of the documents relating Israel’s history and laws that had already come into

64

chapter four

existence centuries before (see further chapter VIII). Such literary activity might be considered the initial stages of preparation for later canonisation.

A greater degree of certainty is provided by the witness of Neh. 8:1–13,19 in which we are told that the scribe Ezra read in Jerusalem (458 BCE) from the “law book of Moses” that he had brought with him from Babylon. We can be virtually certain that this document refers to the Pentateuch (see further chapter X under Ezra-Nehemiah), which must already have had the same form then as it has now. Even if one were to call the identiﬁcation of Ezra’s law book with the Pentateuch into question, however, one would still be obliged to observe that the books it contained had been ascribed canonical signiﬁcance at least in the fourth century BCE. The process that led to the canonisation of the prophetic books must likewise have begun during the Babylonian exile. On account of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, the prophecies of the pre-exilic ‘writing prophets’, to which little attention had been paid while they were alive, came to be recognised as the word of God. Shortly after the end of the Babylonian exile, the prophet Zechariah speaks with respect of the “former prophets” (Zech. 1:4), whose writings were apparently familiar to him. The ﬁnal canonisation of the prophetic books in their entirety, however, must have taken place at a later date, given the fact that some of them stem from the ﬁfth or fourth century BCE (Malachi, Deutero-Zechariah, Jonah and [at least in its ﬁnal form] Joel). While the conclusion of the canonisation process of these documents remains unknown (possibly between 350 and 250), it must be dated at least prior to the ﬁrst half of the second century BCE at which time Jesus Sirach clearly considered Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel together with the Twelve Minor Prophets to be sacred documents. As we already noted, one cannot exclude the possibility that the books of the (Former and Latter) Prophets were accepted as authoritative at the same time as the Torah was ascribed canonical authority. The established expression “the Law and the Prophets” certainly points in this direction. The frequently accepted thesis that the formation of the canon took place in three stages: (the Pentateuch during the time of Ezra; the Prophets prior to 200 BCE; the Writings around 100 BCE) is far from certain. The third series of books in the Hebrew Bible, the Ketubîm (the Writings), was collected together for the most part during the late post-exilic period, the largest portion thereof stemming from the cen-

the old testament as canon

65

turies following the Babylonian exile. We have already pointed out above that the deﬁnitive establishment of this third part of the canon of the Old Testament was only concluded shortly before the beginning of the Common Era and speciﬁcally within Pharisaic circles. The fact that certain documents were taken as authoritative in the period immediately prior to the beginning of the Common Era does not yet imply that the texts of the books in question were passed on unaltered (certainly not for every group within Judaism). Even with respect to the Law (Torah) one is obliged to account for an (albeit limited) number of later interpolations and elaborations. For a signiﬁcant period of time, no sharp dividing line was drawn between the transmitted text and commentary added at a later date. We will be obliged to return to this question in our treatment of the textual transmission of the Old Testament (see the following chapter). The collection and canonisation of the writings of the Old Testament was largely inspired and typiﬁed by a single intellectual/spiritual current within the people of Israel, namely that of those who had remained faithful to yhwh before, during and after the Babylonian exile. It is for this reason that the Old Testament has the character of a typical orthodox Yahwistic collection. The aforementioned intellectual/spiritual current was not limited to that of the priesthood in Jerusalem; the prophetic element also clearly played a signiﬁcant role therein. Tensions are thus evident within the Old Testament, speciﬁcally with respect to the understanding of the sacriﬁcial cult. While this was obviously promoted by the priesthood and rarely rejected in principle by others, it was not infrequently subject to unequivocal prophetic critique (cf. Amos 5:21–24; Isa. 1:10–17; Ps. 51:18–19; see also 1 Sam. 15:22). Tensions can also be observed on occasion between the tenor of ancient historical narrative series and the spirit of later Orthodox Judaism. Within the Wisdom literature we encounter opposition between the worldly wisdom of Proverbs on the one hand and the content of the books of Job and Qoheleth on the other. Ancient historical works contain all sorts of ideas and conceptions that were later to be rejected. Side by side with strictly monotheistic statements, we thus ﬁnd reference to centuries in which resistance to the gods of the nations was not as vehement as it would later become. Next to the orthodox Yahwistic elements that typiﬁed the collection of authoritative writings, therefore, reference must also be made to the tendency to preserve the intellectual/spiritual property acquired

66

chapter four

by Israel in the course of its history in all its diversity. The canon of the Old Testament thus obliges us to pay due attention to the developmental history of Israel’s religion and to ascribe a due signiﬁcance to the tensions we observe in the text. The problem of the relationship between the original sources of the individual biblical documents and the biblical books available to us today, raised in particular by Child’s canonical criticism, is related to the above discussion. Childs (1979) draws attention to the ﬁnal form of the text of the Old Testament and the way in which this was created by and functioned in the faith community. While one is obliged to agree whole-heartedly that the last two centuries of Old Testament research have concentrated primarily and one-sidedly on the source documents and stages of transmission lying at the foundations of the individual biblical books, Childs is guilty of the reverse by his insistence that the “ﬁnal form” is the only relevant canonical criterium available to the exegete (for an incisive critique of this perspective see Barr 1983). It seems preferable, however, to include both the ﬁnal form of the text together with the components out of which it evolved within the context of theological hermeneutics. There is no reason, for example, to limit oneself to the evaluation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3, which stem from diﬀerent sources, in relation to one another and not, at the same time, to consider them independently. Where such limitation is employed we run an evident and serious risk of ignoring the witness of the various voices and various eras of the faith community of Ancient Israel in an ahistorical manner. When it is maintained that the theories concerning the genesis and evolution of many books of the Old Testament and of the Pentateuch in particular are nothing more than subjective speculation we are nevertheless left with the suspicion that the interpretation of the canonical form of the text is equally prone to subjective factors and the impressions of the exegete. It seems advisable, therefore, to pay due attention to the unique witness of the original sources as well as to the “ﬁnal form” with its unique message in order to avoid succumbing to a tendency to blur and harmonise that does not do justice to the historical growth and polyphonic character of the books of the Old Testament. From the canonical perspective, the ﬁnal form of the transmitted text together with the components from which it was constructed are both of theological relevance. The witness of the canonical Scriptures is many-sided and subject to the same degrees of distinction as one would apply to human life itself.

As we noted above, the order of books found in the Hebrew Bible diﬀers from that of the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Broadly speaking, the Hebrew canon endeavours to follow a historical approach while the order found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate tends to

the old testament as canon

67

be more pragmatic (the “books of Moses” followed by the historical and poetic books and those of the prophets). With respect to the Torah, there is no diﬀerence in the order of books between the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The Hebrew Bible employs Hebrew terms and expressions to refer to the books in question (Bere“ît [in the beginning = Genesis]; ”emôt [names = Exodus]; Wayyiqra" [and He called = Leviticus]; Bammidbar [in the wilderness = Numbers]; Debarîm [words = Deuteronomy]). With respect to the Former Prophets, the Hebrew Bible consists of four “historical books” ( Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings), while the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the western translations add Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther. The Septuagint in addition includes the apocryphal books of Judith, Tobit and 1–4 Maccabees. The Vulgate only includes Tobit and Judith at this juncture although it adds the book of Job that may have been considered semi-historical. The Hebrew Bible lists the Latter Prophets immediately after the Former Prophets, the three Major Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (not Daniel), being followed by the Twelve Minor Prophets. The Septuagint, by contrast, follows the “historical books” with the most important “Documents”, including the three apocryphal books: the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus Sirach and the Psalms of Solomon. The Vulgate tends on the whole to follow the Septuagint although it does not have the Psalms of Solomon and locates the book of Job (as we already noted) among the “historical books”. For a variety of reasons, the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the western tradition gave rise to a fourfold division in contrast to the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible. In the Hebrew Bible, the Writings consist of various sorts of books: the Psalms, the Wisdom books of Job and Proverbs, the ﬁve Megillôt or festival scrolls (Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth, Lamentations and Esther), the book of Daniel and the later historical books of EzraNehemiah and Chronicles. In the Septuagint, the majority of these books are contained in the third subdivision, while the fourth consists of the Minor and Major Prophets (in that order) with two apocryphal books (1 Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah) and the Lamentations of Jeremiah placed between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In addition, a supplemented form of Daniel is included among the prophets. The Vulgate, followed by the western translation, has the Major Prophets (including 1 Baruch) together with Daniel, then the Minor prophets.

68

chapter four

The Vulgate, to conclude, adds 1 and 2 Maccabees and places the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Esdras in an appendix after the New Testament. By way of summary, we present the order of books found in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the Vulgate and in English translation (apocryphal books in italics) in the following table: Hebrew Bible: I. Torah Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy IIa. Former Prophets Joshua Judges 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings IIb. Later Prophets Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi III. Writings Psalms Job Proverbs Ruth

Septuagint: Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–4 Chronicles (= SamuelKings) 1–2 Paralipomena (= Chronicles) 1–2 Esdras (= Ezra/Nehemiah) Esther Judith Tobit 1–4 Maccabees Psalms (and Odes) Proverbs Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) Song of Songs Job Wisdom of Solomon Jesus Sirach Psalms of Solomon Hosea Amos Micah Joel Obadiah Jonah Nahum

the old testament as canon Song of Songs Qoheleth Lamentations Esther Daniel Ezra Nehemiah 1–2 Chronicles

Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Isaiah Jeremiah 1 Baruch Lamentations Letter of Jeremiah Ezekiel Susanna Daniel Bel and the Dragon

Vulgate: Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Tobit Judith Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Qoheleth Song of Songs Wisdom of Solomon Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Isaiah

English translation: Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Qoheleth Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel

69

70 Jeremiah Lamentations 1 Baruch Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi 1–2 Maccabees Prayer of Manasseh 3–4 Esdras

chapter four Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

CHAPTER FIVE

THE TRANSMISSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: TEXT, TRANSLATIONS AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Gott will niemand den Geist noch Glauben geben ohn das äußerliche Wort und Zeichen, so er dazu eingesetzt hat (Luther) P. Kahle, “Die hebräischen Handschriften aus Babylonien. Mit Faksimiles von 70 Handschriften”, ZAW 46 (1928), 113–137; B. J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions—The Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions, Cardiﬀ 1951; P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 19592; I. L. Seeligmann, “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint”, VT 11 (1961), 201–221; D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (SVT 10), Leiden 1963; J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxford 1968, Winona Lake IN 19872; id., The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Schweich Lectures), Oxford 1989; S. Talmon, “The Old Testament Text”, in: P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible I, Cambridge 1970, pp. 159–199; R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament—The Septuagint after Qumran (Guides to Biblical Scholarship, OT Series 4), Philadelphia 1974; F. M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge MA/London 1976; D. Barthélemy, Etudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21), Fribourg CH/Göttingen 1978; F. E. Deist, Towards the Text of the Old Testament, Pretoria 1978, 19812; id., Witnesses to the Old Testament—Introducing Old Testament Textual Criticism (The Literature of the OT 5), Pretoria 1988; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research ( Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8), Jerusalem 1982 (revised edition 1997); P. K. McCarter, Textual Criticism. Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Guides to Biblical Scholarship, OT Series 11), Philadelphia 1986; M. J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT II, 1), Philadelphia-Assen/Maastricht 1988; J. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod m and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30), Atlanta GA 1986; E. Würthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 19885; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis-Assen/Maastricht 1992 (best modern introduction to the textual history and textual criticism of the Old Testament); A. S. van der Woude, Pluriformiteit en uniformiteit. Overwegingen betreﬀende de tekstoverlevering van het Oude Testament (afscheidscollege), Kampen 1992; F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (The Biblical Seminar 30), Sheﬃeld 19943; U. Glessmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 48), Tübingen 1995.

72

chapter five

We do not posses autographa (hand written manuscripts by the authors or their secretaries) of the books of the Old Testament. The oldest manuscripts that have been preserved to the present day with the complete text of the Hebrew Bible date from around 900 and 1000 CE and thus from a period more than ten centuries later than the youngest document of the Old Testament (Daniel). The text that lies at the foundations of the current edition of the Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)1 is provided by a manuscript dating from 1009, and preserved in the Saltykov-Schedrin library of the Russian city of St. Petersburg: the codex Leningradensis (L).2 Modern translations of the Hebrew Bible are based on this manuscript. An older document, the Aleppo Codex, which dates from the beginning of the tenth century, was rescued in 1947 from the synagogue of Aleppo after an anti-Jewish pogrom. Although badly damaged, the codex was later brought to Jerusalem with the help of the former Israeli president I. Ben-Zvi.3 This manuscript lies at the foundations of a new yet still far from complete edition of the Hebrew Bible being prepared by scholars at the Hebrew University (The Hebrew University Bible Project: HUBP). As with the Codex Leningradensis, the Aleppo Codex constitutes a “model codex”, which oﬀers the oﬃcial text of the Hebrew Bible to the smallest detail. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nash papyrus, dating from the second or ﬁrst centuries BCE and discovered in Egypt in 1902, constituted the oldest extant manuscript of the Hebrew Bible at our disposal. The document consists of the Ten Commandments in a form that does not particularly concur with that found in Exod. 20:2–17 or Deut. 5:6–21 together with the beginning of the “Hear, O Israel” from Deut. 6:4–5. It 1

Cf. R. Wonneberger, Leitfaden zur Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Göttingen 1984. Cf. A. B. Beck, D. N. Freedman and J. A. Sanders, The Leningrad Codex. A Facsimile Edition, Leiden-Grand Rapids 1997. 3 For this manuscript, of which roughly one fourth has been lost, see, I. BenZwi, “The Codex of Ben Asher”, Textus 1 (1960), 1–16; M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex”, ibid., pp. 17–58; D. S. Loewinger, “The Aleppo Codex and the Ben Asher Tradition”, ibid., pp. 59–111. The text has been published in a facsimile edition by M. Goshen-Gottstein (The Aleppo Codex, Jerusalem 1976). The text corrected by Ben Asher was used by Maimonides. Written around 910, the document came to light in Cairo in the eleventh century and was probably transported from there to Aleppo in the fourteenth century. I. Yeivin, “The Vocalisation of Qere-Kethiv in A”, Textus 2 (1962), 146–149, has defended the thesis that the codex was most likely vocalised by a Karaite (cf. also S. Szyszman, “La famille des Masorètes Karaïtes Ben Asher et le codex Aleppo”, RB 73 (1966), 531–551). 2

the transmission of the old testament

73

is better described as a liturgical text, however, rather than a biblical text in the strict sense of the term. During the ﬁnal decades of the nineteenth century, a number of manuscript fragments were found in the genizah ( junk room) of the Ezra synagogue in Old Cairo dating from the ﬁfth century CE and including thousands of fragments of biblical texts (cf. further P. Kahle, op. cit., 19592, pp. 3–13 and M. C. Davis, Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections I–II, Cambridge 1978, 1980).

Since their discovery in 1947 at Qumran, twelve kilometres to the south of Jericho, the Dead Sea Scrolls have made an extremely important contribution to the study of the textual transmission and textual criticism of the Old Testament (see further chapter XIV). Included among the roughly 800 fragmentary and often very fragmentary manuscripts preserved at Qumran we ﬁnd roughly 200 manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible,4 dating from the third century BC up to and including the ﬁrst half of the ﬁrst century CE. With the exception of Nehemiah (a fortuitous coincidence) and Esther (that did not belong among the sacred writings of the community of Qumran) all the books of the Hebrew Bible are to be found in one or other manuscript, Deuteronomy,5 Isaiah6 and the Psalms,7 the scriptures most frequently referred to in the New Testament, being the best represented. Almost sixty percent of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran oﬀer more or less the same consonantal text of the Old Testament as that found in the medieval manuscripts. Certain manuscripts exhibit striking resemblances with the text that lay at the basis of the Septuagint translation (see below). Others are clearly related to the

4 For details see the list of manuscripts contained in F. García Martínez and A. S. van der Woude, De rollen van de Dode Zee ingeleid en in het Nederlands vertaald I, Kampen-Tielt 1994, pp. 37–115; E. Ulrich, “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran Cave 4. A Progress Report of their Publication”, Revue de Qumrân 54/14 (1989), 207–228; id., “An Index of the Passages in the Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert”, DSD 1 (1994), 113–129; 2 (1995), 86–107. 5 Cf. F. García Martínez, “Les manuscrits du désert de Juda et le Deutéronome”, in: id. e.a., Studies in Deuteronomy (SVT 53; FS C. J. Labuschagne), Leiden-New YorkCologne 1994, pp. 63–82. 6 The ﬁrst Isaiah manuscript from Cave I of Qumran (1QIsa) has survived virtually intact. A facsimile can be found in J. Trever, Scrolls from Qumran Cave I, Jerusalem 1972. For a study of the character of the manuscript see A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches (OBO 35), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1981. 7 See P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997.

74

chapter five

harmonising textual tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch (see likewise below). A limited number of manuscripts represent a text type that cannot be included under the aforementioned rubrics. Such pluriformity of Old Testament text traditions at Qumran stands in stark contrast to the virtually complete uniformity of the biblical manuscripts dating from the beginning of the second century CE stemming from Masada, Wadi Muraba'at and other locations in the Judean desert (see further chapter XIV). How can we then explain how the pluriformity of the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible evidenced at Qumran gave way to the large degree of uniformity exhibited by the consonantal texts of the biblical manuscripts of Masada and Wadi Muraba'at as well as the medieval manuscripts? Commentators have endeavoured to answer this question in a variety of ways without arriving at a unanimous conclusion. It is presumed, as a rule, that the variety of textual traditions found at Qumran was typical for Palestine as a whole during the period prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This presupposition, however, is far from conclusive. There is suﬃcient reason to conclude that, side by side with the pluriformity found in various locations in Palestine and elsewhere, a fairly uniform textual tradition had already been in circulation in and around the temple for a signiﬁcant amount of time prior to 70 CE, especially among the Pharisees and scribes (cf. A. S. van der Woude, op. cit., 1992). In our opinion, it is only in such an informal manner that one can explain why this textual tradition rather abruptly and exclusively continued after 70 CE. In contrast to other Jewish religious movements, the Pharisees managed spiritually to survive the catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. As a consequence, the Old Testament textual tradition that they maintained ultimately won the day. Indeed, it remains possible that this tradition had already enjoyed a signiﬁcant degree of standardisation from the second century CE onwards. The uniform textual tradition was apparently stimulated, moreover, by the conviction maintained by the Pharisees and the Scribes that the Holy Spirit, as the Scriptures’ source of inspiration, had already been absent from Israel since the days of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.8 Such a conviction naturally facilitated a standardisa8 Cf. 1 Macc. 4:46, 9:27, 14:41; Dan. 3:38 lxx; Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem I 40–41. See further P. Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (SANT 38), Munich 1972, pp. 89–111.

the transmission of the old testament

75

tion of the text. What remained were sacred books that, in principle, were no longer open to edifying additions or actualising and harmonising emendations. A process thus emerged whereby the Scriptures came to be considered as a literally inspired text that was perceived in the rabbinic period as a precisely established quantity of graphic signs coinciding with the reader as a perpetually valid revelation of God.9 We are thus faced with a development that begins with a Scripture that referred to a signiﬁcant extent to divine revelation in history and ends with a Scripture that was literally considered to be revelation as such. Pluriformity of textual tradition is a normal phenomenon, uniformity an exception. As along as no sharp boundary existed between the transmitted text and commentary upon the Scriptures, the text of the latter was not sacrosanct and remained open to emendation.10 There is occasional evidence of passages that were considered objectionable for one reason or another (e.g. Torah oriented piety) and were later subject to emendation.11 A striking example thereof is that of Deut. 32:8, in which the original reading “sons of God” (cf. the Septuagint and Qumran) was emended to read “sons of Israel”. Such interpolations and emendations remained possible a fortiori as long as there was an instance, side by side with the transmission of the Scriptures, that had the authority to make decisions concerning questions of dogma and day to day life and that considered itself entitled to actualise the tradition with an appeal to divine inspiration (e.g. the priests of the temple in Jerusalem who were considered messengers of yhwh [Mal. 2:7], and the priests of the community of Qumran, especially the “Teacher of Righteousness”; see further chapter XIV). For the faithful, pluriformity of textual tradition/transmission rooted in copyist errors, variant spellings, harmonisations, 9 A. Goldberg, “Die Schrift der rabbinischen Schriftausleger”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 15 (1987), 1–15. 10 It is striking, therefore, that a manuscript of Judges from cave 4 or Qumran (4QJudga) lacks Judg. 6:7–10, a text segment long considered secondary by several commentators on literary-critical grounds. Cf. further J. Trebolle Barrera, “4QJudga ”, in: DJD XIV, pp. 161–164. See, however, the passage in 4QSamuela concerning the Ammonite oppression of the tribes of Gad and Reuben in 1 Samuel 11 not found in the Hebrew Bible (cf. F. M. Cross, “The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and Reuben: Missing Verses in 1 Samuel 11 Found in 4QSamuela ”, in: H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld [eds.], History, Historiography, and Interpretation, Jerusalem 1983, pp. 148–154; cf., in addition, M. Weinfeld, “The Acts of Nahash According to 4QSama”, IEJ 32 [1982], 129–133). 11 Cf. A. Rofé, “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and its Occurrence in 4QSama”, Revue de Qumrân 14/54 (1989), 247–254.

76

chapter five

alternative readings, learned and edifying commentary, actualisations, religious tendencies and dogmatic “corrections”, were not considered to be essential problems. While it is probable that the (consonantal) text of the Hebrew Bible, as we are now familiar with it from the medieval manuscripts, was already standardised in certain Jewish circles prior to the beginning of the common era, it will be apparent from what we have said so far that we no longer have access to the original text of the various books of the Old Testament. As a rule, however, the actual content of these books was not aﬀected thereby. The ancient Hebrew tradition apparently tended to place the emphasis on the correct meaning of a text rather than on the literal word. Variants even exist within the Hebrew Bible itself in what otherwise remain identical segments of text (cf., for example, 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18; Ps. 60:7–14 and Ps. 108:7–14). The original Hebrew text was written without vowels (as is the case with a number of other Semitic languages including Modern Hebrew and Arabic). The pronunciation of the text was thus only known on the basis of oral transmission. In later times, Jewish scholars established the pronunciation, which varied at certain points, via the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian systems of vocalisation.12 Manuscripts providing evidence of these systems were discovered in the genizah ( junk room) of the Ezra synagogue of Old Cairo (Kahle 19592). The Tiberian system, elaborated by scholarly families (Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali) in Tiberias, ultimately won the day.13 The Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad codex employ the system of Ben Asher. The pronunciation of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is thus only know to us from a relatively late tradition, that of the Masoretes, the “transmitters” (of the Hebrew text). There can be little doubt that this pronunciation is not completely identical to the pronunciation of Hebrew in the pre-Christian period.

12

Cf. E. Tov, op. cit., 1992, pp. 39–49. According to P. Kahle the Masoretes in Tiberias were the designers of this punctuation system. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text”, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies, Cambridge 1963, pp. 79–122, argues by way of contrast that Aaron ben Asher systematised an already exploited punctuation system and applied it to the entire biblical text. In so doing he created a model text of the Old Testament as a whole (the Aleppo Codex), based on the best written and oral traditions. 13

the transmission of the old testament

77

Beside the variety of pronunciations evidenced by the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian vocalisation systems there would appear to have been further variations. The Greek transcription of the Hebrew text found in the second column of Origen’s Hexapla (third century CE; the ﬁrst polyglot Bible known to us; see below) oﬀers a striking example thereof. While deviations from the Masoretic Text in this work are fairly frequent, they tend to be of subsidiary importance. Similarly, the manner in which the Septuagint renders biblical names diﬀers in a number of places from the Masoretic tradition. The alternative spelling of a number of words in the Dead Sea Scrolls is likewise informative and suggestive of a pronunciation at variance with that of the later Masoretic tradition.14

Beside the Masoretic tradition of the Old Testament and that uncovered by the discoveries at Qumran, we also have the Samaritan Pentateuch (Samaritanus; also in Hebrew) at our disposal.15 Written in old Hebrew script and dating from the Hasmonean period, this text has survived, albeit in the form of late copies, in the religious community of the Samaritans who limited the ascription of canonical status to the ﬁrst ﬁve books of Moses (and Job?). It would appear to a large extent to have its roots in an Ancient Israelite tradition stemming from the period prior to the secession of the Samaritans from their Judean co-religionists.16 Next to orthographic and phonological diﬀerences, evident when this text type is compared with the Masoretic tradition, the Samaritanus exhibits a predominant tendency to harmonise by adapting parallel verses to one another (e.g. Exod. 20:8 and Deut. 5:12, in which the Samaritanus in both instances

14 Cf. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents”, in: C. Rabin and Y. Yadin, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4), Jerusalem 1965, pp. 101–137. 15 Cf. E. Tov, op. cit., 1992, pp. 80–100 (lit.!). Editions of the Samaritan Pentateuch can be found in A. Freiherr von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner I–V, Giessen 1914–1918 (herdruk Berlin 1966); A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch—With Particular Stress on the Diﬀerences between both Texts, Tel Aviv 1961–1965; L. F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano—Genesis, Madrid 1976; A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch. Edited According to MS 6 (C) of the Shekhem Synagogue (Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects 8), Tel Aviv 1994. The text has been translated into Aramaic (cf. A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition I–III, Tel Aviv 1980–1983) and Arabic (cf. H. Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch I: Genesis-Exodus, Jerusalem 1989). A Greek translation also existed, which Origen cites as Samareitikon (see further E. Würthwein, op. cit., 19885, p. 80). 16 Scholars disagree as to when this secession took place. Some propose the ﬁfth, others the fourth and others still the second century BCE (see further J. Sanderson, op. cit., 1986, pp. 28–35).

78

chapter five

has “maintain [the Sabbath day]”), by providing details that the reader might potentially have known from preceding texts, and by detailing the execution of commands where the Masoretic tradition limited itself to a summary text. It was only at a later date that the Samaritanus came to be considered a sectarian text,17 on account of the fact that Mount Gerizim was introduced as a legitimate cultic location (cf. the addition to Exod. 20:14 and Deut. 5:18 together with the replacement of “Ebal” in Deut. 27:4 by “Gerizim” in the Samaritanus). From the text-critical perspective (beside the deviations from the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11), the variants that the Samaritanus has in common with the Septuagint in contrast to the Masoretic Text are of primary importance. The Samaritan text tradition with its characteristic harmonisations is represented by a number of manuscripts found among the scrolls of the Dead Sea, in particular 4QpaleoExodm.18 The available manuscripts of the Samaritanus stem without exception from the late middle ages. The Abisha Scroll, preserved in Nablus and published by P. Castro (Séfer Abi“a, Madrid 1959; cf. E. Robertson in VT 12 [1962], 228–235), enjoys signiﬁcant fame within the Samaritan faith community. The discovery of proto-Samaritan biblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls has deﬁnitively dismissed the notion that the Samaritanus is a reworking of the (pre-)Masoretic Text, a claim that held sway during the nineteenth century.

The most important translation of the Hebrew Bible is the Septuagint (lxx),19 a version that derives its name (“seventy”) from the legend 17

As would appear from the publication of J. Sanderson, op. cit., 1986. Cf. J. Sanderson, “The Contribution of 4QpaleoExodm to Textual Criticism” Revue de Qumrân 13 (1988), 547–560. 19 Cf. H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 19142; I. L. Seeligmann, “Problemen en perspectieven in het moderne Septuaginta-onderzoek”, JEOL 7 (1940), 359–390; S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford 1968; id., Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions and Interpretations, New York 1973; S. P. Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint—The Witness of Tradition”, OTS 17 (1972), 11–36; S. P. Brock e.a., A Classiﬁed Bibliography of the Septuagint (ALGHJ 3), Leiden 1973 (see also Dogniez 1995); F. E. Deist, Towards the Text of the Old Testament, Pretoria 1978, pp. 152–201; P. M. Bogaert, “Les études sur la Septante— Bilan et perspectives”, RThL 16 (1985), 174–200; G. Dorival, M. Harl and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante—Du judasme hellénistique au christianisme ancien, Paris 1988; E. Tov, “Die griechischen Bibelübersetzungen”, in: ANRW II, 20.1, Berlin-New York 1987, pp. 121–189; id., “The Septuagint”, in: M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation in the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT II.1), Assen-Maastricht/Philadelphia 1988), pp. 161–188; id., 18

the transmission of the old testament

79

referred to in the Letter of Aristeas (see below) and elsewhere that maintains that 72 men translated the Pentateuch in Alexandria into Greek (six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel; the ﬁgure was later rounded down to 70). Whatever degree of historicity one might be inclined to ascribe to this tradition, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek did indeed begin in the third century BCE with the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy). In the following two or three centuries, translations of a number of other books of the Hebrew Bible were added.20 Given the use of terminology and the diﬀerent translation techniques employed in the process, it is evident that the Septuagint is the work of many hands. Several other translations have been strongly inﬂuenced by the Septuagint, sometimes fairly directly (Vetus Latina; Coptic translations), sometimes less directly (the Peshitta and the Vulgate, see below).

op. cit., 1992, pp. 134–142; Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays, Kampen 1993; C. Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint. Bibliographie de la Septante (1970–1993) (SVT 60), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995 (for additions cf. A. Hilhorst, JSJ 26 [1995], 354–358). Complete editions of the Old Testament text of the Septuagint include those of H. B. Swete (ed.), The Old Testament in Greek I–III (Cambridge 1887–1891; based on the codex Vaticanus), and the convenient and practical edition of A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta idest Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes I–II (Stuttgart 1935; based for the most part on manuscripts B, S and A). The edition of A. E. Brooke, N. McLean and H. St. J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Cambridge 1906–1940, contains the books of Genesis-Nehemiah together with Esther, Judith and Tobit and is known as the Cambridge Septuagint. The likewise incomplete Göttinger Septuagint (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; since 1931) strives to provide the best achievable text on the basis of current knowledge. Thanks to its critical apparatus and excellent introduction one can readily consider it the best edition of the Greek translation. Up to the present moment it includes GenesisDeuteronomy, Esdras I–II, Esther, Judith, I–IV Maccabees, Psalms and Odes, Job, Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus Sirach, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, the Letter of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Susanna, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon. In addition to this text edition, E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) I–II, Oxford 1897–1906, reprint Graz 1954, and T. Muraoka, Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint. Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance, Grand Rapids 1998, are indispensable for the serious and intensive study of the text of the lxx. 20 Counter to Paul de Lagarde’s assertion that all manuscripts of lxx ultimately stem from a single prototype, Paul Kahle has defended the hypothesis that several attempts at translation were originally undertaken: the narrative oﬀered in the Letter of Aristeas is intended to propagate an oﬃcial revision of earlier translations and does not represent a description of a new translation. Kahle’s theory, however, tends on the whole to be rejected by the majority of Septuagint experts.

80

chapter five

The oldest textual witnesses to the Septuagint are the Greek papyrus 458 of the John Rylands Library dating from the second century BCE, Papyrus Fouad 266 dating from the ﬁrst century BCE, fragments among the manuscripts of Qumran from Cave 4 (cf. DJD IX, pp. 161–197 and E. Ulrich, The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran, in: A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta [FS J. W. Wevers], Mississauga 1984, pp. 71–80) and Cave 7 (cf. DJD III, pp. 142–143) together with the scroll of the Minor Prophets discovered in the Judean desert (from the ﬁrst century BCE; cf. DJD VIII). In addition to these documents, we also have the Chester Beatty papyri dating from the second to the fourth century CE, the Berlin fragments of a Genesis manuscript dating from the third century and the Bodmer papyrus XXIV likewise dating from the third century CE at our disposal. For more detailed information see. E. Würthwein, op. cit., 19885, pp. 73–75.

The most important codices containing the text of the Septuagint are the Codex Sinaiticus (S or a: from the fourth century CE), the Codex Vaticanus (B: likewise from the fourth century CE) and the Codex Alexandrinus (A: from the ﬁfth century CE). For these and other codices see E. Würthwein, op. cit., 19885, pp. 75–77. The origin and background of the lxx continue to be a matter of dispute,21 in spite of the now widely familiar story of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch found in the Letter of Aristeas22 (from

21 Cf. R. Hanhart, “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Septuagintaforschung”, in: A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta (FS J.W. Wevers), Mississauga Ont. 1984, pp. 3–18, which favours a proto-Masoretic Vorlage. F. M. Cross (The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts, in: F. M. Cross and S. Talmon, Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge Mass.-London 1975, pp. 306–320) leans towards an Egyptian local text of the Palestinian type related to the proto-Samaritanus. Cross’ proposal is disputed by E. Tov (cf. his The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Jerusalem 19972, pp. 183–187). 22 For the Greek text of the Letter of Aristeas see A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate (Sources Chrétiennes 89), Paris 1962 (with introduction, translation and marginal comments). According to N. Meisner, Aristeasbrief ( JSHRZ II/1), Göttingen 1973, pp. 35–87, the letter represents a propaganda document intended for Greeks with a view to demonstrating the excellence of the Jewish religion and the Law. The vast majority of scholars, however, are of the opinion that the letter was intended for Jews and represents a defense of the literary products of Alexandrian Judaism against attack from Palestinian quarters. G. Howard (“The Letter of Aristeas: A Re-Evaluation”, JThS 22 [1971], 337–348) argues in addition that the purpose of the letter was to conﬁrm the value of the Septuagint, S. P. Brock (“The Phenomenon of the Septuagint”, OTS 17 [1972], 11–36) that it was directed against attempts by Palestinian Jews to revise the Septuagint, and A. F. J. Klijn (“The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in Egypt”, NTS 11 [1964–1965], 154–158) that its goal was to defend the Septuagint against the Jewish priests of the temple at Leontopolis.

the transmission of the old testament

81

the end of the second or the beginning of the ﬁrst century BCE; see further chapter XIII). According to this document, the ﬁve books of Moses were translated during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) on the instigation of his librarian and with the intention of placing them in the library at Alexandria. The translation is said to be based on a Torah scroll from Jerusalem provided him by the Jewish High Priest Eleazar. The details of the letter remain open to question. Were they historically correct, then we are left with the problem as to why the Letter of Aristeas was forced to defend the translation against Jews a century after it was made. In addition, points of agreement between the Septuagint and the Samaritanus likewise remain to a large extent unexplained. In any event, it is apparent that the Greek translation of some of the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible diﬀers signiﬁcantly from the Masoretic tradition (in particular the books of Samuel, Jeremiah, Job and Daniel). All this has its consequences, of course, for the evaluation of the text-critical value of the Septuagint when compared with the Masoretic Text. After the discovery of the biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is equally clear that variations in content between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text should not as a rule be regarded as free translations or paraphrasing. Such variant readings have their roots in a diﬀerent and often much older Hebrew text tradition than that which lies at the basis of the Masoretic tradition. Both traditions thus are deserving of our respect23 (cf. E. Tov, op. cit., 19972). The tendency to make the text of the Septuagint conform to that of the Hebrew Bible is already evident among prominent Jewish circles prior to the beginning of the Common Era.24 The fact that the early Christian church considered the Septuagint to be its sacred Scripture may, at the most, have strengthened this process, but it should not be considered the primary cause thereof. The revisions of the Septuagint that were made prior to Origen’s Hexapla (see below), namely the translations of Aquila (A), Symmachus (S) and Theodotion (Y), traditionally referred to as “the three” (a, b, g), constitute striking examples of this reworking tendency.

23 Cf. S. Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of the Qumran Manuscripts”, Textus 4 (1964), pp. 95–132. 24 Cf. S. P. Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint—The Witness of Tradition”, OTS 17 (1972), 11–36.

82

chapter five

The Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets stemming from the ﬁrst century BCE, discovered in the Judean desert in 1952 and published in DJD VIII,25 contains a revision of the lxx that closely resembles the Masoretic text, and is akin to the translation ascribed in antiquity to Theodotion (end second century CE), as provided (in part) in the sixth column of the Hexapla (see below), and various segments of the lxx in Samuel-Kings (2 Sam. 11:1–1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Kgs 22:1–2 Kings). Given its relationship with the aforementioned scroll, this revision would appear to be a couple of centuries older than the period in which Theodotion lived. This led Barthélemy to employ the reference kaige-Theodotion,26 based on the fact that the Hebrew word gam (“also”) is normally translated therein by the Greek term kaige. Others refer in this regard to “proto-Theodotion”. The extent to which the text revision implemented in kaige-Theodotion can be ascribed to Theodotion himself (second century CE) remains unclear. The highly literal translation made by Aquila,27 a proselyte from Pontus and disciple of rabbi Akibah (± 125 CE) is likewise based on kaige-Theodotion. This translation enjoyed great respect in the Jewish world for a signiﬁcant period of time.28 The revision of Symmachus, a Samaritan scribe who converted to Judaism, is similarly based on kaige-Theodotion. This revision, stemming in all probability from the second half of the second century CE,29 oﬀers both word for word and free translations. Its primary aim appears to be a readable Greek text. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, praises it highly. 25 E. Tov e.a., “The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr)”, Oxford 1990. 26 Cf. D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (SVT 10), Leiden 1963; A. Schmitt, “Stammt der sogenannte “y”-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion?”, NAWG I, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Göttingen 1966; A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches (OBO 35), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1981, pp. 127–150. 27 The Hebrew nota accusativi ’t were thus rendered with the Greek sun, “with”, apparently on account of the alternative meaning of the Hebrew ’t. 28 D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (SVT 10), Leiden 1963; J. Reider and N. Turner, An Index to Aquila (SVT 12), Leiden 1966; K. Hyvärinen, Die Übersetzung von Aquila (ConB, OT Series 10), Lund 1977; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (MSU 15), Göttingen 1979; L. L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis”, JJS 33 (1982), 527–536. 29 D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (SVT 10), Leiden 1963; A. van der Kooij, “Symmachus, ‘de vertaler der Joden’”, NTT 42 (1988), 1–20; A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch ( JSS Monograph 15), Manchester 1991. The origins of Symmachus are disputed (cf. D. Barthélemy, Qui est Symmaque?, CBQ 36 [1974], 451–465; A. van der Kooij, op. cit., 1988).

the transmission of the old testament

83

Between 230 and 240 CE, Origen compiled the Hexapla (the “sixfold edition”), in which he presented the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Hebrew text in Greek transcription, the translations of Aquila and Symmachus, together with the (revised and annotated) text of the Septuagint30 and that of Theodotion in six columns.31 Unfortunately, relatively few segments of this work have survived to the present day.32 It is possible, however, to construct a reasonably clear picture of the content of the ﬁfth column (that of the Septuagint) based on the Syriac translation made by Paulus of Tella between 615–617 CE, the so-called Syro-Hexaplaris. In the foreword to his translation of Chronicles, Jerome makes reference around 400 CE to the existence of three recensions of the Septuagint: that of Hesychius, which is said to have been current in Egypt, that of Lucian (died a martyr’s death in 312 CE), employed in Constantinople and Antioch, and that of Origen, which was read in Palestine. The revision of Hesychius is incomprehensible to the present day reader, the character of that of Lucianus a matter of some dispute. D. Barthélemy (op. cit., 1963, pp. 126–127), for example, denies the very existence of a Lucianic recension, insisting that it is “essentiellement la Septante ancienne, plus ou moins abâtardie et corrompue”. E. Tov (“Lucian and proto-Lucian—Toward a New Solution of the Problem”, RB 79 (1972), 101–113) considers it possible that the said recension was “composed of a substratum containing the original translation and a second layer containing a revision by Lucian” (cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 148). The complex transmission history of the Septuagint and the absence of the original text thereof have given rise to a multitude of reactions. Paul de Lagarde (1827–1891), for example, set his sights on tracing the original text by classifying the manuscripts of lxx according to the textual traditions 30 Origen employs various sigla (obelos, metobelos and asterisk) in order to indicate which words in lxx are lacking in the Hebrew text. On the other hand, he also employed asterisk and metobelos in order to indicate words lacking in lxx that he himself had supplied on the basis of another translation. His interventions in the transmission of the text, however, are sometimes left unmarked. His rendition of lxx in the ﬁfth column of the Hexapla exerted considerable inﬂuence on later manuscripts of lxx. 31 As a matter of fact, the sixth column does not always contain the text of Theodotion (e.g. with respect to the Minor Prophets and the Psalms). 32 Cf. F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta, Oxford 1875, reprint Hildesheim 1964; G. Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli reliquae, Roma 1958, 1965; A. Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmembruchstücke (OBO 8), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1975; id., Psalmen in den Hexapla—Erste kritische und vollständige Ausgabe der hexaplarischen Fragmente auf dem Rande der Handschrift Ottobonianus Graecus 398 zu den Ps 24–32 (Studi e Testi 295), Città del Vaticano 1982. See further E. Würthwein, op. cit., 19885, pp. 59–61.

84

chapter five

mentioned by Jerome, dividing them up between the said recensions with the help of quotations from the Church Fathers and other criteria. In the context of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen of the Göttinger Akademie der Wissenschaften, a great deal has been done under the inspirational leadership of A. Rahlfs to bring this project to a reasonable conclusion. It later became apparent, however, that the problems were more complicated and with each book more convoluted than De Lagarde had suspected (cf. further E. Würthwein, op. cit., pp. 63–64). In The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 19592, pp. 209–264, based on his 1941 Schweich Lectures, Paul Kahle resolutely challenged the approach of De Lagarde and his followers. Taking the data contained in the Letter of Aristeas as his point of departure he maintained that the translation lauded therein should be understood as a revised version stemming from around 100 BCE, arguing that the letter itself (§ 314–316) makes reference to older, albeit “unreliable” Greek translations. Side by side with this revision, Kahle insists, other recensions continued to circulate and, with the exception of the Torah within Judaism, no attempts were made to arrive at a standardised text. In the second century CE, new translations that closely associated themselves with the authoritative Hebrew text (Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion) replaced the Septuagint. Only the Christian church established a standard text that was able to survive through the ages. Consequently, Kahle adjudges the Septuagint by analogy with the Aramaic Targums (see below), at the origin of which a uniform text equally lacks evidence. Kahle’s propositions have been adopted by some and sharply disputed by others. The aforementioned scroll of the Twelve Prophets, discovered in the Judean desert in 1952, tends more to contradict Kahle’s theses than to support them (see further E. Würthwein, op. cit., 19885, pp. 64–68 and E. Tov, op. cit., 1992, pp. 183–185).

The classical Syriac translation of the Old Testament, referred to as the Peshitta (“the simple [translation]”),33 stems for the most part from the second century CE and is based in principle on the (pre-)Masoretic Text34 (with the exception of Jesus Sirach, the apocrypha were trans-

33 L. Haefeli, Die Peschitta des Alten Testaments (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 11/1), Münster 1927; P. B. Dirksen, An Annotated Bibliography of the Peshitta of the Old Testament (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 5), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1989. It is possible but not certain that the designation Peshitta (“simple [translation]”) emerged in order to distinguish it from the Syrohexaplaris, which is itself based on the Hexapla. For introductions to the Peshitta see E. Würthwein, op. cit., 19885, pp. 86–89; P. B. Dirksen, “The Old Testament Peshitta”, in: M. J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra (1988), pp. 255–297; E. Tov, Textual Criticism (1992), pp. 151–153. 34 P. B. Dirksen and M. J. Mulder (eds.), The Peshitta. Its Early Text and History. Papers Read at the Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 30–31 August 1985, LeidenNew York-Cologne 1988; P. B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds.), The Peshitta as Translation. Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August 1993, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995.

the transmission of the old testament

85

lated on the basis of the lxx). The hypothesis that this translation was inﬂuenced by the Targum traditions (see below)35 appears to have been incorrect.36 Its place of origin (Edessa?; the Jewish kingdom of Adiabene?) and the identity of its translators37 remains a matter of dispute. In any event, one must account for the fact that, with the exception of the Pentateuch, the translation took place in successive stages. The most modern edition of the Syriac translation is based on the Codex Ambrosianus (preserved in the Ambrosian library in Milan), which dates from the sixth or seventh century CE.38 The Old Latin translation, which underwent frequent revision and circulated in a variety of diﬀerent recensions, is referred to as the Vetus Latina or (less appropriately) Itala and is based on a text form of the Septuagint. The Vetus Latina came into existence in the second century CE and was employed in North Africa and Western Europe by the Latin Church Fathers. An excellent although still incomplete critical edition of the Old Latin translation has been made available since 1949 by the Vetus Latina-instituut of Beuron (Germany) in the series “Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel”. Between 390 and 405 CE, the Church Father Jerome39 produced a Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible on the request of Pope Damasus I and under the inﬂuence of the hebraica veritas (“the Hebrew truth”: the reliability that stems from the Hebrew text). The result of his endeavours is referred to as the Vulgata, c.q. the Vulgate (the “general”, the “popular [translation]”).40 Jerome frequently sought

35

A. Vööbus, “Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuch”, Stockholm 1958. See M. D. Koster, The Copernican Revolution in the Study of the Origins of the Peshitta, in: P. V. M. Fletcher (ed.), Targum Studies II. Targum and Peshitta (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 165/II), Atlanta GA 1998, pp. 15–54. 37 It is possible that some books were translated by Jews and others by Christians. 38 This codex lies at the basis of the prestigious yet still incomplete edition of the Peshitta prepared (with critical apparatus) by the Peshitta Institute in Leiden (The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version, Leiden 1966 and subsequent years). Thus far the texts of Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Job, Judges, Samuel, Psalms, Kings, Chronicles, Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, Qoheleth, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esdras, the Odes, the Prayer of Manasseh, the Apocryphal Psalms, the Psalms of Solomon, Tobit and 1(3) Esdras have been published. 39 P. Antin, Essai sur Saint Jerôme, Paris 1951; J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome. His Life, Writings and Controversies, London 1975. 40 Cf. F. Stummer, Einführung in die lateinische Bibel, Paderborn 1928; J. O. Smit, De Vulgaat, Roermond-Maaseik 1948; W. Baars, “Exit Vulgata. Nabetrachting bij een Bijbelvertaling”, NTT 35 (1981), 101–110; P. M. Bogaert, “La Bible latine des 36

86

chapter five

the advice of Jewish scholars in his work and also made use of the lxx and the translations of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus, especially the latter. In spite of the resistance it initially encountered (in particular from Augustine) Jerome’s translation was able to survive, albeit in a variety of recensions, through the course of the Middle Ages and at the expense of the Vetus Latina. The Council of Trent (1546) resolved to introduce a uniform Vulgate text into circulation and thereby raised the question of a critical text edition. After the edition edited by Pope Sixtus V (the Sixtina of 1590), which was later withdrawn, the edition of Pope Clement VIII (the Clementina of 1592, corrected in 1593 and 1598) became the oﬃcial text of the Vulgate and the normative Bible text of the Roman Catholic Church, although this edition was likewise unable to claim to be a literal rendition of Jerome. In 1907, Pope Pius X entrusted the preparation of a critical edition of the Vulgate to the Benedictine order, a task which the monks energetically pursued.41 In 1979, however, a new oﬃcial Latin edition of the Bible was announced by Pope John Paul II. This Nova Vulgata came about as the result of a revision of Jerome’s translation recommended by the Second Vatican Council. Next to the abovementioned translations of the Old Testament, particular mention deserves to be made of the paraphrasing Aramaic versions of the Old Testament as found in the so-called targumîm (plural of Targum, “rendition”) of Jewish authorship.42 In the last cen-

origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état des questions”, RThL 19 (1988), 137–159; B. Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Latin Translation”s, in: M. J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra (CRINT II/1), Assen-Maastricht and Philadelphia 1988, pp. 299 –338; E. Würthwein, op. cit., 19885, pp. 93–98. For the text of the Vulgate see H. Quentin e.a., Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem ad codicum ﬁdem iussu Pii PP. X, I–XVII, Rome 1926–1987 and the concise edition of R. Weber, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem I–II, Stuttgart 1969, third edition 1983. Concordance: B. Fischer, Novae Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrorum iuxta Vulgatam Versionem I–V, Stuttgart 1977. 41 Cf. H. Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate (= Collecteanea Biblica Latina VI), Rome-Paris 1922. See also the previous footnote. 42 R. le Déaut, Introduction à la littérature targumique, Rome 1966; B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature I–III, Cincinnati-New York 1972, 1977, 1990; P. S. Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983 (SVT 36), Leiden 1985, pp. 14–28; id., “Jewish Aramaic Translations of the Hebrew Bible”, in: M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra, pp. 217–253; E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context (BZAW 174), Berlin-New York 1988; E. Würthwein, op. cit., 19885, pp. 80–86; Madeleine Taradach, Le Midrash (Le Monde de la Bible 22), Geneva 1991, pp. 49–160; U. Glessmer, op. cit., 1995.

the transmission of the old testament

87

tury prior to the beginning of the Common Era, Hebrew lost its signiﬁcance as a popular language and was ousted by Aramaic. It became necessary, therefore, to combine the reading from the Hebrew Bible in synagogue services with an oral Aramaic rendition. It goes without saying that these translations diﬀered from the Hebrew text according to place and time, choice of words, nature and extent of paraphrasing, interpretation and actualisation. The Targums are thus of relatively little importance from the perspective of textual history although their signiﬁcance for our knowledge of the later interpretation of the Hebrew Bible should not be underestimated. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has proven deﬁnitively that Aramaic renditions of books of the Bible were already being committed to writing from the period of the Second Temple.43 As a rule, these renditions tend to bear close resemblance to the Hebrew basis text although, even at this juncture, they also contain interpretative and edifying interpolations. The Targums of later date that have survived to the present day can be divided into two categories: a) the various forms of the Palestinian Targum; b) the Targum Onqelos of the Pentateuch and the Targum Jonathan of the Prophets edited in Babylon. The Palestinian Targum has never been oﬃcially edited and as such the available manuscripts thereof exist in more or less variant forms: a. the Targum Jerushalmi I,44 also referred to as the Targum PseudoJonathan, which appears to have been reworked in line with the Targum Onqelos (see below);45 43 In addition to the minor fragments of 4QtgLev and 4QtgJob (DJD VI, pp. 86–89) see the Targum of Job from cave 11 of Qumran ( J. P. M. van der Ploeg et A. S. van der Woude avec la collaboration de B. Jongeling, Le Targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumrân, Leiden 1971; see also M. Sokoloﬀ, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, Ramat Gan 1974). For the fragments of this Targum see F. García Martínez e.a., Qumran Cave 11.II (DJD XXIII), Oxford 1998, pp. 79–180. 44 Cf. D. Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan—Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch Copied from the London MS, Jerusalem 1974; E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch. Text and Concordance, Hoboken NJ 1984. An earlier text edition is to be found in M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan, Berlin 1903. Translation: R. le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuch I–V (Sources Chrétiennes), Paris 1978–1981. 45 Cf. A. Díez Macho, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums”, in: Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (SVT 7), Leiden 1960, pp. 222–245, esp. pp. 239–241; G. J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and its Relationship to Targum Onkelos (Studia Ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 9), Rome 1972.

88

chapter five

b. the Targum Jerushalmi II,46 also referred to as the Fragmentary Targum because it only oﬀers explanations of individual verses and not a continuous paraphrasing translation; c. Targum fragments from the genizah of Old Cairo;47 d. the manuscript Neoﬁti I, dating from 1504 and discovered in 1956. Preserved in the Vatican Library,48 the targumic text of this manuscript may date back to the ﬁrst or second century CE. The Targum Onqelos of the Pentateuch and the Targum Jonathan of the Prophets have come to enjoy authoritative status for Judaism.49 While they have their roots in an ancient, probably Palestinian tradition, the text thereof was only oﬃcially established in Babylon during the ﬁfth century CE. As a rule, the Targum Onqelos tends to follow the Masoretic Text quite literally. Targum Jonathan, on the other hand, contains more haggadic material than Targum Onqelos. The Targums of the writings are mostly of a later date, although the Dead Sea Scrolls already contain a Targum of Job.50 By way of example, we oﬀer below the text of Exod. 24:9–11 in its various textual traditions side by side with that of the versions (deviation from the Masoretic Text is indicated in italics).

46 Cf. M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources I–III (Analecta Biblica 76), Roma 1980. An earlier text edition can be found in M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum, Berlin 1899 (reprint Jerusalem 1972). 47 Cf. M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Cincinnati-Roma 1986. 48 Cf. A. Díez Macho, Neophyti I. Targum Palestinense ms. de la Bibliotheca Vaticana I–VI, Madrid-Barcelona 1968–1979. 49 Cf. A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts I–III, Leiden 1959–1962 to which an Aramaic translation of the Hagiographa has been added as part IVa (Leiden 1968) and as part IVb The Targum and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden 1973). For this edition see the extensive review by A. Díez Macho in JSJ 6 (1975), 217–236. A translation is to be found in The Aramaic Bible: B. Grossfeld, The Aramaic Bible: The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, Deuteronomy, Edinburgh 1988 (parts 6–9 of the series). Concordances: E. Brederek, Konkordanz zum Targum Onkelos (BZAW 9), Giessen 1906; C. J. Kosowski, A Concordance of the Targum of Onkelos, Jerusalem 1940 (revised edition 1986). For Targum Jonathan see D. J. Harrington and A. J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Introduction, Translations and Notes (The Aramaic Bible), Edinburgh 1987 (part 10). A concordance of Targum Jonathan is currently being prepared by J. C. de Moor (Kampen) and is expected when complete to consist of 21 volumes (A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets, Leiden 1995–). 50 Detailed information on the various Targums is provided by P. S. Alexander in The Anchor Bible Dictionary VI, New York etc. 1992, pp. 320–331.

the transmission of the old testament

89

Masoretic Text Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stones, like the very heaven for clearness. He (God) did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

Samaritanus Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Itamar, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stones, like the very heaven for clearness. He (God) did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

Septuagint Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the place where the God of Israel stood. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stones, like the ﬁrmament of the very heaven for clearness. And none of the chosen ones of Israel died; also they appeared at the place of God, and they ate and drank.

Aquila = Masoretic Text Symmachus Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw in a vision the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stones, like the very heaven for clearness. He (God) did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

Targum Onqelos51 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, as well as the seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they perceived the Glory of the God of Israel and beneath the throne of His Glory was something like the work of a precious stone and in appearance like the sky for purity. Yet the leaders of the Israelites were not injured even though they perceived the glory of the 51 B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Exodus. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 7), Edinburgh 1988, p. 72.

chapter five

90

Lord; and they rejoiced in their sacriﬁces which were accepted as though they were eating and drinking.

Targum Neoﬁti I52 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the wise men of Israel went up. And they saw the Glory of the Shekinah of the Lord; and under the footstool of his feet there (was) like brick-work of sapphire, as a vision of the heavens, when they are pure from cloud. And he did not stretch out his hand to the young men of the children of Israel; and they saw the Glory of the Shekinah of the Lord, and they rejoiced over their sacriﬁces, which were received as if they ate and drank.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan53 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up. Nadab and Abihu lifted up their eyes saw the glory of the God of Israel; under the footstool of his feet that was placed under his throne (there was) the likeness of a work of sapphire stone, recalling the slavery with which the Egyptians had enslaved the children of Israel with clay and bricks. As the women treaded the clay with their men, there was a delicately reared maiden there who was pregnant. She lost the embryo and it was tread on with the clay. Gabriel came down and made a brick out of it, and bringing it up to the heavens on high, he placed it as a platform under the footstool of the Lord of the world. Its splendour was like (that of ) a work in precious stone and like the glorious beauty of the heavens when they are clear of clouds. But, at that time, he did not send his plague against the handsome young men Nadab and Abihu. But it was reserved for them until the eighth day of ordination, when it would aﬄict them. And they saw the Glory of the Shekinah of the Lord, and rejoiced in their oﬀering that had been accepted with favor, as if they ate and drank.

Peshitta Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stones, like the very heaven for clearness. He (God) did not lay his hand on the elders of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

52 M. McNamara, Targum Neoﬁti 1: Exodus. Translation, with Introduction and Apparatus (The Aramaic Bible 2), Edinburgh 1994, pp. 104–105. 53 M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus. Translated, with Notes (The Aramaic Bible 2), Edinburgh 1994, pp. 231–232.

the transmission of the old testament

91

Vulgate Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire and like the heaven when it is clear. He (God) did not lay his hand on those who had distanced themselves from the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

It will be apparent from this comparison that the Septuagint and the Samaritanus have ventured to include a number of glosses in the text while the Peshitta and the Vulgate have endeavoured to provide a literal translation. The important role played by Eleazar and Itamar in the Samaritan tradition explains their inclusion in the Samaritanus. The version of the Septuagint (cf. Symmachus) and the Targums clearly represent a theologically founded resistance to the idea that a human person can see God and live. The “young men” of Targum Neoﬁti I (cf. Exod. 24:5) are identiﬁed in PseudoJonathan with Nadab and Abihu, who were later to be stricken by the punishment of yhwh (cf. Num. 10:1–5). A second example is taken from Gen. 49:10–12:54 Masoretic Text A sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a ruler’s staﬀ from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and the obedience of the peoples is his. He shall bind his donkey to a vine and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine. He shall wash his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes. He shall be more sparkling of eyes than wine and whiter of teeth than milk.

Samaritanus A sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a ruler’s staﬀ from between his standards, 54 In verses 8–9 the Aramaic Targums oﬀer supplementary information concerning the history of Judah: Neoﬁti I with respect to Tamar, Jerushalmi I and II with respect to Tamar and Joseph. Cf. R. de Hoop, Genesis 49 in its Literary and Historical Context (OTS 39), Leiden 1999.

chapter five

92

until Shiloh comes, and the obedience of the peoples is his. Bound is his donkey to a vine and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine. He shall wash his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall sparkle more than wine and his teeth shall be whiter than milk.

Septuagint and Theodotion A ruler shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from between his hips, until what was set aside for him comes, and he is the expectation of the peoples. He shall bind his young animal to a vine and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine. He shall wash his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes. More joy inspiring are his eyes than wine and whiter his teeth than milk.

4Q Genesis Peshera (= 4Q252), fragment 1, column V55 The sceptre shall [no]t depart from the tribe of Judah. While Israel has the dominion, There [will not] be cut oﬀ someone who sits on the throne of David. For “the staﬀ ” is the covenant of royalty [and the thous]ands of Israel are “the standards”. Until the Messiah of righteousness comes, the branch of David. For to him and to his descendents has been given the covenant of the kingship of his people for everlasting generations, which he upheld [. . .] the Law with the men of the Community, for [. . .] it is the assembly of the men of [. . .] [. . .] He gives

Aquila and Symmachus A sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a commander 56 from between his feet, until he comes, and the alliance of the peoples is his. 55

F. García Martínez & E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Vol. 1, Leiden 1997, p. 505. 56 Symmachus has “power/might” at this point.

the transmission of the old testament

93

He shall bind his young animal to a vine and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine. He shall wash his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes. Bright are his eyes more than wine and whiter his teeth than milk.

Peshitta A sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his court house, until the one to whom it belongs comes. The peoples await him. He shall bind his donkey to a vine and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine. He shall wash his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall sparkle more than wine and his teeth shall be whiter than milk.

Vulgate A sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his hips, until the one who must be sent comes; He shall be the expectation of the peoples. He shall bind his young to a vine and his she-ass, O my son, to a choice vine. He shall wash his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes. More beautiful are his eyes than wine and his teeth whiter than milk.

Targum Onqelos57 The ruler shall never depart from the House of Judah, nor the scribe from his children’s children for evermore, until the Messiah comes, to whom belongs the kingdom, and him shall the nations obey. He shall lead Israel round about his city; the people shall build his Temple; the righteous shall be round about him; 57 B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis. Translated, with a Critical Introduction, and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 6), Edinburgh 1988, p. 158.

chapter five

94

and they that carry out the Law shall be with him in study. Let his raiment, be of ﬁne purple, and his garment all woolen, crimson, and of bright sparkling colours. His mountains shall be red with his vineyards; his vats shall be dripping with wine; his valleys shall be white with grain and with ﬂocks of sheep.

Targum Neoﬁti I58 Kings shall not cease from among those of the house of Judah, and neither (shall) scribes teaching the Law, from his son’s sons, until the time King Messiah shall come, to whom the kingship belongs; to him shall all the kingdoms be subject. How beautiful is King Messiah, who is to rise from among those of the house of Judah. He girds his loins and goes forth to battle against those who hate him; and he kills kings with rulers, and makes the mountains red from the blood of their slain and makes the valleys white from the fat of their warriors. His garments are rolled in blood; he is like a presser of grapes. How beautiful are the eyes of King Messiah, more than pure wine, lest he see with them the revealing of nakedness or the shedding of innocent blood. His teeth are more pure than milk, lest he eatwith them things that are stolen or robbed. The mountains shall become red from his vines and the vats from wine; and the hills will become white from the abundance of grain and ﬂocks of sheep.

Targum Jerushalmi I59 Kings and rulers shall not cease from those of the house of Judah, nor scribes teacing the Law, from his descendents, until the time the King Messiah comes, the youngest of his sons, because of whom the people will pine away. How beautiful is King Messiah,

58 M. McNamara, Targum Neoﬁti 1: Genesis. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 1A), Edinburgh 1992, pp. 219–221. 59 M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated, with Introduction and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 1B), Edinburgh 1992, pp. 158–159.

the transmission of the old testament

95

who is to arise from among those of the house of Judah. He girds his loins and comes down arranging battle lines against his enemies and slaying kings together with rulers; and there is no king or ruler who can withstand him. He makes the mountains red with the blood of their dead, his garments are rolled in blood; he is like a presser of grapes. How beautiful are the eyes of the King Messiah, like pure wine, for they have not seen the uncovering of nakedness, or the shedding of innocent blood. His teeth are whiter than milk, because he has not eaten what has been robbed or taken by force. His mountains and his press shall be red from wine, and his hills white from the harvest and from the ﬂocks.

Targum Jerushalmi II60 Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor scholars and and teachers of the Torah from his children’s children, until such time that the King Messiah comes, whose is the kingdom, and unto whom all the kingdoms of the earth will be subjugated. How beautiful is the King Messiah, who will arise from the house of Judah! He girds his loins and goes out to battle against those who hate him, and he kills kings and rulers; he reddens the mountains from the blood of their slain, and he whitens his valleys form the fat of their mighty ones; his garments roll in the blood, and he is like one who presses grapes. How beautiful to behold are the eyes of the King Messiah, they are purer than wine, from [avoidance of ] seeing through them the uncovering of nakedness, and the spilling of innocent blood; his teeth are whiter than milk from [avoidance og] eating with them [the fruit of ] violence and robbery; his mountains will be red with grapes, and his press, from wine; his hills will be white from abundance of grain and ﬂocks of sheep.

60 M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources (Analecta Biblica 76), Rome 1980, p. 119.

chapter five

96

The Messianic explanation of Gen. 49:10–12 already suggested in the Septuagint is made explicit in 4QpGena and in the Targums. The messianic expectation in the Qumran document, which belongs among the paraphrasing and exegetical literature of the community that resided therein (see further chapter XIV), is clearly presented as an inner community matter. The Targumic rendition of the text segment constitutes a ﬁne example of the Wirkungsgeschichte of the passage in Jewish circles from the ﬁrst century of the Common Era. The highly nationalistic paraphrasing found in Neoﬁti I, Jerushalmi I and Jerushalmi II is worthy of note. A third example of variety of textual transmission is provided by Job 42:1–6. We limit ourselves in this instance to the Masoretic Text, the Targum of Job from Cave 11 of Qumran and the Septuagint. Masoretic text Then Job answered the Lord and said: I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me. Only had I heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you. Therefore I recognise my nothingness61 and consider myself dust and ashes.

Targum of Job from Cave 11 of Qumran62 Job answered and said before God: I know that you can do everything, and that you are not in want of strength and wisdom. I have spoken and I will not repeat; twice and to that I will not add.63

61 The translation of "èm"as as “I revoke” proposed by the NBG is not supported by the use of the respective verb elsewhere in the Old Testament. See E. Noort, Een duister duel. Over de theologie van het boek Job, Kampen 1986. 62 F. García Martínez & E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Vol. 2, Leiden 1997, p. 1201. 63 Cf. Job 40:5 (tr. 39:38).

the transmission of the old testament

97

Listen, then, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me. I have heard of you only by hearsay, and now my eye has seen you. For this I will be poured out and dissolved, and I will turn into dust and ashes.

Septuagint Job answered and said to the Lord: I know that you are capable of all things and nothing is impossible to you. Who is it that conceals your counsel, holding back words and intending to hide (them) from you? Who makes known to me what I do not know, great and wonderful things that I do not understand? I will question you, you will teach me. By word of mouth I once heard of you, but now my eye has seen you. Therefore I consider myself insigniﬁcant and am dropped down, I consider myself dust and ashes.

Typically lacking in the Targum of Job from Cave 11 of Qumran is any suggestion that Job himself was bereft of insight (cf. MT Job 42:3). It would appear that Job is being portrayed at this juncture as an exemplary pious individual in harmony with later religious ideals. The text comparisons presented above reveal how actual circumstances and theological perspectives played a far from insigniﬁcant role in determining the manner in which a text was transmitted.

The textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible is devoted to the observation, comparison and evaluation of textual variations in the transmitted manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible and the versions. These procedures ultimately include an attempt to form a hypothesis concerning the character of the text traditions in question together with an analysis of translation techniques. The aim of textual criticism is thus limited to the endeavour to trace the “best text”. While the desire to literally reconstruct the original text of an Old Testament document may be aiming too high, the eﬀort to get as close as possible to this goal is clearly a productive process. The establishment of preferred readings in individual cases is seldom easy. Nevertheless, evident copyist errors are frequently detectable

98

chapter five

(e.g. confusion between letters that resemble each other in Hebrew script [in particular b and k, d and r, w and r as well as w and y],64 the omission of one of two identical opening or concluding clauses (homoioarchton and homoioteleuton), incorrect division between words [cf., for example, Amos 6:1265 and 7:4],66 alternative readings [cf., for example, the word “kingdoms” side by side with “generations” in Jer. 1:15a],67 the omission of words [e.g. 1 Sam. 13:1, in which the Masoretic Text reads: “Saul was one year old when he became king; and he reigned for two years over Israel”, whereby certain numbers have evidently been omitted], glosses [cf., for example, 1 Kgs 22:28c, borrowed from Micah 1:2a]68 and the writing of a letter only once instead of twice or vice versa (haplography and dittography respectively). A degree of reserve must be maintained in the endeavour to reconstruct the earliest attainable text of the Hebrew Bible on the basis of later translations, although the latter can be useful on occasion (see, for example, Micah 6:16, in which the lxx with kai aphanistèsetai, “and shall be destroyed”, refers to a reading of the Hebrew text wayyi“-tammed instead of wayyi“tammer, “and shall be preserved” as found in the Masoretic Text). The determination of the meaning of a word that occurs only once (a hapax legomenon) or only a few times in the Old Testament can also beneﬁt from the witness of the ancient translations as well as that of other ancient languages akin to Hebrew.69 It should be remembered that the translators of the Septuagint and the compilers of the oldest Targums must have had a reasonable grasp of the meaning of words since they often exhibit close aﬃliation with ancient Hebrew usage. At the same time, however, this need not imply that they

64 It is possible that some errors can be traced back to very ancient times when old Hebrew script was still in use and letters such as b and r, m and n were diﬃcult to distinguish. See the still instructive work of F. Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament nebst den dem Schriftexte einverleibten Randnoten klassiﬁziert, Berlin-Leipzig 1920. The confusion of m with the ligature nw and “ with 'z also occasioned errors from time to time. 65 Read bbqr ym, “with cattle the sea”, instead of bbqrym, “with cattle”. 66 Read lrbb "“, “a rain of ﬁre”, instead of lrb b"“, “to punish with ﬁre”. 67 Cf. S. Talmon, “Double Readings in the Masoretic Text”, Textus 1 (1960), 144–184. 68 Cf. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel I–VII, Leipzig 1908–1914. 69 Cf. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism”, Textus 3 (1963), 130–158; J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxford 1968.

the transmission of the old testament

99

always clearly understood the 500 to 1000 year old texts they had at their disposal. The Hebrew language developed signiﬁcantly after the Babylonian exile, whereby the ancient meaning of a word came in certain instances to be replaced by a new meaning. Our ever-increasing knowledge of ancient Semitic languages and dialects provides us with the potential to understand and interpret ancient texts in a manner no longer accessible to the Jewish world at the beginning of the Common Era.

Earlier generations of exegetes were not infrequently over zealous in their use of the versions as a means of “correcting” the text of the Hebrew Bible. One might even venture to suggest that they were somewhat konjekturfreudig! The fact that more material has come to light that we can compare with the Hebrew standard text, together with the conviction that a variety of text recensions of the Old Testament were simultaneously in circulation, has inclined scholars to be more cautious in the use of these textual witnesses for the correction of the textus receptus. Certain biblical manuscripts found among the scrolls of the Dead Sea and the analysis of the textual transmission of the Septuagint give evidence, for example, of the existence of a variety of literary strata in the early transmission history of books such as Jeremiah, Joshua, Ezekiel and in 1 Samuel 16–18.70 For centuries, the Masoretic Text has been considered more or less infallible, not only in Jewish circles but also among Christians of the reformed tradition. While such a thesis is clearly no longer tenable, some scholars (e.g. Nyberg in his Studien zum Hoseabuche [1935]) insist on the superiority of the Masoretic Text above all other textual traditions. In the present author’s opinion, such a perspective is only justiﬁable if one opts for the ﬁrst centuries prior to the beginning of the Common Era as one’s point of departure. To a signiﬁcant degree, however, the textual transmission of the individual books of the Hebrew Bible prior to this period remains a mystery, although the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has oﬀered us a glimpse thereof. Bearing 4QJerb in mind, for example, it would appear that the Septuagint version of the book of Jeremiah is based on a Hebrew Vorlage that is older than the Masoretic Text (see further chapter XIV). Besides the unintentional errors that found their way into the text of the Hebrew Bible in the process of transmission, Scribes of the 70 Cf. E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Jerusalem 19972, pp. 237ﬀ.

100

chapter five

ﬁrst centuries prior to the Common Era also indulged (albeit to a modest degree) in intentional correction and emendation.71 Of signiﬁcant interest in this regard are the textual emendations introduced by the Scribes in a number of places rooted in reverence for God or on exegetical grounds (the tiqqune soferîm, the “emendations of the scribes”).72 In Gen. 18:22, for example, they read “Abraham stood before yhwh” instead of “yhwh stood before Abraham”, because the verb “to stand before” later came to have the potential meaning “to be the servant [of someone]”. The tradition that the ﬁnal text of the Torah was established on the basis of three standard texts preserved in the temple, whereby the reading supported by two of the three was chosen in the event of divergent readings,73 likewise points to text-critical endeavour, which ultimately led to the ﬁnal form of the textual tradition we have today. Out of respect for the tradition, however, the Masoretes left the transmitted consonantal text unemended. In roughly a thousand cases, however, they replaced “the written (word)” (ketîb) by indicating in the margin how the said word was “to be read” (qerê ), the ketîb thus being vocalised according to the qerê. While the so-called constant qerê or qerê perpetuum is not indicated in the margin, in this instance also the ketîb is vocalised with the vowels of the qerê. The divine name is yhwh (which originally was probably pronounced Yahwèh) thus came to be vocalised with the vowels of "adonay, “Lord”, which led in turn to the mixed form Jehovah (where yhwh occurred next to "adonay it was vocalised with the vowels of "èlohîm, “God”).

As a rule of thumb, scholars only tend to consider emendation of the transmitted text of the Hebrew Bible justiﬁable on those occasions when it can be demonstrated (with the help of the versions) why the text is corrupt (e.g. where letters have been interchanged or where “dogmatic correction” is evident). At the same time, the speciﬁc character of the individual textual witnesses, together with the translation-technical and content based presuppositions that can be determined to have been essential elements of the foundations thereof, must be accounted for before one employs information acquired from the versions as the basis for a correction of the text of the Hebrew 71 Cf. A. Rofé, “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and its Occurrence in 4QSama”, Revue de Qumrân 14/54 (1989), 247–254. 72 Cf. C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (OBO 36), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1981. 73 Cf. S. Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law that Were Found in the Temple Court”, Textus 2 (1962), 14–27.

the transmission of the old testament

101

Bible. The versions frequently reﬂect later theological or alternative perspectives, which will have exerted a degree of inﬂuence on their rendition of the Vorlage. This need not imply that the use of such witnesses in our eﬀorts to establish the primitive Hebrew text of the Old Testament is ill advised. One should be on one’s guard, however, against the tendency to draw often hasty and mechanical conclusions on the basis of a simple comparison of texts without accounting for the unique and particular character of the translations we have at our disposal.

CHAPTER SIX

THE LITERARY GENRES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

a. Poetry J. Ley, Grundzüge des Rhythmus, des Vers- und Strophenbaues in der hebräischen Poesie, Halle 1875; E. Sievers, Metrische Studien I–III, Leipzig 1901–1907; Th. H. Robinson, The Poetry of the Old Testament, London 1947; F. Horst, “Die Kennzeichen der hebräischen Poesie”, ThR 21 (1953), 97–121; F. M. de Liagre Böhl, “Bijbelse en Babylonische dichtkunst”, JEOL 15 (1957–1958), 133–153; S. Segert, “Problems of Hebrew Prosody”, in: Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (SVT 7), Leiden 1960, pp. 283–291; S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship II, Oxford 1962, pp. 159–175 (on the metrical system employed in the Psalms); S. Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel, Chicago 1963; N. H. Ridderbos, “The Psalms: Style-Figures and Structure”, OTS 13 (1963), 43–76; H. Kosmala, “Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry”, VT 14 (1964), 423–445, 16 (1966), 152–180; K. Elliger, “Ein neuer Zugang?”, in: F. Maass (ed.), Das ferne und nahe Wort (FS L. Rost; BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, pp. 59–64; E. Beaucamp, “Structure strophique des Psaumes”, RSR 56 (1968), 199–223; D. N. Freedman, “Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy. An Essay on Biblical Poetry”, JBL 96 (1977), 5–26; T. Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry. A Grammatical Approach to the Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets, Rome 1978; S. Geller, Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry, Missoula MT 1979; D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy. Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry, Winona Lake IN 1980; M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake IN 1980; P. van der Lugt, Stroﬁsche structuren in de Bijbels-Hebreeuwse poëzie, Kampen 1980; J. L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry. Parallelism and its History, New Haven 1981; W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques ( JSOT Suppl. 26), Sheﬃeld 1984, 19862; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, New York 1985; A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Bloomington IN 1985; L. Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Subsidia Biblica 11), Rome 1988; W. van der Meer and J. C. de Moor, The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (Suppl. JSOT 74), Sheﬃeld 1988; M. C. A. Korpel and J. C. de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55 (OTS 41), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1998.

1. Introduction While the literary sciences frequently present poetry as an older form of literature than prose, such questions have little if any relevance

the literary genres of the old testament

103

when it comes to the evaluation of Israel’s literature as found in the Old Testament. From the perspective of culture, Israel was something of a latecomer in the Ancient Near East. It is not surprising, therefore, that both forms of literature evidently existed side by side from its earliest stages. Virtually half of the Hebrew Bible consists of poetic texts. While these obviously include the Psalms, Lamentations and the Song of Songs, one should also take account of the poetic character of the book of Proverbs and to a signiﬁcant degree the books of Job and Qoheleth. In addition, a very large portion of the prophetic literature is also poetic in nature. The Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) and the Former Prophets ( Joshua-2 Kings) likewise contain a number of poetic texts, which are often immediately recognisable in the ancient manuscripts on account of the extra space left between verse segments (this is not true of the Prophets). In some instances, the verse segments are written in consecutive (colometric) lines.1 The most signiﬁcant characteristic of Hebrew poetry is its use of parallelism between the verse segments (so-called parallelismus membrorum), a style ﬁgure likewise found in the literature of Egypt, Ugarit and Mesopotamia. The phenomenon takes a variety of forms including: a) b) c) d)

repetitive (synonymous) parallelism; adversative (antithetical) parallelism; complementary (synthetic) parallelism; climactic parallelism (“staircase parallelism”).

In the ﬁrst instance, a verse line is formed by two clauses expressing the same idea using synonymous terminology. See, for example, Ps. 24:1–6: 1 The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it; 2 for he has founded it on the seas, and established it on the rivers. 3 Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? 4 Those who have clean hands and pure hearts, who do not lift up their souls to what is false and do not swear deceitfully.

1 An example thereof can be found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in 4QDeutq (= 4Q44); cf. P. W. Skehan, “A Fragment of the Song of Moses (Deut 32) from Qumran”, BASOR 136 (1954), 12–15.

104

chapter six 5 They will receive blessing from the Lord and vindication from the God of their salvation. 6 Such is the company of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob.

In the second instance, an idea is set in sharp relief by placing positive and negative expressions thereof side by side. See, for example, Ps. 37:16–17: 16 Better is a little that the righteous person has than the abundance of many wicked. 17 For the arms of the godless shall be broken, but the Lord upholds the righteous.

In the third instance, the second half of the verse line supplements the ﬁrst. See, for example, Ps. 51:16–17: 16 Deliver me from bloodshed, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing of your deliverance. 17 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.

In the fourth instance, the second segment of the verse line repeats a word or several words from the ﬁrst. See, for example, Ps. 29:1: Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.

Repetitive parallelism is best represented by far in the book of Psalms. It should be noted thereby, however, that parallelismus membrorum as a whole does not only represent repetition but also progress of thought.2 Given the fact that “conceptual rhyme” is characteristic of Hebrew poetry, its authors would appear to have had little need to employ word rhyme. See, however, Gen. 4:23 (two lines ending in -ati ) and Judg. 16:24 (four words at the end of each verse segment ending in -enu).3 Alliteration is more frequently employed (see below). Strophes in the strict sense of the term, i.e. verses with an equal number of lines of the same length, tend in principle to be rare in

2 Cf. J. Muilenburg, “A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style”, in: Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (SVT 1), Leiden 1953, pp. 97–111. 3 For a more detailed discussion of this phenomenon with examples from Ugaritic, Akkadian and Hebrew poetry see W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques ( JSOT Suppl. 26), Sheﬃeld 1984, 19862, pp. 229–234.

the literary genres of the old testament

105

Hebrew poetic writing. A speciﬁc form of strophic construction can occasionally be recognised, for example, in the alphabetic segments of Psalm 119 and in Psalms 42–43 that employ a refrain and form a literary unity (cf. Ps. 42:6,12; 43:5; see also Ps. 107:8,15,21,31). From time to time we come across acrostic poems, songs whereby the verse lines or strophes begin with Hebrew consonants in alphabetical order such as Psalms 9 and 10 (which belong together),4 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 145 and 119 as well as Lamentations 1–4.5 There is some dispute as to whether pure alphabetic acrostics are represented elsewhere in Hebrew poetry.6 In light of the fact that the Hebrew language underwent signiﬁcant evolution in the course of the centuries and that contemporary scholarship only has an approximate idea of its pronunciation in biblical times, the question of metre in Hebrew poetry remains virtually unresolved.7 The additional fact that it is frequently impossible to distinguish later interpolations from the original text in the historical evolution of the Old Testament simply compounds the problem. Some scholars maintain the existence of an accent based system while others insist on a system based on alternating stress, while others still argue that the one followed the other in historical sequence. The accentual system presumes the existence of a meter based on the natural rhythm of words and clauses. Budde and Sievers speak in addition of anapaests, metrical measures consisting of two unaccented syllables and one accented syllable, as well as syncope, whereby one accented syllable clashes with another. The alternative stress system, on the other hand, tends to presume the presence of an iambic rhythm with the alternation of accented and unaccented syllables with which syncope can also be associated (cf. Hölscher, Robinson,

4 In this instance the acrostic in the text that has survived to the present day is incomplete. 5 Acrostics are occasionally limited to a part of the alphabet (cf. Nahum 1:2–8). 6 In spite of arguments to the contrary, Psalm 110 should not be understood as alluding to Simon the Maccabean on account of the initial letters of verses 1b–4. The psalm dates from a period considerably earlier than that of the Maccabeans. 7 H. Kosmala (op. cit., 1964, 1966) has argued that the foundations of Hebrew poetry are not established on meter or rhythm but rather on a ﬁxed number of “word (thought)-units” that together constitute the two cola of a verse line (such units can consist of both short and long words); verse lines alternate with one another with a degree of regularity and combine to form strophes. Hebrew poetry is thus based on the symmetric organisation of verse lines in a particular strophe. For critique of Kosmala’s standpoint see K. Elliger, op. cit., 1967.

chapter six

106

Mowinckel and Horst). The following example from the lament (qîna) in Amos 5:2a will serve to illustrate both approaches. Sievers renders the rhythm of the text as follows: nafelá lo" tosíf qúm betulát yisra"él,

while Horst reads: náfelá lo" tósíf qúm betúlat yísra"él.

Segert has suggested that both systems should be distinguished from one another chronologically, the early period of the monarchy employing the accentuating system and later centuries the alternating stress system.8 More important than the unsolved (and perhaps unsolvable) problem of the use of meter in Hebrew poetry is the observation that the Hebrew poets made use of all sorts of ancient terminology, language ﬁgures and elevated expressions; to such an extent that one would correct to speak of a sort of dialectus poeticus.9 The images employed in Hebrew poetry are often rather bold according to present day norms (e.g. streams that “clap their hands” and mountains that “rejoice”, cf. Ps. 98:8). Such images bear witness to a personiﬁcation of the natural elements, which were not infrequently experienced as divine in the strongly dynamistic world of the Ancient Near East. Impressive examples include the personiﬁcation of the sun in Ps. 19:6–7, the description of the ﬁelds in Ps. 65:10–14, the representation of heaven and earth in Ps. 96:11–13 as well as the sea and the mountains in Psalm 114. The metaphors employed in Ps. 23:1ﬀ., together with the comparisons found in Ps. 1:3–4, Ps. 42:2 and Qoh. 12:2–7, bear witness to the energetic imagination of the poets of Ancient Israel. Hebrew poetry also exhibits a formal and eﬀective capacity to add emphasis to that which it desires to say. Linguistic devices intended to reinforce the impact of a verse at the phonetic level include alliteration, assonance and onomatopoeia. Sentence constructions whereby use is made of chiasm (the association of word pairs in inverted order), for example, are likewise signiﬁcant in this regard. 8 A more detailed discussion of these and other theories of meter in Hebrew and other Semitic poetry can be found in Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, pp. 87–113. 9 Cf. G. R. Driver, Hebrew Poetic Diction, in: Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (SVT 1), Leiden 1953, pp. 26–39, in which the author refers to the archaising character of Aramaisms.

the literary genres of the old testament

107

We oﬀer some examples for those familiar with biblical Hebrew. Alliteration can be found in Num. 21:18b (4x m), Judg. 5:12b (5x b to Barak), Judg. 14:14,18 (4x m in the riddle of Samson and 5x m in the response thereto), Hos. 12:2a (the use of r) and Amos 5:5b (the g). Assonance can be found in Isa. 1:4a, whereby the long ô of hôy (“woe”) resounds throughout the entire verse segment, and in Jer. 15:10a, where the predominant use of the vowel î serves to echo the sound of grief and aﬄiction (cf. also 2 Sam. 1:26). An outstanding example of onomatopoeia can be found in Judg. 5:22, in which the sound of the hoofs of galloping horses is echoed in the predominant use of short a sounds and in the meter: "âz hâlemû 'iqqebê-sûs middaharôt daharôt "abbîrâw “Then loud the beat of horses’ hoofs with the galloping, galloping of his steeds” (cf. also Jer. 47:3a). A striking example of chiasm can be found in Gen. 9:6a: “Whoever sheds (a) the blood (b) of a human (c), by a human (c’) shall that person’s blood (b’) be shed (a’)”.

Some excellent examples of the expressive capacity of Hebrew poetry can be found in the song ridiculing Babel in Isaiah 47, in which the author expresses his disgust of idol worship, in the colourful portrayal of Nineveh’s rise and fall in Nahum 2, in the impressive description of nature in Job 38–41 and in the imaginative representation of erotic love in the Song of Songs. 2. Profane poetry Although the historical books of the Old Testament have preserved and transmitted a number of profane songs, quotations from such material can also be found in the prophetic writings. The prophetic texts, moreover, are often characterised by their use of profane poetic technique, as is the case, for example, in the song of the vineyard in Isa. 5:1–4. An absolute distinction between profane and religious poetry in the Old Testament remains an impossible task. Indeed, many a poem, such as the otherwise nationalistic Song of Deborah in Judges 5, bears a thoroughly religious character, much akin to the traditional national anthems sung on state occasions throughout the world. The poems that make up the Song of Songs are likewise rooted in profane love poetry and only acquired their mystical signiﬁcance at a much later time. Singing was a constituent part of life in Ancient Israel. We can discern from Judg. 9:27 and 21:21 together with Isa. 16:10 (cf. also 9:2) and Amos 5:17 that harvest songs must have existed at some time,

chapter six

108

although the texts thereof are no longer at our disposal. It would appear that the grape harvest, for example, gave occasion for jubilant celebration accompanied by much singing. Isa. 52:8–9 similarly allows us to presuppose that the watchmen in their high vantage points were inclined to pass the time with the singing of songs as they awaited the rising of the sun (cf. Ps. 130:6). Festivals, characterised by music and the extravagant consumption of food and drink (cf. Isa. 5:11–12; 22:13), were likewise occasions for song.10 One such festival song has been passed on to us in the text of Isa. 22:13: Let us eat and drink, For tomorrow we die.

The so-called Song of the Well in Num. 21:17–18 is also worthy of note: Spring up, O well! Sing to it! The well that the leaders sank, that the nobles of the people dug, with the sceptre, with the staﬀ.

This poem would appear to be addressed to a well located above an underground water vein, summoning it to provide water anew and calling to mind its noble origins. The song as such is not typically Israelite. We know from ancient Arab sources that, when a well dried up, feasts were held with music and dance to stimulate a restoration of the water ﬂow.11 The so-called Song of Revenge in Gen. 4:23–24 represents a completely diﬀerent genre in which a non-Israelite man sings of the unconstrained bloodlust of Lamech and the descendents of Cain: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; You wives of Lamech, listen to what I say. I have killed a man for wounding me, A young man for striking me. If Cain was avenged sevenfold, Truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold!

10 The text of Amos 6:3–7 most probably refers to a religious feast celebrated by an elite cultic-religious “sociëteit”, which endeavoured to achieve communion with the divinity by sharing a meal with the venerated Lord. 11 Cf. G. B. Gray, Numbers (ICC), Edinburgh 19122, p. 289.

the literary genres of the old testament

109

Although often considered of Amorite origin, the so-called Glory Song Num. 21:27–30 should be ascribed to Israelite sources and would appear to celebrate the conquest of the city of Heshbon:12 Come to Heshbon, let it be built; let the city of Sihon be established. For ﬁre came out from Heshbon, ﬂame from the city of Sihon. It devoured Ar of Moab, and swallowed up the heights of the Arnon. Woe to you, O Moab! You are undone, O people of Chemosh! He has made his sons fugitives, and his daughters captives to an Amorite king, Sihon. So their posterity perished from Heshbon to Dibon, and we laid waste until ﬁre spread to Medeba.13

The Old Testament has also preserved and transmitted other victory songs, the Song of Deborah ( Judges 5) being perhaps the most familiar. As a rule, such songs oﬀer thanks to the divinity for the gift of victory over the enemy. Some are extensive (cf. Psalms 18 and 68), while others are short (e.g. the Song of Miriam in Exod. 15:21 and 1 Sam. 18:7). Examples of mocking songs in the Old Testament tend to be either political or religious in character. The political mocking song often formed part of a victory song (as is the case in Judg. 5:27–30), although they also occur on their own as in Isa. 14:4–21. The religious mocking song is found for the most part in the context of a diﬀerent literary genre, focusing generally on the impotence of idols. A familiar example can be found in Jer. 10:3–5a: For the customs of the peoples are false: a tree from the forest is cut down, and worked with an axe by the hands of an artisan; people deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.

12

Cf. M. Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri (ATD), Göttingen 1966, pp. 144–145. The translation is not entirely certain on account of the fact that the Hebrew in places is open to more than one interpretation. This is particularly the case with respect to v. 30. 13

110

chapter six Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber ﬁeld, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk.

Isa. 28:15 ascribes a song to ‘scoﬀers’,14 who sing the praises of immortality: We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement; when the overwhelming scourge passes through, it will not come to us; for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter.

In the case of songs of lament, a distinction is to be made between individual and collective laments: the personal song of mourning and the political song of death. Both frequently exhibit the so-called qîna meter with 3 + 2 beats. Striking examples of the individual lament include the song of David on account of the death of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:19–29) and on the murder of Abner (2 Sam. 3:33–34). A good illustration of the political lament can be found in the book of Lamentations, which deals with the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The prophetic literature often relates the song of lament to some future catastrophe, thereby fulﬁlling the function of an announcement of doom. See, for example, Amos 5:2: Fallen, no more to rise, is maiden Israel, forsaken on her land, with no one to raise her up.

Hebrew profane poetry also includes the proverb, a sort of adage or short saying. The following words alluded to by Ezekiel (18:2, cf. Jer. 31:29) would appear to have been a common saying in Israel: The parents have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

While it is diﬃcult to distinguish in the book of Proverbs between the teachings of the wise and popular adage, there can be little doubt that much of the material contained therein has its roots in vernacular usage. 14 The translators of the Dutch Authorised Version and the NBG incorrectly render the term as “oppressors”.

the literary genres of the old testament

111

Popular sayings related to the tribes of Israel are preserved and transmitted in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. The riddle constitutes a particular type of saying, a familiar example of which can be found in the history of Samson ( Judg. 14:12–18). 3. Religious poetry The religious poetic artistry encountered in the Old Testament is of much greater signiﬁcance than the remnants of profane poetry found therein. While the former clearly exhibits its own unique creativity, it remains nevertheless dependent to a large extent on the genres represented in the latter. A distinction can be made in the context of religious poetry between proverbs and songs. It should be noted in advance, however, that what we understand to be included under the single word “proverb” (a short expression of ethical or religious character), required a variety of diﬀerent terms for the ancient Israelite. The latter distinguished, for example, between a (priestly) teaching (torah), a word (dabar) of God (used in particular by the prophets for divine utterances but also for divine utterances in general) and a proverb (mashal, including the taunting song, the wisdom saying and the proverb). By virtue of its origin and form, therefore, the religious proverb can thus be understood from three distinct perspectives: cultic, prophetic or chokmatic (deriving from wisdom teaching). Priestly torah is a form of teaching given by a priest on the request of someone who had consulted the oracle or a teaching provided by the priest himself ex-oﬃcio. 1 Sam. 23:9–12 contains an example of a request for a divine utterance using the priestly ephod with the Urim and Thummim (‘fortune’ stones, cf. Exod. 28:30; Deut. 33:8). In Hag. 2:12–14 (Hebr. 2:11–13) we read how the prophet Haggai requested torah (instruction) from the priests on a particular matter and how they provided him with an answer. It is probable that the request addressed to yhwh in Psalm 15 concerning those who have the right to enter the sanctuary represents a request for a torah (cf. also Psalm 24:3–5). It is evident from the aforementioned examples that a priestly proverb could take both poetic and prose forms. It is likewise probable that texts such as those found in Gen. 16:11 and Judg. 13:3,7 (cf. 1 Sam. 1:15–18; Gen. 25:22–23; Isa. 7:14) were originally related to utterances stemming from the consultation of the oracle in the sanctuary. Such utterances would have been formulated

112

chapter six

in this or similar fashion by the priests in response to the requests of women who desired to have or were expecting a child and who turned to them for a divine word. The expression “to seek yhwh” originally meant to request a divine oracle through the mediation of priests or prophets. In addition to the priestly torah we also have examples of the prophetic word.15 While such statements are not always found in poetic form, prose examples are much less frequent than is the case with priestly torah. The relationship between temple bound priests and prophets and between priestly instruction and prophetic revelation remains diﬃcult to assess. It is possible that priestly torah was primarily associated with cultic occasions (cf. Hagg. 2:12–14, Hebr. 2:11–13) while prophetic aphorisms had more to do with political matters (cf. 1 Kgs 22:5ﬀ.; Jeremiah 28; Micah 3:11). Examples exist, on the other hand, of prophets beings consulted on personal matters outside the sanctuary context (cf. 1 Sam. 9:6–10). Ancient Israel’s prophets were not limited to the temple(s). Num. 11:24–29, for example, speaks of Eldad and Medad as representatives of non-cultic prophets (see also Amos 7:14). The means employed for the reception of divine oracles varied. As we already noted, the priests had sacred oracular instruments at their disposal: the ephod (cf. 1 Sam. 14:3; Hos. 3:4) with the Urim and Thummim (Deut. 33:8; Ezra 2:63) and were familiar, in addition, with the cultic tradition (cf., for example, Hagg. 2:12–14, Hebr. 2:11–13). The prophets tended to receive their revelations in visions or dreams or by allowing themselves to be inﬂuenced by the playing of musical instruments whereby “the hand of yhwh” came to rest upon them (2 Kgs 3:15). Prophets not infrequently received their revelations in ecstatic states and it is for this reason that they were sometimes referred to as crazy (2 Kgs 9:11; Hos. 9:7). Such ecstatic states, however, are not characteristic of all the prophets. Jeremiah, for example, would appear to have never resorted to such procedures. Reference is frequently made with respect to the most important of the socalled ‘writing prophets’ (i.e. those whose words are preserved in individual books of the Old Testament) to a speciﬁc call to ministry. Such prophets were “singular” individuals whose ministry, unlike that of the cultic min-

15 Cf. C. Westermann, Grundformen prophetischer Rede (BETh 31), Munich 1960 and subsequent editions.

the literary genres of the old testament

113

istry of the priests, was not inherited. As a consequence, the individual personality of the writing prophets tends to be much more explicit than that of the priests.

A striking characteristic of the prophetic utterance is the I-form whereby the word of God is transmitted. In using this form, however, the prophet did not intend to identify himself with yhwh as such but rather to express his awareness of being yhwh’s emissary. The prophetic utterance constitutes, in principle, a message from the one who commissioned him. The prophets thus make frequent use of the formula analogous to that found in the letter form: “Thus says yhwh”, or of the words “utterance of yhwh” (ne"um YHWH). In the context of their preaching, the prophets employed a variety of literary genres: short aphorisms, homilies, mocking songs (cf. Isaiah 14), the lament over the dead (cf. Amos 5:2), the collective lament (Hos. 6:1–3; Jer. 3;23–24) etc. They likewise endeavoured to interpret the divine revelation they had received in their own preaching. Illustrative examples include Amos 5:3 with the lament of Amos 5:2 and Isa. 5:11–17, in which the divine utterance of v. 13 (yhwh in the ﬁrst person!) is elucidated by prophetic commentary (yhwh in the third person!). From time to time the prophet’s preaching takes the form of a dialogue, as is the case in Jer. 3:21–4:2: the prophet speaks of the people’s remorse in v. 21, a divine utterance follows in v. 22a, the people speak in vv. 22b–25, a further divine utterance follows in 4:1 and the prophet takes the ﬂoor again in v. 2. A similar example can be found in Hosea 14:2–9: the prophet speaks in vv. 2–4, a divine word follows in vv. 5–8, Ephraim continues in v. 9a followed by God in v. 9b, Ephraim in v. 9c and God once again in v. 9d.16 The Old Testament Wisdom Saying represents an entirely diﬀerent genre.17 Less varied and less developed than the modes of prophetic speech, such sayings tend to remain close to ancient forms. Jer. 18:18 (see also Jer. 8:8–12) clearly distinguishes between the bearers of the wisdom traditions and the priests and the prophets. Such individuals would appear to have functioned as counsellors as well as teachers 16 Cf. further A. S. van der Woude, “Bemerkungen zu einigen umstrittenen Stellen im Zwölfprophetenbuch”, in: A. Caquot et M. Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 483–499, esp. pp. 483–485. 17 Cf. G. von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970.

114

chapter six

of the children of the upper classes. Although rooted in principle in popular empirical wisdom and priestly ethical teaching, their sayings tend as a rule to be founded on broad-based Ancient Near Eastern moral values yet located within the framework of Israel’s faith in God: the fear of yhwh is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7; 9:10; Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10). The teachers of wisdom represent a sort of wisdom school aimed at a positive participation in social life and a judicious organisation of individual existence. The ﬁxed form and pointed content of their sayings provided their teachings with a degree of authority and inﬂuence and made them, at the very least, easy to remember (cf. Qoh. 12:11). In its original form, a proverb (mashal ) consisted of a verse line made up of two cola, each with an equal number of accented syllables, containing a comparison.18 Cf. Prov. 26:7–9,11: 7 The legs of a disabled person hang limp; so does a proverb in the mouth of a fool. 8 It is like binding a stone in a sling, to give honour to a fool. 9 Like a thorn bush brandished by the hand of a drunkard, is a proverb in the mouth of a fool. 11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit, is a fool who reverts to his folly.

Besides such barbed comparisons, which resemble present day epigrams and were taken over in satirical verse, the proverbs also include a variety of diﬀerent sorts of expressions borrowed from everyday life (cf. Prov. 12:24: “The hand of the diligent will rule, while the lazy will be put to forced labour”). These include the exhortation (cf. Prov. 14:7: “Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not ﬁnd words of knowledge”), the numerical aphorism, the “better than” saying and the beatitude. In addition to Prov. 6:16–19 an excellent example of a numerical aphorism can be found in Prov 30:21–23: 21 Under three things the earth trembles, under four it cannot bear up: 22 a slave when he becomes king, and a fool when glutted with food; 23 an unloved woman when she gets a husband, and a maid when she succeeds her mistress. 18

The term mashal is derived from a Hebrew root meaning “to be like”.

the literary genres of the old testament

115

The proverb is akin to the riddle (cf. also the synonyms in Prov. 1:6). Indeed the ability to solve riddles (see, for example, 1 Kgs 10:1 and Dan. 5:12) and understand proverbs represent an elevated form of wisdom. Prov. 17:1 constitutes a ﬁne illustration of the so-called “better than” saying (cf. also 12:9; 15:16, 17; 16:8, 19; 27:5, 10b): Better is a dry morsel with quiet, than a house full of feasting with strife.

Examples of the beatitude (also referred to as the macarism) can be found in Prov. 3:13; 8:32, 34; 14:21b; 16:20b; 28:14a; 29:18b; cf. also Isa. 30:18; 32:20; 56:2; Ps. 1:1; 2:12; 32:1. Wisdom literature evolved from short proverbs to longer forms of teaching that took on the character of didactic poems (Proverbs 1–9) supported by ﬁrst person experiential testimonies (cf., for example, Prov. 7:6ﬀ.; 24:30–34). A further evolution of wisdom sayings is exempliﬁed in the lengthy reﬂections found together with typically short proverbs in the book of Qoheleth. The book of Job contains a series of dialogues reminiscent of Greek drama. The dialogue form, which also plays an important role in prophetic poetry and Ancient Israelite narrative, enjoyed widespread application in the Ancient Near East and was already highly developed in the Gilgamesh Epic and in the Babylonian Theodicy.19 The religious song is strongly represented in the Old Testament. Such songs enjoy a variety of backgrounds including prophetic preaching, cultic circles and songs that have their roots in the lives of individuals. As we already noted, prophetic preaching made frequent use of the genres of profane poetry. At the same time, however, it also exercised a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on Israel’s poetic imagination (cf. Ps. 81:7–17 and 95:7b–11).20 Religious poetry had its particular place in the service of Israel’s cultic liturgy, which, if we are to believe Amos 5:23, was accompanied by a more than adequate amount of music and song:

19 H. A. Brongers, De literatuur van de Babyloniërs en Assyriërs, Den Haag 1951, pp. 132–135. 20 H. Gunkel and J. Begrich explicitly emphasise prophetic inﬂuence in their Einleitung in die Psalmen, Göttingen 1933, 19662.

116

chapter six Take away from me the noise of your songs, I will not listen to the melody of your harps.

Several of the psalms clearly indicate the extent to which music and song were employed in the liturgy of the sanctuary: Ps. 33:2–3; 98:5–6; 147:7; 149:3 and Psalm 150. The songs of praise with which the majesty of yhwh was lauded frequently took the form of antiphonal poems with musical accompaniment. Israel’s cult would appear to have been far from sober and monotonous. Many of the superscriptions to the Psalms likewise make reference to the musical accompaniment associated with particular songs sung in the temple, although the musical/cultic terminology employed remains something of a mystery to the present day. The most important forms of Ancient Israel’s cultic poetry, which not infrequently exhibit common features with Canaanite and Ancient Babylonian poetry, include the hymn, the song of thanksgiving, the lament, the penitential song and the didactic song (prophetic, priestly or chokmatic). Such songs are not only to be found in the Psalter but also throughout the entire Old Testament, particularly in the historical and prophetic books. Examples thereof, such as those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Psalms of Solomon and the songs of Mary and Zachariah in Luke 1, witness to their ongoing use into the period of early Judaism. Perhaps the most frequently represented of such songs are those that laud the magniﬁcence and majesty of yhwh. Essential elements thereof include the call to praise God and the reason why this should be done: even the shortest of the Psalms (117) includes both these elements (see also Exod. 15:21). The call to praise can consist of a single verse (Ps. 98:1) or several verses (Ps. 118:1–4; 135:1–3) and is sometimes repeated in the course of the psalm (cf. Ps. 98:4–8). The exhortation is frequently addressed to the cultic community (Psalm 118; 135), but also to all creation (Psalm 148). The motivation behind the appeal to praise the wonderful deeds of God is often introduced by the term “for” (e.g. Ps. 98:1,9), but can also take the form of a participial clause (cf. Psalms 136 and 147). Both forms are employed from time to time in one and the same psalm (cf., for example, Psalm 145).21

21 Cf. F. Crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (WMANT 32), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969.

the literary genres of the old testament

117

Individual songs of thanksgiving (Danklieder des Einzelnen) relate the situation of need from which an individual had been saved (e.g. 1 Sam. 2:1–10; Isa. 38:10–19: Psalm 30) and were frequently recited in the sanctuary together with a vow of praise (cf. Psalm 116 and Jonah 2). Psalm 107 represents a ﬁne example of a collective song of thanksgiving. Collective laments were recited at times of great need and during penitential feasts and were accompanied as a rule by periods of fasting (cf. Psalms 44, 74, 79, 80 and Joel 2:15–17). Such laments oﬀered prayers for the restoration of God’s salviﬁc care. The socalled penitential psalms, exempliﬁed, for example, in Jer. 3:23–25 and 14:7–9, were profound and heartfelt songs expressing shame and repentance for past sins. Individual laments (Klagelieder des Einzelnen) are well represented in the Psalter (cf. Psalms 3, 5, 6, 7, 22, 28, 51, 69 and 130). The literary structure of such laments exhibits the same elements as one ﬁnds with respect to the collective laments: invocation, lament, confession of trust in God, prayer of entreaty and vow of praise. A striking feature of several of the laments is the abrupt change of mood, whereby the words of lament suddenly make way for words of thanksgiving (cf., for example, Ps. 6:9–11; 22:23–32; 31:20ﬀ.). Some scholars argue that this phenomenon was due to a later amalgamation of lament and thanksgiving songs. Others maintain that the unexpected transition from lament to thanksgiving should be explained as the result of a priestly or prophetic oracle of salvation oﬀered to the individual in the course of his lament (cf. Ps. 5:4b; 28:6; 56:11; 140:13, see also 2 Chron. 20:3ﬀ.). The king had a central role to play in cultic matters in the Ancient Near East. The same can thus be said, in principle, of the king of Israel (cf. 1 Kings 8 and 2 Kings 23). It is hardly surprising, therefore, that several of the psalms have the king as their primary subject. Psalms 2, 72 and 110 bear witness to his liturgical activity in relation to his accession to the throne. Psalm 45 similarly recalls his solemn oration in the context of a princely wedding. It would appear that a special liturgy accompanied his marching out to battle and honoured his victories (cf. Psalms 20 and 21), as well as his defeats (cf. Psalm 60). A great deal has been written on the songs praising the kingship of yhwh (Psalms 47, 93 and 96–99), frequently considering them, in line with Mowinckel, as songs of praise in honour of an (annual)

118

chapter six

feast of yhwh’s accession to the throne. The Hebrew expression YHWH malak is often understood in this regard as “yhwh has become king”. It is more likely, however, that this expression implies that yhwh (and no other god) is king (cf. Ps. 47:9).22 While it may be true that the Israelite New Year Feast celebrated the kingship of yhwh, it remains highly unlikely that some form of accession to the throne was implied thereby, especially given Israel’s religious convictions. The so-called pilgrim songs found in Psalms 120–134 were similarly associated with the cult.23 They give expression to the disposition of pilgrims during their journey towards and arrival at the Holy City (a few of the songs included in this series, however, originally had little or nothing to do with a pilgrimage, cf. Ps. 130:1–6). Psalm 84 exhibits kinship with such songs. Ps. 42:5 and 43:3–4 clearly express the disposition of a pious pilgrim. Psalm 100 represents a hymn of praise sung as the pilgrims approached the sanctuary while Psalms 15 and 24 go hand in hand with their entry into the temple enclosure. Vv. 7–10 of the latter (cf. Ps. 132:8) would appear to represent a processional song accompanying the carrying of the ark into the temple (see also Num. 10:35–36). Didactic poems such as Psalms 19 and 119, together with related Psalms 14 and 53, would appear to have no direct lines of association with the liturgy, representing rather the utterances of individuals expressed in poetic form. The same can be said of the historical psalms 78, 105 and 106 and the related penitential psalms of Ezra 9:6–15, Neh. 1:5–11; 9:6–37 and Dan. 9:4–19. It seems reasonable to assume that many of the psalms that make use of the ﬁrst person singular were highly personal in character and should not be considered as songs of the community, in spite of the fact that the latter frequently expressed its experiences in the I-form.24

22

See L. Köhler, “Syntactica III. iv. Jahwäh malak”, VT 3 (1953), 188–189. Cf. J. Jeremias, Das Köningtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-Köning-Psalmen (FRALANT 141), Göttingen 1987 and B. Janowski, “Das Köningtum Gottes in den psalmen. Bemerkungen u einem neuen Gesamtentwurf ”, ZThK 86 (1989), 389–454. 23 K. Seybold, Die Wallfahrtspsalmen. Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Psalm 120–134 (BThS 3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978 (lit.!); id., “Die Redaktion der Wallfahrtspsalmen”, ZAW 91 (1979), 247–268; K. Deurloo, “Gedächtnis des Exils (Psalm 120–134)”, Texte und Kontexte 15 (1992), 28–34. 24 Cf. E. Balla, Das Ich der Psalmen, Tübingen 1912 and H. Gunkel und J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen, Göttingen 1933, 19662, p. 173 (“So war es denn der schwerste

the literary genres of the old testament

119

A signiﬁcant number of songs were originally composed for personal rather than cultic purposes, although they may have been employed at a later stage in the liturgical context. Psalm 51 represents a striking example of such a personal song in which the poet oﬀers himself as a true oblation, calling to mind his contrition of heart and his awareness of guilt. Vv.20–21 of the psalm would appear to have been added at a later date, praising the sacriﬁcial liturgy. It is in such songs of the individual that Israelite poetry reached its spiritual summit. Indeed, these very poems serve to provide the book of Psalms as a whole with its abiding value, oﬀering a point of identiﬁcation to those who read them in moments of need, struggle and gratitude up to the present day.

b. Prose As was the case with the poetical material found in the Old Testament, the prose texts contained therein are varied in character and include legal documents, oﬃcial records and narrative material. 1. Legal material A. Alt, Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philologisch-historische Klasse 86. Band 1. 1. Heft, Leipzig 1934 (= id., Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I, Munich 1959, pp. 278–332); E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des “apodiktischen Rechts” (WMANT 20), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1965; W. Richter, Recht und Ethos, Munich 1966; H. J. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament (WMANT 14), Neukichen-Vluyn 19702; id., Recht und Gesetz im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976; G. Liedke, Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze (WMANT 39), NeukirchenVluyn 1971; J. Bright, “The Apodictic Prohibition: Some Observations”, JBL 92 (1973), 185–204; R. Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law (SBL Diss. Series 45), Chico CA 1980; R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (Cahiers de RB 26), Paris 1988.

Legal texts make up a substantial part of the Torah (GenesisDeuteronomy). Viewed from the perspective of their literary form, Fehler, den die Psalmenforschung begehen konnte, daß man diese so lebendige Poesie des Einzelnen völlig verkannte und das “Ich” der Klagelieder überall auf die “Gemeinde” bezogen hat”).

chapter six

120

one can distinguish variety in the formulation of such laws as early as the oldest collection thereof in the so-called Book of the Covenant in Exodus 21–23. Diversity in content and formulation would appear to go hand in hand. It is reasonable to presuppose that the original Sitz im Leben or social milieu in which such texts came into existence also varied. In a now celebrated lecture,25 the German scholar Albrecht Alt made a distinction between the casuistic and apodictic formulation of laws. With respect to the so-called casuistic legal formulations a general instance was presented, introduced by “when” (Hebr. kî ), under which a speciﬁc instance could be classiﬁed, introduced by “if, in the event of ” (Hebr. "im), after which the legal consequences (punishment) were determined. Such casuistic legal formulations are to be found throughout the Ancient Near East, both in the Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian world and in that of the Hittites. A comparison between Mesopotamian and Hittite legal collections as found, for example, in the famous Hammurapi Codex (1728–1686 BCE) serves to illustrate this fact. The modes of expression have their roots in customary law, while the subjects thereof stem from every day civil life. With respect to the so-called apodictic legal formulations, Alt distinguished three variants forms of “categorical prohibitive” (R. Smend Jr.). The ﬁrst variant tended to take the form “The person who does this or that shall certainly be put to death [by stoning, cf. Lev. 20:2]” (cf. Exod. 21:12, 15–17; 22:19 [Hebr. 22:18]; see also 31:15b). The second took the form: “Cursed is the one who . . .” (cf. Deut. 27:15–26), followed for the most part in the Hebrew by a description of the perpetrator employing a participial form. Variant formulations can be found, however, in Lev. 20:2, 9–13, 15–16, 27; 24:17; 27:29. In terms of content, such prohibitives usually had to do with ethical/religious crimes that carried a punishment of death or exile (cf. Exod. 22:20, Hebr. 22:19). The third variant represented the classical form of apodictic law: “You shall (not) . . .” (Exod. 22:18 [Hebr. 22:17], 21–22 [Hebr. 20–21], 28–31 [Hebr. 27–30]; 23:1–3, 6–9; cf. also Lev. 18:7–17). Such laws could be related to legal actions or lawsuits (Exod. 23:1–3, 6–9) or to forbidden sexual intercourse between family members. For the most part, however, they had to

25

A. Alt, op. cit., 1934.

the literary genres of the old testament

121

do with the totality of a person’s religious and ethical life, as is evident from the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21, cf. also Lev. 19:3–4, 11–12 and Lev. 19:13–18). Apodictic law reﬂects Israel’s ancient religious legislation that had its basis in the word of yhwh. The introduction to the Ten Commandments, for example, presents yhwh as speaking “then God spoke all these words”, while Leviticus 18 and 19 present Him as speaker “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying . . .” or as enforcer of the laws contained therein. R. Smend Jr. describes the apodictic law in which Israel’s particular jurisprudence was most prominent as “popular Israelite and divine Yahwistic”. It goes without saying that such religious legislation was not detached from civil law. The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20–23), for example, contains both casuistic and apodictic legal formulations side by side. Although dependent on the Book of the Covenant, the legal ordinances found in Deuteronomy 12–26 are largely apodictic in form. The fact that this book emerged from typically Yahwistic circles, however, makes this hardly surprising. In recent years, scholars have shown that Alt’s hypothesis concerning Ancient Israel’s apodictic law lacked a necessary degree of nuance. In certain instances, for example, there would appear to be evidence of casuistic law in apodictic formulations. In addition, many apodictic commandments may trace their origins to the authority of the pater familias. In such instances, therefore, it would be more appropriate to speak of ethical rules in apodictic formulations instead of laws (cf. Gerstenberger 1965). Apodictic law, moreover, has turned out to be less exclusively Israelite than Alt had suggested. Cultic legislation likewise exhibits both casuistic and apodictic formulations. The fact that the latter tend to be in the majority is to be expected, although the former are far from rare, particularly in the sacriﬁcial legislation of Leviticus 1–7 with its roots in ancient popular traditions. Casuistic formulations tend to be based on religious usage while apodictic formulations (here also in a variant form; cf. Lev. 7:23–30; 11:2ﬀ., 9ﬀ.) reﬂect priestly oracles ( priestly torah). As priestly teaching and sacred law the latter by its very nature enjoyed canonical authority: the priest spoke in the name of yhwh. 2. Oﬃcial records Sh. R. Bin-Nun, “Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and of Judah”, VT 18 (1968), 414–432.

122

chapter six

Oﬃcial records, consisting mainly of lists, constitute an entirely diﬀerent type of prose material to that found in the legal documents. In terms of type, origin and date such material is highly varied. A familiar example thereof can be found in the geographical lists in the book of Joshua, which can be further divided into collections of place names and boundary descriptions. The list of “returnees” from the Babylonian exile found in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7,26 together with the list of the builders of the walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah 3 represent a further type variant as do the genealogies in Genesis 10 and the patriarchal narratives, the lists in 1 Chronicles 1–9 (“die genealogische Vorhalle”), the list of David’s champions in 2 Sam. 23:8–39 and of David and Solomon’s oﬃcials (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 1 Kgs 4:1–20). Many of these lists are clearly authentic and of considerable geographical and/or historical importance, even although they are not always located in the correct historical context (e.g. those in the book of Joshua). The lists of names in particular, with their frequent reference to theophoric (containing a divine element) personal names, are of extraordinary religious-historical signiﬁcance, even although they may not be among the most loved segments of the Old Testament and would appear indeed not to be intended as devotional literature. The so-called annals kept in signiﬁcant number by Israel and other Ancient Near Eastern kingdoms, represent a further type of oﬃcial record. Unfortunately only a small and fragmentary number of such ﬁrst rank historical sources have been preserved to the present day. Clear examples of court annals can be found in 2 Sam. 8:1–14 and 1 Kgs 9:10–2827 and of temple annals in 1 Kings 6–8. The authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles evidently employed and made frequent reference to these oﬃcial documents (cf. Bin-Nun 1968). While relatively little epistolary literature has been preserved in the Old Testament, examples can be found nevertheless in Jeremiah 29 and Ezra 4–5. We are more familiar with this type of literature,

26 For further detail on the character of this list see our discussion of the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah in chapter X. 27 The historical reliability of these annals has been reinforced by the excavations lead by Yiga’el Yadin at the city of Hazor, which is referred to in 1 Kgs 9:15 together with Megiddo and Gezer as having been constructed by Solomon. Yadin has been able to establish that the gates of the aforementioned cities were built according to the same system and must thus stem from the time of Solomon (cf. Kathleen M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, London 1960, p. 248).

the literary genres of the old testament

123

however, from non-Old Testament sources such as El Amarna and the Lachish letters (see chs. I and II). A court order has been preserved in Ezra 1:2–4 and an oﬃcial memorandum in Ezra 6:3–5. While treaty texts and other charters are lacking in the literature of the Old Testament, Jer. 32:11 nevertheless oﬀers some evidence of the existence of deeds of purchase during the later period of the kings. 3. Narrative literature J. L. Palache, Het karakter van het oudtestamentische verhaal, Amsterdam 1925; W. H. Gispen, Israëls verhaaldwang, Assen 1947; M. Weiss, Einiges über die Bauformen des Erzählens in der Bibel, VT 13 (1963), 456–475; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York 1981; A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Sheﬃeld 1983; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, Bloomington IN 1985; S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Suppl. JSOT 70), Sheﬃeld 1989; D. M. Gunn and D. N. Fewell, Old Testament Narrative, Oxford 1989; id., Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, Oxford 1993; J. Cheryl Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative, Cambridge 1992; J. Fokkelman, Vertelkunst in de bijbel, Zoetermeer 1995.

Of the material preserved among the literature of Ancient Israel the narrative clearly plays an important role. Such narratives are typiﬁed by their imaginative vigour and, given their frequent use of exclamations (“see/behold”), they often tend to exhibit the characteristics of spoken narration rather than pure literary composition. Ancient Near Eastern men and women invested their entire person in their stories and employed a variety of gestures to facilitate understanding. Such narratives rarely correspond to modern norms of completeness and serene narrative style, tending rather to present images of a particular situation, moments placed side by side, whereby the point of connection is not always so clear. Indeed, important links are often left out altogether. Modern day scholars have often found themselves misled by this narrative style, frequently leading to unjustiﬁed source divisions. A further characteristic of the Hebrew narrative is its use of repetition as a means to increase tension. This style element, also known to us from the epics of the Ancient Babylonians and the writings of Ugarit, had the eﬀect of slowing the narrative down and mostly took the form of a dialogue in which the main character recounted his experiences. Examples include the narrative of the wedding of Rebecca

124

chapter six

and Isaac in Genesis 24 and that of Solomon’s accession to the throne in 1 Kings 1. The execution of an already given command tended thus to be reported in the same words as the command itself (cf. 2 Sam. 14:24 and especially the creation narrative of Genesis 1). While such repetition provided the narrative with a degree of style and an elevated accent, it comes across as rather monotonous to our present day tastes. Monotony, however, was apparently intentional. The employment of repetition in the creation narrative of Genesis 1 evokes the sense of grandeur intended by the author (cf. the prologue to the gospel of John). The style of artistic prose thus tended to closely approximate the style of poetry with its characteristic parallelismus membrorum. A reading of the narrative of David’s defeat of the giant Goliath (1 Samuel 17), for example, leaves one with the impression that one is reading an epic poem. Indeed the description of Goliath’s armour (1 Sam. 17:5–7) could have been plucked directly from Homer’s Iliad!28 The intention or purpose of a narrative was often disclosed only in its conclusion. Gen. 3:24, for example, ends by stating that humans were driven from the Garden of Eden and that cherubs were stationed to prevent them from gaining access to the tree of life: the paradise narrative is thus intended to explain how humans had lost their right of access to the tree of life. Gen. 11:9 explains the intention of the narrative of the Tower of Babel: the dispersion of humankind over all the earth. According to some, 1 Kgs 2:46 betrays the intention of the preceding family history of David: “the monarchy was conﬁrmed under the hand of Solomon”. Care should be taken, however, not to presume that the key to the explanation of every narrative is to be found in its concluding verse. Jonah 4:11, for example, would appear to be a response to Jonah’s protest in 4:2–3 rather than the key to the intention of the entire book (in the sense that God’s clemency could also be given to other nations and not only to Israel). The conclusion to the book of Ruth (4:17) serves more as a point of exclamation (David is the grandson of Ruth, a Moabite woman!) and should not be understood as the key to the entire book as such. On the other hand, the actual objective of a narrative can also be stated directly in its opening verses (cf. Gen. 22:1). This phe28 Cf. P. J. Brown, “Peace Symbolism in Ancient Military Vocabulary”, VT 21 (1971), 1–23.

the literary genres of the old testament

125

nomenon is likewise evident on other literary genres. The introductory verses (52:13–15) of the prophetic text Isa. 52:13–53:12 are thus of essential importance for the understanding of Isaiah 53. The core of a text can sometimes be found both at the beginning and at the end (cf. Ps. 8:1 and 8:10). Old Testament narratives make frequent use of word-play,29 which tends as a rule to be lost in translation. It is said of the ﬁrst humans in paradise (Gen. 2:25), for example, that they were “naked” ('arôm) and of the snake (3:1) that it was “cunning” ('arûm). Both words in Hebrew sound very much the same. Similarly, the terms for “human” and “soil”, which play such an important role in the paradise narrative, are clearly related ("adam and "adama). The author of Gen. 4:11 would appear to have heard echoes of the Hebrew verb “to acquire” in the personal name Cain. In like fashion, the name Babel in Gen. 11:9 is related in Hebrew with the term balal “to confuse” while the personal name Jacob is related to 'aqab, “to deceive” (cf. Hos. 12:4, see also Gen. 27:36). While such popular etymologies do not tend as a rule to coincide with the actual meaning of the names in question (Babel, for example, means “God’s door” and Jacob “may [God] protect”), their function remains eﬀective nevertheless. In spite of the fact that Hebrew personal names are not, as often claimed, an indication of the person’s essence ( Jonah was not a “dove” nor Deborah a “bee”, although that is the meaning of their names), they nevertheless enjoy a certain “power” on account of the authority of the bearer. Place names, for example, could change when there was a change of owner (cf. Gen. 23:2), and personal names could change when there was a change of sovereign (cf. 2 Kgs 23:34; 24:17; Dan. 1:7) or on account of one or other extraordinary event (cf. Gen. 35:18; Ruth 1:20). It is for this reason that the names of alien gods were not to be uttered (cf. Exod. 23:13), the theophoric element Baal, for example, being distorted to read bo“èt, “shame”: Ishbaal (man of Baal), the son of Saul, thus became Ish-bosheth (man of shame) in 2 Sam. 2:8ﬀ. The prophet Hosea likewise speaks of Betaven (= house of godlessness) instead of Bethel (= house of God; cf. Hos. 4:15; 5:8; 10:5). Word-play has a particularly important role to play in the prophetic literature, serving to reinforce prophetic announcements. Familiar examples include Isa. 5:7c (“He expected justice [mi“pat] but saw bloodshed [mi“pach], righteousness [sedaqa] but heard a cry! [se'aqa]”), Isa. 7:9b (“If you do not

29 Cf. F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl, “Wortspiele im Alten Testament”, in id., Opera minora, Groningen-Djakarta 1953, pp. 11–25, 475–476.

126

chapter six

stand ﬁrm in faith [ta"amînu], you shall not stand at all [te"amenu]”), Amos 5:5 ( gilgal galô yiglè: “Gilgal shall surely go into exile”) and Jer. 1:12–13 (“I see a branch of an almond tree [“aqed ]” next to “I (= God) am watching over [“oqed ] my word to perform it”).

The narratives of the Old Testament also exhibit a variety of literary forms depending on the material employed by the narrator as his source of information. In contrast to other Ancient Near Eastern writings (as noted above) it is striking that the myth tends to enjoy only a limited place in the Old Testament. Reference can be made to Gen. 6:1–4, which speaks of the giants who were the resultant oﬀspring of sexual liaisons between the sons of God and beautiful human women. Allusions to ancient myths are also evident in the chaos motif in Gen. 1:2, for example, and in the description of paradise with its mythical trees that were a source of divine knowledge and eternal life. Other examples include the reference to the snake (an animal associated with divine wisdom) in allusions to God’s conﬂict with the chaos monster (Ps. 74:13–14; 89:11; Isa. 51:9) and in descriptions of Leviathan (Isa. 27:1; cf. Amos 9:3), the morning star (Isa. 14:12ﬀ.) and of the heavenly cherub in the Garden of Eden (Ezek. 28:12ﬀ.). While it would appear that many such myths were clearly well-known among the people, one can conclude that Israel’s spiritual leaders endeavoured where possible to distance themselves therefrom, transforming and historicising mythical material and thereby placing it at the service Israel’s faith in God.30 The Old Testament has also preserved signiﬁcant elements associated with folk narratives in the form of legends related to sanctuaries and prophets together with heroic, nature and tribal sagas. Every sanctuary (e.g. Bethel) had its legend, tracing its existence back to the time of Jacob. Legends of martyrs can be found in the book of Daniel. The narratives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 19–2 Kings 9) serve as a ﬁne illustration of the prophetic legend. Remnants of the nature saga can be found in the history of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18–19), which not only allude to the constitution of the Dead Sea but also to the existence of an unusual pillar of salt in the area (Gen. 19:26). Tribal sagas frequently serve to explain the

30

Cf. J. Barr, “The Meaning of ‘Mythology’ in Relation to the Old Testament”, VT 9 (1959), 1–10; B. S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (SBTh 17), London 19622.

the literary genres of the old testament

127

relationship between peoples and their origins (cf., for example, the Moabites and the Ammonites in Gen. 19:30–38). They also serve to explain a variety of customs among the peoples: e.g. the blood feud and the sign of yhwh associated with the Kenites (Genesis 4) and the prohibition against the consumption of the sciatic (hip) nerve in Israel (Gen. 32:32). Striking characteristics of the hero saga have been preserved in the narratives related to Samson in Judges 13–16. Such popular stories would doubtless have circulated in a speciﬁc area for a signiﬁcant period of time and would have been transmitted orally. Elements thereof, such as the blurring of the distinction between humans and animals (Balaam’s ass speaks in Num. 22:28–30) were not unusual. From time to time one also encounters fables with an educational character, such as that preserved in Judg. 9:8–15f. in which the trees desire to elect a king and that of the thorn bush in 2 Kgs 14:9 that sought the hand of a daughter of a cedar of Lebanon for its son in marriage. Israel’s historical writings, which apparently commenced in the Davidic period, also contain elements of folk narratives. Examples include the history of Saul and David, the recounting of the magniﬁcence of Solomon, the account of the liberation of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah etc. Given the fact that they were intended to provide spiritual guidance, Israel’s historical texts exhibit a degree of bias and are not always as objective as one might be led to believe. Having said this, however, we do not intend to call the historical reliability of the events described in these texts into question, only to point out that they tended to be placed, as a rule, in a speciﬁc political-religious context. A characteristic of this material can be found in the tendency to criticise the people and their kings rather than glorify them. In spite of the fact that the writer of David’s family history (2 Samuel 9–1 Kings 2) immensely admired his subject, he did not avoid explicit reference to the latter’s weaknesses and failings. The same is true for the patriarchs and even Moses, much in contrast to the early Jewish tendency to exonerate such ﬁgures of every form of guilt, foolishness or injustice. In similar fashion, the Deuteronomistic history relates Israel and Judah’s past within a framework of disloyalty to yhwh, judgement, conversion and restoration. Such critical historiography is quite distinct from the information found in inscriptions from Assyria-Babylonia and Egypt and serves to reinforce conﬁdence in the historical reliability of the narratives that have been passed down to us.

128

chapter six

A unique form of narration is to be found in the biographies and autobiographies. The most detailed biography we have at our disposal (besides the life history of David) is the description of the fortunes of Jeremiah recorded by his secretary Baruch ( Jeremiah 26–45). A certain apologetic tendency cannot be denied in the latter, however, its author insisting that the prophet remained faithful to his people to the bitter end in spite of their abuse. Autobiographies include the memoirs of Ezra (Ezra 7ﬀ.) and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1–2; 4–7; 13), which likewise exhibit a degree of self-justiﬁcation. Analogous autobiographical segments can also be found in the prophets (Amos 7; Isaiah 6; Jeremiah 1; Ezekiel 1–3), which were apparently intended as “letters of accreditation” legitimating their prophetic commission. A highly speciﬁc form of prose can be found in the so-called preaching texts, in which the author referred back to Israel’s history and called for genuine service of God under threat of judgement. Such material served as a newer and more elaborate form of the teaching that was once the reserve of prophets and priests. This literary genre is not found among the other peoples of the Ancient Near East and would thus appear to be typically Israelite. It is not only restricted to the period after the Babylonian exile. Evidence of such prose preaching can be found as early as Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 7; cf. also Jeremiah 26) and the Deuteronomists, who presented their message in line with Deuteronomy and thus further disseminated the form. Indeed, it is even possible that the form (besides short prophetic messages and priestly utterances) has its roots in their reforming activities. A related form is to be found in the liturgical prayer as preserved, for example, in 1 Kgs 8:22ﬀ. Israel’s narratives pretend to be “true stories”. In spite of the fact that historical-critical analysis may undermine the veracity thereof from time to time, this reality must still be taken seriously. Israel based its faith on the prophetic allusion to God’s great deeds in history and on his liberative and punitive activities (cf. Exod. 20:1 and Psalm 78). Whether we interpret Israel’s historical experience, guided as it was by prophetic preaching, as a genuine encounter with God or as an encounter with its own religious genius, must remain the subject of personal judgement. Whatever the case, our ability to understand the narratives of the Old Testament requires that we respect the particular explanation ascribed thereto by Israel.

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE PROBLEM OF DATING IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Debora redet nicht anders wie Qohelet (Bauer-Leander) J. Pedersen, “Die Auﬀassung vom Alten Testament”, ZAW 49 (1931), 161–181; W. Baumgartner, “Was wir heute von der hebräischen Sprache und ihrer Geschichte wissen”, Anthropos 35–36 (1944), 953ﬀ.; M. Wagner, Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebräisch (BZAW 96), Berlin 1966 (cf. the review of J. Hoftijzer, NTT 22 (1967–1968), 445–449); M. A. Beek, “Verzadigingspunten en onvoltooide lijnen in het onderzoek van de oudtestamentische literatuur”, Vox Theologica 38 (1968), 2–14 (= M. Boertien e.a. (eds.), Verkenningen in een stroomgebied, Amsterdam 1974, pp. 8–19); E. Ullendorﬀ, “Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 34 (1971), 241ﬀ.; K. A. D. Smelik, Saul: De voorstelling van Israëls eerste koning in de Masoretische tekst van het Oude Testament, Amsterdam 1977; N. A. van Uchelen, “Bijbeluitleg volgens de zg. ‘Amsterdamse school’ of Een goede verstaander heeft alleen aan het hele woord genoeg”, GTT 79 (1979), 201–214; K. A. Deurloo and R. Zuurmond (eds.), De bijbel maakt school. Een Amsterdamse weg in de exegese, Baarn 1984; J. C. de Moor, “De talen van het Oude Testament”, in: A. S. van der Woude (red.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 19932, pp. 29–51; C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch (CBET 9), Kampen 1994, esp. pp. 371ﬀ., 432ﬀ.

The anonymity of the majority of Old Testament documents and the highly uniform language in which they were written allow us to draw few if any conclusions with respect to the period in which the individual books or parts thereof came into existence. As a consequence, literary and religious-historical information tends to provide the only possibility for dating the material we have at our disposal. In other words, we must endeavour to determine the date of a book on the basis of its own inherent characteristics. We are much better oﬀ in this respect when it comes to many Babylonian-Assyrian and Egyptian literary remnants, ancient copies of which have been excavated at speciﬁc sites, bearing the characteristic scribal and linguistic forms of their time of origin.

130

chapter seven

The question of dating the literature of the Old Testament is made all the more diﬃcult on account of the fact that many texts from diﬀerent time periods have been more or less organically woven together to form the text we now have at our disposal. One and the same book might thus contain segments from a variety of diﬀerent origins. As we already noted, the extraordinary nature of the transmission of such literature has led to the almost complete loss of it original linguistic features. The limited amount of epigraphical material available to us in Hebrew inscriptions exhibits striking linguistic diﬀerences with biblical Hebrew. It seems reasonable to presume that such epigraphical texts more faithfully reﬂect dialectical variations within ancient Hebrew than the texts of the Old Testament. It is diﬃcult if not impossible to avoid the conclusion that the original Hebrew of the biblical source texts underwent a process of regularisation, bringing into line with later “standard Judean” (cf. De Moor 1986). In any event, the Old Testament contains only a limited few traces of dialectical and ancient linguistic usage, so much so that one can say without fear of contradiction that “Debora speaks the same language as Qoheleth”, in spite of the more or less 1000 years that lie between them. Given such a restricted basis, our dating of the literature of the Old Testament on grounds of style and use of terminology clearly requires a high degree of circumspection. From a purely linguistic perspective, precious little information is available to us for determining the age of a text, the presence of Aramaisms, Greekisms and Farseeisms or words borrowed from Aramaic, Greek and Persian respectively tending to be the primary factor. Persian loan words are naturally to be found in the youngest books of the Old Testament. Our limited knowledge of Ancient Hebrew and the close relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic makes it particularly diﬃcult to determine whether a speciﬁc word can be characterised as an Aramaism (cf. Wagner 1966). In addition, one cannot completely dismiss the possibility that certain regions of Palestine preserved elements of ancient Aramaic in the Hebrew. Indeed, scholars are convinced that at least some Israelites were of Aramean origin and that one cannot exclude the possibility that Aramaic linguistic inﬂuences were introduced with the adoption of the language of the Canaanites. It remains reasonable to assume, however, that the presence of Aramaisms in classical Hebrew texts can serve as an indication of later interpolations and as supplemen-

the problem of dating in the old testament

131

tary evidence for the dating of texts that give the impression of being younger for other reasons. Style based arguments for dating a text are only convincing if they are suﬃciently familiar and can be chronologically established with enough certainty. This is the case with respect to the terminology of the Deuteronomist and that of the post-exilic historical books Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. For the rest, however, we must remain modest in our judgements. One cannot simply maintain, for example, that a concise style of composition is always older than a more elaborate narrative style. The Thronfolgegeschichte (Succession Narrative) of David in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2, which would appear to date from the Solomonic period, is a much more extensive account than the report of Amos’ expulsion from Bethel which is to be dated no earlier than the second half of the eighth century (Amos 7:10–17). Likewise, the Song of Debora in Judges 5, which is certainly one of Israel’s oldest songs, exhibits such a high poetic style and makes such signiﬁcant use of the means of literary artistry that one has to be on one’s guard not to speak of an evolutionary leap forward in the calibre of Hebrew literature in its regard. Given this state of aﬀairs it is hardly surprising that, in addition to limited linguistic and stylistic data, literary and religious-historical arguments have come to enjoy a signiﬁcant role in our eﬀorts to determine the date of Old Testament books or parts thereof. Such evidence, however, frequently lacks any degree of certainty. Wellhausen and his followers, for example, dated the priestly source of the Pentateuch (P) as the youngest while other scholars (Kaufmann, Eerdmans) considered the same source to be rather old. Pedersen (1931) preferred for the most part, therefore, to avoid the dating of “sources”, opting to focus his attention on the milieu rather than the point in time at which they came into existence. The dating of the various songs collected in the Book of Psalms oﬀers a good illustration of the problem. For a considerable period of time the psalms were considered to be post-exilic. Indeed, some scholars even preferred to date them primarily from the Maccabean period (second century BCE). More recent scholarship, however, has tended to shift the boundaries somewhat, dating many of the psalms as pre-exilic and some even from the Davidic period. Our increased knowledge of Ancient Near Eastern literature and improved insight concerning the liturgical use of the psalms has led to a new religious-

132

chapter seven

historical appreciation thereof and, as a consequence, to a radically diﬀerent approach to dating across the board. In light of the above, one is obliged to conclude that the writing of a history of ancient Hebrew literature will only be possible on a limited scale, since the many proposals with respect to the dating of such material often remain no more than hypotheses. We will likewise be obliged to bear this in mind as we proceed. We prefer to distance ourselves, nevertheless, from the tendency evident among certain contemporary scholars to date virtually all of the source documents of the Old Testament as late, i.e. as stemming from the period of the Babylonian exile and thereafter, although we recognise that the ﬁnal redaction of several books of the Hebrew Bible took place, as a rule, around this time. We will elaborate further on this standpoint as we examine the individual writings of the Old Testament in the remaining chapters. At the present juncture we will limit ourselves to a partial summary of the results proposed by contemporary scholarship with respect to the dating of the sources available to us, bearing in mind the current state of our knowledge of the literature of the Old Testament. Globally speaking we can say that the literature preserved in the Old Testament covers a period of roughly 1000 years: the Song of Deborah ( Judges 5) has been dated around 1100 BCE while the ﬁnal redaction of the book of Daniel dates from 165 BCE. It is possible that the original form of the Decalogue (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) dates back to Moses while the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21–23 with the exclusion of later interpolations) would appear to date from the time of the judges or shortly thereafter. A number of proverbs contained in Jacob’s blessing in Genesis 49 and that of Moses in Deuteronomy 33 would likewise appear to date from this period. The golden age of the reign of David and Solomon not only rekindled interest in the composition of national songs and the beginning of the maintenance of chronicles (cf. the annals of 2 Samuel 8), it also saw the emergence of authentic historiography of which the aforementioned history of David and his family in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2 serves as a clear example. Vriezen was of the opinion that Zabud, the son of the prophet Nathan, was the author of the latter (see our treatment of the Books of Samuel below). These chapters constitute a spiritually ennobled piece of dynastic history that follows a middle path between biography and a heroic poem

the problem of dating in the old testament

133

in prose style. In terms of form, however, it does not constitute an epic. The fact that this history ends with the beginning of Solomon’s reign suggests that it was probably written during his lifetime. Since the days of the German Old Testament scholar Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), the cornerstone for the analysis of the origins of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) has been focused on the centralisation of the cult in Jerusalem under King Josiah in 622 BCE. Given the fact that the sources referred to as Yahwist ( J) and Elohist (E) do not appear to have known Josiah’s reforms, that Deuteronomy prescribes cultic centralisation (cf. Deuteronomy 12) and that the priestly source (P) presupposes it, scholars have tended to date J and E prior to 622 and P thereafter in the exilic or post-exilic period (see further chapters VIII and IX). In more recent decades, however, certain scholars have argued that J came into existence, in essence, in the period of the Babylonian exile (see further the following chapter). This approach thus ignores the Archimedean point established by the aforementioned theory and forces us to assume that the Yahwist ( J) consciously portrayed a primitive period without making reference to the political structures of his own time. The tendency to ascribe a later date to the (sources of ) the historical books has spread among the members of the so-called “Amsterdam School” (e.g. Beek 1968, Deurloo/Zuurmond 1984, Smelik 1977), to include pre-Jeremian prophecy. This approach to the dating of the Old Testament documents is based on the belief that the time of the Babylonian exile was a period of literary creativity and on the desire to observe extreme caution in drawing transmissionhistorical and historical conclusions. It should be noted in this regard that the supporters of such late dating place greater emphasis on the literary creativity of those responsible for the present text of the Old Testament than on the fact that Ancient Near Eastern writers tended as a rule to be transmitters of ancient traditions rather than authors in the modern sense of the word. In saying this, however, we do not deny that the writings of the Old Testament were frequently subject to later expansion by interpolations and actualisations. In the meantime, one has to account for the possibility that the sources contained in the Pentateuch may have come into existence and been revised side by side instead of one after the other. An exilic or post-exilic dating of the Grundschrift of the Priestly Codex (P), which is said to have been codiﬁed after Deuteronomy, remains uncertain (Weinfeld dates P before Deuteronomy; see also Houtman 1994).

134

chapter seven

Whatever the case, P evidently contains some very old material and never makes explicit allusion to cultic centralisation. At the end of the nineteenth century, Graf Baudissin was among the ﬁrst to point out that P had only been compared with circumstances prior to the Babylonian exile and that no eﬀort had been made to determine whether the information contained in this literary source might tally with the reality of the (exilic or) post-exilic world.1 The various standpoints adopted by scholars with respect to the dating of the Old Testament documents have obvious consequences at the (religious-)historical level. If one is inclined to argue that a large portion of the (source) documents of the Pentateuch stem from the time of the Babylonian exile then one will be likewise inclined to ascribe a considerably lesser value to the historical reliability of the information contained therein than would be the case if one were to opt for an earlier dating. Where the prophetic books are concerned, supporters of a late dating will similarly be inclined to account for only a minimum of information on the actual preaching of the individuals whose names the said documents bear. One can also assume that the beginnings of psalm and proverb composition can be dated to the period of David and Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 4:29–34). The temple liturgy called for new forms and it is probable that, in addition to original songs, elements were borrowed from Canaanite psalms (see, for example, Psalm 29), which were tailored to suit the service of yhwh. We will never be completely certain as to the extent to which David was responsible for writing the psalms. One cannot exclude the possibility, however, that certain songs were penned by him (e.g. Psalm 18), nor that Psalm 110 was composed for his accession to the throne in Jerusalem. Not only later but also earlier tradition (cf. 1 Kgs 4:32–34) associates the beginnings of Israel’s wisdom literature with King Solomon. The fact that David followed Egyptian models in the governance of his kingdom in the appointment of scribes (sofer) and a chancellor (mazkîr) and that Solomon was closely related to the Egyptian court by marriage, makes it highly probable that the inﬂuence of Egyptian wisdom literature was extended to Israel at the time. It remains diﬃcult, however, to establish the extent to which such inﬂuence found its way into the book of Proverbs. 1 W. W. Graf Baudissin, “Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthums”, Leipzig 1889, p. 16.

the problem of dating in the old testament

135

In spite of their theological bias, the descriptions of the history of the rulers of Israel and Judah found in the books of Kings contain a signiﬁcant amount of information borrowed from the chronicles that were maintained at the royal court (see chapter VI). For the dating of the prophetic and poetical books reference should be made to the relevant chapters below. The books of Qoheleth (probably third century BCE) and Daniel (in its ﬁnal redaction second century BCE) can be considered the youngest books of the Old Testament.

CHAPTER EIGHT

ANCIENT ISRAEL’S GREAT HISTORICAL MASTERPIECE: GENESIS—II KINGS

a. Introduction M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Halle 1943, Darmstadt 19572; H. J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, Neukirchen 1956, 19823; E. Jenni, “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung (1939–1959) an de Büchern Josua bis Könige”, ThR 28 (1961), 1–32, 97–146; A. N. Radjawane, “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Ein Forschungsbericht”, ThR 38 (1973), 177–216; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London 1979; J. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. England and Germany, London 1984; H. Weippert, “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung”, ThR 50 (1985), 213–249; I. W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172), Berlin-New York 1988; M. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis. A Reassessment (OBO 92), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1989; S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (SVT 42), Leiden etc. 1991; C. Westermann, Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? (ThB 87), Gütersloh 1994; E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 33), Leiden etc. 1996; W. Dietrich, “Niedergang und Neuanfang: Die Haltung der Schlußredaktion des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes zu den wichtigsten Fragen ihrer Zeit”, in: B. Becking, M. C. A. Korpel (eds.), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS 42), Leiden 1999, 45–70; E. Otto, “Das Deuteronomium als archimedischer Punkt der Pentateuchkritik. Auf dem Wege zu einer Neubegründung der de Wett’schen Hypothese”, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (BEThL 133), Leuven 1997, 321–339; E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumsrahmens (FAT 30), Tübingen 2000.

The title of the present rather extensive chapter calls for a degree of explanation. Introductions to the Old Testament generally endeavour to treat the Pentateuch (“consisting of ﬁve books”: Genesis-

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

137

Deuteronomy) separately and then turn their attention in a distinct chapter to the writings of the so-called Former Prophets ( Joshua2 Kings with the exception of Ruth which belongs to the Writings of the Hebrew Bible). The subdivision into Pentateuch and Former Prophets, however, is based on canonical considerations (cf. chapter IV) that have nothing as such to say concerning the literary-historical origins of the documents contained in both segments and their potential literary cohesion. A degree of canonical force has been ascribed to the term Pentateuch from the outset since the documents collected therein were considered, at least up to a few centuries ago, to be “the ﬁve books of Moses”, the author thereof being understood as one and the same person as the lawgiver of Israel. For a variety of reasons to be elaborated below, critical biblical research deﬁnitively abandoned this position some two centuries ago. In the meantime, however, scholars continued to treat the ﬁve books of the Pentateuch as a single whole, thus transforming the term into a literary-historical construct (which led in turn to the proposal of a Hexateuch [a six part work from Genesis-Joshua] or a Tetrateuch [a four part work from Genesis-Numbers]). The title of the present chapter implies, therefore, that we ultimately believe Genesis-2 Kings to be a single extensive opus consisting of several parts, each of which enjoys its own history of origin. The fact that the nature and origin of the constitutive parts of this work do not exhibit the necessary consistency required at the level of content to refer to them as a work of history in the modern sense of the term, however, makes it diﬃcult to speak of them in such a manner. The books of Genesis-Joshua, for example, have their roots in a number of diﬀerent sources, each with its own particular set of accents, while the understanding of history found in Judges diﬀers from that found in 1–2 Kings. The commonly used expression “Deuteronomistic history” (see below), nevertheless obliges us to continue to speak of a “work of history”. Leaving aside the possibility of additions of limited extent after the Babylonian exile, this substantial work was most probably concluded not long after the death of the Babylonian king Ewil-Merodach (560 BCE; cf. 2 Kgs 25:27–30). This is supported by the fact that no allusion is made in either the Pentateuch or the Former Prophets to a return from exile in Babylon, although certain texts may contain evidence of the promise of just such a return (cf. Lev. 26:40–45

138

chapter eight

and Deut. 30:1–10). The conclusion to the work (2 Kgs 25:27–30) can likewise be interpreted as alluding to a hoped for restoration of Israel,1 but the realisation thereof is not mentioned. Bearing the above considerations in mind, we can say that the content of the books of Genesis-Kings is relatively consistent and can be summarised as follows: Israel, chosen from among the nations, with whom yhwh had established a covenant on Mount Sinai and to whom He had granted the land promised to the patriarchs, forfeited the gift of God’s salvation and blessing by disobeying His commandments and was forced as a result into exile.2 The above implies that we distance ourselves from the position held by many that a Deuteronomistic history consisting of the books of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings (with the exclusion of Ruth) once existed independently. In his Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943), the famous German scholar Martin Noth proposed the thesis that Ancient Israel had produced three historical works: the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic history and the Chronistic history (Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah). According to Noth, however, the Pentateuch must be considered a compilatory work, on account of its elaborate composition and variety of authors, and as such cannot be compared with the other two works, which he maintains had a single author. He notes with respect to the Deuteronomistic history: “Dtr. (= the Deuteronomist, the author of the work) was not a redactor but the author of an historical work which summarised ancient traditions of highly diﬀerent character and brought them together in a well-considered whole. In so doing and for the most part, Dtr. simply allowed the foundational literary sources at his disposal to speak for themselves, combining the separate segments with a connecting text. In certain places, however, it can be shown that he made a conscious choice from the material he had available to him” (op. cit., p. 11). The connecting framework introduced by the Deuteronomist is lacking in GenesisNumbers, and as such, according to Noth, the latter cannot be considered a part of the Deuteronomistic history. In his opinion, Deut. 1 See, for example, H. W. Wolﬀ, “Das Kerugma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks”, ZAW 73 (1961), 171–186 (= id., Gesammelte Studien (ThB 22), Munich 19732, pp. 308–324). 2 Cf. M. Weippert, “Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewusstseins”, VT 23 (1973), 415–442. Weippert portrays the Yahwistic-Elohistic historical writing found in the Pentateuch as Ätiologie des israelitischen Kulturlandbesitzes, and that found in the books Joshua-2 Kings as Ätiologie des Landverlustes.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

139

1:1–4:43 constitutes the introduction to the said history that was added to an already existent book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 4:44–30:20). The author then goes on to describe the conquest of the land of Canaan, narrate the period of the judges and survey the history of Israel from the departure from Egypt to the construction of the temple under Solomon over a period of 480 years (1 Kgs 6:1). The work concludes with reference to the fall of Jerusalem and a brief allusion to the release of King Jehoiachin in 561 BCE. According to Noth, the work must have been written in Canaan around the middle of the sixth century BCE (scholars have since argued in support of the land of exile as its place of origin or have declared the problem insolvable). Given the fact that the work begins with Moses expounding the law in the ﬁelds of Moab immediately prior to the entry into Canaan (Deuteronomy 1ﬀ.) and concludes with a detailed portrayal of the discovery of the Mosaic law in the temple in Jerusalem during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kings 22–23), it may have been composed with these signiﬁcant events in mind. At decisive moments, the Deuteronomist ascribes speeches to leading ﬁgures, which interpret the course of events in both retrospective and prospective fashion and draw practical conclusions for the way the people should behave (see, for example, Joshua 23; 1 Samuel 12; 1 Kings 8) or oﬀer a historical-theological survey (see Judges 2; 2 Kgs 17:7ﬀ.). In Noth’s view, the purpose of the work was to show that Israel’s downfall was not due to any lack of power on God’s part but to its own fault (cf. Deut. 29:22–28). yhwh had continually given warning to his people on account of their disobedience to the commandments mediated by Moses, but they had cast these ordinances and the words of the prophets to the wind. According to Noth, the author did not account for a future return from exile. Noth’s thesis provided a clear and simple answer to the question as to how it was possible that a substantial portion of the Former Prophets could be permeated by speciﬁc theological perspectives and a particular style. The thesis has thus found a wide circle of supporters, although scholars have introduced corrections thereto in the course of time (especially with respect to the idea that the history is the work of a single author and that it maintained the same theological schema throughout). Indeed, several have come to the conclusion that the Deuteronomistic history is the end result of the activities of three authors: the historical narratives having been created by the historian DtrH, the majority of the prophetic narratives

140

chapter eight

and a prophetic historical theology having been the responsibility of DtrP and a history measured against the Deuteronomistic law having been the work of the so-called “nomist” or DtrN (Smend jr.,3 Dietrich,4 Veijola,5 Würthwein).6 Others argue in favour of a preexilic Deuteronomist active during the reign of King Josiah whose work was later continued and completed by a writer during the period of the Babylonian exile (thus Cross7 and Nelson,8 cf. also Helga Weippert).9 Noth’s thesis (in spite of later elaborations) confronts us, nevertheless, with a number of problems. Unless one is willing to accept that the books of Genesis-Numbers were added later in the form of a prologue to the Deuteronomistic history, one is obliged to argue that the work of the Yahwist (the primary source of the Pentateuch) must have extended beyond Numbers (and elements of Deuteronomy 31–34), since the promise of the land has such an important role to play therein. It is virtually untenable, therefore, that the conquest of Canaan was not described by the Yahwist. Bearing Noth’s thesis in mind one is then obliged to accept that the conclusion of the work of the Yahwist (or of JE), in which the Landnahme is narrated, must have been set aside in favour of the narration thereof in the book of Joshua which belongs to the Deuteronomistic history. Furthermore, passages can be found in the book of Exodus that are written in the 3 R. Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker. Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte”, in: H. W. Wolﬀ (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (FS G. von Rad), Munich 1973, pp. 494–509. J. van Seters has presented ﬁrm arguments against a DtrN redaction of DtrH; cf. his “The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch. The Case Against it”, in: M. Vervenne and J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic Literature (FS C. H. W. Brekelmans; BEThL 133), Leuven 1997, pp. 301–319. 4 W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108), Göttingen 1972. 5 T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, Helsinki 1975; id., Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie, Helsinki 1977. 6 E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige (ATD) I, Göttingen 1977, 19852; II 1984. 7 F. M. Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History”, in: id., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge, Mass. 1973, pp. 274–289. 8 R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History ( JSOT Suppl. Series 18), Sheﬃeld 1981. 9 H. Weippert, “Die “deuteronomistischen” Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher”, Biblica 53 (1972), 301–339; id., “Geschichten und Geschichte. Vorhersage und Erfüllung im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT 43), Leiden 1991, pp. 116–131.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

141

same Deuteronomistic style as the proposed Deuteronomistic history (cf. Exod. 19:3–8 and 24:3–8; see also Exod. 23:20ﬀ.). In addition, it is argued that while the books of Joshua and Judges were Deuteronomistically reworked, the books of Kings were written by Deuteronomists and 1–2 Samuel were only subject to a very limited degree of Deuteronomistic intervention.10 One might raise the question, moreover, as to whether Deuteronomy 1–3(4) constitutes an appropriate introduction to the proposed history (cf. Childs 1979, pp. 213–215) and why the work does not begin with a description of the exodus event, given the multiple references to the departure from Egypt in the books of Joshua-2 Kings. This question is all the more pressing if one accounts for the fact that the chronological system maintained by the so-called Deuteronomist takes its point of departure in the exodus from Egypt (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1).11 In light of our critical stance towards the notion of a once independent Deuteronomistic history stretching from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings and before we endeavour to formulate our own standpoint with respect to the genesis and evolution of Israel’s historical masterpiece, it seems appropriate for the sake of clarity to oﬀer a short sketch of the history of Pentateuch research up to the present juncture.

b. A short sketch of the history of Pentateuch research Old Testament studies can never rest on a secure foundation until the pentateuchal problem is resolved (Frederick V. Winnett) H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch, Freiburg im Breisgau-Leipzig 1983; W. Baumgartner, “Alttestamentliche Einleitung und Literaturgeschichte”, ThR 8 (1936), 179–222; id., “Die Auslegung des Alten Testaments im Streit der Gegenwart”, Schweizerische Theologische Umschau 11 (1941), 17–38; H. J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, Neukirchen 1956, 19823; O. Eissfeldt, “Sechs Jahrzehnte alttestamentliche Wissenschaft”, in: Volume du congrès Genève 1965 (SVT 15), Leiden 1966, pp. 1–13; R. E. Clements, A Century of Old Testament Study, Guildford and London 1976; id., “Pentateuchal Problems”, in:

10 Cf. G. Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Heidelberg 197912, pp. 209–212; C. Westermann, op. cit., 1994. 11 Cf. S. Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 139), Berlin-New York 1975, pp. 177–178; C. Westermann, op. cit., 1994, pp. 39–40.

142

chapter eight

G. W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation, Oxford 1979, pp. 96–124; R. Rendtorﬀ, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147), Berlin-New York 1977; D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (Suppl. JSOT 10), Sheﬃeld 1978; J. Vermeylen, “La formation du Pentateuch à la lumière de l’exégèse historico-critique”, in: P. M. Bogaert e.a., Lectures Bibliques, Colloque du 11 novembre 1980, Brussels, s.d., pp. 93–112; E. Zenger, “Wo steht die Pentateuchforschung heute?”, BZ 24 (1980), 101–116; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren Pentateuchforschung”, ThR 48 (1983), 227–253; 50 (1985), 107–131; J. R. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, London 1984; R. Smend, “Ein halbes Jahrhundert alttestamentliche Einleitungswissenschaft”, ThR 49 (1984), 3–30; R. E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, New York 1987; R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study (Suppl. JSOT 53), Sheﬃeld 1987; A. de Pury et Th. Römer, “Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problème et brève histoire de la recherche”, in: A. de Pury (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question, Geneva 1989, pp. 9–80; R. Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten, Göttingen 1989; E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189), Berlin 1990; E. W. Nicholson, “The Pentateuch in Recent Research. A Time for Caution”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT 43), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1991, pp. 10–21; id., The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998 (an excellent critical introduction); C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung (CBET 9), Kampen 1994 (a detailed survey with countless references to the relevant literature); Damian WynnWilliams, The State of the Pentateuch. A Comparison of the Approaches of M. Noth and E. Blum, Berlin-New York 1997.

Scholarly endeavour in the last couple of centuries to disentangle the emergence and history of the Pentateuch serves as the most expressive and signiﬁcant example of the application of literary and historical-critical methods to the documents of the Old Testament. Together with Franz Delitzsch12 we might add that the problem of the genesis of the Pentateuch is “nach allen Seiten hin die eigentliche Grund- und Hauptfrage” of Old Testament research. A great deal has been said and written concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch. Up to a few centuries ago the ancient Jewish tradition, which was adopted by Christianity, held Moses to be the author of Genesis-Deuteronomy.13 One of the ﬁrst to counter this

12

F. Delitzsch, Messianische Weissagungen, Leipzig 1890, p. 9. Cf. Philo Alexandrinus, De vita Mosis I, § 4; IV, § 291; Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities I, § 18–26; IV, § 326 (Moses himself wrote the last eight verses of Deuteronomy concerning his own death! A number of rabbis ascribed the latter to Joshua); Marc. 12:26; b. Baba bathra 14b. In the OT as a whole, allusion to the 13

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

143

traditional assertion was Andreas Bodenstein Karlstadt (1486–1541), who had once served as a pastor together with Luther in Wittenberg. In his De Canonicis Scripturis Libellus of 1520, he denied the possibility that Moses could have been the author of the Pentateuch based on the fact that the book of Joshua exhibited the same style. He likewise rejected the hypothesis that Ezra could have been the author on account of the fact that the style of the latter did not agree with that of the Pentateuch. It is probably due to Karlstadt’s later ideas and his unfortunate career that this perspective did not attract the attention it deserved. Inspired by relevant observations made by a number of medieval Jewish rabbis, among them Ibn Ezra, the philosopher Baruch de Spinoza (1632–1677) similarly denied Mosaic authorship of Genesis-Deuteronomy in his Tractatus theologico-politicus of 1670, although he considered Ezra to have been the compiler of the Pentateuch. The path of critical biblical research was smoothed out once and for all when the Enlightenment of the seventeenth century brought about a change in our world view, deﬁnitively eroded the authority of the Scriptures at every level of reality and established reason as the only reliable instrument of scientiﬁcally justiﬁable knowledge. It was also the Enlightenment (together with the emergence of textcritical research) that provided the decisive thrust towards the literary and historical-critical study of the Old Testament in general and the Pentateuch in particular.14 One of the ﬁrst observations made in this regard was the diﬀerence in the use of divine names in the Pentateuch. Several segments thereof employed YHWH ( JB: Yahweh; NRSV: the Lord, in line with the translation kurios found in the Septuagint; Dutch Authorised Version: de HEERE) while others employed "Elohîm (God) as the divine name. Once it was discerned that this diﬀerence in designation was characteristic of some parallel narratives, the foundations of source division were established. Scholars thus made an initial distinction between two sources, a Yahwist and an Elohist.

Book or Law of Moses in Ezra 7:6, Neh. 8:2, 13 and 2 Chron. 25:4 would likewise appear to have the Pentateuch in mind. The Pentateuch itself makes no reference to the authorship of Moses. The tradition may stem from the fourth or third century BCE. 14 Cf. K. Scholder, Ursprünge und Probleme der Bibelkritik im 17. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der historisch-kritischen Theologie (Forschungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus X/33), Munich 1966.

144

chapter eight

Although he was not the ﬁrst to support this hypothesis,15 Jean Astruc (1684–1766), bodyguard to Louis XV and professor of medicine at the University of Paris, is nevertheless considered the father of source theory.16 It is interesting to note that Astruc’s motives in setting forth his hypothesis were primarily apologetic rather than critical, his ultimate aim having been to defend the Mosaic origin of the ﬁrst ﬁve books of the Bible. His study, which was published anonymously in Brussels in 1753 under the title Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse, begins with the presupposition that Moses had ordered his sources in four columns and that a later redactor had reworked them into one continuous narrative, thereby giving rise to the various irregularities we encounter in the present text. Astruc was particularly critical of Spinoza, whom he accused of hardiesse, and exhibited a serious concern with respect to the critical spirit of the time (la maladie du dernier siècle), which he not only detected in Spinoza and Hobbes but also among Roman Catholic authors. Astruc’s position was conﬁrmed at the end of the eighteenth century by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1825), the pioneer of the older documentary hypothesis, in his Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Although Eichhorn initially upheld the idea of a Mosaic reworking of the apparent sources, he later hypothesised that the latter must have been compiled after Moses. In his Die Urkunden des Jerusalemer Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urgestalt I: Die Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Mose (Halle 1798), Carl-David Ilgen (1763–1834) went on to defend the idea that, next to J (the Yahwist), one should distinguish not one but two Elohist sources. These were later to be designated as E (Elohist) and P (the Priestly codex). While earlier scholars had already associated Deuteronomy with the reformation of Josiah (cf. 2 Kings 22–23), they had not denied Mosaic origins thereof (e.g. Jerome and Lessing). In his dissertation

15 Ds. H. B. Witter van Hildesheim demonstrated, as early as 1711, that Moses made use of sources; see A. Lods, “Un précurseur allemand d’Astruc, Henning Bernhard Witter”, ZAW 43 (1925), 134–135 and H. Bardtke, “Henning Bernhard Witter. Zur 250. Wiederkehr seiner Promotion zum Philosophiae Doctor am 6. November 1704 zu Helmstedt”, ZAW 66 (1954), 153–181. 16 See the biography of P. Alphandéry in A. Lods, Jean Astruc et la critique biblique au XVIII e siècle, Strasbourg et Paris 1924; see also R. de Vaux, “A propos du second centenaire d’Astruc—réﬂexions sur l’état actuel de la critique du Pentateuque”, in: Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (SVT 1), Leiden 1953, pp. 182–198.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

145

published in 1805,17 however, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) disputed the Mosaic origin of the book and argued that it should be dated to the late period of the kings. His work serves as an essential turning point in Pentateuch criticism on account of the fact that he clearly indicated a relationship between the genesis of Deuteronomy and the cultic reforms of King Josiah.18 The foundations were thus established for the hypothesis that the Pentateuch was made up primarily19 of four sources: J: the Yahwist, which employed yhwh as the divine name; E: the Elohist, which employed "Elohîm (= God); D: the author(s) of the book of Deuteronomy; P: the priestly author(s) responsible for the majority of the cultic laws but also for a number of historical texts, which maintain a variety of phases in the revelation of the divine name: from the creation to the patriarchs—Elohim (Gen. 1), among the patriarchs—El Shadday (Gen. 17), and only later, in relation to Moses, the ‘full divine name’—yhwh (Ex. 6:2ﬀ.).

Such source division led in turn to a number of new questions: a) are the individual source documents the work of a single author or of a variety of authors or, for that matter, of an entire “school” of authors?; b) what if any is the relationship between the diﬀerent source documents? In the course of time, for example, scholars came to distinguish several Yahwist authors ( J 1, J 2, J 3) and a number of segments of diﬀerent priestly origin: Grundschrift of P (P g ), the Holiness Code (Ph), supplements to P (P s), etc. The chronological sequence of J and E, whereby the former was dated prior to the latter, continued to be a matter of dispute. In his Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung (Berlin 1853), Hermann Hupfeld (1796–1866), the founder of the newer documentary hypothesis, considered P to be the oldest source,20 but then later maintained it to be

17

W. M. L. de Wette, Dissertatio critica exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur, Jena 1805. See further R. Smend jr., Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wettes Arbeit am Alten und Neuen Testament, Basel 1958; id., op. cit., 1989, pp. 38–52; J. W. Rogerson, W. M. L. de Wette. Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism, Sheﬃeld 1992. 18 J. Wellhausen described him as “ein gescheiter Kerl! Was ich im Alten Testament gemacht habe, steht ja schon alles bei ihm”; cf. R. Smend, op. cit., 1989, p. 38. 19 No one has ever succeeded in ascribing the entire Pentateuch to four source documents (cf., for example, Genesis 14). 20 Hupfeld distinguished four sources in chronological order: the Urschrift E 1 (= P), the younger Elohist E 2 (= E), the Yhwh-ist (= J) and Deuteronomy (= D).

146

chapter eight

the youngest (thus Kuenen;21 see below). Scholars were more or less agreed, however, on the dating (and original form) of D, which was introduced during the reign of Josiah (622 BCE, cf. 2 Kings 22–23) and came into existence a couple of decades earlier. The documentary hypothesis tended not to enjoy much support at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Several scholarly circles had welcomed the fragmentary hypothesis, defended at the end of the eighteenth century by the Scottish Roman Catholic priest Alexander Geddes (1737–1802)22 and further elaborated by the German scholar Johann Severin Vater (1771–1826).23 According to this hypothesis, the Pentateuch was compiled on the basis of a number of independent and often contradictory fragments of diﬀering sizes, stemming from Elohist and Yahwist circles, which were brought together by a redactor most probably during the period of Solomon. The so-called supplementary hypothesis proposed by De Wette, reformulated by Heinrich Georg August Ewald (1803–1875) and supported by Friedrich Bleek (1793–1859) likewise enjoyed some backing: the Pentateuch and Joshua consisted of an Elohist Grundschrift, which was later supplemented by Yahwist and other component elements, incorporating Deuteronomy some time thereafter. Well-known conservative biblical scholars such as Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg and Carl Friedrich Keil were strongly critical of any form of rationalism. Originally part of this conservative group, Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890)24 later joined the ranks of the critical school and accepted the documentary hypothesis. Together with August Dillmann (1823–1894), Delitzsch belonged to a moderate critical tendency that exercised some degree of inﬂuence in the second half of the nineteenth century. Scholars such as Rudolf Kittel (1853–1929) emerged from the same school. Kittel’s worthy endeavours are familiar to many in the form of the Biblia Hebraica (BHK: 1906 and several reprints thereafter) and his research into the history of Israel which took signiﬁcant account of the results of archaeological studies (cf. his

21 In the ﬁrst edition of his Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Leiden 1861, Abraham Kuenen more or less accepted Hupfeld’s newer documentary hypothesis, although he was later inclined to consider the Urschrift (P) as the youngest source. 22 Cf. his The Holy Bible, or the Books Accounted Sacred by Jews and Christians, London 1792. On the person and his work see R. C. Fuller, Alexander Geddes 1737–1802. Pioneer of Biblical Criticism, Sheﬃeld 1984; W. McKane, Selected Christian Hebraists, Cambridge etc., 1989, pp. 151–190. 23 See his Commentar über den Pentateuch, Halle 1802–1805. 24 Cf. S. Wagner, Franz Delitzsch. Leben und Werk, Munich 1978, 19912.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

147

Geschichte des Volkes Israel I, Stuttgart 19327, II, Stuttgart 19257, III, Stuttgart 1927–19291.2).

The development that lead to a broader acceptance of the documentary hypothesis was prepared for by the work of Johann Karl Wilhelm Vatke (1806–1882).25 In his Die biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt I: Die Religion des Alten Testaments nach den kanonischen Büchern entwickelt, published in 1835 and exhibiting Hegelian inﬂuence, Vatke adopted the idea of an historical development whereby Israel’s religion evolved from a tribal religion under the inﬂuence of Moses into a national religion and under the prophets into an ethical religion. Furthermore, Eduard Reuss (1804–1891) and his pupil Karl Heinrich Graf (1815–1869) defended the thesis that the Law was younger than the Prophets and the Psalms younger than both. The Leiden professor Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891)26 and the German Old Testament scholar Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918)27 added their support. Kuenen’s Historisch-Kritisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan van en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds (ﬁrst edition in three volumes 1861–1865)28 is a standard work, which continues to attract admiration on account of the author’s clarity of explanation and impressive command of his material. Wellhausen’s various publications29 bear witness to a stylistic excellence that continues to make his work interesting and worthy of reading. Wellhausen was a unique and 25 Cf. L. Perlitt, Vatke und Wellhausen. Geschichtsphilosophische Voraussetzungen und historiographische Motive für die Darstellung der Religion und Geschichte Israels durch Wilhelm Vatke und Julius Wellhausen (BZAW 94), Berlin 1965. 26 Cf. P. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds.), Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891). His Major Contributions to the Study of the Old Testament (OTS 29), Leiden etc. 1995. See also S. J. de Vries, Bible and Theology in the Netherlands (American University Studies VII/22), New York 19892, pp. 58–88. 27 For the person and his work see R. Smend jr., op. cit., 1989, pp. 99–113. 28 The second, completely revised edition of 1885–1889, bears the same title with minor emendations. The third volume of this edition was published in 1893 by J. C. Matthes (1836–1917), Kuenen’s brother-in-law. 29 Cf., in particular, his Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, Berlin 18993, 19634 (for the most part a reprint of articles published in 1876–1877 in the Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie 21, pp. 392–450, 531–602, and 22, pp. 407–479, together with a portion of the fourth edition of Bleek’s introduction, pp. 181–267) and his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin 1883, 19056 (title of the ﬁrst edition (1878) Geschichte Israels I). Cf. also R. Smend jr. (ed.), Grundrisse zum Alten Testament (ThB 27), Munich 1965 (contains a short biography written by Smend, a few abbreviated descriptions written by Wellhausen on the history of Israel, the Israelite-Jewish religion, the history of Old Testament scholarship and an in memoriam of H. Ewald likewise by Wellhausen).

148

chapter eight

erudite scholar whose inﬂuence on Old Testament studies was so immense that instead of speaking of the Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen school, contemporary research tends to limit itself to the school of Wellhausen. He distinguished, in essence, three layers in the Pentateuch: JE, consisting of two sources ( J and E), each exhibiting the characteristics of three editions in sequence although diﬃcult to distinguish from one another, Deuteronomy (D) and the priestly source (P, referred to by Wellhausen as Q abbreviated from “the book of the four [quattuor] covenants”, those with Adam, Noah and Abraham together with the Sinai covenant). In his opinion, the layers stem from around 840, 700, 620 and 500 BCE respectively and were connected together in a succession of redactions. Wellhausen’s belief that the aforementioned documentary sources extended into the book of Joshua implies that one should speak of a Hexateuch (a six part work: Genesis-Joshua) rather than a Pentateuch (a ﬁve part work: Genesis-Deuteronomy). Both Kuenen and Wellhausen were consistent in applying the historicism dominant in the nineteenth century to the religion and literature of Ancient Israel, albeit each in his own fashion.30 In their opinion J represented the most primitive form of Israel’s religion, its conception of God being the most naïve. E bears witness to a purer stage of religious thought. D represents prophetic monotheism and P follows suit. Based on literary analysis, Keunen and Wellhausen thus oﬀered an image of Israel’s religious history that set traditional theories of Old Testament transmission on their head, so to speak. Instead of portraying a pure form of Yahwism under Moses’ leadership at the beginning of Israel’s history that degenerated during the period of the judges and the kings under the inﬂuence of the worship of other gods, a thesis emerged whereby Israel’s religion was seen to have developed from a virtually polytheistic original phase into a pure form of Yahwism in the period of the kings. Israel’s religion was thus considered to have started as a natural religion only to evolve under the prophets with their highly ethical preaching. The ethical 30 Keunen’s anti-supernaturalistic theological perspective and natural theology (God’s spirit and power are made manifest in the development of the human person) are in frequent evidence; cf. S. J. de Vries, op. cit., 1968, 19892, 48ﬀ. Wellhausen was in the ﬁrst instance an historian, although he believed himself to be at the service of theology; cf. the ﬁnal chapter of L. Perlitt, Vatke und Wellhausen (BZAW 94), Berlin 1965, pp. 153–243.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

149

norms preached by the prophets brought about a complete renewal and later came to dominate the cult. Israel’s liturgy thus emerged with which we are familiar from the laws found in the Pentateuch. Neither Kuenen nor Wellhausen were inclined to rate this evolution highly, however. Keunen maintained that Israel’s religion had evolved into empty formalism while Wellhausen determined the evolution to be the beginning of Judaism, which he viewed negatively. Wellhausen supported his reconstruction of Ancient Israel’s religious history with the following arguments: a) JE presume diﬀerent sacriﬁcial locations, whereas D demands centralisation of the cult and P presupposes it, projecting itself back to the wilderness period (the tabernacle); b) Sacriﬁces in the period of the kings were not subject to regulation and tended to be oﬀered in the family context. Josiah centralised the cult and only allowed the laity to engage in profane slaughter (cf. Deuteronomy 12); the ancient oﬀerings consist only of animal sacriﬁce and burnt oﬀerings; sin and guilt oﬀerings stem from the time of the Babylonian exile; c) Religious feasts with respect to JE have an agrarian character (Exod. 23:14–19; 34:18–26) and lack any ﬁxed date. D historicises the said feasts (cf. Deut. 16:1–17) and P ritualises them (cf. Lev. 23:1–44; Numbers 28–29). The New Year Feast and the Great Day of Atonement stem from the period of the Babylonian exile; d) In the period of the kings each sanctuary had its own clergy. While D desired to transfer the Levites to Jerusalem (Deut. 18:6–8), Ezekiel made them the servants of the priests (Ezek. 44:10–14) and P conﬁrms this situation (Numbers 1–4). A highly critical assessment of Wellhausen’s liberal Protestant aversion to ceremonial and ritual together with a radical critique of his thesis concerning the development of Israel’s religion can be found in Report No. 14/79 of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University penned by M. Weinfeld under the title Getting at the Roots of Wellhausen’s Understanding of the Law of Israel on the 100th Anniversary of the Prolegomena, Jerusalem s.d. Cf. also M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Oxford 1978. In the meantime, however, many of Wellhausen’s hypotheses have turned out to be untenable: a) It is correct to say that the tabernacle was the only cultic location during the period in the wilderness and it is hardly surprising, therefore, that Lev. 17:3–7 determined that every animal slaughter had to take place there. If this passage presupposes the cultic centralisation characteristic of the time of King Josiah, however, it is inconceivable that P in line with D (Deuteronomy 12) did not allow profane slaughter for those who could not bring their animals to Jerusalem;

150

chapter eight

b) 2 Kgs 12:16 (Hebr. 12:17) reveals that sin and guilt oﬀerings were in fact made in the period of the kings (cf. also Hos. 4:8);31 c) While Leviticus 23 (P) likewise associates the festivals with nature, it also attaches them to a ﬁxed date in line with traditions found elsewhere in the Ancient Near East. Atonement rituals are known to us from Ugarit and the Mesopotamian world dating back to very ancient times32 (cf. ANET, 331–334); d) A distinction between priests and Levites, senior and junior cultic personnel, can already be found with respect to Hittite temples (cf. J. Milgrom, JAOS 90 [1970], 204–209).

It did not take long for a degree of resistance to develop with respect to the theses proposed by Keunen and Wellhausen among both conservative scholars and those who, in principle, shared their critical perspective. Reference can be made in this regard to scholars such as August Dillmann (1823–1894) and Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin (1847–1926) who continued to support an early dating of the cultic law, maintained the emergence of P prior to the Babylonian exile and thus rejected an evolutionary schema. At the same time, a huge variety of dates were associated with J and E, running from 1200 to 500 BCE. Some scholars, including Eduard König (1846–1936), who excelled in both the exegetical and the linguistic arenas,33 were inclined to push the date as far forward as possible while others exhibited the opposite tendency. In addition, there was a signiﬁcant lack of unanimity regarding the distribution of the transmitted material over the various sources in which individual preference and certain theories on the character of the source documents played an important role. Perhaps the most signiﬁcant controversy surrounded the religious evaluation of the diﬀerentiated sources and of particular narratives whereby literary-critical judgements and religious-historical and theological considerations traversed and frequently thwarted one another. An upsurge of criticism of the system elaborated by Wellhausen and his supporters is evident after 1900, both from the perspective of the literary critics themselves and from the cultural, religious-historical and dogmatic 31 As a matter of fact, the translation “sin oﬀering” is somewhat inaccurate since the oﬀering in question was more probably a puriﬁcation oﬀering; cf. J. Milgrom, “Sin-oﬀering or Puriﬁcation-oﬀering?”, VT 21 (1981), 237–239. 32 Cf. B. Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals”, JCS 17 (1963), 105ﬀ. 33 Cf., for example, his Historisch-Comparative Syntax der Hebräischen Sprache, Leipzig 1897.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

151

perspective. While a complete survey of the problems and objections raised would be impossible at this juncture, the following information should suﬃce to exhibit the primary thrust of the new developments.

In the Netherlands, Bernardus Dirks Eerdmans (1868–1948), the second successor to Kuenen in Leiden, can be singled out as the one who spearheaded the attack from the literary-critical perspective in his Alttestamentliche Studien.34 Eerdmans ﬁrmly rebuﬀed any form of source division that arbitrarily tore a narrative asunder in spite of its evident intention to present itself as a literary unity. He rejected the thesis that E and P once constituted independent source documents, which oﬀered a continuous historical narrative, and denied the possibility that J and E could be distinguished on the basis of their use of divine names. He likewise considered Israel’s oﬃcial cult as signiﬁcantly older than Wellhausen had proposed. In religious-historical terms, however, Eerdmans ultimately shared the radical-critical standpoint of the school of Wellhausen, being similarly convinced of a development of Israel’s religion from naturalistic polytheism through prophetic reaction to the monotheism of Deuteronomy and later prophecy.35 Rooted in his belief that polytheism had a greater role to play than other critics were inclined to argue, Eerdmans located the emergence of Ancient Israelite literature at an earlier stage than was customary at the time. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the complex nature of the literary sources already recognised by Kuenen and Wellhausen (especially with respect to P) led several scholars to engage in meticulous research into the composition of the individual source documents, which led in turn to an extensive literary segmentation of the transmitted texts. Such, in many respects, sterile and atomistic analysis of narratives that ultimately presented themselves as a unity elicited signiﬁcant resistance in a variety of circles and tended to contribute little to the endeavour to reconstruct Israel’s religious history. The distinctions introduced within the various sources unintentionally

34 B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien I: Die Komposition der Genesis, Gießen 1908; II: Die Vorgeschichte Israels, Gießen 1908; III: Das Buch Exodus, Gießen 1910; IV: Das Buch Leviticus, Gießen 1912. In the foreword to volume I (p. iii) Eerdmans states: “In dieser Abhandlung . . . sage ich mich los von der kritischen Schule GrafKuenen-Wellhausen und bestreite ich die sogenannte neuere Urkundenhypothese überhaupt”. 35 Cf. his Religion of Israel, Leiden 1947, pp. 4ﬀ.

152

chapter eight

undermined the classical documentary hypothesis, which based itself as a rule on a high degree of homogeneity with respect to the sources and on single authorship. Developments led to a more well-deﬁned documentary hypothesis, later referred to as the newest documentary hypothesis, initiated by Karl Budde (1850–1935),36 further elaborated by Rudolf Smend Sr. (1851–1913) in his Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin 1912), and vigorously defended by the Old Testament scholar Otto Eissfeldt (1877–1973) in his monumental Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen 19643). In line with Smend Sr., Eissfeldt distinguished ﬁve literary layers in the Hexateuch (Genesis-Joshua): L, J, E, D and P. L, or the “lay source” (Laienquelle) stemmed from the Davidic-Solomonic period and reﬂected a nomadic ideal and a protest against Canaanite inﬂuences in Israel (cf. J 1 and J 2 according to Smend Sr.).37 While Eissfeldt continued to envisage individual authors of the source documents, he not only recognised that they had employed older material but also that their work was not completely homogenous. Other commentators were more inclined to reduce the number of the four traditionally accepted sources J, E, D and P. Several inﬂuential scholars argued, for example, that E had never existed as an independent documentary source, constituting rather only a supplement to J. This thesis was strongly defended by Paul Volz (1871–1941) and Wilhelm Rudolph (1891–1987) in Der Elohist als Erzähler. Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (Giessen 1933) and by the lat-

36

In his Die biblische Urgeschichte, Gießen 1883, Budde distinguished two Yahwistic authors in Genesis 1—11 ( J 1 and J 2) together with a redactor of the latter’s work ( J 3). 37 Robert Henry Pfeiﬀer, Introduction to the Old Testament, New York-London 19415) and C. A. Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel, Oxford 1948, similarly distinguish a J 1 and a J 2. Pfeiﬀer refers to the latter as S (a designation for “South” or “Seir” as the place of origin) and accounts for additions to this source (S 2), which, in contrast to Eissfeldt, he only ﬁnds in Genesis. Simpson considers J 2 as the reworker of J 1. In the tenth edition of Ernst Sellin’s Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Heidelberg 1965, 197912) Georg Fohrer likewise presupposes a second Yahwistic source, similar grosso modo in terms of content to Eissfeldt’s L. Fohrer, however, employs the designation N (“die nomadische Quellenschicht”), arguing that the impressions of the author were determined by (semi-)Nomadic circles within Israel. In contrast to Eissfeldt, who maintained the chronological sequence L-J, Fohrer dates N after J. While R. Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen (BBB 24), Bonn 1966, V. Fritz, Israel in der Wüste, Marburg 1970, pp. 107ﬀ. and A. de Pury, Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1975, pp. 49–53 speak of a single Yahwist, they recognise the presence of already written formulations in J without thereby insisting on a continuous source.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

153

ter in his Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua (Giessen 1938). Mowinckel (1884–1965)38 and Vriezen (1899–1981)39 also joined their ranks. Vriezen maintained, in addition, that P should be considered a reworker of the material transmitted in JED and not as an independent source document. Following Johannes Hempel (1891–1964),40 however, Vriezen also distinguished three distinct complexes within J ( J 1 = Genesis 12–36; J 2 = Genesis 37–50; J 3 = Genesis 2–11: J 1 was supplemented with J 2, E and J 3 to become JE, D and P being added thereafter). Even the relationship proposed by De Wette, and many others after him, between (proto-)Deuteronomy and the reforms of King Josiah was not left unchallenged. J. B. Griﬃts, for example, argued in his The Problem of Deuteronomy (London 1911) that linguistic and archaeological evidence revealed that the vast majority of the laws found in the book of Deuteronomy could not have stemmed from the time of King Josiah. In his Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz (Gütersloh 1923) Theodor Oestreicher not only denied any speciﬁc relationship between Deuteronomy and the Josianic reforms but also contested the idea that the work restricted the liturgy to a single location. Adam C. Welch ascribed the legislative segment of Deuteronomy to the time of Samuel in his The Code of Deuteronomy (London 1924). In his essay “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums”, ZAW 40 (1922), 161–255, Gustav Hölscher argued that the Deuteronomic law would have been unworkable in Josiah’s time and dated it to the post-exilic period. All these studies ultimately served to undermine the primary foundations of Wellhausian Pentateuchal criticism. For a more detailed survey see M. J. Paul, Het archimedische punt van de Pentateuchkritiek. Een historisch en exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhouding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning Josia (2 Kon. 22–23), ’s Gravenhage 1988.

Criticism from the culture-historical and religious-historical perspective would appear to have been more inﬂuential. Wellhausen had described the development of Israel’s religion as an immanent process (albeit prior to the Babylonian exile), which the nation had undergone in virtual 38

S. Mowinckel, Erwägungen zur Pentateuch-Quellenfrage, Oslo 1964. See De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Katwijk aan Zee 19899, p. 159 and earlier editions thereof (E as “augmented edition of J”). Claus Westermann similarly denies the existence of E as an independent source document in his impressive commentary on Genesis (in the series BK). 40 Cf. J. Hempel, Die althebräische Literatur, Wildpark-Potsdam 1930 (reprint Berlin 1968). In this striking standard work Hempel would appear to be heavily inﬂuenced by Gunkel and Gressmann. He maintains the presence of older material in all the sources of the Pentateuch, including P, and argues in favour of a slow yet lively evolution of the source documents. 39

154

chapter eight

isolation. Ancient Near Eastern excavations since the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, however, especially those in Mesopotamia, have increasingly made it clear that Israel had formed a part of the culture and history of the region from ancient times. The idea of a development from a low polytheistic religion to the level of the prophets in a relatively short period of time appeared to many to be an improbable if not untenable thesis.41 The discovery of the Babylonian creation narrative Enuma Elish and the ﬂood narrative of the Gilgamesh epic, both of which exhibit striking agreements with the biblical reports, left a signiﬁcant and indelible impression (cf. chapter II). In addition, the laws of Hammurabi, which exhibit remarkable parallels on speciﬁc points with the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 21–23, further contributed to the realisation that an exchange of cultural assets between the nations of the Ancient Near East should not be underestimated. Later excavations at Nuzi and Ugarit further served to underline Israel’s relationship with its neighbours (cf. chapter II). Given the Babylonian-Assyrian and Egyptian sources, it appeared that Israelite sources had been frequently ascribed a much too late date. As a consequence, the highly inﬂuential “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule”, represented by Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin (1874–1927), Albert Eichhorn (1856–1926), Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932) and Hugo Gressmann (1877–1927), called for further research into the sociological, religious and cultural roots of the available Old Testament texts in addition to source critical considerations. Hermann Gunkel42 and Hugo Gressmann43 stand out among those who argued in favour of dating all sorts of elements of the Old Testament much earlier than was the general tendency among scholars at the time. As a matter of fact, even Eerdmans’ critique recognised the signiﬁcance of the Ancient Near Eastern material brought 41

Paul Volz in his Mose. Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung über die Ursprünge der israelitischen Religion (Tübingen 1907, 19322) already defended the thesis that Mosaic religion exhibited an equally high level as that maintained by the school of Wellhausen with respect to the Prophets. 42 On the person and his work see W. Klatt, Hermann Gunkel. Zu seiner Theologie der Religionsgeschichte und zur Entstehung der formgeschichtlichen Methode (FRLANT 100), Göttingen 1969; W. Baumgartner, “Zum 100. Geburtstag von Hermann Gunkel”, in: Congress Volume Bonn 1962 (SVT 9), Leiden 1963, pp. 1–18 (reprinted in the sixth edition of Gunkel’s Genesis, Göttingen 1964, pp. cv–cxxii); R. Smend jr., op. cit., 1989, pp. 160–172. 43 Cf. R. Smend jr., op. cit., 1989, pp. 173–181.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

155

to light by the aforementioned excavations, albeit in the background thereto. Many, nevertheless, continued to uphold Wellhausen’s theory. Gunkel and Gressmann were of the opinion, however, that the pure literary-historical school should make room for the “religioushistorical school”.44 In addition to and in association with their interest in religious-historical parallels, both scholars were responsible for the introduction of form-critical and style-critical research. They based themselves on the hypothesis that the writers of the Ancient Near Eastern world made use, in the ﬁrst instance, of stock material associated with popular tradition, i.e. with literary genres (Gattungen) that bore their own formal and material characteristics and functioned in a speciﬁc concrete situation (Sitz im Leben): priestly instruction was given in a speciﬁc form in the context of the sanctuary, the mourner chanted a dirge over the bier of a lost loved one, an individual recited a hymn of thanksgiving in the temple in fulﬁlment of the vow he or she had made in time of need etc.45 Their research into the smallest literary units that are to be found in the available sources was, by implication, more focused on the socio-ethical and spiritual content of the tradition than on historical considerations. Instead of inquiring in the ﬁrst instance into the time at which a literary unit came into existence, each unit was subjected to an analysis of style and content and studied in light of parallels familiar from Israel’s Umwelt. Given the fact, however, that the literary genres appeared to have developed over time and not remained constant, it was still possible to draw historical conclusions on the basis of the literary forms, at least to a certain degree. Attention continued to focus, nevertheless, on the functional signiﬁcance of the texts in question. Gunkel’s form-critical work was particularly oriented towards the book of Genesis,46 in which he detected primarily Ursagen (Genesis 1–11) and Vätersagen (Genesis 12–50), and, hardly surprisingly, the book of Psalms.47 In his opinion, the sagas frequently bore an etiological

44 Cf. H. Gressmann, “Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft”, ZAW 42 (1924), 1–33: “Auf das literarkritische ist das vorderasiatische Zeitalter gefolgt”. 45 Cf. H. Gunkel, “Die Grundprobleme der israelitischen Literaturgeschichte (1906)”, reprint in Reden und Aufsätze, Göttingen 1913, pp. 29–38; id., “Die israelitische Literatur”, in: Kultur der Gegenwart deel I, 7: Orientalische Literaturen, Leipzig 1925, pp. 53–112 (= id., Die israelitische Literatur, Darmstadt 1963). 46 H. Gunkel, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT), Göttingen 1901, 19646. 47 H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT), Göttingen 19294, 19685. Cf. also his Einleitung in die Psalmen, Göttingen 1933, 19662, completed by J. Begrich.

156

chapter eight

character (e.g. Gen. 1:1–2:4a as response to human questions concerning the origins of the heavens and the earth and why the Sabbath was celebrated) and had already been joined together in clusters in a pre-literary stage. While Gunkel followed the main lines of Wellhausian source analysis, he nevertheless introduced a not insigniﬁcant correction thereto. By considering J and E to be the end product of schools of collectors (“Sammler”), he ultimately broke with Wellhausen’s hypothesis, which maintained the existence of individual authors (“Einzelschriftsteller”) whose work reﬂected the spiritual ideas of their own day. In similar fashion, Gressmann focused his research on the tradition surrounding the exodus from Egypt and the period in the wilderness (cf. his Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen [Göttingen 1913]), placing speciﬁc emphasis on stylistic and tradition-historical issues. Research inaugurated by Gunkel and Gressmann into the speciﬁc component parts out of which the source documents as collections were compiled led not only to the realisation that the composition of the Pentateuch was much more complex than hitherto proposed but also drew attention to the pre-literary history of the sources and their constituent elements, i.e. to the role of the oral tradition. In many respects, the idea of “written sources” was thus diluted. Scholars came to realise that the Priestly codex (P), for example, formed a conglomeration of both old and young elements, and that generalisations in its regard were much open to debate “a source is both old and young at the same time” (Pedersen). Against such a background, the signiﬁcance of research into the sources, which had preoccupied older generations, naturally diminished in favour of the study of independent traditions and attention came to be focused on überlieferungs- and traditionsgeschichtliche research (see below). A third avenue of research, the so-called idea-historical, likewise registered signiﬁcant diﬃculties with the theories elaborated by Wellhausen and his supporters. Countering a one-sided literary-historical approach, a number of scholars expressed the need for research into the spiritual signiﬁcance of the Scriptures. It meant little to know the source to which the paradise narrative in Genesis 2–3 belonged and even less to be able to dissect it into its original components. Such scholars were more interested in the meaning ascribed by the author as a whole to the narrative he had compiled. Prominent representatives of this approach included Johannes Pedersen and Willy Staerk,

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

157

although both followed a diﬀerent path in their research, the former psychological and religious-historical48 the latter more spiritualhistorical and theological.49 Gerhard von Rad can likewise be considered a part of this movement (see below). Their method tended to prioritise a synthetic rather than analytic approach: the study of a text’s external characteristics should make way for an exploration of the meaning of a narrative through which one can endeavour to enter into the mind of the author. It was to be observed in so doing that a variety of authors could be discerned in the narratives of the Old Testament, each betraying himself according to his distinct spiritual ideas. Following this line of thought, Pedersen was able to distinguish the Old Testament authors from one another according to the various milieus from which they had emerged. He denied the possibility, however, of classifying these authors in chronological order. It was but a small step from Formgeschichte, with its study of the genre and Sitz im Leben of smaller literary units, to Überlieferungs-, c.q. Traditionsgeschichte, which endeavoured to trace the process whereby the individual traditions coalesced in the oral phase prior to their use by the authors of the source documents in the composition of their narratives.50 Inspired by their teacher Albrecht Alt (1883–1956), whose study concerning the “God of the fathers”,51 together with his

48 Cf. his Israel. Its Life and Culture I–II, London-Copenhagen 1926 (1946), III–IV, London-Copenhagen 1940 (English translation of the Danish editions of 1920 and 1934). 49 Cf. W. Staerk, “Zur alttestamentlichen Literaturkritik. Grundsätzliches und Methodisches”, ZAW 42 (1924), 34–74. 50 While the concepts “transmission history” and “tradition history” are frequently used in distinction they are also often identiﬁed with one another. Perhaps the best option is to employ the German Überlieferungsgeschichte for the process related to the oral transmission of narratives, songs etc. as traditio and Traditionsgeschichte for the transmission and evolution of idea complexes (creation tradition, exodus tradition, Davidic tradition.) as traditum; cf. F. Deist, “De overleverings- en traditiekritische methoden”, in: A. S. van der Woude (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, pp. 159–172. 51 A. Alt, Der Gott der Väter (BWANT 3/12), Stuttgart 1929 (= id., Kleine Schriften I, Munich 1953, 19592, pp. 1–78). Criticism of his thesis has not been lacking in recent years: cf. B. J. Diebner, “Die Götter des Vaters. Eine Kritik der “Vätergott”Hypothese Albrecht Alts”, DBAT 9 (1975), 21–51; H. Vorländer, Mein Gott. Die Vorstellung vom persönlichen Gott im alten Orient und im Alten Testament (AOAT 23), Kevelaer-Neukirchen/Vluyn 1975; E. Ruprecht, “Die Religion der Väter. Hauptlinien der Forschungsgeschichte”, DBAT 11 (1976), 2–29; M. Köckert, Vätergott und Väterverheißungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben, Göttingen 1988; L. Schmidt, “Eine radikale Kritik an der Hypothese von Vätergott und Väterverheißungen”, ThR 54 (1989), 415–421.

158

chapter eight

style and form-critical analysis of the legal literature and the list found in the book of Joshua had earned him a well-deserved place in scholarly history,52 Gerhard von Rad (1901–1971)53 and Martin Noth (1902–1968)54 endeavoured to shed light on the pre-history of the material transmitted in the Pentateuch. A signiﬁcant transition can be observed in the process whereby the attention aﬀorded by Kuenen and Wellhausen to the period of the kings was transferred to the period in which Israel had not yet developed a monarchy.55 The work of William Foxwell Albright (1891–1971)56 and his followers exhibits a ﬁrm belief in the possibility of tracing Israel’s earliest traditions. Established more on the basis of archaeological discoveries than on traditionhistorical analysis, however, their theories do not diﬀer to any great extent from those of Martin Noth.

In his Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (Stuttgart 1938) Von Rad defended the thesis that the Hexateuch (Genesis-Joshua) constituted a detailed elaboration of an ancient cultic credo (“das kleine geschichtliche Credo”), which he believed had served as the framework within which the tradition had coalesced. In his view, Deut. 26:5b–9 represented the earliest form of this credo in terms of content, which he maintained had its origins in the sanctuary at Gilgal. Given the fact that the credo lacks any reference to the Sinai event, he argued that the tradition with respect to the giving of the law, as described in Exodus 19–24; 32–34, represented an independent traditional complex that should be related to the cult at Shechem. In Von Rad’s opinion, the Yahwist lived during the golden Davidic-Solomonic age 52 See A. Alt, Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts, Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 86. Band, 1. Heft, Leipzig 1934 (= id., Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I, Munich 1959, pp. 278–332) and his study Judas Gaue unter Josia, Palästinajahrbuch 21 (1925), 100–116 (= Kleine Schriften II, pp. 276–288). 53 H. W. Wolﬀ, R. Rendtorﬀ and W. Pannenberg, Gerhard von Rad. Seine Bedeutung für die Theologie, Munich 1973; J. L. Crenshaw, Gerhard von Rad. Grundlinien seines theologischen Werkes, Munich 1979; R. Smend jr., op. cit., 1989, pp. 226–254. 54 W. Zimmerli, “In Memoriam Martin Noth”, VT 18 (1968), 409–413; R. Smend jr., op. cit., 1989, pp. 255–275. 55 Cf. Noth’s study Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (BWANT 4/1), Stuttgart 1930 (reprint Darmstadt 1966) and his article on Das Amt des “Richters Israels”, in: W. Baumgartner (ed.), Festschrift A. Bertholet, Tübingen 1950, pp. 404–417 (= Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II (ThB 39), Munich 1969, pp. 71–85). 56 Cf. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore 1940, Garden City NY 19572 (with a new introduction).

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

159

and was responsible for the elaboration of the salvation historical schema based on material from a variety of origins. He thus provided for the Einbau of the Sinai tradition, the Ausbau of the patriarchal history and the Vorbau of the primeval history. The Yahwist likewise placed his mark on the Hexateuch and made the Landnahme completed by David into the confession of all the tribes of Israel. The Yahwist was not driven by primarily historical concerns but had, rather, a theological goal in mind: to show that the Davidic dynasty was yhwh’s desired result for Israel’s earliest history (cf. Gen. 12:1–3).57 The framework provided by the credo, according to Von Rad, remained unaﬀected by the addition of E and P.58 Scholars rightly objected to this albeit impressive theory concerning the origins of the Hexateuch.59 None of the formulations of the “small historical credo” proposed by Von Rad can be shown to be pre-Deuteronom(ist)ic and thus be regarded as ancient. According to its character, a credo tends to be more of a summary of already existing traditions rather than a point of departure for the formation thereof or a framework within which such formation is facilitated.

57

According to Von Rad this “great people” is to be identiﬁed with the Israel of the Davidic kingdom and the “great name” with that promised to David (cf. 2 Sam. 7:9). 58 The preaching of the Yahwist is described by H.W. Wolﬀ in his “Das Kerygma des Jahwisten”, Evangelische Theologie 24 (1964), 73–98 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB 22), Munich 1964, pp. 345–373), and that of the Elohist by the same author in “Zur Thematik der elohistischen Fragmente”, Evangelische Theologie 29 (1969), 59–72 (= id., Gesammelte Studien, Munich 19732, pp. 402–417). A study of the kerygma of the priestly author (P) can be found in W. Zimmerli’s “Sinaibund und Abrahamsbund. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift”, TZ 16 (1960), 268–280 (= id., Gottes Oﬀenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (ThB 19), Munich 1963, pp. 205–216). 59 Cf. C. H. W. Brekelmans, “Het ‘historische Credo’ van Israel”, Tijdschrift voor Theologie 3 (1963), 1–11; Th. C. Vriezen, “The Credo in the Old Testament”, in: Studies on the Psalms (OTW in South Africa 1963), Potschefstroom 1965, pp. 5–17; A. S. van der Woude, Uittocht en Sinai (inaugural address), Nijkerk 1961; L. Rost, “Das kleine geschichtliche Credo”, in: id., Das kleine geschichtliche Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament, Heidelberg 1964, pp. 11–25; W. Richter, “Beobachtungen zur theologischen Systembildung in der alttestamentlichen Literatur anhand des ‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo’”, in: L. Scheﬀczyk (ed.), Wahrheit und Verkündigung (FS M. Schmauss), Munich-Paderborn-Vienna 1967, pp. 175–212; J. P. Hyatt, “Were There an Ancient Historical Credo in Israel and an Independent Sinai Tradition?”, in: H. Th. Frank and W. L. Reed (eds.), Translating and Understanding the Old Testament. Essays in Honor of H. G. May, Nashville-New York 1970, pp. 152–170; N. Lohﬁnk, “Zum ‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo’ Dtn 26,5–9”, Theologie und Philosophie 46 (1971), 19–39; E. W. Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition, Oxford 1973, pp. 20–26.

160

chapter eight

The fact that the Sinai tradition is lacking in the oldest formulations of the credo need not imply the existence of an independent traditional complex per se, but would appear rather to be a functional determination related to the various contexts.60 By proposing a tradition-historical separation between exodus and Sinai, one is forced to associate the ﬁgure of Moses in origin with one or the other or with neither. It remains improbable, however, that the Israelites who had lived through the departure from Egypt ought to be distinguished from a group that had witnessed the Sinai event. Indeed, the Old Testament as a whole does not oﬀer suﬃcient reason for such a hypothesis. The departure from Egypt is hardly conceivable without a leader and the giving of the law on Sinai without a religious founder. The fact that the Bible presents Moses as just such a leader and founder remains highly plausible from the historical perspective. In his Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart 1948), Martin Noth divided the material found in the Pentateuch into ﬁve “themes” (exodus from Egypt, arrival in Canaan, promise to the patriarchs, journey in the wilderness, revelation on Sinai) which he maintained were originally transmitted by diﬀerent tradition bearers and later expanded with material from a variety of origins. The said themes were already fused together at the pre-literary phase, whereby the ﬁgure of Moses, whom Noth considered more or less alien to all ﬁve themes, provided for a secondary framework of interconnections.61 It has been correctly observed, however, that the opposite may have been the case: that a historical ﬁgure of the stature of Moses attracted a variety of traditions to himself. Noth considered the role of J to be much more limited than that ascribed to it by Von Rad. Indeed, he was inclined to view J, E, D and P more as compilers of traditions than as independent authors, although he upheld the opposite position with respect to the authors he presumed to be at the basis of the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic histories. Reference should be made in this regard to a number of Scandinavian scholars who, while likewise recognising the fact that the Pentateuch was the result of a complex process of transmission,

60

Cf. A. Weiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Göttingen 19574, pp. 73ﬀ. For a thoroughgoing critique of the school of Alt and Noth see the work of J. Bright, Early Israel in Recent History Writing. A Study in Method (SBTh 19), London 1956. 61

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

161

arrived nevertheless at diﬀerent conclusions to those of Von Rad and Noth.62 Johannes Pedersen (1883–1978), for example, was highly critical of the method of a number of literary critics, which he considered to be too western, and of the vision of the development of Israel’s religion defended by the Wellhausen school. He ascribed the internal tensions and irregularities evident in the texts we have at our disposal to the transmission process itself. In his opinion, JE (which, he maintained, could not be distinguished from one another), D and P served as sigla for recorded collections dating from the post-exilic period, which reﬂect the pluriform culture and religion of Ancient Israel both before and after the time of the exile. Ivan Engnell (1907–1964), a supporter of the so-called “Myth and Ritual School”63 set up by Samuel Henry Hooke, which maintained the existence of general Ancient Near Eastern cultic pattern (“common pattern”) with the sacral function of the king as its central element, was inﬂuenced by Pederson as well as by the orientalist Hendrik Samuel Nyberg (1889–1974). The latter was of the opinion that while the written Old Testament stemmed from the period after the Babylonian exile, its content had been transmitted prior thereto in oral form. This explains Nyberg’s immense conﬁdence in the Masoretic text and his dislike of prevailing literary criticism. Engnell shared these perspectives and developed his own vision of the origins of the books of Genesis-Kings.64 In line with Noth, he took the existence of a Deuteronomistic history extending from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings as his point of departure, maintaining that this history was completely independent of the collection of traditions found in Genesis to Numbers. The latter, he argued, was brought together by a priestly

62 Cf. H. S. Nyberg, “Die schwedischen Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Forschung in diesem Jahrhundert”, in: Congress Volume Uppsala 1971 (SVT 22), Leiden 1972, pp. 1–10. 63 Cf. S. H. Hooke (ed.), Myth, Ritual, and Kingship. Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, Oxford 1958. See, however, Martin Noth’s thorough critique of the propositions of this “school” in his article “Gott, König, Volk im Alten Testament. Eine methodologische Auseinandersetzung mit einer gegenwärtigen Forschungsrichtung”, ZThK 47 (1950), 157–191 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB 6), Munich 19602, pp. 188–229). 64 Cf. I. Engnell, Gamla Testamentet, en traditionshistorisk inledning I, Stockholm 1945, and the English translation by J. T. Willis of his contribution to the Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagwerk (Stockholm 19622) in A Rigid Scrutiny. Critical Essays on the Old Testament by Ivan Engnell, Nashville, Tenn. 1969.

162

chapter eight

writer from the period of the exile who drew his material from, in part, extremely old oral traditions and incorporated JE traditions in his work that were not to be distinguished from the remaining traditions collected in the priestly document. While scholars have generally distanced themselves from the idea that the material of the Old Testament was transmitted in an almost exclusively oral fashion prior to the Babylonian exile, the criticism voiced by the Scandinavians led nevertheless to the understanding of the sources of the Pentateuch as streams of tradition and to the attribution of many irregularities evident therein to the oral phase of the transmission. Following in Nyberg’s footsteps, many Scandinavian scholars have in fact been inclined to overestimate the role of the oral tradition in Israel. Based on his studies of Arabic, Nyberg was convinced that the oral tradition had had a much more signiﬁcant role to play in the Semitic world before, during and after the written form thereof than had been hitherto maintained. He considered the prevailing literary criticism of the Old Testament to be little more than grasping at straws and was of the opinion that little if any of the Old Testament tradition had been written down prior to the Babylonian exile. He ultimately maintained that the use of writing in pre-exilic Israel was unimportant.65 Archaeological discoveries have tended to undermine the propositions of Nyberg and his followers (see chapter I). Given the fact that the BabylonianAssyrian and the Egyptian world would appear to have been quite schreibselig, in spite of their complex writing system, it seems all the more likely that Phoenicia and Israel, with their relatively simple writing system, would have been likewise inclined to write. This need not imply that the oral tradition was unimportant.66 It seems evident that the latter continued to exist side by side with written forms and in many respects may have enjoyed preference in practice. Genuinely important texts, however, such as contracts, laws, treaties and letters, together with other material to which signiﬁcant importance was attached, such as wisdom teachings, oracles and divine utterances (see Isa. 8:1, 16; Hab. 2:2; Jer. 29:1–23; 32:9ﬀ.; 36; Prov. 25:1) were clearly committed to writing. The work of I. Engnell was strongly criticised by S. Mowinckel (1884–1965) in his Prophecy and Tradition. The Prophetic Books in the Light of the Study of the Growth and History of the Tradition, Oslo 1946. Mowinckel rejected the onesided thesis of Engnell, which purported to have disposed of literary-historical criticism, and unhesitatingly recognised the signiﬁcance of both the written and the oral tradition. 65 66

Cf. E. Nielsen, Oral Tradition (SBTh 11), London 1954, p. 60. Cf. Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word, London 1997.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

163

One is left with the impression that Nyberg had rooted himself too ﬁrmly in the cultural phase that existed among the later Arabic tribes, which he then projected onto Ancient Israel. G. Widengren challenged Nyberg’s theories in his Literary and Psychological Aspects of the Hebrew Prophets (UUÅ 1948/10), Uppsala 1948. E. Nielsen later endeavoured, however, to instil new life into Nyberg’s propositions in his Oral Tradition, London 1954. Further discussion of the issue of the oral tradition can be found in J. P. M. van der Ploeg, Le rôle de la tradition orale dans la transmission du texte de l’Ancien Testament, RB 54 (1947), 5–41 and in A. H. J. Gunneweg, Mündliche und schriftliche Tradition der vorexilischen Prophetenbücher als Problem der neueren Prophetenforschung (FRLANT 73), Göttingen 1959. Mowinckel continued to maintain that the written and oral traditions had existed side by side and that they had inﬂuenced one another.

The documentary hypothesis, which distinguishes a number of redactionally related source documents within the Pentateuch (c.q. the Tetrateuch or the Hexateuch), continues even today to enjoy support among many scholars although it has become the subject of serious criticism since the nineteen seventies. In their contemporary form, the fragmentary and supplementary hypotheses, also referred to respectively as the Erzählkrans and Grundschrift hypotheses, have been enjoying something of a renaissance. Often forgotten forerunners of modern day critique of Wellhausen’s model include J. W. Colenso, who argued around the middle of the nineteenth century in favour of a Deuteronomistic redaction of J and E during the time of King Josiah (cf. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined V, London 1865), M. Vernes, who considered the Pentateuch to be a postexilic document that served as guide for the restoration of the Jewish community from the ﬁfth to the third centuries BCE (cf. Essais bibliques, Paris 1891), J. Dahse, who rejected the interchange of divine names as a criterion for source division (cf. Textkritische Bedenken gegen den Ausgangspunkt der heutigen Pentateuchkritik, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 6 [1903], pp. 305–319) and A. Klostermann, who regarded Deuteronomy as the centre of the Pentateuch and the point of departure for every analysis of the ﬁve books of Moses (cf. Der Pentateuch, Leipzig 1893). Both Umberto Cassuto (cf. La questione della Genesi, Firenze 1934 [see also his The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 1961, reprint 1972]) and B. Jacob (cf. Das erste Buch der Tora. Genesis, Berlin 1934) completely rejected the idea of source division. Besides the already mention liberal theologian B. D. Eerdmans, mention should be made in the Dutch context of the conservative Reformed Old Testament scholar G. Ch. Aalders who likewise sharply criticised the theory (cf. his Oud-testamentische Kanoniek, Kampen 1952, pp. 83ﬀ.)

164

chapter eight

In his Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147, Berlin-New York 1977) Rolf Rendtorﬀ defended the hypothesis that the Pentateuch (with the exception of Deuteronomy and the laws) consisted of rounded-oﬀ complexes of tradition that were only related to one another at a redactional level by P and Deuteronomistic circles: the primeval history (Genesis 1–11), the narratives of the patriarchs (Genesis 12–50), the plague narratives, the departure from Egypt, the journey in the wilderness and the history surrounding Sinai (Exodus-Numbers). In his opinion, there was no place for continuous source documents in such tradition complexes. Indeed, the Yahwist ( J), he maintained, had never existed! Rendtorﬀ correctly drew attention to the insuﬃciently considered relationship between Überlieferungsgeschichte (which takes independent tradition complexes as its point of departure) and the documentary hypothesis (which distinguishes various continuous sources within the process of literary transmission). His alternative to classical literary-historical criticism, however, leaves a number of questions unanswered. How does one explain the existence of a double tradition with respect to certain narratives (doublets) in the context of a successive growth of tradition complexes? What should we make of the use of diﬀerent divine names in distinct segments of the Pentateuch, especially in Genesis? The reduction or the amalgamation of independent tradition complexes to a redactional, theologically interpretative activity stands in a state of tension with the possibility of a coordination of originally independent traditions in a pre-literary phase.67 Rendtorﬀ ’s student Erhard Blum was of the opinion that a Deuteronomistic redactor had re-worked a pre-exilic “history of the time of Moses” in the post-exilic period and bound it together with a pre-exilic account of the patriarchs. This Deuteronomistic work (KD) underwent a priestly reworking (KP), which led more or less to the text we now know.68 Blum thus allows no room for continuous and originally independent sources ( J, E, P). The question has since arisen whether one can date his KD as late as he maintained. Rendtorﬀ ’s model leaves the relationship between Deuteronomy and

67 Cf. E. Otto, “Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der Pentateuchkritik?”, Verkündigung und Forschung 22 (1977), 82–97; cf. also the critique oﬀered by R. N. Whybray, op. cit., 1987, pp. 205–210 and a series of articles in JSOT 3 (1977), 11–42. 68 E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984; id., Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189), Berlin-New York 1990.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

165

parallel texts in the Tetrateuch (e.g. between Deuteronomy 1–3 and Numbers 11, 13–14 and between Deuteronomy 9–10 and Exodus 32–34) virtually undiscussed. This ultimately paved the way for the thesis that Genesis-Numbers should be considered a prologue, added to the Deuteronomistic history (Deuteronomy-2 Kings) at a later date. A second recent approach to the problems surrounding the Pentateuch is oﬀered by John van Seters and Hans Heinrich Schmid who defend the hypothesis that the vast majority of the segments thereof traditionally attributed to J are later than Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history.69 In his Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven-London 1975), Van Seters accounts for three Yahwistic layers in the narratives concerning Abraham, each building further upon the other and thereby ruling out the suggestion of a long and complex history of development. In his opinion, the Yahwist wrote during the time of the Babylonian exile, the promises to the patriarchs only making sense in this period. The P segments, according to Van Seters, were added after the exile. J, in his opinion, is in essence the product of literary creativity, whereby little if any place is left for the oral tradition. An E source or layer is ruled out, the relevant segments from the history of Abraham being ascribed either to J or to a pre-Yahwistic stage. While J would appear to sketch the world of the patriarchs, its narratives, according to Van Seters, are in fact determined by historical and cultural circumstances of a late date. He also argues that J was written as a prologue to the Deuteronomistic history and that it never existed as an independent corpus.70 Van Seters remains an outspoken critic of the school of

69 J. Van Seters, “Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period”, VT 22 (1972), 182–197; id., “The Place of the Yahwist in the History of the Passover and Massot”, ZAW 95 (1983), 167–182; id., “The So-called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Leuven Congress Volume (SVT 43), Leiden 1992, pp. 58–77; id., Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville, KYZurich 1992; id., The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numeri, Louisville, KY-Kampen 1994. For the opinions of H. H. Schmid see his book Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung, Zurich 1976 and his article “Vers une théologie du Pentateuque”, in: A. de Pury (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question, Geneva 1989, pp. 361–386. 70 This opinion is shared by M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist. Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (ATANT 67), Zurich 1981 and A. D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History, London 1983, pp. 139–149. Cf. also R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study ( JSOT Suppl. Series 53), Sheﬃeld 1987, who considers the Pentateuch to be the work of a single author from the sixth century BCE

166

chapter eight

William F. Albright (1891–1971), to which scholars such as J. Bright, F. M. Cross, D. N. Freedman and G. E. Wright belonged. Based on archaeological discoveries, the latter group observed evidence of the cultural and historical situation of the Ancient Near Eastern world of the second millennium BCE in the patriarchal narratives (see also C. H. Gordon71 and E. A. Speiser).72 In the meantime, however, the minimal role ascribed by Van Seters to the tradition, his emphasis on the literary creativity of the Yahwist, the fact that the description of the cult of the patriarchs (El religion, worship of the God of the fathers) in the time of the exile exhibited little actual signiﬁcance and the lack of ﬁrm evidence for the suggestion that the promises to the patriarchs are only appropriate during this period, raises doubts as to the veracity of such a radical rejection of the prevailing theory on the genesis of the Pentateuch. Independent of Van Seters, Th. L. Thompson (The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives [Berlin-New York 1974]) continues to uphold the traditional dating of J while arguing that the patriarchal narratives should be read against the background of circumstances in the tenth and ninth centuries BCE (cf. Wellhausen).

A third trajectory (as noted above) continues to maintain the classical documentary hypothesis, at least in principle. Indeed, some recent introductions to the Old Testament tend to defend the hypothesis on the whole.73 J. Vermeylen,74 for example, maintains the existence of a Yahwistic opus, dating from the Solomonic period and extending potentially into the books of Samuel, which underwent an Elohistic redaction around 700 BCE. In the course of four Deuteronomistic redactions, he argues, the Deuteronomistic law from the time of

and is of the opinion that “the author may have intended it (= his work) as a supplement (i.e. a prologue) to the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian” (p. 242). 71 C. H. Gordon, Het Oude Testament in historisch perspectief (Aula-boeken 18), UtrechtAntwerp 1959, pp. 87–101. 72 Cf. his commentary Genesis (AB), Garden City NY 1964. 73 See, for example, O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Gütersloh 19845; J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, London 19893; R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft 1), Stuttgart etc. 1978; W. H. Schmidt, Einführung in das Alte Testament (De Gruyter Lehrbuch), Berlin-New York 19955. 74 J. Vermeylen, “La formation du Pentateuque à la lumière de l’exégèse historicocritique”, Revue Théologique de Louvain 12 (1981), 324–346.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

167

Josiah was integrated and Genesis-2 Kings was combined together to form a single work. According to Vermeylen, P represents a priestly redaction from the post-exilic period that took place in two stages (P 1 and P 2). In his Die Hexateucherzählung. Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie (Lund 1976), S. Tengström emphasises the cohesive character of the books Genesis-Joshua in a fashion entirely unrelated to that of classical source theory. In his opinion, an epic work narrating the history of the patriarchs, the departure from Egypt, the journey in the wilderness and the conquest of the promised land lies at the basis of the said books. This work, he maintains, came into existence in Shechem prior to the period of the kings and was later subject to supplementation.

Since the nineteen-sixties, so-called Structuralism has oﬀered an analysis of the biblical texts with the emphasis placed on compositional technique and stylistics.75 It would be incorrect to maintain that this growing interest in the structure and function of the texts of the Pentateuch in their present form should be ascribed to a fundamental rejection of diachronic research into the Pentateuch. Those who support this approach do not, as a rule, tend to dispute the legitimacy of scholarly research into the origins and evolution of Genesis-Deuteronomy (although many either show limited interest therein or expect such a study to produce little if any concrete results),76 calling attention rather to the texts in their Letztgestalt. The meaning of the texts, they maintain, should be sought primarily in this ﬁnal form and nowhere else: their structure and style are essential for their interpretation. The ﬁrst line of inquiry ought to focus on the texts’ Sitz in der Literatur, their place in a cycle, book, collection, the Torah, rather than their Sitz im Leben. This approach is represented in the Netherlands by the so-called, yet far from homogenous, “Amsterdam school”, of which Karel Adriaan Deurloo serves

75 Cf. D. Patte, What is Structural Exegesis? (Guides to Biblical Scholarship), Philadelphia 1976; J. Calloud, Structural Analysis of Narrative, Philadelphia-Missoula 1976; R. M. Polzin, Biblical Structuralism. Method and Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts (Suppl. Semeia), Philadelphia-Missoula 1977; M. J. Buss (ed.), Encounter with the Text. Form and History in the Hebrew Bible (Suppl. Semeia), Philadelphia-Missoula 1979. 76 Cf. M. A. Beek, “Verzadigingspunten en onvoltooide lijnen in het onderzoek van de oudtestamentische literatuur”, Vox Theologica 38 (1968), 2–14 (= M. Boertien e.a. (eds.), Verkenningen in een stroomgebied, Amsterdam 1974, pp. 8–19).

168

chapter eight

for the moment as primary spokesperson,77 and by Joannes Petrus Fokkelman.78 In addition to the inﬂuence of Jewish scholars such as Martin Buber, Cassuto and Jacob and that of the autonomy movement in the literary sciences (New criticism; working interpretation), theological aspects based on the work of Karl Barth, Kornelis Heiko Miskotte and Frans Hendrik Breukelman (“the Old Testament is fundamental for theology”) also play an important role.79 This synchronic approach to the narratives of the Pentateuch can be considered a welcome correction of the markedly atomistic-diachronic analyses of the supporters of the source theory.80 For its own part, however, the Amsterdam school is barely able to avoid the risk of considering the narratives of the Pentateuch as products comparable with the literary masterpieces of European culture, of underestimating the diversity of the content of the books of Moses and of paying insuﬃcient attention to the role of the oral tradition. An a-historical approach to the material has led, moreover, to a late dating of the individual documents, which is not always convincingly justiﬁed.81 Future exegetes would be advised to avoid playing diachronic approaches to the Pentateuch oﬀ against synchronic approaches. Both approaches should be allowed, rather, to develop to their fullest potential.82 In line with Claus Schedl,83 an entirely unique approach to the Pentateuch has been developed by Casper Jeremias Labuschagne who argues in favour of a numerical structural analysis of the Old Testament documents. In his opinion, these documents are numerical compositions, determined fundamentally according to their size, division and structure by a limited quantity of numbers.84 Up to the

77 Cf. his dissertation Kaïn en Abel. Onderzoek naar exegetische methode inzake een “kleine literaire eenheid” in de Tenach, Amsterdam 1967. 78 Cf. his dissertation Vertelkunst in Genesis. Proeven van stilistische en structurele analyse, Leiden 1973 (English translation: Narrative Art in Genesis, Assen-Amsterdam 1975) and his Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel I–IV, Assen 1981–1993. 79 Cf. K. A. Deurloo, “Exegese naar Amsterdamse traditie”, in: A. S. van der Woude (red.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, pp. 188–198. 80 Cf. J. C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS 34), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995. 81 For a detailed evaluation of the theses of the “Amsterdam school” see Fokkelman’s work and the related publications of C. Houtman, op. cit., 1994, pp. 251–278. 82 E. Talstra’s study Solomon’s Prayer (CBET 3), Kampen 1993, represents a good example of such an approach. 83 C. Schedl, Baupläne des Wortes. Einführung in die biblische Logotechnik, Vienna 1974. 84 A detailed explanation of his methodology can be found in C. J. Labuschagne, “De literairkritische methode”, in: A. S. van der Woude (red.), Inleiding tot de studie

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

169

present, Labuschagne’s thesis, which naturally ignores source division, has tended to enjoy only a restricted following among exegetes and has been the subject of pointed criticism from others.85

c. The origins and evolution of Israel’s great historical masterpiece: a provisional sketch Any attempt to oﬀer a diﬀerent approach to the study of the Pentateuch that does not take into account the achievements of historical critical scholarship over the last two hundred years is both naive and arrogant (Brevard S. Childs) O. Procksch, Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: Die Elohimquelle, Leipzig 1906; S. E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, Rome 1971; id., “The Elohist at Work”, ZAW 96 (1984), 315–332; J. Craghan, “The Elohist in Recent Literature”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 7 (1977), 23–35; A. W. Jenks, The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions (SBL Monograph Series 22), Missoula MT 1977; M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Oxford 1978; R. E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, New York 1987; A. de Pury (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question, Genève 1989; N. Lohﬁnk, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy, Minneapolis 1994. Cf. also the introductions to the Old Testament referred to in Appendix I and the literature mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Given the above outline sketch of the history of research into the origins and evolution of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy), c.q. the Tetrateuch (Genesis-Numbers) or the Hexateuch (Genesis-Joshua), it would not be surprising if the reader were to experience some

van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 19932, pp. 102–127 and in the introduction to his commentary on Deuteronomy in the POT series (C. J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium IA, Nijkerk 1987, pp. 21–48). See also C. J. Labuschagne, “The Literary and Theological Function of Divine Speech in the Pentateuch”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983 (SVT 36), Leiden 1985, pp. 154–173; id., “Neue Wege und Perspektiven in der Pentateuchforschung”, VT 36 (1986), 146–162; id., “De numerieke structuuranalyse van bijbelse teksten”, NTT 41 (1987), 1–16; id., Vertellem met getallen. Functie en symboliek van getallen in de bijbelse oudheid, Zoetermeer 1992. H. Nobel follows the trajectory marked oﬀ by Labuschagne in his dissertation Gods gedachten tellen. Numerieke structuuranalyse en de elf gedachten Gods in Genesis-2 Koningen (diss. Groningen), Coevorden 1993. 85 Cf. the critique oﬀered by Ph. R. Davies and D. M. Gunn in “Pentateuchal Patterns. An Examination of Labuschagne’s Theory”, VT 34 (1984), 399–406 (with a response by C. J. Labuschagne, ibid., pp. 407–413).

170

chapter eight

degree of despondency when confronted with the vast array of frequently divergent standpoints and hypotheses. A convincing and broadly accepted alternative for the classical documentary hypothesis, however, remains unavailable, in spite of the persisting criticism it continues to attract. The reader is thus faced with a choice: either to uphold the classical theory in principle, in the full awareness of its weaknesses, or to reject it altogether without, in essence, being able to oﬀer a better alternative. It is also possible to approach the texts in question from a purely synchronic perspective and to consider the diachronic issues associated therewith to be virtually insolvable and thus better left to one side. There can be no doubt, however, that the best approach is to continue to search for a solution to the literary-historical problems with which we are confronted, accepting at the same time that such a solution will not be easy to ﬁnd. To begin with, it remains important that we respect the intensive labours of our predecessors and not fall prey to the arrogant or indeed imprudent outright rejection of the arguments that led to the documentary hypothesis. The use of diﬀerent divine names (yhwh and ’Elohîm), for example, especially in the book of Genesis, is too frequently combined with variations in style, discrepancies in the representation of the religious conceptual universe and double narratives (doublets) to permit such high-handedness. Even when limited to the use of a translation, the observant student of the Bible will be unable to ignore the fact that Gen. 1:1–2:4a(P), for example, diﬀers stylistically from Gen. 2:4b–3:26( J) and that both texts employ diﬀerent divine names and exhibit a diﬀerent spiritual tone. Abraham is judged diﬀerently in Gen. 12:10–20( J), in which the divine name yhwh is employed, than in the parallel narrative in Gen. 20:1–18(E), in which the divine name ’Elohîm is used. The style, terminology and theological content of Deuteronomy (D) clearly distinguish themselves from that of the four books that precede it (with the exception of a few Deuteronomistically shaded passages). One is ultimately obliged to recognise the fact that the Pentateuch consists of diﬀerent literary layers, which have been combined in one way or another. It is for this reason that the majority of introductions to the Old Testament tend to treat the proposed source documents of the Pentateuch c.q. Hexateuch ( J, E, D and P) separately. In the remainder of the present volume, and bearing in mind the evident diversity of the assembled parts, we consciously prefer (with the exception of the laws of the Pentateuch) to discuss the books

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

171

of the Bible (or segments thereof ) in order to avoid losing sight of the ultimate unity of the material narrated, thereby leaving open the possibility of a synchronic reading side by side with a diachronic approach.

In spite of their evident diversity, the books Genesis-Joshua would appear to contain a number of elements that have been attuned to one another. The God of the fathers familiar from the Genesis narratives (Gen. 26:23[ J]; 28:13[ J]; 32:9[ J]; 46:3[E]) is also referred to in Exod. 3:6(E), 13(E), 15(E), 16( J) and 4:5( J). Gen. 46:3–4 anticipates the period in Egypt and the departure therefrom (cf. also 50:20). The reference to Shittim in Josh. 2:1 and 3:1 would appear to hark back to Num. 25:1( J) while Josh. 14:6ﬀ. would seem to do the same with respect to Num. 14:24(E). The description of the designation of Joshua as successor to Moses in Num. 27:18–23(P), Deut. 31:23(E) and 34:9(P?) calls for an outline of the task ascribed to him. The promises to the patriarchs in Genesis 12–36 are presupposed in Gen. 50:24( J), Exod. 13:5 (Dtr?), 32:13 (Dtr), 33:1–3a( J) and in Num. 10:29( J), 14:23( J), 30(?). See also the content of Num. 20:14–16( J) and Deut. 34:4( J). As we have seen, the classical documentary hypothesis endeavours to explain the evident unity in diversity of the text by proposing the existence of a Yahwistic document ( J) stemming from Judah, which was later combined by a redactor with fragments of an Elohistic source (E) stemming from the Northern Kingdom. Deuteronomy (D) was added at a later stage and the thus created JED was ﬁnally combined with a once independent Priestly codex (P). As far as the theory is concerned, however, the redactors responsible for this process remain more or less in obscurity. Segments of the Pentateuch, such as Genesis 14, 24, 27, 38 and 49, cannot be reconciled with the schema. An important correction to the older documentary hypothesis, with its rather one-sided literary bias, is provided by the insight that a variegated oral tradition preceded the literary sources, one that should not be dissociated from the later phase of literary codiﬁcation. The factor of the oral tradition serves to limit the use of style and vocabulary as a means to distinguish the literary sources from one another, since the style and vocabulary encountered in the text may have been borrowed in signiﬁcant degree from the said tradition. This is particularly the case with respect to J and E (P is more of an author than a tradition and is typiﬁed by a characteristic style

172

chapter eight

and terminology [McEvenue 1971] to an extent that cannot be determined of J and E; the same can be said of D). As criteria for distinguishing sources, therefore, variations and diﬀerences in style and vocabulary can only be used in combination with other supporting factors. The use of the divine names yhwh and "Elohîm should not automatically lead to the designation of texts as J or E. While the use of "Elohîm and "El Shaddai (“God the Almighty”) is typical of P prior to the latter’s narration of the revelation of the divine name yhwh (Exod. 6:3), it would already appear from Gen. 3:1–7 that another author ( J) employed the single name "Elohîm from time to time in one and the same narrative side by side with yhwh "Elohîm. Likewise, doublets and repetitions do not always oﬀer evidence of diﬀerent authors but can often be explained as variants of the tradition or (in the case of repetitions) as the conscious application of a style ﬁgure. Theological elements and those associated with a particular world view should be treated with prudence when employed in support of source diﬀerentiation, especially since it is clear that authors, in particular J and E, should not be considered as creators of their own theology and world view but rather as the transmitters of prevailing convictions. Evidence of distinctive accents in this regard should, therefore, be demonstrated to be present in the entire work of a particular source if they are to be convincing.86 Those who insist in principle on the veracity of the classical documentary hypothesis are ultimately faced with questions relating to the extent, nature and origin of the presupposed documentary sources. Such questions confront us with serious diﬃculty at a variety of levels. While scholars have endeavoured to trace the beginning of the Yahwistic source ( J) to Gen. 2:4b, the conclusion thereof remains the subject of intense dispute. If one accepts, together with Noth, an original and independent Deuteronomistic historical opus extending from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings, then one is obliged to accept that J, in the transmitted text, does not at present extend beyond Numbers (14:8a or chapter 32). Others argue, however, that there are also traces of J in Deuteronomy and Joshua. Others still have 86 For a detailed consideration of the said criteria see C. Westermann, Genesis I (BK), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974, pp. 764–776, R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, Sheﬃeld 1987, pp. 43–131 and C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch, Kampen 1994, pp. 365–419.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

173

encountered evidence of J in 1 Kings 2, 8, 12 and 14:25 and even in 2 Kings. While Judg. 1:1–2:5 is often maintained to be the conclusion of J, the nature and disputed origin of this text segment raises serious doubts in this regard (see further in the discussion of the book of Judges below). In the present author’s opinion, the problem of the conclusion of J, which one is obliged to revisit with respect to E and P, can only be solved with any degree of satisfaction when one accepts the existence of one major historical work extending from Genesis to 2 Kings that was ultimately created by Deuteronomists on the basis of a variety of sources and concluded during the period of the Babylonian exile. While it is now impossible to trace all of the said sources, the designations J, E, P and D provide a certain number of clues where the Pentateuch is concerned. Given the fact that the Deuteronomists used and selected from these sources, among others, in their work, it seems reasonable to argue that the conclusions thereof, at least with respect to J, E and P, can no longer be established with any degree of accuracy. In addition, the suggestion that J constitutes the material remaining after the subtraction of the segments ascribed to E, P and D together with a number of chapters (such as Genesis 14 and 49) that cannot be associated with any of the aforementioned source documents in the traditional analysis of the Pentateuch c.q. Hexateuch remains open to objection. The idea that this remainder can be understood as virtually identical to an original source document is doubtful, especially when one considers that J, across the board, does not tend to exhibit an unambiguous proﬁle. It is true that certain scholars have frequently insisted that passages such as Gen. 22:17–18; 32:10–13; 50:20,24 and in particular Gen. 12:1–3 can be considered typical of the theology of J. In line with the explicit promises and predictions found in these and other texts, Von Rad, for example, envisaged the work of J to be a legitimation of the Davidic monarchy. Others, moreover, have maintained the opinion that traces can be detected in J of a protest against the overconﬁdence of the court of Solomon. It is striking, however, that themes encountered in the abovementioned Genesis texts are virtually lacking in the segments of the books of Exodus-Numbers ascribed to J. The fact that the segments of the primeval history (Genesis 1–11) traditionally ascribed to J do not explicitly anticipate the narratives of the patriarchs, together with the evidently unique character of the history of

174

chapter eight

Joseph (Genesis 37–50), further underline the probability that the material abstracted from E, D and P should not be ascribed to a single author. In line with Herman Gunkel and others, therefore, who claim that J constitutes the work of a “school of narrators” (Erzählerschule), it seems justiﬁable to argue that J has its roots in a heterogeneous literary compendium of Ancient Israelite traditions, dating from a variety of periods and based on a series of both oral and literary traditions. So understood, the idea that J may have originally been limited to the material dealing with primeval history up to and including that concerning Israel’s entry into the promised land remains uncertain. It seems more likely that this long series of narratives extended beyond the boundaries of the Pentateuch to include the family history of David in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2. This means that an individual writer J never existed. In spite of the deﬁnition of the so-called Yahwist tradition outlined above, we have and will continue to employ the siglum J as a concession to current scholarly usage.

There are reasonable arguments available in support of a dating of signiﬁcant segments of the material characterised as J in the period of King Solomon or shortly thereafter (particularly with respect to the patriarchal narratives and the exodus and wilderness traditions). It remains true, however, that certain scholars presently date J for the most part in the period of the Babylonian exile (see above under b.). Such a late date is, nevertheless, unlikely since it tends to consider J once again as an individual author and thus denies that J stands for a “school” that passed on ancient traditions already formulated, in principle at least, in the period of the judges. Gen. 12:1–3 would appear to have the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom in mind, whereby Israel acquired a “great name” for itself (cf. 2 Sam. 7:9). The nations that have a role to play in J (Philistines, Moabites, Amonites, Arameans, Edomites, Amalekites and Canaanites) are the same as those with which David and Solomon were involved (cf. 2 Samuel 8). The favourable judgement apportioned to Esau (Edom) in Genesis 33 ( J) is diﬃcult to harmonise with the sharp contrast between Judah and Edom found in the late pre-exilic and exilic periods. Those responsible for transmitting the material subsumed under the siglum J, therefore, were evidently active in the period of the kings, although their work may have been subject to expansion in the centuries that followed.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

175

Gen. 27:40b as a reference to the Edomite uprising against Solomon narrated in 1 Kgs 11:14–22 and the predictions found in Num. 24:7–9,17–19 with their probable reference to Saul and David likewise serve to support a relatively early dating of J. Cf. also Gen. 36:31 together with the cursing of Canaan and his subjection to Shem (Israel) and Japheth (the Philistines; see Gen. 9: 25–27).

A number of problems have likewise been raised with respect to E. Indeed, scholars have called into question whether an independent Elohistic history ever existed. Volz and Rudolph (see paragraph b), for example, rejected the idea of E as a continuous literary source and argued that the so-called Elohistic elements in the Pentateuch were additions to J (cf. also Vriezen87 and Westermann).88 Clear distinction between J and E, especially in the books Exodus-Numbers, remains diﬃcult if not impossible to establish and scholars are far from agreed on locating the conclusion to E (in Exodus 34?; in Deuteronomy 31–34?; in Joshua 24?). If one is still inclined to consider E as an originally independent source document then one will be obliged to admit that only fragments thereof have been preserved. The combination of E with material from J can be ascribed to the Deuteronomists. Scholars have argued that the particularistic-nationalistic and pietistic character of E, together with its antithetical attitude to syncretism and idolatry (cf. Gen. 35:1–4; Exodus 32; Josh. 24:23) and its faith in prophetic intercessors, should be considered as indications of the origin of the tradition oﬀered therein in the period of King Achab and the prophets Elijah and Elisha (see, for example, Vriezen in previous editions of the present volume, p. 164). A signiﬁcant number of scholars maintain that substantial reasons exist in support of E as an independent source document. The doublets with J in relation to the description of the Gefährdung der Ahnfrau in Gen. 12:10–20( J) and Genesis 20(E) (cf. also Gen. 26:7–11J]), for example, together with the account of Hagar’s ﬂight in Genesis 16( J) and Gen. 21:8–21(E) serve, in their opinion, to establish their hypothesis. In contrast to J, which locates Abraham by the terebinths of Mamre (near Hebron), E locates the patriarch in the land of the Philistines, c.q. in Beersheba (Gen. 20:1; 21:22–34; 22:19), in the city that, according to Amos 5:5 and 8:14, enjoyed a special relationship with the Northern Kingdom. The revelation of the divine 87 In earlier editions of this work; cf. the ninth edition of De literatuur van OudIsraël, Katwijk aan Zee 1989, p. 159. 88 In his commentary on Genesis in the BK series, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1966–1982.

176

chapter eight

name yhwh in Exod. 3:14(E) serves as a clear indication of a tradition that can be distinguished from J (cf. Gen. 4:26 and Exod. 4:19) and is in harmony with the fact that E consistently employs the divine name ’Elohîm up to that point. The “fear of God” theme (Gen. 20:11; 22:12; 42:18; Exod. 1:17; 18:21) together with the representation of Abraham as a prophet (Gen. 20:7) would appear, likewise, to be characteristic of E. E, furthermore, speaks (as in D) of Horeb (Exod. 3:1; 17:6; 33:6) instead of Sinai and refers to the father-in-law of Moses as Jethro (Exod. 3:1; 18:1 etc.) instead of Reuel ( J: Exod. 2:18; Num. 10:29). Several allusions to past events add to the impression that we are dealing with a continuous source document (cf. Gen. 31:13 and 28:18). The suggestion that E constitutes an augmented edition of J would appear not to provide suﬃcient account for the striking diﬀerences in vocabulary, style and spiritual attitude evident between J and E. Scholars are likewise unable to explain why E, in such an instance, did not immediately adopt the divine name yhwh employed, as a rule, by J. E is not represented in the primeval history of Genesis 1–11. At the present time, biblical scholarship tends to ascribe primarily the following text segments to E: Genesis 20; 21:(6), 8–34; 22:1–14, 19; 28:11–22*; segments from Gen. 29:31–30:24; 31:2, 4–16 and a number of texts following chapter 31: 32:2–3, 14b–22; 33:5, 10–11; 35:1–5, 7–8; signiﬁcant portions of the Joseph story/novel (see below in our treatment of Genesis); Exod. 1:15–21; 3:1bb, 4b, 6, 11–15; 4:10–17, 27–28, 30a; 13:17–19 and a number of passages in Exodus 14; Exodus 18*; Exod. 19:3a, 16b, 17, 19; 20:18–21; 24:9–11; segments of the story of Bileam in Numbers 22–24; Deut. 31:14–15, 23. Several scholars maintain that evidence of E is also to be found in Joshua, especially in Joshua 24*, and others as far as in 1–2 Kings. In light of the fact that E and J are frequently indistinguishable, Wellhausen was inclined to prefer the designation Jehovistic history ( JE).

While D can be traced with relative ease, it remains impossible to determine the extent of a proto-Deuteronomy. Some have questioned the identiﬁcation of the latter, or a revised form thereof, with the law book of Josiah (Houtman)89 and others have rejected the idea outright (Hölscher,90 Kaiser). Such an identiﬁcation, however, remains probable (Labuschagne,91 Otto).92 It is striking that Deuteronomy 89

C. Houtman, op. cit., 1994, pp. 316ﬀ. G. Hölscher, “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums”, ZAW 40 (1922), 161–255. 91 C. J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium III (POT), Baarn 1997, pp. 345f. 92 E. Otto, “Das Deuteronomium als archimedischer Punkt der Pentateuchkritik. Auf dem Wege zu einer Neubegründung der de Wett’schen Hypothese”, in: M. Vervenne and J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (FS C. H. W. Brekelmans; BEThL 133), Leuven 1997, pp. 321–339. 90

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

177

makes no mention of the sacriﬁcial high places that the Deuteronomistic authors of the books of Kings so vehemently resisted. D makes no reference to a distinction between priests and Levites at a single sanctuary, commands that the remembrance of Amelek, who had had no signiﬁcant role to play since the Davidic period, be wiped out (Deut. 25:17ﬀ.; cf. also 1 Chron. 4:43), provides an aﬃrmative evaluation of Edom (Deut. 23:7) in contrast to 2 Kgs 8:20; 14:7 and 16:6 and the later prophecies against the foreign nations, contains war laws that do not mention the king, prescribes directives against idolatry that were virtually inoperable after David and Solomon, allows for the consumption of tithes by those who oﬀer sacriﬁce and their families (Deut. 14: 22ﬀ.; in contrast to P which set them aside for the priests and Levites) and calls special attention to the Levites who lived in the cities. D exhibits evidence of a programme of cultic centralisation prior to the time that God was to grant Israel rest from its enemies (Deut. 12:9v.) and does not declare itself in favour of a single established place in which yhwh was to make his name abide. One is left with the impression, therefore, that D has its roots in very ancient traditions and that its ﬁrst recension saw the light in Northern Israel, based in all probability on the preaching of the Levitical priests from the sanctuary at Shechem (see further in our treatment of Deuteronomy). While the majority of scholars are inclined to locate the beginning of P in Genesis 1, there is much debate as to whether it constitutes an independent source or a redactional layer. If one is inclined to accept the ﬁrst option then one is likely to be confronted with a variety of opinions on conclusion of the—in principle—narrative material contained in the Grundschrift of P (in Exod. 40:33b?; in Lev. 9:24?; in Deut. 34:7–9?; in Josh. 19:51?).93 The fact that P would appear to oﬀer nothing by way of information that might point to a date during the Babylonian exile or thereafter (cf. Haran),94 suggests a pre-exilic dating, at least with respect to the Grundschrift of P, possibly the seventh century BCE. One might consider the possibility that P, from the outset, is a reworked and supplemented adaptation of the material of JE cast in 93 For the various options see Thomas Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg (WMANT 70), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995. 94 M. Haran, op. cit., 1978; id., “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source”, JBL 100 (1981), 321–333. See also R. N. Whybray, op. cit., (1987), pp. 231f.

178

chapter eight

its own documentary form. Such a suggestion, however, is open to objection. Why, for example, did P not modify the narrative of the golden calf (Exodus 32), which places its much-honoured High Priest Aaron in a highly compromising position? If one brings together the segments of P found in Genesis one is left with a more or less continuous narrative, thus making it diﬃcult to identify P as a mere redactor. Where P’s narrative Grundschrift is concerned, we would appear to be dealing with an originally separate source document that was later combined with material from JE. P’s supplementary legal material (P s), on the other hand, can indeed be considered as a redactional layer. The latter evidently consists of a compilation of (not always homogeneous) prescriptions stemming from a variety of diﬀerent periods and forming the primary contours of the law code of the priesthood of the temple in Jerusalem from the time prior to the Babylonian exile. In spite of the many contrary hypotheses that place it in the exilic or postexilic period, the suggestion that P stems in principle from the period prior to the Babylonian exile has earned the present author’s support, especially in light of the fact that themes such as the territorial boundaries of the twelve tribes and the subdivision of the promised land (Numbers 26; 34), the Levite cities (Numbers 35) etc. would have been of little relevance in the exilic, let alone in the post-exilic period. On the other hand, the complete lack of reference in P to subjects such as the function of the Levites as singers, musicians and doorkeepers, so evident in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, presents a problem. According to R. Smend jr., the Grundschrift of P can be traced in large segments of the primeval history (see our discussion of Genesis) and in Gen. 12:4b–5; 13:6, 11b, 12aba; 16:1a, 3, 15–16; Genesis 17; Gen. 19:29; 21:1b–5; Genesis 23; Gen. 25:7–11a, 12–17, 19–20, 26b; 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9; 29:24, 28b, 29; 31:18abb; 33:18a; 35:6a, 9–13, 15, 23–29; Genesis 36*; Gen. 37:1–2; 41:46a; 46:6–7; 47:5b–6, 7–11, 27b–28; 48:3–7; 49:1a, 28b–33; 50:12–13; in Exod. 1:1–5,7aab, 13–14; 2:23ab–25; 6:2–12; 7:1–7; 7:8–13; 7:19, 20aa, 21b, 22; 8:1–3, 11abb; 8:12–15; 9:8–12; 9:22, 23aa,35; 10:12, 13aa,20; 10:21–22, 27; 11:9–10; 12:1–20, 28, 40–41; 14:1–4, 8*, 9aab, 10abb, 15–18, 21aab–23, 26–27aa, 28–29 (several scholars ﬁnd no trace of P in Exodus 14); 15:22aa, 27; 16:1–3, 6–7, 9–27, 30, 35a; 17:1aba; 19:1–2a; 24:15b–18; 25–29, 40; in Leviticus 9; in Numbers 1–4, 9:15–23; 10:11–28, 13:1–17a, 21, 25–26, 32–33; 14:1–3, 5–10, 26–38; 20:2, 3b, 4, 6–7, 8abbb, 10, 11b, 12, 22b–29; 21:4aa; 22:1; 27:12–23; in Deut. 34:1aa, 7–9.

As is the case with the prophetic literature, it is evident that JE, P and D have been subject to a steady process of supplementation

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

179

(Fortschreibung), thus conﬁrming Johannes Pedersen’s conviction that source documents are both young and old at the same time. It has long been accepted, for example, that P contains both young and old elements side by side and that Deuteronomy is not aus einem Guß. The same is true for the material traditionally ascribed to JE, although literary growth in this instance is, as a rule, more diﬃcult to ascertain. The dating of the constituent parts of the “source documents” thus becomes a perilous task, lacking serviceable criteria. This fact alone is suﬃcient to urge caution and healthy circumspection when dealing with scholarly hypotheses that claim to determine the relative age of the traditions we have at our disposal. Whether Deuteronomy was taken up into JEP g before or after the supplements of P remains open to discussion. One might be inclined to wonder whether the extensive interpolation of priestly material ascribed to Moses (especially that of P s) may not have formed the basis for the later canonical division between the Torah and the Former Prophets. Vriezen95 proposed the thesis that prescriptions stemming from P introduced such a profound accent on the cult and the classical period of the revelation to Moses that the ﬁrst part of Israel’s great historical masterpiece should, as a matter of course, be separated from the books of Joshua-2 Kings. Such a proposal remains extremely interesting and does not stand in the way of the idea that the Deuteronomists, from a literary perspective, created a continuous historical work running from Genesis to 2 Kings and based on existing documents. It remains possible to modify Vriezen’s thesis, however, in the sense that the temple and the cult in the post-exilic period came to function within the boundaries of a geographically small and dependent (on a world power) Judea as symbols of national identity, thus occasioning a speciﬁc emphasis on Mosaic legislation. Our response to questions concerning the chronological relationship between P and D depends to a large extent on one’s understanding of the period of origin of (proto-) Deuteronomy. The widespread recognition of the relationship between the latter source document and E and with the prophecies of Hosea has not infrequently led to arguments favouring the origins of D in Northern Israel. While contemporary scholars agree as a rule on the Northern Israelite origins of elements of the material found in Deuteronomy, they generally tend to associate the ﬁrst edition of the document with Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah or his successor Manasseh. It remains striking, however, that while recognition is given to the existence of available written sources in the case of Hosea, sources that were reworked in Judah not long after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BCE), the same recognition is not given as a rule with respect to (proto-)Deuteronomy. The

95

De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Katwijk aan Zee 19899, p. 198.

180

chapter eight

present author is thus inclined to consider this proposal inconsistent and uncompelling and to support the idea of an originally Northern Israelite document also in the case of (proto-)Deuteronomy. References to the exile, such as those found in Deut. 30:1ﬀ., do not necessarily have to allude to the period after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, but may just as easily have been written in response to the deportation of Northern Israelites to Mesopotamia. In its present form, therefore, Deuteronomy evidently constitutes the ﬁnal redaction of a Northern Israelite document stemming from the end of the eighth and the beginning of the seventh century, which was rediscovered under the reign of Josiah and formed the basis of his reformation (cf. 2 Kings 22–23). The present author is convinced that this thesis alone is capable of avoiding the characterisation of the discovery of the “law book of Moses” (ultimately to be identiﬁed with Deuteronomy) as ‘staged’. The latter would only appear to be the case if one were to accept the suggestion that the document was put together by oppositional circles during the reign of King Manasseh a short time prior to its discovery.

In the present author’s opinion, the chronological order upheld by Wellhausen and his followers ( J, E, D and P) was too excessively determined by a currently no longer acceptable hypothesis concerning the development of the religion of Ancient Israel, a one sided gloriﬁcation of prophetic preaching and a scant appreciation of the cult. We are more inclined to argue that the sources JE, D and P came into existence to a signiﬁcant degree side by side rather than the one after the other. Based in part on the fact that the source documents were later reworked and supplemented with additions and interpolations, one would be better advised to avoid eﬀorts to force them into a straightjacket of chronological sequence (as many still do) and pay greater attention to the milieu and circumstances in which they ﬁrst saw the light of day. The variety we encounter in the transmission of the Pentateuch reﬂects the variety of traditions that ultimately characterised Ancient Israel’s historical and religious existence. The suggestion that Genesis-Numbers was later added as a prologue to the Deuteronomistic history (thus J. van Seters and A. D. H. Mayes,96 cf. also R. N. Whybray, op. cit., 1987, p. 242), seems diﬃcult to defend. The thesis does not only presuppose an originally independent Deuteronomistic history (extending from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings), it also implies a single (relatively late, exilic) author for the books of Genesis-Numbers (a prologue is more likely to have been the work of one author than of several authors!). 96 A. D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History, London 1983, pp. 139ﬀ.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

181

As we explained in detail in paragraph a., we are more inclined to reject the hypothesis that an independent Deuteronomistic history once existed. If our conviction in this regard is correct then the suggestion that GenesisNumbers constitutes a prologue to the Deuteronomistic history can no longer be maintained. One might also be inclined to wonder why a later addition consisting of Genesis-Numbers and taking the form of an introduction to a presumed historical work does not exhibit a more profound Deuteronomistic hallmark than is in fact the case.

Should one accept the idea that the book of Joshua and those following it exhibit a more evident Deuteronomistic hallmark than those preceding it, one still lacks suﬃcient evidence to argue that a Deuteronomistic history ought to be distinguished from the Tetrateuch (Genesis-Numbers). After the proclamation of Deuteronomy as Mosaic law, the Deuteronomists had reason enough to hold up the commandments contained therein against the history of Israel and to endeavour to explain why the people and it leaders had failed to achieve God’s will. While the book of Joshua is framed by Deuteronomistic material, the latter is only evident in the introduction to the book of Judges. The fact that the book of Judges came into existence independently of Joshua is supported by the secondary material found in Judg. 2:6–9, which corresponds to a signiﬁcant degree with the conclusion of Joshua. The books of Samuel have undergone their own literary history and only exhibit sporadic evidence of Deuteronomistic reworking. The books of Kings, by contrast, constitute a Deuteronomistic composition with entirely unique characteristics. For a variety of reasons, therefore, we are led to conclude that Israel’s great historical opus came into existence with the amalgamation of material concerning Israel’s earliest history transmitted by JE, D and P with traditions concerning the Landnahme, reports related to the period of the judges, documents from the Davidic-Solomonic period and a representation of the period of the kings after the division of the Northern and Southern kingdoms based on diverse pieces of information. It is probable, therefore, that the ﬁnal redaction of the Pentateuch, together with that of the books that follow, was Deuteronomistic in nature rather than priestly. There can be little doubt that the analysis oﬀered above must remain hypothetical. The genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch and the books of Joshua-2 Kings can no longer be established with

chapter eight

182

any degree of certainty. It is clear, however, that while neither the Pentateuch nor the books that follow it can be considered to be aus einem Guß, they are nevertheless presented as a single whole and are intended to be read as such. This twofold fact may serve to legitimate a synchronic approach to the material we have at our disposal, but it does not dispense us from the duty to ask diachronic questions concerning the character and the period of origin of the compound parts of this unique work. Such are not only the demands of a critical, scientiﬁc approach to the material transmitted to us down through the centuries, they are also the only avenue of access we have to the primary features of Ancient Israel’s religious history as well as its variegated theology.

d. The Book of Genesis Die Genesis ist eine Sammlung von Sagen (Hermann Gunkel)

Commentaries: H. Holzinger (KHC) 1898; S. R. Driver (Westminster Commentaries) 19042, 195415; H. Gunkel (HKAT) 19103, 19667; J. Skinner (ICC) 1912, 19302 (1956); E. König, Die Genesis, Gütersloh 1919, 19252.3; F. M. Th. Böhl (TU) I 1923, II 1925; O. Procksch (KAT1) 19242.3; P. Heinisch (HSAT) 1930; G. Ch. Aalders (KV) I 1933, II 1936, III 1936; B. Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora. Genesis, Berlin 1934; H. Junker (EB) 1952; G. von Rad (ATD) 1952, 197610; C. A. Simpson (IB) 1952; U. Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, Jerusalem 1961 (= Gen. 1:1–6:8); id., From Noah to Abraham, Jerusalem 1964 (= Gen. 6–9–11:32); J. de Fraine (BOT) 1963; E. A. Speiser (AB) 1964; A. van Selms (POT) I 1967, 19895, II 1976, 19864; W. Zimmerli (ZBK) I 19673 (= Genesis 1–11), II 1976 (= Genesis 12–25); R. Davidson (CNEB) I 1973, II 1979; W. H. Gispen (COT) I 1974, II 1979, III 1983 (up to and including Gen. 36:43); C. Westermann (BK) I 1974, II 1981, III 1982; id. (TT) 1986; G. J. Wenham (WBC) 1987; V. P. Hamilton (NICOT) I 1990, II 1995; H. Jagersma (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel) I 1995, II 1996; H. Seebass, I Urgeschichte (1996), II/1 Vätergeschichte (1997), II/2 Vätergeschichte (1998), III Josephsgeschichte (2000).

Monographs and articles (see also below among the literature mentioned in 2 and 3): B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien I. Die Komposition der Genesis, Giessen 1908; W. Eichrodt, Die Quellen der Genesis von neuem untersucht (BZAW 31),

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

183

Giessen 1916; O. Eissfeldt, Die Genesis der Genesis, Tübingen 1961; C. Westermann, Arten der Erzählung in der Genesis, in: id., Forschung am Alten Testament (ThB 24), Munich 1964, pp. 9–91; W. Brueggeman, “David and his Theologian”, CBQ 30 (1968), 156–181; S. E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, Rome 1971; D. A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel (SBL Dissertation Series 9), Missoula MT 1975; J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, Assen 1975; J. Blenkinsopp, The Structure of P, CBQ 38 (1976), 275–292; R. Rendtorﬀ, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147), Berlin 1977; B. Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading, Garden City 1977; M. Fishbane, Text and Texture, New York 1979; A. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York 1981; G. W. Coats, Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL 1), Grand Rapids 1983; R. L. Cohn, “Narrative Structure and Canonical Perspective in Genesis”, JSOT 25 (1983), 3–16; S. E. McEvenue, The Elohist at Work, ZAW 96 (1984), 315–332; R. C. Culley, “Exploring New Directions”, in: D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Chico CA 1985, pp. 167–200; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, Bloomington IN 1985; S. Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore, San Francisco 1987; R. A. Oden Jr., The Bible Without Theology, San Francisco 1987; T. L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1–23, Sheﬃeld 1987; J. A. Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis”, JThS 39 (1988), 381–400; G. J. Wenham, “Genesis: An Authorship Study and Current Pentateuchal Criticism”, JSOT 42 (1988), 3–18; H. C. White, Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis, Cambridge 1991; J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, New York etc. 1992, pp. 54–133.

1. Content The book of Genesis owes its name to the Greek translation of Gen. 2:4a: “This is the book of the origins (genesis) of heaven and earth”. It contains three distinct sections: a) the primeval history (1–11); b) narratives concerning the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (12–36); c) the Joseph narrative (37–50). The primeval history contains a narrative dealing with the creation of the world (Gen. 1:1–2:4a) followed by a description of the earliest history of human beings: the paradise narrative (Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and their ultimate expulsion therefrom: Genesis 2–3), the murder of Cain by his brother Abel (Genesis 4), a genealogy of the ancient fathers from Adam to Noah (Genesis 5) and the narrative of the ﬂood (Gen. 6:1–9:17) followed by the story of Noah’s

184

chapter eight

drunkenness and the genealogy of his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth (Gen. 9:18–10:32). The primeval history concludes with the narrative of the Tower of Babel, the confusion of language and the dispersion of the people over all the earth together with a genealogy running from Shem to Terah, the father of Abra(ha)m (Genesis 11). Striking agreements are frequently evident between these and other Ancient Near Eastern texts. The patriarchal narratives of Genesis 12–36 make an unmistakable distinction between the presentation of Abraham and that of Jacob. Traditions concerning Isaac are strongly related to those concerning Abraham, both being localised in the southern part of the promised land. Traditions concerning Jacob are located primarily in the territory around the Middle Euphrates, Transjordania and Middle Palestine (Bethel, Shechem). The cycle dealing with Abraham, “the father of the faithful”, begins with his divine call and his journey to the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:1–7). Once in Canaan he is driven by famine to Egypt where he pretends that his wife is his sister and she is taken by Pharaoh into his harem. Stricken by plague, Pharaoh calls Abra(ha)m to book and expels him together with his wife, his nephew Lot and all his possessions out of Egypt (Gen. 12:10–20). Upon their return to Canaan Abra(ha)m and Lot go their separate ways (Genesis 13), the latter settling near Sodom. Genesis 14 oﬀers an independent tradition that narrates how Abra(ha)m saved Lot from the clutches of a number of Ancient Near Eastern kings who had captured Sodom and taken his nephew as a prisoner of war. The encounter between Abra(ha)m and Melchizedek, the king of Salem, to whom Abra(ha)m gave a tenth of all his possessions, has been added to this tradition. Chapter 15 narrates Abra(ha)m’s complaint concerning his childlessness and God’s promise of an heir, the ratiﬁcation of yhwh’s covenant with Abra(ha)m and the promise of land (15:18; cf. 12:7). Perhaps the most familiar verse from this chapter is v. 6, which states “and Abram believed yhwh and He reckoned it to him as righteousness”. Paul refers to these words on a number of occasions in his letters (Rom. 4:3, 9, 22; Gal. 3:6). Genesis 16 relates how infertile Sarai gave her slave Hagar to Abra(ha)m in order to provide him with an heir. Once pregnant, however, Hagar comes to despise her mistress and having been humil-

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

185

iated by her takes refuge in the wilderness where an angel of yhwh appears to her and instructs her to return to Sarai, predicting that she is to give birth to a son. Hagar does indeed bear a son to Abra(ha)m, the child being given the name Ishmael. Chapter 17 constitutes an elaborate story of priestly origin in which reference is made to the promise of an heir and to the covenant between yhwh and Abram. Circumcision (the removal of the foreskin from the male member) is instigated as a sign of the covenant. Abram’s name is changed to Abraham, because he is to be “the ancestor of a multitude of nations” (17:5), and that of Sarai to Sarah. Chapters 18–19 narrate the promise of a son given to Abraham by three “men” who come to visit him, and the destruction of Sodom (and Gomorrah), whereby Abraham intercedes for the condemned city (18:22–33). Lot is saved but his wife is transformed into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God’s command and looked back at the burning city (19:26). Lot sires two children by both his daughters, their son’s becoming the ancestor of the Moabites and the ancestor of the Ammonites (19:30–38) respectively. Chapter 20 contains a second instance of the narrative of “die Gefährdung der Ahnfrau” (cf. 12:10–20). In this case, Abraham, who once again refers to his wife Sarah as his sister, is engaged in a conﬂict with King Abimelech of Gerar. The latter is informed by God in a dream, however, that Sarah is married. Abraham is presented in this chapter as a prophet and intercessor (20:7). Chapter 21 relates the birth of the son (named Isaac) promised to Abraham in chapter 18 and the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael at the explicit request of Sarah (cf. Genesis 16). Abraham establishes a covenant with King Abimelech and plants a tamarisk tree at Beersheba where he calls upon the name of yhwh El Olam (“the Lord, the Everlasting God”). Perhaps the most dramatic narrative involving Abraham is that found in chapter 22, which relates how the patriarch was put to the test by being instructed by God to sacriﬁce his only son. Obedient to the last, Abraham departs with his son Isaac to the land of Moriah. Underway, Isaac asks his father where the sacriﬁcial animal is to be found and Abraham answers: “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt oﬀering, my son” (22:8). Just as Abraham is at the point of slaughtering his son, an angel of yhwh instructs him not to hold out his hand against the boy, informing him that he has shown

186

chapter eight

himself to be God fearing and willing to sacriﬁce even that which was most dear to him. A ram caught nearby with its horns in the thicket is sacriﬁced instead of Isaac. Chapter 23 narrates the death of Sarah and her burial in the cave of the ﬁeld of Machpelah, purchased by Abraham from the Hittites.97 Chapter 24 oﬀers a detailed report of Isaac’s acquisition of a bride and his marriage to Rebekah, the grand-daughter of Abraham’s brother Nahor and the sister of Laban. After Abraham’s death (25:1–11) Rebekah gives birth to the twin brothers Esau and Jacob. Esau sells his birthright to Jacob for a plate of lentil stew (25:29–34). Having deceitfully deprived his brother of the paternal blessing, Jacob is forced to ﬂee to Rebekah’s brother Laban in Haran (chapter 27). While few traditions survive concerning Isaac himself, the text tends to locate him nevertheless in the southern part of the land. Genesis 26 relates the tensions that existed between him and Abimelech of Gerar (cf. Genesis 20) and their later peaceful relations. Besides the traditions relating to Abraham, the patriarchal narratives contain a substantial number of lengthy references to Jacob who was later to be called Israel. As tribal ancestor, he was particularly familiar among the tribes of Middle Israel. His home is located in Bethel, in the Transjordanian Peniel (Gen. 32:22–32) and in Mahanaim (32:1–2). Where Abraham is represented as the “father of the faithful”, Jacob is portrayed as a characteristically oriental ﬁgure for whom cunning and guile had become something of a virtue. His name is associated with the Hebrew verb “to deceive” (Gen. 27:36; Hos. 12:4; see also Jer. 9:4, Hebr. 9:3). In any case, the crafty outsmarting of others such as Isaac, Esau and Laban clearly had an important role to play in his life. The narratives concerning Jacob are much more closely related to ancient folk tales than the religious epic into which the history of Abraham had ultimately evolved. Nevertheless, from birth onwards Jacob is represented as the one blessed by God who is ﬁnally able to evade Laban’s opposition and Esau’s revenge. The promises once made to Abraham are passed on to him (Gen. 28:13–15). Having ﬂed to Haran, Jacob was received with open arms by Laban, the father of Rachel and Lea, who bound him in his ser97 Cf. M. R. Lehman, “Abraham’s Purchase of Machpela and Hittite Law”, BASOR 129 (1953), 15–18.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

187

vice for seven years with the promise that he would give him his daughter Rachel, whom Jacob loved, as his wife. Laban deceived Jacob, however, by giving him his older daughter Lea instead of Rachel, forcing him into a further seven years of service in order to acquire Rachel as his wife (Gen. 29:15–30). Leah gave birth to four sons to Jacob but Rachel remained initially childless, only acquiring sons after she had given her slave Bilhah to Jacob as his wife. Leah followed suit by giving her slave Zilpah to Jacob with whom he sired two sons. Leah herself gave birth to a further two sons. Rachel only gave birth to her own sons ( Joseph and Benjamin) at a later date. She died as the result of a diﬃcult labour prior to the birth of Benjamin (Genesis 30; 35:16–20). Narratives detailing the tense relationship between Jacob and Laban following Gen. 30:25 reach their climax in Jacob’s ﬂight, the latter this time outsmarting his host Laban (chapter 31). Jacob would still appear to be under God’s protection at this juncture (31:13, 24, 29, 42). The story is rounded oﬀ with the narrative of Rachel’s theft of the teraphim (idols/household gods) from her father’s tent and the covenant between Laban and Jacob (31:22–55). A new episode is introduced in the life of Jacob in Genesis 32–33, with the much-feared encounter with his brother Esau that ultimately ends in reconciliation between the two (Genesis 32–33). Prior to this encounter, Jacob is involved in a wrestling match with an unnamed ﬁgure by the ford of the Jabbok. Jacob’s name is changed at this point to Israel “for you have striven with God and with humans and have prevailed” (32:28). Having met his brother Esau, Jacob sets oﬀ for Shechem (where he erects an altar with the name “El, the God of Israel”, 33:20). A conﬂict arises at this juncture between the Shechemites and the sons of Jacob after the rape of Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, by Shechem, the son of the local prince (chapter 34, which stands entirely on its own). After he had buried the foreign idols he had in his possession under the terebinth at Shechem,98 Jacob departed for Bethel where he received a new revelation from God (Gen. 35:6–15, cf. Genesis 28). His journey comes to an end in Hebron, where he encounters his father Isaac once again. Gen. 35:23–26 and Genesis 36 record the generations of Jacob and Esau respectively. 98 Cf. O. Keel, “Das Vergraben der ‘fremden Götter’ in Genesis XXXV 4b”, VT 23 (1973), 305–336.

188

chapter eight

The transmitted text passes over from the narratives concerning Jacob to the history of Joseph without a noticeable transition (37:2aa), continuing with interruptions relating the story of Jacob and Tamar in chapter 38, the generations of Jacob in Gen. 46:8–27 and the blessing of Jacob in Gen. 49:1–28 through to the end of the book of Genesis. The text relates how Joseph was sold by his brothers to passing merchants (Gen. 37:12–36) and how he became viceroy to the Egyptian pharaoh (41:37–57) after many trials and tribulations (Gen. 39:1–41:36). In his capacity as viceroy he encounters his brothers once again, who have come to Egypt in response to a famine in the land. Jacob provides his brothers with grain (Genesis 42) and ﬁnally reveals his identity to them (Genesis 45) after their second journey to Egypt (Genesis 43–44). Joseph later invites his father and brothers to join him in Egypt (Gen. 46:1–47:12). In its present form, the so-called Joseph novel serves an important functional signiﬁcance, bridging the gap between the narratives of the patriarchs and those concerning Moses and the exodus from Egypt. Based on his form- and tradition-critical approach, Gunkel (commentary 1910) has made a decisive contribution to research into the book of Genesis (cf. Knight 1975). The work of Von Rad (commentary 1952) and the impressive commentary of Westermann (1974–1982) likewise deserve particular mention. Recent decennia have given rise to a renewed interest in the problem of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives (see further under 3), while literary aspects of the book of Genesis have also been the subject of much study (Fokkelman 1975; Fishbane 1979; Alter 1981; Sternberg 1985). Anthropological and folkloristic studies have similarly provided an important addition to Genesis research (Culley 1985, pp. 180–189; Niditch 1987; Oden 1987).

2. The primeval history (Genesis 1–11) Th. C. Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude Semietische volken, Wageningen 1937; W. H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift (WMANT 17), Neukirchen-Vluyn 19672; A. Malamat, “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies”, JAOS 83 (1968), 163–173; P. Beauchamp, Création et separation. Etude exégétique du chapitre premier de la Genèse, Brussels 1969; T. E. Fretheim, Creation, Fall and Flood. Studies in Genesis 1–11, Minneapolis 1969; O. H. Steck, Die Paradieserzählung (BSt 60), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970; id., “Genesis 12,1–3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten”, in: H. W. Wolﬀ (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (FS G. von Rad), Munich 1971, pp. 525–554; id., Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

189

(FRLANT 115), Göttingen 1975; W. M. Clark, “The Flood Story and the Structure of the Pre-patriarchal History”, ZAW 83 (1971), 184–211; H. P. Müller, “Mythische Elemente in der jahwistischen Schöpfungserzählung”, ZThK 69 (1972), 259–289; id., “Das Motiv für die Sintﬂut. Die hermeneutische Funktion des Mythos und seiner Analyse”, ZAW 97 (1985), 295–316; C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11 (EdF 7), Darmstadt 1972, 19762; D. L. Petersen, “The Yahwist on the Flood”, VT 26 (1976), 438–446; D. J. A. Clines, “Theme in Genesis 1–11”, CBQ 38 (1976), 483–506; id., The Theme of the Pentateuch (Suppl. JSOT 10), Sheﬃeld 1978; P. D. Miller, Genesis 1–11. Studies in Structure and Theme (Suppl. JSOT 8), Sheﬃeld 1978; G. J. Wenham, “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative”, VT 28 (1978), 336–348; F. Crüsemann, “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den ‘Jahwisten’”, in: J. Jeremias und L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten (FS H. W. Wolﬀ ), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 11–29; E. Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterlichen Urgeschichte, Stuttgart 1983; S. Niditch, Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation, Chico CA 1984; J. Day, God’s Conﬂict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament, Cambridge 1985; H. N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative (HSM 32), Atlanta GA 1985; B. Oded, “The Table of the Nations (Genesis 10): A Socio-Cultural Approach”, ZAW 98 (1986), 14–31; L. Blanquart, La création dans l’Orient ancien (Lectio Divina 127), Paris 1987; J. A. Emerton, “An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis”, VT 37 (1987), 401–420, 38 (1988), 1–21; L. M. Barre, “The Riddle of the Flood Chronology”, JSOT 41 (1988), 3–20; A. Dundes, The Flood Myth, Berkeley 1988; J. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, San Francisco 1988; J. Van Seters, “The Primeval Histories of Greece and Israel Compared”, ZAW 100 (1988), 1–22; S. Hess, “The Genealogies of Genesis 1–11 and Comparative Literature”, Biblica 70 (1989), 241–254; J. Rogerson, Genesis 1–11 (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1991; Ellen van Wolde, Words Become Worlds. Semantic Studies in Genesis 1–11 (Biblical Interpretation Series 6), Leiden 1994; J. Blenkinsopp, “P and J in Genesis 1:1–11:26: An Alternative Hypothesis”, in: Astrid B. Beck e.a., Fortunate the Eyes That See (FS D. N. Freedman), Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge, U.K. 1995, pp. 1–15; F. García Martínez, G. P. Luttikhuizen (eds.), Interpretation of the Flood (TBN 1), Leiden 1999; G.P. Luttikhuizen (ed.), Paradise Interpreted. Representations of Biblical Paradise in jeudaism and Christianity (TBN 2), Leiden 1999; G. P. Luttikhuizen (ed.) The Creation of Man and Woman; Interpretations of Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions (TBN 3), Leiden 2000.

Bound together for the most part by way of genealogies, the various independent narratives dealing with the primeval history would appear at ﬁrst sight to constitute a literary unity to which the history of the patriarchs is contiguously adjoined (Genesis 12–50). Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that Genesis 1–11 also contains a number of doublets. Having spoken of the creation of the

190

chapter eight

world and of humankind in Gen. 1:1–2:4a, the same narrative is repeated, albeit in a completely diﬀerent way (cf. 2:7,18–25), in the so-called paradise narrative in 2:4b–3:24. In addition, we ﬁnd two genealogies that appear to be, at least in part, related (Genesis 4: Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech; Genesis 5: Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mehalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech). Two ﬂood stories can likewise be distinguished from one another (see below). In Gen. 10:11 Assyria is presented as a country while verse 22 of the same chapter employs it (Asshur) as a personal name for the son of Shem. Prior to the confusion of language and the dispersal of humanity related in the Tower of Babel narrative in Gen. 11:1–9, Genesis 10 already presupposes a multitude of nations and languages (10:5, 20, 31). The aforementioned references would appear to oﬀer evidence of two literary layers that have somehow become entwined. This observation is conﬁrmed by the fact that in one of these layers a clear relationship can be detected between Gen. 1:26–28 and Gen. 5:1–2 and between Gen. 1:28–30 and Gen. 9:1–7. In addition, the same terminology and the designation of God with the term ’Elohîm is evident in each related segment. In the second layer God is referred to consistently as yhwh (in Genesis 2–3 yhwh God) and one encounters narratives that frequently exhibit a diﬀerent style, character and even content to those found in the ﬁrst layer. The ﬁrst layer consists of Gen. 1:1–2:4a; 5 (with the exception of v. 29); several passages from the ﬂood narrative (see below); 10:1–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32; 11:10–32. The second layer consists of Gen. 2:4b–4:26; 5:29; the remaining passages from the ﬂood narrative; 10:8–19, 21, 24–30; 11:1–9. The above analysis, however, does not provide a complete solution to the literary problems encountered in Genesis 1–11. The reference to Jabal as the ancestor of the tent dwellers, to Jubal as the ancestor of the musicians and to Tubal-Cain as the ancestor of the smiths in Gen. 4:20–22, for example, is hard to harmonise with the ﬂood narrative that follows. The original story of Noah’s drunkenness (Gen. 9:21–27) evidently presupposes that Canaan was the youngest of Noah’s sons (“Ham, the father of Canaan” in Gen. 9:18b,22 would appear to be a harmonising interpolation). A number of tensions are also to be observed within the paradise narrative of Genesis 2–3 (it is stated twice that human persons were placed in the garden by yhwh [2:8b, 15] and twice that Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden [3:23, 24]; reference is made to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden [2:17; 3:3, 11], then there appear to be two trees: the tree of knowledge and the tree of life [2:9;

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

191

3:22, 24]). Several scholars have endeavoured to solve these irregularities by advocating a more reﬁned distribution of sources. We already noted that R. Smend sr. made a distinction between J1 and J2, referred to by Eissfeldt as L(aienquelle) and J, whereby L was considered to constitute the oldest source, the author of which being somewhat reserved concerning the developed land on account of his nomadic ideals. Fohrer, on the other hand, spoke of J and N, whereby N served as an abbreviation for “Nomadenquelle”. He was inclined, however, to date N after J, since the former seemed to be a conservative/nomadic reaction to J’s apparent optimism with respect to the developed land. The question remains, however, as to whether such literary-critical analyses, with their sub-division of J into two distinct source documents, are ultimately necessary. One can explain the irregularities and disharmony within J from a more convincing traditionhistorical perspective rooted in the pre-history of the material we now have at our disposal. The Old Testament writers were, in principle, conveyers of tradition who employed material that had already been compiled into cycles by the oral and written traditions, which they then reworked into new and larger segments.

Critical biblical scholarship tends to ascribe the ﬁrst layer apparent within the narratives of the primeval history to a priestly author designated P (as abbreviation for the Priestly Codex or Priesterschrift), the latter consisting (as we already noted) of a number of genealogies, the creation narrative of Gen. 1:1–2:4a and a version of the ﬂood narrative. The genealogies, which bear the superscription “these are the toledôt (“birth registers”, “genealogies”) of . . .”, were probably based on texts preserved in the temple archives in Jerusalem. An excerpt from just such a list can be found in 1 Chronicles 1. Such registers were either exclusively genealogical by nature, making reference to the birth of sons (see 10:1ﬀ.) or more comprehensive lists containing details of age and reference to the birth of a single male heir in the succession of the generations (see Genesis 5 and 11:10ﬀ.). Style and use of terminology make it clear that the creation narrative and the version of the ﬂood narrative provided by P stem from the same literary and spiritual milieu. As with the genealogies, one can likewise envisage the existence of originally independent texts in this regard. The rounded-oﬀ character of the creation narrative in Gen. 1:1–2:3, together with the presence of the postscript in 2:4a, leave one with the impression of an independent literary unit comparable with Psalm 104 and the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish. The suggestion that a priestly ﬂood narrative once existed as a separate text cannot be excluded altogether. What we encounter

192

chapter eight

in Genesis 6–9, however, is the intertwining of two literary layers. The fact that the main lines of the original content of both can distinguished has ultimately served to single out these chapters as the showpiece par excellence of the source hypothesis. P oﬀers continuous and precise dating while the other literary layer limits itself in this regard to details. P speaks of a single pair of animals entering Noah’s ark while the other layer speaks of seven pairs of pure and one pair of impure animals.99 P designates 150 days for the waters of the ﬂood to rise and abate while the other literary layer states that torrential rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights. The priestly character of the segments of the primeval history ascribed to the ﬁrst literary layer is clearly discernable. The creation narrative of Genesis 1 creates the impression of a liturgical text that may have been recited at the New Year feast. It is probable that the said narrative has its roots in an earlier poetical work. While the dominant motif in this narrative is clearly that of creation by divine word, other more ancient motifs can also be detected therein: Gen. 1:2 presupposes the existence of the primal waters and the description of the ﬁrst act of creation still contains echoes of the struggle against chaos in the reference to the division between light and darkness and the waters above the ﬁrmament and those below it; the use of the verb to make side by side with to create may suggest evidence of an older representation of creation, although “to make” can also mean “to call into life” (cf. Job 33:4); the distribution of the eight deeds of creation over six days reveals that the narrative traditions we now have at our disposal were reworked on the basis of theological considerations. In spite of such reminiscences of ancient motifs, however, the narrative is alive with the spirit of Israelite monotheism. Every reference to an ethnogeny (divine birth) is lacking. God is primary with respect to his creation, while chaos plays only a minor role as His antagonist. The heavenly bodies are presented as lifeless “lights” and not as divine powers. The cosmos is demythologised! The work of creation reaches its climax in the Sabbath. 99 In this layer ( J), the distinction between pure and impure animals is not determined by later Mosaic legislation (cf. Leviticus 11), but by “primitive” ideas concerning their appropriateness as food. J reveals here that he has a generally accepted understanding of pure and impure in mind; cf. further C. Westermann, Genesis I (BK), p. 575.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

193

While the priestly version of the ﬂood narrative (6:9–22; 7:6, 10b, 11, 13–16b, 17, 19–22, 24; 8:1–5, 13a, 14–19; 9:1–17, 28–29) presents the catastrophe in light of God’s judgement (6:13), it also alludes to a new beginning by mentioning the covenant established by God with Noah and his three sons (with renewed humanity and, indeed, with all of creation; cf. 9:8–17). Analogous with the Sabbath in Gen. 2:2–3, this new beginning goes hand in hand with a new institution, namely the prohibition against the use of animal blood (and in association therewith the prohibition against killing): humankind is to consider all blood as sacred since it is considered to be dedicated to God (9:3–6). Ritual priestly texts repeatedly draw attention to this prohibition. It remains possible that, within the framework of the P version of the ﬂood narrative, the prohibition against the consumption of blood and the prohibition against killing correspond with the sin so explicitly observed by P prior to the ﬂood, namely that of violence (6:11–13).

The second layer, oﬀering narratives concerning the primeval history, consistently employs the divine name yhwh (yhwh ’Elohîm is the dominant designation in 2:4b–3:24). Scholars are thus inclined to speak in this regard of the Yahwistic source (with its customary siglum J). The author thereof provides a narrative of the creation of humankind in paradise and humankind’s dismissal from the Garden of Eden next to the tree of life. Humankind’s disobedience and desire to acquire divine knowledge is the cause of their downfall and results in a curse spreading over all the earth. While a generation of virtuous individuals continues to exist (Seth, Enosh, Noah) after the expulsion from the garden, sin nevertheless predominates among humankind (Cain, Lamech). A new form of death and destruction is introduced into the world with the appearance of angels (“sons of God”) who take human daughters as their wives. Their marital relations result in the birth of giants (NRSV: heroes of old; 6:1–4; vv. 3 and 4a probably stem from a later hand). The wickedness of humankind ultimately becomes so great that yhwh sends the ﬂood in judgement. Only the virtuous Noah and his kin are spared. God decides thereafter no longer to curse the earth on account of humankind (8:21), “even although the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth”. The author draws considerable attention to the power of sin, which brought about the downfall of humankind by

194

chapter eight

God’s judgement. While it is more evident in the present instance than was the case with respect to P that the author made use of ancient mythological material in his narrative, it is equally evident that he reworked this material in his own fashion, placing it at the service of his profoundly spiritual prophetic preaching. The prophetic insistence on obedience and the prophetic protest against the primordial sin of overconﬁdence and self-reliance (the desire of humanity to go its own way) resound time and again in these chapters. Unique in the Ancient Near Eastern world, the so-called list of the nations in Genesis 10 harks back to both literary layers outlined above. The verses ascribed to P (1a,2–5,6–7,20,22–23,31–32) are characterised by their formulaic phraseology (“the sons of N.N. were . . .”), while those segments ascribed to J (1b,8–19,21,24–30) are narrative in style and contain traditions relating to individual persons and nations (including Nimrod, the “ﬁrst mighty warrior on earth”, and “a mighty hunter before yhwh”: 10:8–9). The formulaic information provided by P relates how the descendents of Noah spread over the entire earth in accordance with the divine command in Gen. 9:1 (“Be fruitful and multiply, and ﬁll the earth”). The narrative of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of language (Gen. 11:1–9; J) is evidently the result of a reworking of a paradigmatic, condemnatory story concerning human overconﬁdence. The possession of a single language as a human ideal can also be found in a Sumerian text.100 The historical background of the original narrative may have its roots in the incomplete construction of the temple tower (ziqqurratu) Etemenanki by Nebuchadnezzar I (1123–1101 BCE), a dilapidated ruin that served in the Ancient Near Eastern world as a basis for the formation of legends and as a manifestation of human megalomania.101 In addition to the literary and historical-critical analyses of Genesis 1–11 outlined above, recent decades have witnessed the emergence of a variety of new approaches to the text including synchronic literary approaches and so-called ideological approaches such as those rooted in liberation theology and

100 Cf. W. Beyerlin, Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Grundrisse zum AT; ATD Ergänzungsreihe 1), Göttingen 1975, pp. 112–113. 101 Cf. W. von Soden, “Etenenanki vor Asarhaddon nach der Erzählung vom Turmbau zu Babel und dem Erra-Mythos”, UF 3 (1971), 253–263 (= H. P. Müller (ed.), Bibel und Alter Orient. Altorientalische Beiträge zum Alten Testament von Wolfram von Soden (BZAW 162), Berlin-New York 1985, pp. 134–147).

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

195

feminist/womanist studies. Synchronic literary studies tend to be thematic or structuralist in character, both exhibiting an a-historical approach that rarely if ever pays attention to the literary stratiﬁcation of the texts under consideration (in some instances this is completely ignored). Clines (1978), for example, describes the theme of Genesis 1–11 as the divine ability to call a halt to the destructive tendencies of humankind (“uncreation”). The structuralist method, whereby the internal dynamics of a text are identiﬁed without necessarily appealing to text-external data, has taken on a variety of forms. In addition to the representatives of the so-called “Amsterdam school” striking examples of this approach can be found in the work of Joannes Fokkelman (1976) and Ellen van Wolde (1994). While liberationtheological studies tend as a rule to account for the historical-critical approach (see, for example, Louise Schottroﬀ and Wittenberg), they focus attention nevertheless on the social background of the transmitted texts. Wittenberg, for example, considers the J source to be anti-Solomonic propaganda and argues that Genesis 3 and 11 are a condemnation of Solomon’s wisdom and building activities. Feminist/womanist readings of the text tend as a rule to be synchronic and literary in character (cf. Trible). A detailed description of recent approaches can be found in Rogerson, op. cit., 1991, pp. 11–52.

Several answers have been proposed in response to questions surrounding the manner in which the literary layers evident in the primeval history came to be conjoined. Even if one accounts for the fact that P made use of existing priestly documents, one cannot exclude the possibility, at least in principle, that P had ultimately unearthed a unique, independent document beginning with the primeval history. A later redactor may have combined P’s primeval history with material borrowed from J. This tends in fact to be the commonly held hypothesis on the matter. Others consider P to be a redactional layer of the segments ascribed to J. While it is not impossible that J once oﬀered a coherent and continuous description of the primeval history, it has to be recognised nevertheless that this is not the case with regard to the material that has been passed down to us (cf., for example, 5:29; see also the lack of any narrative concerning the construction of the ark; similarly, J does not establish a bridge between the narrative of the Tower of Babel and the traditions relating to the patriarchs in transmitted text). This fact makes it diﬃcult to consider P as a redaction of J. In contrast to J, however, the P segments of the primeval history do form a continuous narrative. A third possibility that cannot be excluded in advance lies in the hypothesis that the material associated with J takes up that associated with P and oﬀers a supplement thereto. Blenkinsopp (1995), for

196

chapter eight

example, has argued that the paradise narrative of 2–3 exhibits closer kinship to texts such as Ezek. 28:11–19 and is less evidently a witness to “antiker Erdgeruch” (see Wellhausen). In his opinion, the pessimistic attitude to humankind in the J segments of the primeval history (Gen. 6:5; 8:21) relate more appropriately with what is said in Jer. 17:9–10. Genesis 2–3 ( J) would appear to explain how creation once positively understood, reference to which is found in Genesis 1 (P), had become corrupt. Gen. 11:1–9 ( J), according to Blenkinsopp, would likewise appear to explain how P’s reference to the dispersion of the nations and to the confusion of language in chapter 10 had ultimately come about. Such information, Blenkinsopp maintained, would tend to point in the direction of interpolations of (to be dated late) J in P narratives. Wenham102 has recently raised new arguments that serve to make the priority of P with respect to J more acceptable. All things considered, it seems most likely that a redactor combined the material ascribed to J (which diﬀers signiﬁcantly from P) with that ascribed to P (which made use of priestly documents)103 to form a new whole, letting himself be guided in the process primarily by the priestly narrative. The dating of the layers in question (P and J) is far from simple. It should be acknowledged, however, that the accounts relating to the primeval history came into existence in the oral tradition independently of the patriarchal narratives: the primeval history does not explicitly anticipate the patriarchal narratives nor do the latter hark back to the former.104 This fact should hardly come as much of a 102

G. J. Wenham, “The Priority of P”, VT 49 (1999), 240–258. The idea that we should account for originally independent priestly documents is not only suggested by the well-rounded creation narrative of 1:1–2:4a, but also by the diﬀerent character of the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 on the one hand and chapter 10 on the other. The narrative of the ﬂood repeats the reference to the conception of the sons of Noah (6:10[P]), whom we already encounter in the genealogy of chapter 5 (5:32[P]). The suggestion that Shem became the father of Arpachshad two years after the ﬂood at the age of 100 years (11:10[P]) runs counter to Gen. 5:32 (P) and 9:29 (P), since Shem according to the latter information must already have been 100 years old during the ﬂood. Arpachshad, moreover, ﬁgures in 10:22 (P) as the third son of Shem, but in 11:10(P) as the eldest: “Das ist nicht so gemeint, als setze P zwei Individuen voraus, die den gleichen Namen hätten, sondern so, daß Arpachsad für P in 11:10 in einem anderen Traditionszusammenhang steht als in 10:22. Dort ist er Repräsentant einer korporativen Einheit, während er hier nur Glied in einer genealogischen Reihe ist” (C. Westermann, Genesis I (BK), p. 746). 104 Cf. F. Crüsemann, “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur 103

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

197

surprise: the primeval history relates the history of humankind while the patriarchal narratives make reference to the fortunes of the patriarchs of Israel. This does not oﬀer conclusive proof, however, that both complexes of tradition are not related to one another at the literary level. Such is evidently the case with respect to P, which employed the family tree of Shem, in which Terah ﬁgures as the father of Abra(ha)m, in order to establish a connection between the primeval history and the patriarchal narratives (11:26 ,27a, 31–32). Whether one would be justiﬁed in identifying the J narrator of the patriarchal narratives with the author of the non-priestly material in the primeval history remains a question. Hempel and Vriezen ascribed the J segments of the primeval history to a diﬀerent author than that of the J traditions relating to the patriarchs. Both scholars have distinguished a J3 for the primeval history, a J1 for the Abraham and Jacob cycles and a J2 as author of the history of Joseph (Genesis 37–50). While much can be said in support of this hypothesis, the P elements interwoven with the J elements in the genealogy of Terah (Gen. 11:27–30; cf. also 22:20–24) incline the present author to hesitation. P would appear in this instance to have been familiar with a J genealogy that had established a bridge with the history of the patriarchs. If one can identify the J of the latter with the J of the primeval history then one must naturally date both in the same period. As we have already noted, we are probably dealing with the period during which King Solomon reigned or shortly thereafter. While the primeval history ought to be distinguished from the tradition-historical perspective from the narratives concerning the patriarchs, one is at liberty to interpret the call of Abra(ha)m (Gen. 12:1–3) in the text of Genesis that has been passed down to us as a new beginning comparable with yhwh’s initiative in creating the world and humanity, a beginning replete with salutary divine actions following upon the fact that humankind had once again brought disaster upon itself and had remained in sin in spite of the judgement of the ﬂood (Gen. 6:5; 8:21).105 Diskussion um den ‘Jahwisten’”, in: J. Jeremias und L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten (FS H. W. Wolﬀ ), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 11–29. 105 Cf. O. H. Steck, “Genesis 12,1–3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten”, in: H. W. Wolﬀ (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (FS G. von Rad), Munich 1971, pp. 525–554 (= O. H. Steck, Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament (TB 70), Munich 1982, pp. 117–148); E. Noort, “The Stories of the Great Flood. Notes on Gen 6:5–9:17 in its Context of the Ancient Near East”, in G. P. Luttikhuizen (ed.) Interpretations of the Flood, 1–38.

198

chapter eight

If P made use of existing temple archives then we must date the literary layer ascribed thereto prior to the Babylonian exile in the late period of the kings.106 Kinship between the language of P and that of Ezekiel, whereby priority ought to be ascribed to P,107 would appear to point in the same direction. While it is impossible to establish a precise date, there would appear to be reasonable cause to locate the origins of the P segments in the 7th century BCE. The reference to the Sabbath in Gen. 2:2–3 does not contradict such a hypothesis. Although the day of rest was strongly emphasised during and after the Babylonian exile, one is not at liberty to consider the Sabbath as an exclusively late exilic, c.q. post-exilic institution (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23; Amos 8:5). 3. The patriarchal narratives (Genesis 12–50) H. Gressmann, Sage und Geschichte in den Patriarchenerzählungen, ZAW 30 (1910), 1–34; O. Eissfeldt, “Stammessage und Novelle in den Geschichten von Jakob und seinen Söhnen”, in: Eucharisterion (FS H. Gunkel = FRLANT 36), Göttingen 1923, pp. 56–77 (= Kleine Schriften I, Tübingen 1962, pp. 84–104); id., Die ältesten Traditionen Israels. Ein kritischer Bericht über C. A. Simpsons “The Early Traditions of Israel” (BZAW 71), Berlin 1950; K. Galling, Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels (BZAW 48), Giessen 1928, pp. 37–63; A. Alt, Der Gott der Väter (BWANT III/12), Stuttgart 1929 (= id., Kleine Schriften, Munich 1959, pp. 1–78); F. M. Th. (de Liagre) Böhl, Das Zeitalter Abrahams (AO 29/1), Leipzig 1930, 19312 (= id., Opera minora, Groningen-Djakarta 1953, pp. 26–49); P. Volz und W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler. Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW 63), Giessen 1933; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore 1940, Garden City NY 19573; R. de Vaux, “Les patriarches hébreux et les découvertes modernes”, RB 53 (1946), 321–348, 55 (1948), 321–347, 56 (1949), 5–36; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948, Darmstadt 19663; C. A. Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel. A Critical Analysis of the Pre-Deuteronomistic Narrative in the Hexateuch, London 1948 (see supra Eissfeldt); A. Jepsen, Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Vätergestalten, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Leipzig 2/3 (1953/1954), 139–155; C. A. Keller, Grundsätzliches zur Auslegung der Abrahams-Überlieferung in der Genesis, TZ 12 (1956), 425–445; J. Hoftijzer, Die Verheißungen an die drei Erzväter, Leiden 1956; A. Parrot, Abraham et son

106 Th. C. Vriezen (De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Katwijk aan Zee 19899, p. 154, note a) believes the doxology of Jer. 31:35 to contain a reference to Genesis 1. 107 Cf. A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel. A New Approach to an Old Problem (Cahiers de la RB 20), Paris 1982.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

199

temps, Neuchâtel 1962; S. Mowinckel, Erwägungen zur Pentateuchquellenfrage, Oslo 1964; J. M. Holt, The Patriarchs of Israel, Nashville 1964; R. Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BBB 24), Bonn 1966; H. Seebass, Der Erzvater Israel und die Einführung der Jahwe-Verehrung in Kanaan (BZAW 98), Berlin 1966; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London 1966; R. E. Clements, Abraham and David. Genesis 15 and its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (SBTh II/5), London 1967; H. Weidmann, Die Patriarchen und ihre Religion im Lichte der Forschung seit Julius Wellhausen (FRLANT 94), Göttingen 1968; G. Wallis, “Die Tradition von den drei Ahnvätern”, ZAW 81 (1969), 18–40; Th. L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW 133), Berlin-New York 1974; P. Weimar, “Aufbau und Struktur der priesterlichen Jakobsgeschichte”, ZAW 86 (1974), 174–203; D. A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel (SBL Diss. Series 9), Missoula MT 1975; A. de Pury, Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob: Genèse 28 et les traditions patriarcales I–II, Paris 1975; J. van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven-London 1975; H. Vorländer, Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott in Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (AOAT 23), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975; C. Westermann, Genesis 12–50 (EdF 48), Darmstadt 1975; id., Die Verheißungen an die Väter (FRLANT 116), Göttingen 1976; W. McKane, Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives, Edinburgh 1979; A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, Leicester 1980; T. Frymer-Kensky, “Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law”, BiAr 44 (1981), 209–214; J. A. Emerton, “The Origin of the Promises to the Patriarchs in the Older Sources of the Book of Genesis”, VT 32 (1982), 14–32; M. A. Morrison, “The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Near Eastern Sources”, BiAr 46 (1983), 155–164; E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984; R. S. Hendel, The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel (HSM 42), Atlanta GA 1987; M. Köckert, Vätergott und Väterverheissungen (FRLANT 142), Göttingen 1988; P. K. McCarter, “The Patriarchal Age: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”, in: H. Shanks (ed.), Ancient Israel, Washington DC 1988, pp. 1–29, 237–241; A. Abela, The Themes of the Abraham Narrative, Malta 1989; H. Schmid, Die Gestalt des Isaak. Ihr Verhältnis zur Abraham- und Jakobtradition (EdF 274), Darmstadt 1991; R. W. L. Moberly, Genesis 12–50 (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1992; id., The Old Testament of the Old Testament (Overtures to Biblical Theology), Philadelphia 1992.

The narratives concerning the patriarchs that form the bulk of the material found in Genesis 12–50 are quite diﬀerent in character to those relating to the primeval history. The former are primarily family stories with occasional summarising texts such as genealogies and journey descriptions (itineraria) as well as promises. In addition to the genealogies of the twelve sons of Jacob, each of whom represents the “ancestral father” of one of the twelve tribes, the latter

200

chapter eight

also frequently serve to establish a bridge between the history of the patriarchs and that of the people of Israel. While certain conservative Old Testament scholars maintained that the patriarchs should be understood as historical ﬁgures from Israel’s pre-history, Wellhausen envisaged them as non-historical characters that function only as “Vorbilder des rechten Israeliten”. In his opinion, we have no historical reports that can bridge the immense gap between Ancient Israel and the patriarchal period. The mythical explanations of the so-called panBabylonians (see chapter II) tended to be based on Babylonian and Canaanite mythology and frequently interpreted the patriarchs as local Canaanite deities. The tribal-historical explanation understood them as tribal designations (cf., in particular, the twelve sons of Jacob whose names were identical with the twelve tribes). In their form-critical approach to the material of Genesis 12ﬀ. Gunkel and Gressmann brought about a major change of direction in the study of these chapters by arguing that the patriarchal narratives were to be understood as originally oral traditions passed on in the form of sagas. According to the former, the sagas concerning the patriarchs exhibited a fairy-tale like quality and as such were to be considered as “reines Gebilde der Phantasie”. In his renowned study Der Gott der Väter, Albrecht Alt (1929) argued on the basis of (late) Nabatean and Palmyrean parallels that three originally independent and nameless deities lay behind “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”, who were further speciﬁed by the personal names of their worshippers. According to Alt, these deities were not bound to a speciﬁc place or sanctuary but accompanied a particular patriarch and the group he represented as helpers and protectors. Alt’s thesis has been the subject of severe criticism in recent years.108 William F. Albright and his followers together with French and Israeli scholars and the British academic H. H. Rowley have studied the patriarchal narratives from the archaeological perspective. Their research has unearthed “external evidence” in support of the (in principle) historical reliability of the patriarchal narratives in the identiﬁcation of individual and place names with those found in ancient North West Mesopotamian sources, in legal customs (cf. Nuzi), in the pre-Asian migrations of the second millennium BCE etc. Scholarly arguments denying the establishment of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives in such fashion, however, have been far from lacking (cf., for example, Th. L. Thompson, op. cit., 1974 and C. Westermann, Genesis I (BK), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 52–90). Particular reference should be made at this juncture to H. Weidmann, op. cit., 1968 and C. Westermann, Genesis 12–50 (EdF 48), Darmstadt 1975, pp. 2–13. The latter has correctly argued that the future task of research into Genesis 12–50 must consist of a combination of the study of the history of the oral tradition up to and including the establishment of the writ108 Cf. Vorländer, op. cit., 1975; W. McKane, Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives, Edinburgh 1979, pp. 195–224; Köckert, op. cit., 1988.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

201

ten form thereof with a study of the information arising from the Umwelt prior to the beginning of Israel’s history (op. cit., p. 13). An initial step in this direction has been taken by R. de Vaux in his Histoire ancienne d’Israël I. Les traditions patriarcales, Paris 1971, pp. 157–273 (cf. also C. Westermann’s commentary on Genesis 12–50 in the BK series).

Chapters 12–50 of the book of Genesis were written at a time when the uniﬁed tribes had come to form a nation and a state. Those who passed on these chapters, however, had held ﬁrm to the conviction that Israel had emerged from the families of the patriarchs and that the family had a fundamental signiﬁcance for every other form of social alliance (Westermann). Such an observation need not, nevertheless, impede our understanding of the unique character of the individual segments of Genesis 12–50. The narratives dramatised by the Abraham, Jacob and Joseph cycles each exhibit their own distinct character and spiritual ambience. The narratives concerning Abraham (12:1–25:18), for example, in which the hand of J is most prominent, reveal a profound spiritual depth, in spite of their apparent naïve realism: the author ultimately presents the said traditions as a personal history guided by God. The Jacob cycle (25:19–36:43), on the other hand, bears much more evidence of the character of a popular folk tale, in which a great deal is made of individual human conﬂicts (Esau versus Jacob; Laban versus Jacob). The narratives concerning Joseph (Genesis 37–50) are replete with the awareness of God’s providence (Gen. 45:7; 50:20). A further diﬀerence between the narratives relating to Abraham and those relating to Jacob can be detected in the fact that the promise of the birth of a son, of a multitude of descendants and of the possession of the land predominates in the former while the blessing predominates in the latter: the paternal blessing so deceitfully appropriated by Jacob (Genesis 27) results in conﬂict between Jacob and his brother Esau while the blessing manifests itself in the narratives relating to Jacob and Laban (29–31) in their abundant herds of cattle and ﬂocks of sheep. Genesis 12:1–25:18, moreover, oﬀers predominantly independent narratives while Genesis 25:19–36:43 contains consistently long narrative series. The narratives concerning Joseph constitute a sort of novel exhibiting the inﬂuence of Israel’s early wisdom tradition (Von Rad).109 The aforementioned diﬀerences serve to indicate 109 G. von Rad, “Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma”, in: Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (SVT 1), Leiden 1953, pp. 120–127.

202

chapter eight

that the traditions concerning Abraham, Jacob and Joseph must have enjoyed an individual and independent prehistory. Chapters 12–50 of the book of Genesis exhibit a complex character whereby a few elements stand out in greater relief against the background of the whole: not only lists but also a number of narratives. Perhaps the most striking are the genealogical lists ascribed to P and introduced, as in the primeval history, with the words: “these are the descendants (toledôt) of . . .” (Gen. 11:27ﬀ.; 25:12–18, 19f.; 36:1–5, 9–14; 37:2a). Similar lists can be found in Gen. 35:23b–26 with respect to the sons of Jacob, Gen. 46:8–27 with respect to the sons of Jacob and their descendants and Genesis 36 with respect to Esau’s descendants, tribal chiefs and kings.110 While the genealogies do not always serve as a framework for the narratives, it is diﬃcult to avoid the impression that the texts of 11:27ﬀ. ( JP) and 25:12–18 (P) intentionally constitute the framework of the narrative concerning the once infertile Sarah (cf. also 16:1), who provided Abraham with a son in her old age, and the narrative concerning Hagar and her son Ishmael. The same would appear to be true of Gen. 25:19–20 and 35:23ﬀ. (with the interpolation of Esau’s descendants in chapter 36). Besides the genealogical lists and chapters 17 and 23,111 P’s contribution to the history of the patriarchs tends to be limited to short notices concerning the age of the various patriarchs at signiﬁcant points in their lives and the details surrounding their death, to references to births, marriages and funerals, and to an extremely modest representation of the course of the patriarchal history. While it is striking that the patriarchal narratives are less prominent in P than in the primeval history, the very fact that the change of name from Abram to Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and from Sarai to Sarah (17:15) found in the following material not ascribed to P has nevertheless been incorporated therein clearly points to the work of a redactor who combined the material ascribed to J (and E) with that of P. In

110 J. R. Bartlett, “The Edomite King-List of Genesis XXXVI 31–39 and 1 Chron I 43–50”, JThS 16 (1965), 301–314; E. A. Knauf, “Alter und Herkunft der edomitischen Königsliste Gen. 36, 31–3”9, ZAW 97 (1985), 245–253. 111 While the origin of this chapter of P is not undisputed, it remains acceptable nevertheless; cf. C. Westermann, Genesis II (BK), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 454–456.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

203

our treatment of the primeval history we concluded that P was written prior to the Babylonian exile. Such dating would appear to be conﬁrmed by Gen. 17:6 (P) and 35:11 (P), in which God announces to Abraham and Jacob respectively that kings would emerge from among their descendants. The formulation of such a promise does not ﬁt appropriately within the period of the Babylonian exile or thereafter. Scholars have endeavoured to ascribe the following passages from the patriarchal narratives to P: Gen. 12:4b–5; 13:6, 11b, 12ab; 16:1a, 3, 15–16; chapter 17 in its entirety; 19:29; 21:1b–5; chapter 23 in its entirety; 25:7–11a, 12–17, 19–20, 26b; 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9; 29:24, 28b, 29; 31:18a; 33:18b; 35:6a, 9–13, 15, 22c–26, 27–29; 36:6–8 (the additional contribution of P to this chapter is disputed); 37:1, 2; 41:46a; 46:6–7; 47:5b, 6 lxx, 7–11, 27b–28; 48:3–7; 49:1a, 28b–33; 50:12–13.

Genesis 17 and 23 are of particular interest among the texts ascribed to the priestly source. Chapter 17 retraces the institution of circumcision back to the time of Abraham and locates it within the context of the covenant.112 Delimited by verses 1–2 and 19 relating to the death and burial of Sarah, Genesis 23 makes reference to Abraham’s purchase of the ﬁeld and cave of Machpelah as a burial place for his deceased wife.113 Independent literary units that cannot be associated with the sources J, E or P include Genesis 14 and 49 and, apparently, Genesis 15. The character of Genesis 14, which speaks of Abram’s military campaign against the kings of the east who had pillaged Canaan and imprisoned his nephew Lot, is the subject of particular dispute.114 The chapter is historically and chronologically diﬃcult to locate: scholarly identiﬁcation of the individuals referred to therein with well known ﬁgures from Ancient Near Eastern history has been far from

112 C. Westermann, “Genesis 17 und die Bedeutung von berît”, ThLZ 101 (1976), 161–170. 113 G. M. Tucker, “The Legal Background of Genesis 23”, JBL 85 (1966), 77–84; K. A. Deurloo, “Het graf van Sara”, ACEBT 1 (1980), 22–32; J. S. Bray, “Genesis 23—A Priestly Paradigm for Burial”, JSOT 60 (1993), 69–73. 114 For a Forschungsgeschichte see W. Schatz, Genesis 14: Eine Untersuchung (EHS 23/2), St. Ottilien 1972. See also J. A. Emerton, “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV”, VT 21 (1971), 24–47; id., “The Riddle of Genesis XIV”, ibid., 403–439; id., “Some Problems in Genesis XIV”, in: id. (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch (SVT 41), pp. 73–102.

204

chapter eight

convincing. It is clear, nevertheless, that Genesis 14 presents a picture of the patriarch Abra(ha)m that diﬀers signiﬁcantly from that of the surrounding chapters. Its positive representation of Melchizedek, the king and priest of Salem ( Jerusalem), may be intended to justify David’s cordial policy towards the Jebusites (the original inhabitants of Jerusalem/Jebus),115 but this is far from certain. The blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49,116 which, given its context, functions as a bridge between the patriarchal narratives and Israel’s most ancient history, contains proverbs relating to the tribes of Israel that evidently originate from the period prior to David. For a signiﬁcant length of time, scholars have endeavoured to ascribe Genesis 15, in which Abra(ha)m is promised both descendants and the land of Canaan, to E (vv. 1–6) and J (vv. 7–21) and have frequently considered the chapter as a later combination of two originally independent text segments.117 Others have argued in support of the literary unity of the chapter (e.g. Snijders). Contemporary scholarship has often portrayed this material as Deuteronom(ist)ic or as a Deuteronomistically reworked unit that evidently stems from a relatively late period, perhaps from the last decades of the seventh century BCE, during which the promised land was threatened by the Babylonians.118 Recent research, however, has ultimately abandoned the idea that

115 See H. S. Nyberg in ARW 35 (1938), 351 and H. H. Rowley, “Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen 14 and Ps 110”), in: W. Baumgartner e.a. (eds.), Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, Tübingen 1950, pp. 461–472. 116 J. Coppens, “La bénédiction de Jacob. Son cadre historique à la lumière des parallèles ougaritiques”, in: Volume du congrès Strasbourg 1956 (SVT 4), Leiden 1957, pp. 97–115; H. J. Zobel, Stammesspruch und Geschichte (BZAW 95), Berlin 1965; H. Seebass, Die Stammessprüche Gen 49:3–27, ZAW 96 (1984), 333–350; R. de Hoop, Genesis 49 in Its Literary and Historical Context (OTS 39), Leiden 1998. 117 See C. Westermann’s survey of the history of research in his commentary Genesis 12–36 (BK), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 253–255 (lit.!). Vriezen likewise argued in De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Katwijk aan Zee 19899, p. 160, note b, that Genesis 15 should be ascribed to J and E: 15:1b, 3, 4, 8, 9–11,17–18a should be ascribed to J and 15:1a, 2, 5, 7(?), 12–16 to E, while vv. 6 and 18b–21 should be ascribed to a later author. O. Kaiser, “Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15”, ZAW 70 (1958), 107–126, by contrast, considers vv. 1–6 as a Deuteronomistic addition to 7–21 (with 15:13–16 dating from a later period). Cf. further L. A. Snijders, “Genesis XV. The Covenant with Abram”, OTS 12 (1958), 261–279; M. Anbar, “Genesis 15: A Conﬂation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives”, JBL 101 (1982), 39–55; J. Ha, Genesis 15. A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History (BZAW 181), Berlin-New York 1989. 118 Cf. also the use of the expression “Ur of the Chaldeans” (15:7), which would appear to refer to the neo-Babylonian empire. J. Van Seters, op. cit., dates the chapter in the late exilic period.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

205

E can ﬁrst be detected as a literary source in Genesis 15. The description of Abra(ha)m’s reaction to God’s promise: “And he believed yhwh; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (15:6),119 does not constitute part of an ancient tradition but serves rather as an impressive expression of later reﬂection that aimed at presenting Abra(ha)m as the father of all the faithful. Genesis 24, which relates the acquisition of a bride for Isaac in the form of a novel, would also appear to be a later addition to the Abraham narratives.120 Genesis 26,121 which represents a tradition concerning Isaac and interrupts the connection between Gen. 25:19–28 and chapter 27, is clearly an independent and well-formed literary composition in which Deuteronomistic characteristics can be detected (cf. 26:5). Genesis 34 ( Jacob’s revenge against the Shechemites on account of the rape of his daughter Dinah) and 38 ( Judah and Tamar) would likewise appear to stand more or less on their own. Both give pride of place to the relationship between the sons of Jacob and the Canaanites. While Genesis 34,122 in its present form, clearly contains evidence of a later hand (it presupposes Deuteronomy 7 and exhibits aﬃnities with the language of P), it has its roots, nevertheless, in two very old sources: a family history and a tribal narrative. Genesis 38123 is a similarly independent tale124 reﬂecting relationships between 119 R. W. L. Moberly, “Abraham’s Righteousness (Genesis XV 6)”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch (SVT 41), Leiden 1990, pp. 103–130; D. U. Rotzoll, “Gen. 15,6—Ein Beleg für den Glauben als Werkgerechtigkeit”, ZAW 106 (194), 21–27; G. Kwakkel, De gerechtigheid van Abram. Exegese van Genesis 15:6 (Kamper Bijdragen XXXV), Barneveld 1996 (lit.!). 120 K. T. Aitken, “The Wooing of Rebekah. A Study in the Development of Tradition”, JSOT 30 (1984), 3–23; E. J. van Wolde, “Telling and Retelling: The Words of the Servant in Genesis 24”, OTS 34 (1995), 227–244. 121 R. Martin-Achard, “Remarques sur Genèse 26”, ZAW 100 (Supplement 1988), 22–46. 122 Cf. P. Kevers, “Etude littéraire de Genèse XXXIV”, RB 87 (1980), 38–86; id., “Les ‘ﬁls de Jacob’ à Sichem.”, in: C. Brekelmens and J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies, Leuven 1990, pp. 41–46; J. A. Soggin, “Genesis Kapitel 34. Eros und Thanatos”, in: A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds.), History and Tradition of Early Israel (FS E. Nielsen; SVT 50), Leiden 1993, pp. 133–135. 123 J. A. Soggin, “Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38)”, in: H. A. McKay and D. J. A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages (FS R. N. Whybray, Suppl. JSOT 163), Sheﬃeld 1993, pp. 281–287; A. Wildavsky, “Survival Must not Be Gained through Sin: The Moral of the Joseph Stories Preﬁgured through Judah and Tamar”, JSOT 62 (1994), 37–48. 124 Alternatively K. A. Deurloo, “Eerstelingschap en koningschap: Genesis 38 als integrerend onderdeel van de Jozefcyclus”, ACEBT 14 (1995), 62–73.

206

chapter eight

the Israelites and the Canaanites as well as the period of the Landnahme. Its theme is the problem of childlessness, a theme that has a signiﬁcant role to play in the patriarchal narratives as a whole. While the chapter cannot be described as a tribal saga, it is best represented as a family tale added to the Jacob cycle. The remaining chapters of the book of Genesis consist of three cycles of narratives each relating to the ﬁgures Abraham, Jacob and Joseph respectively. While they would appear at ﬁrst sight to represent a literary unity, closer inspection reveals that we cannot ascribe them to a single author (the P segments to one side). Of immediate and striking interest is the fact that certain texts would appear to be doublets of one another: Genesis 20 and Gen. 12:10–20 as well as Gen. 21:8–21 and Genesis 16 constitute parallel traditions characterised, moreover, by diﬀerent divine names ("Elohîm and yhwh). Two narratives also exist with respect to the foundation of the sanctuary at Bethel (Gen. 12:8; 28:18–22). The objection that such doublets do not suggest evidence of diﬀerent literary layers but illustrate rather the creative narrative skill of the author (Moberly 1992, p. 70) or represent repetitive descriptions of more or less identical events is not convincing, especially since the text segments in question not only diﬀer from one another stylistically but also because they tend to exhibit diﬀerent evaluative perspectives: the author of Gen. 12:10–20, for example, implicitly condemns Abra(ha)m’s half truth by oﬀering not a single word in his defence, while the author of Genesis 20 exonerates him from any form of guilt. We have already noted that many scholars accept that the patriarchal narratives (with the exception of the already mentioned P segments) are based for the most part on the redactional combination of two originally independent source documents: that of the Yahwist ( J) stemming from Judah and that of the Elohist (E) stemming from Northern Israel, the former preferring the divine designation yhwh, the latter "Elohîm. It should be noted, however, that scholars also consistently recognise that J and E have been frequently woven together by later redactor(s) in such a fashion that any attempt to unravel the underlying literary layers of what appear to be uniﬁed texts must run the risk of an arbitrary segmentation thereof. Others are of the opinion that E provides an augmented edition of the foundational narrative of J (see, for example, Vriezen). Others still deny the existence of an Elohistic author and argue for a later reworking and enlargement of J or of supplements to J (cf. Westermann).

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

207

The promises to the patriarchs constitute a problem in themselves: the promise of a son (Gen. 15:4; 17:16; 18:1–15), of a multitude of descendants (Gen. 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 16:10; 17:4–6; 21:13, 18; 22:17; 26:3–4; 28:14; 32:12, Hebr. 32:13; 35:11; 46:3; 48:4)125 and of the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:7; 13:14–15, 17; 15:7–21; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3–4; 28:13; 35:12; 48:4; 50:24) together with the promise of divine assistance and blessing. The motif of the promise of a son is ﬁrmly anchored in J’s Abraham cycles (Gen. 18:1–15; cf. also 17:16[P]). The same is true for the promise of a multitude of descendants (Gen. 12:2; 16:11, cf. 17:4–6) and the promise of the land (Gen. 12:7; 28:13; cf. 17:8). Genesis 15 elaborates these promises in narrative fashion, a fact that has justiﬁably led many a commentator to consider the chapter to be relatively young (see above). Other texts containing promises to the patriarchs, however, would also appear to be relatively young in terms of date (e.g. Gen. 13:14–17). By way of conclusion, one might thus argue that the promises already made to the patriarchs in more ancient traditions (e.g. Gen. 12:2; 12:7; 18:1–15) have acquired an extra accent on account of additions to the original text introduced at a later date (cf., in particular, C. Westermann, op. cit., 1976). The Yahwistic Abraham Cycle (Genesis 12–13; 16; 18–19; 21:1–2, 6–7) begins after a genealogical note (11:27–30 intertwined with P elements) with J’s description of the call of Abram who is invited to leave his land and follow the way yhwh will show him. God promises to make him into a great nation, to make his name great, and that all the generations of the earth shall bless themselves in him (Gen. 12:1–3). The verses themselves exhibit a thematic character. J not only portrays the emergence of Israel in the Pentateuch and its development into a great and independent nation, it also harbours elevated ideas concerning the signiﬁcance of its people for the world (12:2–3; cf. Amos 3:2). Its horizon is universalistic (12:3), its God not only the God of Abraham, but also the protector of the Egyptian Hagar (Genesis 16) and the one who did not leave the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah unpunished (Genesis 18–19); Ishmael and Edom are

125 It is hardly surprising that the promise of a son was already combined at an early stage with the promise of a multitude of descendants. Originally, however, both promises were independent from one another: the promise of a son relates to the desire for an heir in the context of childlessness (cf. the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat legend; Judg. 13:2–5; 1 Samuel 1).

208

chapter eight

reckoned among the descendants of Abraham. J presupposes a direct relationship between yhwh and Abraham, a relationship just short of anthropomorphism (cf. Gen. 18:22). J exhibits a lofty vision of the vocation of the people: it exists in order to follow the ways of its great forefather in obedience. In addition to evidence of nationalism, J’s work also bears a religious character and it is for this latter reason that it lays emphasis time and again in the course of history on the fact that Israel had not lived up to its vocation. This element is already apparent in the narratives concerning Abraham, although it comes more evidently to the fore in the narratives concerning Jacob and those dealing with Israel’s liberation from Egypt and, in particular, the period in the wilderness. The idea expressed in Amos 3:1–2 might better serve as the groundwork of its portrayal of history than the desire to write an exalted national history. The history of Israel is one of divine calling and human disobedience. While the focus of disobedience is often a woman (Sarah and Rebekah), Abraham, Jacob and even Moses are not without guilt. The most guilty of all, however, is the people as a whole. The spiritual aﬃnity between these narratives and the J narratives in Genesis 1–11 is unmistakeable.

While E is represented in the history of Abraham, it’s presence would appear to be limited to Genesis 20 and 21:8–34, in which reference is made to Abraham’s experience with Abimelech of Gerar and the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael. The chapters constitute an appendix to the preceding J segments, following a procedure that has been applied elsewhere (cf. Judges 17–21 and 2 Samuel 21–24 as additions to the narratives of the judges and the history of David respectively). The segment Gen. 21:1–7, which narrates the birth of Isaac, is based on both P and J traditions (vv. 1–2 J and P; vv. 3–5 P; vv. 6–7 J). Genesis 22 (the testing of Abraham who is asked by God to sacriﬁce his son Isaac) can be alternately ascribed to E and J (or in part to both). It is probable, however, that we are dealing in this instance with a relatively late story in which, by analogy with Genesis 15, a theological problem (namely the trial of faith) gave rise to the creation of a narrative, although it remains possible that an extremely old tradition may have been employed.126 Traditional literary critics tend to emphasise the representation of E in the Jacob Cycle over that of Abraham. According to several com126 E. Noort (ed.), The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and Its Interpretations (TBN 4), Leiden 2001 (Lit.!).

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

209

mentaries, J tended primarily to place the accent on the opposition between Esau and Jacob therein while E provided narratives in which the conﬂict between Jacob and Laban comes to the fore. Scholars note that J is constructed on the basis of Judean traditions, which explains the fact that its narratives consistently make reference to Hebron and Beersheba. E, on the other hand, is said to contain primarily Northern Israelite traditions associated with Bethel, Peniel and Shechem. Given the fact that J and E cannot always be distinguished from one another with water tight certainty, the following segments can only be conditionally ascribed to J: 25:20–27:45; 28:10–16; chapter 29; 30:24–31:3; 32:4–33; 33:1–16. Besides a number of priestly texts, the remaining segments of these chapters, together with 35:1–22, are to be ascribed for the most part to E.

Dating the Yahwist is currently more the subject of dispute than ever before. The time around the reign of Solomon (roughly 900 BCE) or shortly thereafter, once accepted as a rule for the origins of the J source, has been vigorously challenged in recent years by a variety of scholarly arguments and ultimately called into question. If one sets aside the fact that J exhibits stylistic aﬃnities with the Thronfolgegeschichte of David (2 Samuel 9–1 Kings 2), however, it becomes diﬃcult to imagine how he could have written his work after Amos and Hosea, bearing in mind that he somewhat innocently associates Abraham and Jacob with Bethel (12:8; 28:10–16), the sanctuary of which was severely censured by both prophets (Hos. 10:5–6; Amos 4:4; 5:5). J’s universalistic vision would have been conceivable in the period of the united kingdom under Solomon and David and may well have led to the codiﬁcation of his patriarchal histories in the Solomonic period or shortly thereafter. His portrayal of Jacob’s treacherous behaviour is already to be found as a motif in Hosea 12. It is interesting to note at this juncture that Abraham does not ﬁgure in the early prophetic books (for Jacob, however, see Hosea 12). Even the later prophets rarely refer to him (Isa. 29:22 [secondary]; 41:8; 51:2: 63:16; Jer. 33:26; Ezek. 33:24). Explanations of this phenomenon vary considerably. Hempel was of the opinion that Abraham had become too literary a ﬁgure to feature in popular awareness as a living personality. In his Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels (BZAW 48), Giessen 1928, K. Galling elaborated the hypothesis that the prophetic silence with respect to Abraham served to illustrate the fact that (in his opinion) the prophets had come to reject

210

chapter eight

the motif of Israel’s election as the people of God so strongly associated with him. It is more probable, however, that the tradition surrounding Abraham did not tally suﬃciently with prophetic preaching that challenged any nationalistic reliance on God’s unconditional guarantee of salvation for his people on the basis of Israel’s election (which they did not, as such, deny!), while trying to stimulate the people’s sense of vocation and responsibility. The prophets thus harked back in particular to Israel’s exodus from Egypt in order to preach yhwh as liberator of the oppressed. In so doing, the ﬁgure of Abraham acquired a background position.

It would appear that the Jozefnovelle (Genesis 37–50)127 circulated in Northern Israel as an originally independent narrative. According to the text of Gen. 37:22–25a, 28a,c, 29–31, 34a, 36, Joseph was cast into an empty pit on the suggestion of is brother Ruben (who wanted to spare his life) and rescued therefrom by Midianite merchants who had the intention of selling him as a slave in Egypt. According to Gen. 37:19–21, 25b–27, 28b, 32–33, 34b–35, Judah interceded to save Joseph’s life and his brothers traded him oﬀ to Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. Unless one is inclined to accept that the reference to the Midianites in verses 28 and 36 should be considered a gloss or one is able to account for the portrayal of the fraternal compassion of both Ruben and Judah in one and the same source, allusion to the role of Judah would appear to have its roots in a secondary, Judean reworking of the history of Joseph, stemming perhaps from J. Whatever the case, the narrative, which has undergone an extensive Wirkungsgeschichte,128 presently establishes a bridge between the Jacob Cycle and the history related in the book of Exodus: it

127 The Jozefnovelle led to a virtual ﬂood of literature in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Some examples: G. von Rad, “Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma”, in: Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (SVT 1), Leiden 1953, pp. 120–127; id., Die Josephsgeschichte, Neukirchen 1964; J. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte, Louvain 1959; L. Ruppert, Die Josepherzählung der Genesis, Munich 1965; R. N. Whybray, “The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism”, VT 18 (1968), 522–528; D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (SVT 20), Leiden 1970; G. W. Coats, “The Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom”, CBQ 35 (1973), 285–297; id., From Canaan to Egypt. Structural and Theological Context of the Joseph Story (CBQ Mon. Series 4), Washington DC 1975; H. Donner, Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Josephgeschichte, Heidelberg 1975; H. C. Schmidt, Die nichtpriesterliche Josephgeschichte, Berlin 1986; L. Schmidt, Literarische Studien zur Josephgeschichte, Berlin 1986; W. Dietrich, Die Josephserzählung als Novelle und Geschichtsschreibung (BThS 14), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989. 128 Cf. H. A. Brongers, De Jozefsgeschiedenis bij Joden, Christenen en Mohammedanen, Wageningen 1962.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

211

explicitly anticipates the latter (cf. Gen. 50:20b). Only sporadic evidence of the hand of P can be detected the history relating to Joseph (Gen. 37:2; 41:46a; 46:6–27; 47:5b, 6a–11, 27b–28; 48:3–7; 49:1a, 28b–33; 50:12–13). From the spiritual perspective, it would be a mistake to ignore the striking diﬀerences between the Yahwist and the Elohist rendition of the history of the patriarchs. J portrays the patriarchs in their weakness and lack of faith (cf. the conclusion to Genesis 12; Gen. 18:12–15), and even their deceitfulness ( Jacob), and establishes a spiritual ambience reminiscent of the narratives concerning David and the stern judgement evident in the preaching of the great yhwh prophets. On the other hand, while E exhibits more evidence of theological reﬂection than J, albeit less profoundly religio-ethical, the former’s characteristically particularistic-pietistic perspective portrays the patriarchs as ﬂawless and exemplary ﬁgures (Abraham: Genesis 20; Jacob: Gen. 28:17–22; 31:4ﬀ.; 35:1ﬀ.). The other nations are not infrequently presented by E in an unfavourable light: cf. the godlessness and hostile behaviour of the Philistines (20:11; 21:25) together with the deceitfulness of the Aramean Laban (31). The positive portrayal of Jacob oﬀered by E stands in sharp contrast to the negative image of Jacob presented by Hosea in chapter 12 of the book that bears his name, which characterises him as the prototype of the overconﬁdent Israel of his day. P is manifestly and consistently more detached. While he rarely oﬀers anything by way of judgement with respect to the patriarchs, he does not fail to mention nevertheless that Abraham laughed when the birth of a son was promised him in his old age (Gen. 17:17).

e. Exodus and Numbers Commentaries on Exodus: H. Holzinger (KHC) 1900; B. Baentsch (HKAT) 1903; F. M. Th. Böhl (TU) 1928; P. Heinisch (HSAT) 1934; G. Beer—K. Galling (HAT) 1939; W. H. Gispen (KV) I 19643, II 19512; J. C. Rylaarsdam (IB) 1952; M. Noth (ATD) 1959, 19888; G. te Stroete (BOT) 1966; F. C. Fensham (POT) 1970, 19843; J. P. Hyatt (NCB) 1971; R. E. Clements (CNEB) 1972; B. S. Childs (OTL) 1974; F. Michaeli (CAT) 1974; W. H. Schmidt (BK) 1974v. (= Exod. 1:1–10:29); C. Houtman (COT) I 1986, II 1989, III 1996.

212

chapter eight

Commentaries on Numbers: B. Baentsch (HKAT) 1903; H. Holzinger (KHC) 1903; G. B. Gray (ICC) 1903, 19122, 19563; A. H. Edelkoort (TU) 1930; P. Heinisch (HSAT) 1936; A. Noordtzij (KV) 1941; W. H. Gispen (COT) 1959, 1964; A. Drubbel (BOT) 1963; M. Noth (ATD) 1966, 19824; N. H. Snaith (NCB) 1967; J. Sturdy (CNEB) 1976; H. Jagersma (POT) I 1983, II 1988, III 1990; P. J. Budd (WBC) 1984; B. Maarsingh (TT) 1984; J. Milgrom, Numbers ( Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1990; J. Scharbert (NEB) 1992; T. R. Ashley (NICOT) 1993; B. A. Levine (AB) 1993 (= Numbers 1–20); H. Seebass (BK) 1993v. (= Num. 10:11–15:41); E. W. Davies (NCB) 1995.

Monographs and articles relating to Exodus: B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien III. Das Buch Exodus, Giessen 1910; H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit (FRLANT 18), Göttingen 1913; P. Volz, Mose und sein Werk, Tübingen 19322; M. Buber, Moses, London 1946 (second edition entitled: Moses. The Revelation and the Covenant, New York 1958); G. von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (BWANT IV/26), Stuttgart 1938; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948, Darmstadt 19602; T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins, New York 19502; H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua, Oxford 1950; E. Auerbach, Moses, Amsterdam 1953; F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament (BZAW 74), Berlin 1955; H. Cazelles e.a., Moïse, l’homme de l’alliance, Paris 1955; J. Bright, Early Israel in Recent History Writing. A Study in Method (SBTh 19), London 1956; R. Smend, Das Mosebild von Heinrich Ewald bis Martin Noth, Tübingen 1959; K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen 1960; W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ältesten Sinaitraditionen, Tübingen 1961; P. Montet, Egypte en de Bijbel, Nijkerk 1961; Eva Osswald, Das Bild des Mose in der kritischen alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft seit Julius Wellhausen (Theologische Arbeiten 18), Berlin 1962 (lit.!); H. Lubsczyk, Der Auszug Israels aus Ägypten, Leipzig 1963; A. Lauha, “Das Schilfmeermotiv im Alten Testament”, in: Congress Volume Bonn 1962 (SVT 9), Leiden 1963, pp. 32–46; G. Fohrer, Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: eine Analyse von Ex. 1–15 (BZAW 91), Berlin 1964; B. S. Childs, “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Tradition”, in: Hebräische Wortforschung (SVT 16: FS W. Baumgartner), Leiden 1967, pp. 30–39; H. Gese, Bemerkungen zur Sinaitradition, ZAW 79 (1967), 137–154; G. W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, Nashville/New York 1968; H. Schmid, Mose: Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 110), Berlin 1968; V. Fritz, Israel in der Wüste, Marburg 1970; E. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie. Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtwerk, Würzburg 1971; id., Israel am Sinai. Analysen und Interpretationen zu Exodus 17–34, Altenberge 19852; W. Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3–17 (BZAW 126), Berlin 1972; E. Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition, Oxford and Richmond

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

213

VA 1973; S. Herrmann, Israel in Egypt (SBTh), London 1973; J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,10 –26. Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT 114), Göttingen 1975; J. J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (Suppl. JSOT 5), Sheﬃeld 1978; W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, Sinai und Mose. Erwägungen zu Ex 1–19 und 24 (EdF 191), Darmstadt 1983; I. Wilson, The Exodus Enigma, London 1985; F. Kohata, Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14, Berlin-New York 1986; N. M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus. The Heritage of Biblical Israel, New York 1986; H. Schmid, Die Gestalt des Mose. Probleme alttestamentlicher Forschung unter Berücksichtigung der Pentateuchkrise (EdF 237), Darmstadt 1986; G. W. Coats, Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God (Suppl. JSOT 57), Sheﬃeld 1988; M. Vervenne, Exodus. Verhaal en leidmotief, Leuven 1989; W. Johnstone, Exodus (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1990; M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus (BEThL 126), Leuven 1996; B. Jacob, The Book of Exodus, 1997.

Monographs and articles relating to Numbers: K. Möhlenbrink, Die levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments, ZAW 52 (1934), 184–231; G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch (BWANT IV/13), Stuttgart 1934; B. D. Eerdmans, “The Composition of Numbers”, OTS 6 (1949), 101–216: R. Rendtorﬀ, Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift, Göttingen 19632; M. Douglas, Purity and Danger, London 1966; G. W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, New York 1968; V. Fritz, Israel in der Wüste. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten, Marburg 1970; D. Kellermann, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 120), Berlin 1970; B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord. A Study of Cult and some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel, Leiden 1974; J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience. The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 18), Leiden 1976; G. I. Davies, The Way of the Wilderness, Cambridge 1979; id., “The Wilderness Itinaries”, Tyndale Bulletin 25 (1974), 46–91; id., “The Wilderness Itinaries and the Composition of the Pentateuch”, VT 33 (1983), 1–13; D. T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (Brown Judaic Studies 71), Chico CA 1985; M. Douglas, In the Wilderness. The Doctrine of Deﬁlement in the Book of Numbers (Suppl. JSOT 158), Sheﬃeld 1993; T. L. Burden, The Kerygma of the Wilderness Traditions in the Hebrew Bible, New York 1994; G. J. Wenham, Numbers (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1997.

1. Content The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy follow the book of Genesis in the Pentateuch. Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy contain a signiﬁcant amount of legal prescriptions while

214

chapter eight

Leviticus is almost entirely made up of such material. In order to be able to oﬀer a reasonable overview of Exodus to Numbers we will devote a separate segment of our text to the laws contained therein. Deuteronomy will also be treated separately. In the meantime we will limit ourselves for the most part to the narrative material found in Exodus and Numbers. The books of Exodus-Deuteronomy describe how the people of Israel were forced into slavery in Egypt, how they were liberated by God’s intervention and how they set out into the wilderness with Canaan as their ﬁnal destination. During their journey through the wilderness, tradition informs us that they received the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Covenant on Mount Sinai. Inﬁdelity to yhwh and frequent murmuring characterised the people’s general behaviour at this time. With the exception of Joshua and Caleb, the entire generation that had been liberated from Egypt died in the wilderness. We are informed that Moses likewise died before the Israelites entered the land of Canaan. After the portrayal of the threat of genocide that confronted the Israelites in Egypt on account of forced labour and Pharaoh’s command to kill all newborn children in Exodus 1, Exodus 2 relates how Moses was saved by the daughter of Pharaoh, having been set aﬂoat in a papyrus basket (a story reminiscent of that of Sargon of Akkad [see chapter II]). As an adult, Moses’ life is placed in danger when a fellow Israelite threatens to inform the authorities that he had intervened in a dispute between an Israelite and an Egyptian and had killed the latter in the process. Moses is thus forced to ﬂee to Midian where he takes Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro the priest of Midian as his wife. Chapter 3 is among the most central chapters of the book of Exodus. It relates how Moses was called by God on Mount Horeb. yhwh reveals himself to him in a burning yet unconsumed bush as the God of the fathers and commissions him to lead the Israelites out of oppression in Egypt. While Moses endeavours to object to his divine vocation, yhwh insists, giving him the power to work wonders and designating his brother Aaron to stand at his side as his spokesman (Exod. 4:1–17). On his way to Egypt with Zipporah and his two sons, yhwh threatens Moses’ life but his wife Zipporah is able to avert disaster by circumcising her oldest son and doing the same in symbolic fash-

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

215

ion to Moses (4:18–26).129 After meeting with his brother Aaron, the latter communicates God’s message to the elders of the people and their reaction is positive (4:27–31). When Pharaoh refuses to permit the Israelites to oﬀer sacriﬁce to yhwh in the wilderness and makes their forced labour more unbearable than ever before, however, the people turn against Moses and Aaron (5:1–21). In a renewed divine revelation,130 yhwh’s plan of liberation is presented to Moses once again and he is called upon to return to Pharaoh and insist that the Israelites be set free (6:1–12). The numerous plagues with which Egypt is confronted on account of Pharaoh’s stubborn refusal to agree to Moses’ demands (7:14–10:29), culminate in the death of the ﬁrst born of the Egyptians (11:1–10). Faced with this disaster, Pharaoh allows the Israelites to depart, the latter having celebrated the Passover Feast in the meantime. After a change of heart, however, Pharaoh sets oﬀ with his troops in pursuit of the departing Israelites, only to encounter their death in the Sea of Reeds, which the Israelites had passed through in miraculous fashion (13:17–14:31). This salviﬁc event is recorded in the so-called Song of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (15:20–21). What follows is a report of the beginnings of the Israelites’ journey through the wilderness, presented as a succession of diﬃculties and confrontations whereby the people’s murmuring and complaint against Moses and Aaron, and ultimately against yhwh, is not entirely unfounded. Often tormented and driven at times to despair by lack of food and water, the people are granted God’s assistance time and again nevertheless in overcoming their problems (15:22–17:7). A new trial awaits them in Rephidim where the Amalekites endeavour to thwart their progress (17:8–16). The latter, however, are ultimately defeated by the Israelites. Chapter 18 constitutes a narrative in itself in which reference is made to Jethro, the priest of Midian, who returns Moses’ wife and sons to him, to a sacriﬁce oﬀered by the former to God and to a cultic meal with the elders of Israel (18:12) in addition to instructions concerning legal order among the people (18:13–27).

129 Cf. C. Houtman, “Exodus 4:24–26 and its Interpretation”, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 11 (1984), 81–105 (lit.!). 130 The narrative is by a diﬀerent author to that of Exodus 3.

216

chapter eight

Chapters 19–23 describe Israel’s arrival at Mount Sinai and their sojourn in the area, whereby the revelation of God’s law is drafted: the proclamation of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) and the Book of the Covenant. The narrative of the establishment of the covenant (24:3–8) and the tradition relating how the representatives of Israel saw God and ate and drank in his presence follows in 24:1–2,9–11.131 While Moses remained for forty days on the divine mountain, receiving the stone tablets of the law, Aaron constructed a “golden calf ” as a symbol of the God who had led Israel out of Egypt. Upon his return from the mountain, however, Moses shattered the stone tablets of the law on the ground and destroyed the idolatrous symbol of the “golden calf ” (Exodus 32). Chapter 33 contains an appeal to God on the part of Moses to be allowed to travel further with the people and a request to be allowed to see the glory of yhwh. His appeal is ultimately granted but only in part. In chapter 34 he is ordered to fashion anew two stone tablets upon which yhwh inscribes the words that were written on the tablets Moses had cast to the ground. Following extended reference to the tabernacle legislation and the mention of numerous prescriptions in Leviticus and Numbers 1:1–10:10, Num. 10:11 picks up the second trajectory of the journey in the wilderness up to the borders of the promised land in a narrative frequently interrupted by new legislative material. Particular attention should be given to the report of the twelve men who were despatched to spy out the land of Canaan (Numbers 13–14), the unsuccessful revolt of Korah, Dathan and Abiram against the authority of Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16), the death of Miriam (Num. 20:1) and of Aaron (Num. 20:22–29), the refusal of Edom to allow the Israelites to pass through his land (Num. 20:14–21), the narrative of the bronze serpent (Num. 21:4–9), the conﬂict with King Sihon of Heshbon and Og, the king of Bashan (Num. 21:21–35), the appearance of the prophet Balaam (Num. 22:2–24:25) who blesses the people in spite of being summoned to curse them by King Balak of Moab, the people’s idolatrous worship of Baal of Peor (Num. 25:1–18) and the appointment of Joshua, the son of Nun, as Moses’ successor (Num. 27:12–23). At the end of the book of Deuteronomy, reference is made to Moses imparting the law in the ﬁelds of Moab and 131 Cf. E. W. Nicholson, God and his People. Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford 1986, pp. 164–178.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

217

to his ﬁnal instructions (31), his song (32:1–43), his blessing (33) and his death (34). 2. The Exodus narratives Leaving aside those elements of the history of Joseph, which serve to bridge the patriarchal narratives with the time of Moses,132 the book of Exodus introduces the reader into a completely diﬀerent world to that of the patriarchs, a world in which the descendants of Jacob-Israel have grown into a great nation dwelling in Goshen (on the outskirts of Egypt) and the wilderness of Sinai and perceived by the Egyptians as a threat to their very existence as a nation (1:9–10). God’s revelation to Moses (Exodus 3) heralds the beginning of a new era. A signiﬁcant portion of chapters 1–24 of the book of Exodus (together with the traditions recorded in Exodus 32–34) contains, as it were, the ‘gospel’ of the Old Testament: tidings of Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt. The literary layers traditionally designated as J and E are more diﬃcult to distinguish from one another in Exodus and Numbers than in the patriarchal narratives of Genesis. While Rudolph133 was inclined to deny any evidence of E in Exodus (and Numbers) as an independent source document, Fohrer134 was able nevertheless to detect his “Nomadenquelle” (N) in Exodus 1–15. J. Pedersen,135 followed by the Dutch Old Testament scholar J. de Groot,136 on the other hand, considered Exodus 1–15 to be a literary unity in the sense of a (later reworked and supplemented) festival legend for the celebration of Pesach. In his opinion, these chapters came into existence as a liturgical text intended for the cult and as such do not exhibit the characteristics of an historical account. While the present author would be happy to support the idea that the chapters in question were later employed in the context of the celebration of Pesach, he is nevertheless unable to ignore the typically historical narrative style of Exodus 1–15, which continues after Exod. 15:1–21

132

Th. C. Vriezen, “Exodusstudien: Exodus 1”, VT 17 (1967), 334–353. W. Rudolph, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua (BZAW 68), Berlin 1938. 134 G. Fohrer, Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus (BZAW 91), Berlin 1964. 135 J. Pedersen, “Passahfest und Passahlegende”, ZAW 52 (1934), 161–175. 136 J. de Groot, “The Story of the Bloody Husband (Exodus IV 24–26)”, OTS 1 (1942), 10–17. 133

218

chapter eight

with the narratives concerning the period in the wilderness without any recognisable caesura. Above all else, one should not ignore the evidence of doublets in these chapters. According to Exodus 3 (in a segment ascribed to E), for example, Moses receives a revelation from God in which God makes himself known to him as “I am, who I am” (cf. the name yhwh).137 Moses is commanded thereby (after his ﬂight to Midian, cf. 2:11–22) to return to Egypt in order to liberate Israel. Exod. 4:19, on the other hand, which scholars endeavour to ascribe to J, relates how Moses received the command to return to Egypt but does not presuppose the revelation of the divine name yhwh that J had already employed in the Genesis narratives. P, furthermore, presents the call of Moses in Exod. 6:1–11, a text that speaks once again of a divine revelation: El Shaddai (the name with which God appeared to the patriarchs) makes himself known to Moses as yhwh138 and commands him to tell the Israelites that yhwh will lead them out of their forced labour under the Egyptians. This threefold reference to the call of Moses has a parallel in the threefold allusion to Moses’ own admission of slowness of speech (Exod. 4:10; 6:11,29). Chapters 3–6, moreover, contain the written expression of several ancient traditions concerning an event constitutive for the people of Israel. As such, therefore, they do not constitute a continuous narrative stemming from a single author, but appear rather to be a collection of traditions that contradict one another from time to time yet exhibit, in terms of content, a greater degree of mutual conformity than is often suggested. The following chapters, which contain the narrative of the Ten Plagues (7:14–12:30 with legislation concerning the Passover feast in 12:1–28),139 present us with virtually unsolvable literary-historical problems, although one can identify the P segments therein with a

Th. C. Vriezen, “"Ehje "a“er "ehje”, in: Festschrift für A. Bertholet, Tübingen 1950, pp. 498–512; F. M. Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs”, HThR 55 (1962), 225–259; E. C. B. MacLaurin, “yhwh, the Origin of the Tetragrammaton”, VT 12 (1962), 439–463; S. Herrmann, Der alttestamentliche Gottesname, Evangelische Theologie 26 (1966), 281–293. 138 M. Weippert, “Erwägungen zur Etymologie des Gottesnamens ’El ”adday” ZDMG 3 (1961), 41–62; N. Lohﬁnk, “Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition von der Oﬀenbarung des Jahwenamens an Mose”, Biblica 49 (1968), 1–8. 139 A. Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt”, ZAW 69 (1957), 84–103, 70 (1958), 48–59; H. Eising, “Die ägyptischen Plagen”, in: H. Groß und F. Mußner (eds.), Tua lex veritas (FS H. Junker), Trier 1961, pp. 75–87. 137

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

219

high degree of probability (with the exception of 7:1–7, 8–13 segments 7:19–20a, 21b–22; 8:1–3, 11b, 12–15; 9:8–12, 35b; 11:9–10). The plagues can be divided into two groups. On the one hand they can be identiﬁed as miraculous signs (which the Egyptian wise magicians endeavour to imitate), whereby Moses and Aaron are legitimated as emissaries of the Most High. On the other hand they can be seen as reprisals employed by yhwh to force the Egyptians to let his people go. Correspondingly, the ﬁrst group of plagues take place unannounced through the intervention of Aaron (or of Aaron and Moses), while the second group are predicted by Moses and brought about by yhwh. Only the latter group contains reference to Moses’ endeavour to intercede with Pharaoh. Nevertheless, the fact that the aforementioned groups have come to form a single narrative requires a degree of caution in our endeavour to assign the segments not ascribed to P to other sources. The boundaries of the Yahwistic portion of the text are the subject of much dispute. Some are inclined to argue in favour of an interweaving of J and E, while others support a redactional supplementation of J. It is possible that E was unfamiliar with the plagues and that it alludes only to a ﬂight from Egypt (14:5) instead of a forced liberation from slavery. The narrative of the plagues intends to reveal the majesty of yhwh (9:16). God hardens Pharaoh’s heart in order to make His power all the more evident in the liberation of his people. Exod. 12:1–20 contains instructions for the celebration of Passover140 in a segment of the book that can be ascribed to P. The verses were located by the priestly author before 13:3–16, the latter containing a Deuteronomistic description of the institution of the Passover feast (12:24–27a stems likewise from a Deuteronomistic author). The thread of the historical narrative is picked up again in 12:29ﬀ., which relates how yhwh brought about the death of the ﬁrst born of the Egyptians and how Pharaoh gave the people of Israel his permission to leave his land (12:29–34, 37–39: J; 12:35–36: E [?]). Exod. 13:17–14:31 follows with a description of the miraculous passage of

140 See E. Auerbach, “Die Feste im alten Israel”, VT 8 (1958), 1–18; E. Kutsch, “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Passafeier und des Massotfestes”, ZThK 55 (1958), 1–35; J. B. Segal, Hebrew Passover, London 1963; J. Henninger, Les fêtes de printemps chez les sémites et la pâque israélite, Paris 1975; R. Schmitt, Exodus und Passah (OBO 7), Freiburg/Göttingen 1975, 19822.

220

chapter eight

the Israelites through the Sea of Reeds (cf. 13:18; 15:4)141 and the death of the pursuing Egyptian military forces as the sea returned to its place. It is here that we encounter the text of the proto-confession in narrative form of Israel’s liberation by yhwh from the land of Egypt (cf. Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6; Ps. 81:11; Hos. 11:1; 12:10; 13:4). This segment of the book of Exodus, however, also exhibits evidence of several authors. It is stated in 14:21,27 ( J), for example, that yhwh drove back the sea with a powerful east wind while 14:21b–22, 29 (P?) maintains that Moses caused the waters to be divided so that they formed a wall for the ﬂeeing Israelites on their right and on their left. Evidence of J, P and (to a more limited extent) E can be found throughout Exod. 13:17–14:31, although some deny any share of the text to P. The episode is concluded in Exodus 15 with the Song of Moses by the Sea of Reeds,142 a text that would appear to presuppose the conquest of the promised land (v. 17; v. 16 apparently refers to the crossing of the Jordan). It is possible that the song is an elaboration of the song of Myriam in v. 21: Sing to yhwh, for he has triumphed gloriously; Horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.

Scholars disagree on the date of the Song of Moses. Some relate the expression “holy abode” (v. 13, cf. v. 17) with the promised land itself, while others relate it to Mount Zion. Based on style (reminiscent of Ugaritic literature) and use of archaic terminology, Cross and

141 O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphom, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer, Halle 1932; M. Noth, “Der Schauplatz des Meereswunders”, in: Festschrift O. Eissfeldt, Halle 1947, pp. 181–190; H. Cazelles, “Les localisations de l’exode et la critique littéraire”, RB 62 (1955), 321–364; G. W. Coats, “The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif ”, VT 17 (1967), 253–265; B. S. Childs, “A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition”, VT 20 (1970), 406–418; P. Weimar, Die Meerwundererzählung. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse von Ex 13,17–14,31, Wiesbaden 1985; J. L. Ska, Le passage de la mer. Etude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–31, Rome 1986; M. Vervenne, Het zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,17–14,31), diss. Leuven 1986. 142 F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, JNES 14 (1955), 237–250; J. D. W. Watts, “The Song of the Sea, Ex. XV”, VT 7 (1957), 371–380; J. Muilenburg, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh”, in: W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude (eds.), Studia Biblica et Semitica (FS Th. C. Vriezen), Wageningen 1966, pp. 233–251; G. W. Coats, “The Song of the Sea”, CBQ 31 (1969), 1–17; “E. Zenger, Tradition und Interpretation in Ex XV 1–2”1, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT 32), Leiden 1981, pp. 452–483; M. L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Ex 15:1–21, Berlin-New York 1991.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

221

Freedman143 endeavoured to date the song in the twelfth—eleventh century BCE. Others are more inclined, however, to favour a late date during the period of the kings of Judah.144 The Deuteronomistically tinted passages of the book of Exodus (12:24–27a, 13:3–16, 15:25b–26, 19:3b–6, 23:20–33; 24:3–8 and 34:11–16) deserve particular attention. Some scholars, among them Brekelmans,145 are inclined to speak in this regard of pre-Deuteronomic text segments, while others support a Deuteronomistic redaction from a later period.146 Others still ascribe the material to a post-Deuteronomistic reworking.

The wilderness narratives,147 which begin in Exod. 15:22, consist of two blocks, one prior to the description of the Sinai event (Exodus 15–18) and one thereafter (Numeri 10ﬀ.), both exhibiting signiﬁcant doublets: both Exod. 17:1–7 and Num. 20:2–13 make reference to an event at Meribah in what are clearly parallel narratives while Num. 11:4–35 returns to the theme of the manna and quails referred to Exodus 16. In spite of the fact that Deut. 32:10ﬀ., Hos. 2:14 and Jer. 2:1–3 present the period in the wilderness as an ideal time, the majority if wilderness traditions in Exodus and Numbers are permeated with allusions to the motif of the murmuring of the people expressed repeatedly in stereotype terminology. In principle, two patterns can be discerned in this regard. The ﬁrst is characterised by a situation of acute need (e.g. lack of water) that leads to murmuring among the people, Moses’ intercession and God’s miraculous intervention (Exod. 15:22–25; 17:1–7; Num. 20:2–13). The second makes no direct allusion to external factors as the reason for the people’s murmuring, underlines Israel’s lack of obedience, which results in God’s wrath and punishment, and concludes with Moses’

143 F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, JNES 14 (1955), 237–250. 144 See further the commentaries by B. S. Childs (OTL 1974, pp. 243–248) and C. Houtman (COT 1989, pp. 220ﬀ.). 145 Chr. Brekelmans, “Die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Elemente in Genesis bis Numeri. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Deuteronomiums”, in: Volume du congrès Genève 1965 (SVT 15), Leiden 1966, pp. 90–96. 146 Cf., for example, W. Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3–17 (BZAW 126), Berlin/New York 1972. 147 G. I. Davies, The Way of the Wilderness, Cambridge 1979; M. Har-El, The Sinai Journeys: The Route of the Exodus, San Diego 1983; W. Johnstone, “From the Sea to the Mountain, Exodus 15,22–19,2: A Case Study in Editorial Techniques”, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), op. cit., 1996, pp. 245–263.

222

chapter eight

intervention and the end of the threatening situation (Num. 11:1–3; 21:4–10). Both patterns, however, quickly came to be seen as examples of Israel’s negative reaction to God’s salviﬁc deeds. The motif of resistance against Moses’ leadership is later associated with these narratives, especially with respect to P. The narrative in which the bitter waters of Marah are made sweet by Moses on yhwh’s instruction and reference is made to the agreeable Elim with its twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees (Exod. 15:22–27) is followed by that of the provision of manna, “bread from heaven” (Exodus 16; cf. Ps. 105:40; Neh. 9:15).148 The latter can be ascribed, for the most part, to P who employed J elements in the process. As with the quails, the manna is represented as a gift of God. In terms of its literary origins, the story associated with Massah and Meribah (17:1–7), whereby Massah (cf. Deut. 6:16; 9:22) and Horeb (17:6) would appear to indicate Deuteronomistic inﬂuence, is the subject of dispute (with the exception of 17:1aba[P]). The location of the conﬂict with Amalek (17:8–16)149 in Rephidim together with the allusion to the staﬀ of Moses, already mentioned in the preceding narrative, makes for an unusual story in that Moses is represented as a magician who brings about victory by holding up his hands. When his hands grow weary, Aaron and Hur provide a stone for him to sit on and support his hands until sunset, until the battle with the Amalekites is won under Joshua’s leadership. While reference to the “staﬀ of God” (vs. 9), which Moses holds in his hand, has led scholars to ascribe the pericope to E, the present author is inclined to favour J as the more likely source. Verse 14 constitutes a Deuteronomistic interpolation in which Moses is com148 Cf. B. J. Malina, The Palestinian Manna Tradition, Leiden 1968; E. Ruprecht, “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift”, ZAW 86 (1974), 269–307; W. Beuken e.a., Brood uit de hemel. Lijnen van Exodus 16 naar Johannes 6 tegen de achtergrond van de rabbijnse literatuur, Kampen 1985; S. McEvenue, “Truth and Literature in Exodus 16”, Theologie und Philosophie 69 (1994), 493–510. 149 G. W. Coats, “Moses Versus Amalek: Aetiology and Legend in Exodus XVII 8–16”, in: Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT 28), Leiden 1975, pp. 29–41; K. A. Deurloo, “Schrijf dit ter gedachtenis in het boek”, Amsterdam 1975; B. P. Robinson, “Israel and Amalek. The Context of Exodus 17,8–16”, JSOT 32 (1985), 15–22; C. Houtman, “yhwh is my Banner—A ‘Hand’ on the ‘Throne’ of YH”, OTS 25 (1989), 110–120; H. C. Schmitt, “Die Geschichte vom Sieg über die Amalekiter Ex 17,8–16 als theologische Lehrerzählung”, ZAW 102 (1990), 355–344. See also A. Schuil, Amalek. Onderzoek naar oorsprong en ontwikkeling van Amaleks rol in het Oude Testament, Zoetermeer 1997, pp. 16ﬀ.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

223

manded to inscribe the victory over Amalek in a book and to recite in the presence of Joshua that yhwh will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven (cf. Deut. 25:17–19). From the tradition-historical perspective, verses 15–16 suggest a later stage than the original narrative, which harks back to a very ancient tradition, since they nevertheless allude to the role of yhwh in the conﬂict (not mentioned in vv. 9–13) in the context of the construction of an altar by Moses. The words assigned to Moses, however: The hand (= the monument) on the throne of yhwh! yhwh will have a war with Amalek from generation to generation

can only stem from the period prior to David, the latter having brought deﬁnitive end to the Amalekite raids that had plagued the southern territory (cf. 1 Sam. 30:1–2; 2 Sam. 8:12; see also 1 Samuel 15). The narrative of the visit of the Midianite priest Jethro to his sonin-law Moses at the mountain of God passed on to us in Exodus 18,150 stems in essence from E. It is reminiscent of Exodus 2–4, in which reference is made to Moses’ ﬂight to Midian (Exod. 2:15), his marriage with Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro (referred to in 2:18 as Reuel; 2:21), his keeping of his father-in-law’s ﬂock (3:1), the revelation on the mountain of God (3:1ﬀ.) and yhwh’s endeavour to kill him on his way back to Egypt, which Zipporah is able to thwart by circumcising her son (4:24–26).151 Chapter 18 has occasioned a whole series of questions. Jethro’s recommendations in the context of Moses’ acting as judge for the people (18:13–26) have a parallel in Deut. 1:9–17, in which Jethro is not mentioned and the decentralisation of jurisdiction is consigned a chronologically later date. The sacriﬁcial meal oﬀered by Jethro, (Moses), Aaron and the elders of the people (vs. 12), is presided over by Jethro. Many scholars have

150

Chr. W. H. Brekelmans, “Exodus XVIII and the Origins of Yahwism in Israel”, OTS 10 (1954), 215–224; R. Knierim, “Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Gerichtsbarkeit”, ZAW 73 (1961), 146–171; H. Reviv, “The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Signiﬁcance and Dating”, ZAW 94 (1982), 566–575; C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Exodus 18—zur Begründung der königlichen Gerichtsbarkeit in Israel-Juda”, DBAT 21 (1985), 61–85; J. van Seters, The Life of Moses, Kampen 1994, pp. 208–219. 151 J. Coppens, “La prétendue agression nocturne de Jahvé contre Moïse, Séphorah et leur ﬁls (Exod. IV, 24–26)”, EThL 18 (1941), 68–73; J. de Groot, “The Story of the Bloody Husband (Exodus IV 24–26”), OTS 2 (1943), 10–17; C. Houtman, “Exodus 4:24–26 and its Interpretation”, JNSL 11 (1984), 81–105 (lit.!).

224

chapter eight

formed the opinion on the basis of this chapter that Jethro was thus a worshipper of yhwh and that he considered himself conﬁrmed in his faith by Moses’ account of the miraculous liberation of the Israelites from Egypt. Such considerations gave rise to the so-called “Kenite Hypothesis”, which maintains that yhwh was originally the God of the nomadic Midianites and Kenites who lived in the Negev and the Sinai peninsula. If one interprets the information provided by Exodus 18 as referring to the establishment of a covenant between the priestly ruler of Midian and the Israelites conﬁrmed by a cultic meal, then the emphasis would appear to be more on the fact that Jethro recognised the power of Israel’s God (cf. especially Gen. 26:28). Associated with the traditions concerning the period in the wilderness (Exod. 15:22–19:1; Num. 10:11ﬀ.), the Sinai traditions contain reference to the theophany, the provision of the law and the establishment of the covenant (Exodus 19–24; 32–34).152 The suggestion that these traditions found their way as secondary interpolations into the transmission of the Pentateuch and that their original Sitz im Leben was the cult, is improbable and diﬃcult to defend, although it would be wrong to deny that they had a place in Israel’s liturgy. One should not only bear in mind that the God of the exodus and the period in the wilderness is, in origin, the same as the God of Sinai, but also that the ﬁgure of Moses is clearly at home in each of these traditions from the outset (contra M. Noth, op. cit., 1948). While yhwh is Israel’s God from Egypt onwards (Hos. 12:10; 13:4), he is also, according to an ancient expression, “the God of Sinai” ( Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9). Outside the Pentateuch, Moses is already portrayed in Hos. 12:14 as the one under whom yhwh led Israel out of Egypt and as the one who kept watch over Israel during the period in the wilderness (cf. also Mic. 6:4). He is too closely associated in the Old Testament tradition with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai to accept that he was only assigned a place in the Sinai traditions at a later date (cf. also Exod. 3:12). One is obliged to observe, there-

152 Cf. the studies alluded to in the bibliography by W. Beyerlin (1961), E. Zenger (1971, 19852) and E. W. Nicholson (1973) together with M. Haelvoet, “La théophanie du Sinai. Analyse littéraire des récits d’Ex. xix–xxiv”, EThL 19 (1953), 374–397, T. Dozeman, God on the Mountain. A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24, Atlanta GA 1989, B. Renaud, La théophanie du Sinaï Ex 19–24: Exégèse et théologie, Paris 1991 and further H. Cazelles, “La théophanie au désert: Montagne de Dieu, Sinaï, Horeb”, in: F. Raurell e.a. (eds.), Tradició i traducció de la paraula (FS G. Camps), Montserrat 1993, pp. 19–32.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

225

fore, that the exodus and Sinai traditions constitute one single complex (Fohrer 1964). Redactional reworking to one side, it is hardly surprising that evidence of the literary sources that can be traced in the preceding (and later) chapters can also be found in the written form of the tradition concerning God’s revelation on Sinai. Exod. 19:1–20:21, a segment that describes the theophany on Mount Sinai and God’s proclamation of the Ten Commandments, combines a variety of diﬀerent traditions and exhibits a complex literary character. The narrative as we now have it contains several irregularities: verses 8b and 9b constitute a doublet; Moses ascends Mount Sinai at least three times (19:3a, 20b; 20:21); the theophany is ﬁrst represented as a storm with thunder and lightning (19:16) and then as a volcano with ﬁre and smoke (19:18). Scholars have endeavoured to solve the problems raised by this passage of scripture from both literary-critical and tradition-historical perspectives. On its own, the documentary hypothesis would appear to be incapable of providing a literary-critical solution to the problem. While one can ascribe 19:1, 22–24 to P and the splendid (in terms of composition and content) text segment 19:3ab–8 (supplemented with v. 9a), which harks back to the exodus and looks forward to the revelation of the commandments to Moses together with the obligations the people take upon themselves, to a Deuteronomistic (or pre-Deuteronomic) author, the remainder of the chapter does not allow us to make a convincing distinction between J and E. In the last analysis we are forced to account for additional material that does not stem from the aforementioned sources. In the context of his tradition-historical approach to Exodus 19ﬀ., Mowinckel located the Sinai pericope against the background of the cult, associating it with a ceremony of covenant renewal. Along similar lines, Von Rad (op. cit., 1938) located the Sinai tradition (distinct from the exodus tradition) in a covenant renewal feast at Shechem. With the exception of the secondary verses 19:3ab–8 and Exod. 24:3–8, however, there is little evidence of a covenant renewal feast to be found in Exodus 19–24. Furthermore, the Hittite vassal treaties dating from the second millennium BCE are of limited signiﬁcance as background information for the interpretation of the establishment of the covenant at Sinai: in contrast to these treaty texts, the Decalogue does not contain blessing and curse formulas nor is there any apparent parallel to the role of Moses as covenant mediator.

226

chapter eight

One can conclude, therefore, that the literary structure of Exod. 19:1–20:21 can no longer be reconstructed in detail. In spite of the clear presence of disruptive seams between certain segments of the text, its sources have been combined in such a uniﬁed fashion that further subdivision is well-nigh impossible. Constitutive for Israel’s history and faith, the two-sided nature of this story harks back on the one hand to a single principal narrative while revealing evidence, on the other hand, of repeated expansion. As such, therefore, it has taken on the character of a collection of traditions. Textual analysis is thus both entirely justiﬁable and to a signiﬁcant extent entirely impracticable. “The more one goes into details, the more convoluted the course of the narrative becomes” (Smend jr.). This would certainly appear to be the case if one is inclined to make an issue of source analysis. Exod. 24:15b–18a can be ascribed to P as introduction to 25:1–31:17, the latter containing the directive to construct the tabernacle with its furnishings and the reference to the ordination of priests. It is also clear that 24:1–2 and 9–11 belong together (although v. 2 would appear to be a later interpolation intended to underline the unicity of Moses and the other leaders of Israel). 24:1–2 constitute the introduction 24:9–11, which relates how Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy of the elders of the people beheld God, how the Almighty did not lay a hand on them and how they ate and drank in His presence. Whether one ought to consider this meal as a ratiﬁcation of the covenant remains a question. The fact that the accent is placed on those present seeing God who had entered into an alliance with Israel, however, makes this unlikely.153 In any event, the intervening verses 3–8 relate the establishment of a covenant between yhwh and the people on the basis of “all the words of yhwh and all the ordinances” (24:3) and exhibit clear parallels with Exod. 19:3b–8. According to several commentators, this expression alludes to both the Decalogue and to the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 21–23. Given that reference is only made to “the words” after v. 3, however, others are inclined to see “and all the ordinances” (cf. 21:1) as an interpolation introduced with a view to the (in their opinion) later attachment of the Book of the Covenant to

153 E. W. Nicholson, God and his People, Oxford 1986, pp. 121–133, but see also Th. C. Vriezen, “The Exegesis of Exodus XXIV 9–11”, OTS 17 (1972), 100–133.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

227

the Sinai tradition. In the original narrative, therefore, the establishment of the covenant must have taken place on the basis of the “words of yhwh” revealed to Moses, i.e. the Decalogue of Exod. 20:2–17. The expression “all the words of yhwh” is too unspeciﬁc to associate it per se with 20:1, the introduction to the Decalogue. The arrival of Moses (24:3), who tells the people “all the words of yhwh and all the ordinances”, also presupposes 20:21, which relates how Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was. It is evident, therefore, that the covenant charter of Exod. 24:7 does not imply the Decalogue and that we must read v. 3 as “all the words of yhwh, namely all the ordinances” (cf. 21:1) and as a reference to the Book of the Covenant. Ascribed by some to E and by others to a pre-Deuteronomistic or Deuteronomistic author, the pericope Exod. 24:3–8, which refers to the “young men” who oﬀered burnt oﬀerings, exhibits characteristics that may have been borrowed from a covenant renewal feast celebrated at Shechem. Exod. 24:12–15a, 18b forms the beginning of a new segment encompassing the themes of the two stone tablets, the worship of the golden calf and Moses’ intercession, which we encounter in Exodus 32–34 (after the intermezzo concerning the instruction to build the tabernacle). These chapters are located within the framework of sin and forgiveness (Childs). Chapter 32 relates the breaking of the covenant while chapter 34 speaks of the restoration thereof. Allusion is made to Moses’ intercession in 32:11–14, 30–34; 33:12–17; 34:8–9 and to the stone tablets in 32:15–16 and in 34:1, 4, 28–29. The theme of God’s nearness and guidance is particularly evident in chapter 33, but also in 32:34 and 34:9, while that of God’s judgement and forgiveness threads its way through all three chapters (32:10–14, 34; 33:3, 19; 34:6, 14). In their present form, chapters 32–34 are the work of a redactor who not only wove together existing traditions in their work but also contributed to the composition thereof. The story of the golden calf (Exodus 32) is based on an ancient tradition to which the Deuteronomistic narrator of 1 Kings 12 alludes in his polemic against the introduction of calves of gold into the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan by King Jeroboam I. Exodus 32 has its roots in a pre-Deuteronomistic tradition (although one cannot entirely exclude the possibility that 1 Kings 12 later inﬂuenced the design of Exodus 32). Evidence of this is not only based on the

228

chapter eight

diﬀerences with Deuteronomy 9. If Exodus 32 were to be understood as tradition-historically dependant on the narrative of 1 Kings 12, then it would be impossible to explain why the author of the former accuses the entire people of idolatry at Sinai. The literary-critical analysis of Exodus 32 likewise conﬁrms this conclusion. A persuasively Deuteronomistic passage, in which Moses’ intercession on behalf of the people is heard by yhwh (contra vv. 30–34!) was added to the oldest layer in vv. 7–14. Reminiscent of the Levi statement in Deut. 33:8–11, the remarkable passage Exod. 32:25–29, which tells of the bloodbath instigated among the people by the Levites and which etiologically underpins and defends their right to the priesthood in the anti-Aaronide sense, is likewise a later account associated with the present narrative. Exodus 33 turns around the theme of God’s presence and guidance in the wilderness after the departure from Sinai and constitutes a fairly loose collection of various interwoven elements. A literary analysis of this material in line with traditional source theory is more or less out of the question. The announcement that the angel of yhwh, not yhwh himself, is going to go before the people (cf. Exod. 32:34), is experienced by Israel according to the Deuteronomistically reworked segment 33:1–6 as a punishment. Moses’ appeal for God’s personal guidance in 33:12–17 would appear to be related thereto (although the content of v. 12 is something of a surprise following 33:2). The narrative of Moses’ erection of the tent of meeting (33:7–11), in which yhwh spoke to him “face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (33:11), undoubtedly constitutes an originally independent tradition, although it is framed in the present context as a reference to Moses’ role as mediator and the respect shown him by the people in this regard. The passage 33:18–23, in which Moses asks to be able to see God’s glory but is only aﬀorded a glimpse thereof, functions in the context as a manifestation of God’s “goodness” (v. 19) and mercy towards his people (cf. Exod. 34:6). At the beginning of Exodus 34, yhwh’s command to Moses to cut out new stone tablets (after he had shattered the ﬁrst set: Exod. 32:19), the theophany, which goes hand in hand with the announcement of God’s benevolence and righteousness, and Moses’ appeal for yhwh’s personal guidance (34:1–9) all serve to conceal the promise of a restoration of the rupture that had arisen between yhwh and his people on account of the latter’s disloyalty and disaﬀection. The consequences of this situation had been evident for a long time.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

229

Many (e.g. Goethe, Wellhausen and Mowinckel) have been inclined to consider the text of Exod. 34:11–26, the content of which is strikingly similar to “the mantle of the Book of the Covenant” (Exod. 20:23vv.; 23:12, 13b–19), as evidence of a cultic Decalogue, older than the ethical Decalogue found in Exodus 20. The same scholars likewise tend to ascribe the former (Exodus 34) to J and the latter (Exodus 20) to E. The tradition of the two sets of stone tablets may indeed contain an allusion to two ancient collections of covenant stipulations. Aside form the problems surrounding the assignation of Exod. 20:2–17 to E, however, and since the protests voiced by Eerdmans and Sellin against the hypothesis that Exod. 34:11ﬀ. contains a Decalogue, objections to this thesis have increased to such an extent that we are obliged to argue that little more can be said in its favour (cf. Halbe 1975). Scholars endeavour to ascribe the ﬁnal section of the chapter, which speaks of the shining skin of Moses’ face after descending Mount Sinai, a result of having spoken with yhwh (34:29–35), to P. 3. The narratives in Numbers and Deuteronomy 31 (conclusion), 32 (beginning) and 34 Beginning with notations assigned to P concerning the departure from Sinai (Num. 10:11–28), the narrative of the period in the wilderness is continued in Num. 10:29–14:45; 15:32–36; 16; 17; 20–27; 31; 32; 33–36 and the conclusion of Deuteronomy. The literary sources we have been discussing are also to be found in these passages. Scholars endeavour to asign the following to P: signiﬁcant portions of the narrative concerning the twelve men sent to spy out the land (Numbers 13f.), of the story of Korah (16–17) and the punishment of Moses and Aaron associated with the water miracle at Meribat-Kadesh (20:1–13; cf. Exod. 17:1–7); the description of the death of Aaron (20:22–29); a short note on the encampment in the ﬁelds of Moab (22:1); the Phinehas scene (25:6–18); the counting of the people in the ﬁelds of Moab (26); the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (27:1–11); the announcement of Moses’ death and the appointment of Joshua as his successor (27:12–23); the revenge action against the Midianites (31); an overview of the journey through the wilderness (33:1–49); instructions for apportioning Canaan and the boundaries of the land by lot (33:50–34:29); stipulations concerning Levite cities and free cities (35) and an appendix on marriage

230

chapter eight

of the daughters of Zelophehad (36; cf. 27:1–11). The narrative of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath (15:32–36) has the character of a later interpolation. Up to the description of his death, Aaron has a signiﬁcant role to play in these text segments alongside Moses and the summaries clearly belong to the lists associated with P. The style of the segments in question is also recognisably that of P. The oft supported suggestion that traces of P can be found in Deut. 1:1b–3 and 34:7ﬀ. has been refuted in recent research. With the exception of the priestly laws, the remaining segments are based for the most part on J traditions together with traditions ascribed to E. In the present instance also, however, one is obliged to account for material of a diﬀerent origin to the aforementioned sources. While the story of Balaam found in Numbers 22–24, which bears the character of being a unique tradition (the proverbs of which being at least in part older than the narrative itself ), contains consistent evidence of both J and E, it would appear to be impossible nevertheless to distinguish the said sources from one another in any water-tight fashion. As with the book of Exodus, the second part of the book of Numbers also contains clear indications in places of a Deuteronomistic hand (see, for example, in Num. 14:11–25 [cf. Exod. 32:10–14] and the story of the spies). It will be apparent from the discussion so far that in line with the narratives of the book of Genesis, those of the books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are of a composite character and are not the work of a single hand. While one must agree that the texts as we now have them create the image of being a single, continuous history (thus justifying a synchronic reading thereof ), they nevertheless reveal evidence of a variety of literary sources and a process of repeated reworking that served to introduce countless new elements, so much so that the ﬁnal result is clearly a colourful collection of traditions (thus making diachronic analysis a necessity).

f. The laws of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers Commentaries: Exodus: see above under e. Leviticus: A. Bertholet (KH) 1901; B. Baentsch (HKAT) 1903; P. Heinisch (HSAT) 1935; J. W. de Wilde (TU) 1937; A. Noordtzij (KV) 1940; W. H.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

231

Gispen (COT) 1950; M. Noth (ATD) 1962, 19784; J. G. Vink (BOT) 1962; K. Elliger (HAT) 1966; N. H. Snaith (CB) 1967; B. Maarsingh (POT) 1974, 19893; J. R. Porter (CNEB) 1976; G. J. Wenham (NICOT) 1979, 19882; W. Kornfeld (NEB) 1983; R. Rendtorﬀ (BK) 1985vv. (= Lev. 1:1–7:38); J. Milgrom (AB) 1991 (= Leviticus 1–16); J. E. Hartley (WBC) 1992; E. S. Gerstenberger (ATD) 1993; Ph. J. Budd (NCB) 1996.

Numbers: see above under e. With the exception of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2–17; cf. Deut. 5:6–21), the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:23–23:33) and a segment of the legislation concerning the tabernacle (Exodus 25–31; 35–40; Leviticus 8–9), the laws of the Pentateuch do not form an integrative part of the original narratives thereof. Stemming from a variety of diﬀerent periods and widely divergent in character, they can be considered as a rule to have been introduced into the books of Exodus-Numbers as secondary material. Excluding Deuteronomy, the laws of the Pentateuch can be collected together under the following rubrics: 1. The Decalogue (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21) 2. The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:23–23:33) 3. Legislation concerning the tabernacle (Exodus 25–31, 35–40; Leviticus 8–9) 4. Sacriﬁcial laws (Leviticus 1–7) 5. Purity laws (Leviticus 11–16) 6. The (so-called) Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26) with its appendix (Leviticus 27) 7. Various Levitical and priestly laws (Numbers 5–6, 8–10, 15, 18–19, 27–30). 1. The Decalogue (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21) S. Mowinckel, Le Décalogue (Etudes d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 16), Paris 1927; L. Köhler, “Der Dekalog”, ThR 1 (1929), 161–184; H. H. Rowley, “Moses and the Decalogue”, BJRL 34 (1951/1952), 81–118 (lit.!); G. E. Mendenhall, “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law”, BiAr 17 (1954), 26–45; id., “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition”, BiAr 17 (1954), 50–76; K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen 1960; J. J. Stamm, “Dreißig Jahre Dekalogforschung”, ThR 27 (1961), 189–239, 281–305; id., Der Dekalog im Lichte der neueren Forschung, Bern-Stuttgart 19622; H. Graf Reventlow, Gebot und Predigt im Dekalog, Gütersloh 1962; J. L. Koole, De tien geboden, Baarn 1964; E. S. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des “Apodiktischen

232

chapter eight

Rechts” (WMANT 20), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1965; E. Nielsen, Die zehn Gebote. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Skizze (Acta Theologica Danica 8), Copenhagen 1965; G. Fohrer, “Das sogenannte apodiktisch formulierte Recht und der Dekalog”, in: id., Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte (1949–1965) (BZAW 115), Berlin 1969, pp. 120–148; L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, pp. 77–102; A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue, Oxford 1970; B. Reicke, Die Zehn Worte in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tübingen 1973; H. SchüngelStraumann, Der Dekalog—Gottes Gebote?, Stuttgart 1973; J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes: Ex 34,10–26. Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT 114), Göttingen 1975; E. W. Nicholson, “The Decalogue as the Direct Address of God”, VT 27 (1977), 422–433; A. Lemaire, “Le décalogue: Essai d’histoire de la rédaction”, in: M. Carrez e.a. (eds.), De la Torah au Messie (FS H. Cazelles), Paris 1981, pp. 159–195; F. L. Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (OBO 45), Freiburg/Göttingen 1982; C. Carmichael, The Ten Commandments, Oxford 1983; F. Crüsemann, Bewahrung der Freiheit: Das Thema des Dekalogs in sozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive (Kaiser Traktate 78), Munich 1983; R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34, Sheﬃeld 1983; B. Lang, “Neues über den Dekalog”, Theologische Quartalschrift 164 (1984), 58–65; C. Levin, “Der Dekalog am Sinai”, VT 35 (1985), 161–191; C. Brekelmans, “Deuteronomy 5: Its Place and Function”, in: N. Lohﬁnk (ed.), Das Deuteronomium (BEThL 68), Leuven 1985, pp. 164–173; R. F. Collins, Christian Morality: Biblical Foundations, Notre Dame IN 1986; J. Vincent, “Neuere Aspekte der Dekalogforschung”, BN 32 (1986), 83–104; W. Johnstone, “The Decalogue and the Redaction of the Sinai Pericope in Exodus”, ZAW 100 (1988), 361–385; B. Z. Segal (ed.), The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, Jerusalem 1990; W. H. Schmidt e.a., Die zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik, Darmstadt 1993; R. G. Kratz, “Der Dekalog im Exodusbuch”, VT 44 (1994), 205–238.

The Decalogue154 of Exod. 20:2–17, the Ten Words (cf. Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), also referred to as the Ten Commandments, can be found in a variant form in Deut. 5:6–21. The most striking diﬀerence between the two texts has to do with the motivation behind the command to keep the sabbath, the former (Exod. 20:9–11) relating the command to the priestly creation narrative (cf. Gen. 1:1–2:4a), the latter (Deut. 5:12–15) providing it with socio-religious foundations. The Decalogue, which contains ethical and religious prescriptions, is considered to have been given by God to his people on Mount Sinai. According to Zwingli, Calvin, Reformed Protestantism and the

154

The term is borrowed from the Greek expression deka logoi: “ten words”.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

233

Anglican Church,155 the prologue (“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery”) is followed by ﬁve prescriptions relating to one’s duties towards God and one’s parents (the so-called “pietas”): 1) the prohibition against the worship of gods other than yhwh,156 (2) the prohibition against the manufacture of divine images,157 (3) the prohibition against the misuse of the name of God,158 (4) the command to uphold the day of rest (the sabbath)159 and (5) the command to honour one’s mother and father.160 The remaining ﬁve commandments have to do with one’s relationship with one’s neighbour (the so-called “probitas”): the prohibition against (6) murder, (7) adultery, (8) stealing (which Alt and others maintain to be a reference, at least in origin, to the theft of human persons),161 (9) bearing false witness in a court case and (10) coveting the property of one’s neighbour.162 Preceded by the 155 The Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions follow the division of Clement of Alexandria and Augustine, whereby Exod. 20:2–6 is understood as a single commandment and v. 17 (the tenth commandment) is split in two. Jewish circles take v. 2 as the ﬁrst commandment and vv. 3–6 as the second. 156 W. H. Schmidt, Das erste Gebot: Seine Bedeutung für das Alte Testament, Munich 1969; T. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, Atlanta GA 1986. 157 Cf. A. Kruiswijk, “Geen gesneden beeld . . .”, Franeker 1962; C. Dohmen, Das Bilderverbot: Seine Entstehung und seine Entwicklung im Alten Testament, Königstein/Bonn 1985, 19872; T. N. D. Mettinger, “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins”, in: K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book (CBET 21), Leuven 1997, pp. 173–204. 158 B. Lang, “Das Verbot des Meineids im Dekalog”, Theologische Quartalschrift 161 (1981), 97–105. 159 Cf. Th. C. Vriezen, “Kalender en Sabbat”, Nieuwe Theologische Studiën 23 (1940), 172–195; E. Jenni, Die theologische Begründung des Sabbatgebotes im Alten Testament (Theologische Studien 46), Zurich 1956; J. H. Meesters, Op zoek naar de oorsprong van de sabbat, Assen 1964; G. Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath, Frankfurt am Main etc. 1988; E. Spier, Der Sabbat, Berlin 1989. 160 Cf. R. Albertz, “Hintergrund und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Dekalog”, ZAW 90 (1978), 348–374; W. Schottroﬀ, “Alter als soziales Problem in der hebräischen Bibel”, in: Was ist der Mensch . . .? (FS H. W. Wolﬀ ), Munich 1992, pp. 61–77. See also M. Stol and S. P. Vleeming, The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East (Studies in the History and Culture of the Near East 14), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1998. 161 A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I, Munich 1959, pp. 333–340. See, however, H. Klein, “Verbot des Menschendiebstahls im Dekalog? Prüfung einer These Albrecht Alts”, VT 26 (1976), 161–169. 162 Cf. B. Gemser, “Het object van het zedelijk oordeel in het Oude Testament”, Homiletica en Biblica 20 (1961), 2–9,35–39 (= id., “The Object of Moral Judgment in the Old Testament”, in: A. van Selms and A. S. van der Woude (eds.), Adhuc loquitur (Pretoria Oriental Series 7), Leiden 1968, pp. 78–95); B. Lang, “Du sollst nicht nach der Frau eines anderen verlangen”, ZAW 93 (1981), 216–224; R. I.

234

chapter eight

prologue (“the gospel precedes the law”), the entire text163 constitutes an all-embracing proclamation of God’s will. According to the Old Testament, the Decalogue was written by yhwh himself (Exod. 24:12; 31:18; 32:16; 34:1, 28; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 10:4) on both sides of two stone tablets (Exod. 32:15). No reference is made to the distribution of the commandments over the tablets, which tradition maintains were given a place in the ark of the covenant (Exod. 25:16, 21; 40:20).

The Decalogue of Exodus 20 would appear to be so loosely anchored in its context that one is left with the impression that it was added to the exodus narrative at a later date. Some scholars are of the opinion, for example, that the Decalogue of Exod. 20:1–17 interrupts the cohesive ﬂow between Exod. 19:19(25) and Exod. 20:18–21, and that it was once located after Exod. 20:18–21, prior to the (accepted) interpolation of the Book of the Covenant (see paragraph 2). Both Exod. 20:22 and Exod. 20:20, however, evidently presuppose Exod. 20:1–17 (cf. also Deuteronomy 5). In the present instance it is hard to imagine a theophany of yhwh without the giving of the law. One might consider the possibility that Deuteronomy 5 represents the Northern Israelite version of the Decalogue and Exodus 20 the Judean version.164 Both forms would appear to hark back to a (impossible to reconstruct with any accuracy) proto-Decalogue that contained extremely short commandments without further motivation,165 as is presently the case with respect to the sixth to the ninth commandments. The Decalogue had its place in the cult, possibly during the feast of the renewal of the covenant (cf. Deut. 31:10–13 and Psalms 50 and 81). Many have considered the Decalogue to be relatively young, arguing that the prophets would have been the ﬁrst to introduce an ethVasholz, “You Shall not Covet your Neighbor’s Wife”, Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987), 397–403. 163 A detailed commentary on the individual commandments with extensive bibliography can be found in C. Houtman, Exodus III, Kampen 1996, pp. 27–80. 164 This consideration naturally goes hand in hand with our thesis that the ﬁrst edition of Deuteronomy stems from Northern Israel (see further our discussion of the Book of Deuteronomy). 165 For the motive clauses in the laws of the Old Testament see B. Gemser, “The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law”, in: Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (SVT 1), Leiden 1953, pp. 50–66 (= A. van Selms and A. S. van der Woude (eds.), Adhuc loquitur [Pretoria Oriental Series 7], Leiden 1968, pp. 96–115).

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

235

ical dimension into Israel’s religion. The prohibition against images and the commandment to honour the sabbath would likewise appear to support a late date. The characteristic inﬂuence of the prophets, however, cannot be traced in the Ten Commandments, nor is the vocabulary found therein related to their preaching. There is no conclusive evidence to support the suggestion that the prohibition against images and the sabbath commandment are young. On the other hand, while there is no compelling argument in support of the proposed Mosaic origins of the (proto-)Decalogue, the possibility itself cannot be simply dismissed out of hand. Scholars argue to and fro as to whether Hos. 4:2 and Jer. 7:9 refer to the Decalogue, but the possibility still remains open. The manner with which the prophet Nathan chastises King David in 2 Samuel 12 on account of the latter’s treatment of Bathsheba and her husband Uriah can only be explained with any degree of satisfaction in its Ancient Near Eastern context if one accepts the fact that both Nathan and David were familiar with the seventh and the tenth commandments. The question of dating the (proto-)Decalogue remains closely related to one’s opinion as to the character thereof. If one is inclined to follow Alt and consider the Ten Commandments as a summary of serious crimes deserving the death penalty (cf. also Phillips 1970), or as a literary compilation of provisions representing the essence of God’s will and based on a collection of diﬀerent types of laws (Houtman, Exodus III, Kampen 1996), then one will tend to accept a relatively late date for the origins of the Decalogue. If, on the other hand, one is inclined to follow Vriezen166 and consider the latter as a sort of “manifesto”, as a collection of normative rules for the existence of a people analogous to the Ancient Near Eastern “ideal legislation” established by a ruler at the beginning of his reign, then one will not tend to exclude the possibility of Mosaic origins in advance. The evidently priestly and Deuteronomically tinted formulation of the motivation of a number of the commandments reveals, however, that the ﬁnal form of the decalogue of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy stem from a relatively late date. Twentieth century critical research into the age and origins of the Decalogue exhibits a number of pendulum swings and has given rise to a variety of divergent results. While many followed Wellhausen around 1900, excluded 166

Th. C. Vriezen, De godsdienst van Israël, Zeist-Arnhem-Antwerp 1963, p. 119.

236

chapter eight

the possibility of Mosaic origins and argued for a date/time of origin for the Ten Commandments dependent on the preaching of the prophets, a whole series of critical scholars in the decades that followed either refused to exclude the possibility of Mosaic origins (cf., for example, L. Köhler 1929 and H. H. Rowley 1951/1952) or at least emphasised the Decalogue’s considerable age. Such scholars were correct in arguing that the inﬂuence of the socio-ethical preaching of the prophets cannot be traced in the Decalogue. It was likewise observed that Israel’s resolute resistance to the nature religion of the Canaanites after the Landnahme would have been impossible to explain without some form of powerful religious impulse at the earliest stages of its history. S. Mowinckel (1927) located the origins of the Decalogue in the cult, especially in the New Year feast—c.q. in his proposed feast of yhwh’s accession to the throne. While he correctly considered current versions of the Ten Commandments to be relatively young, he nevertheless maintained their origins to be ancient. G. von Rad considered the Sinai pericope to be the festival legend of a speciﬁc cultic celebration and the Sinai tradition to be the content of the Shechemite covenant feast. While it does remain possible that the Decalogue enjoyed some kind of cultic function (cf. Psalms 50:16–20 and 81:9–10), it is far from established that the Ten Commandments owe their origins to the cult. Albrecht Alt suggested that we should search for the roots of the Decalogue in apodictic law (see the following paragraph).167 A new phase in the study of the Ten Commandments was introduced by G. Mendenhall (1954) who associated the Decalogue with Hittite vassal treaties (cf. also Baltzer 1960). Essential elements of such treaties (e.g. curse formulas; sanctions imposed upon violation of the treaty), however, are absent from the Sinai tradition of Exodus. Gerstenberger (1965) rejected the thesis that the Ten Commandments owed their origins to the cult or were formally related to Hittite treaties and argued that we should consider their roots to be in the ethics of the clan. Phillips (1970) considered the Decalogue to be a summary of Israel’s penal law in the context of the covenant. The studies of Nielsen (1965), Hossfeld (1982) and Lang (1984) presuppose that the Decalogue was preceded by a number of collections of legal prescriptions. Together with Stamm (19622, p. 31), however, one might be inclined to ask whether the opposite was not the case.

Commentators have frequently argued in favour of the existence of an (older) cultic Decalogue in Exod. 34:10–26 in addition to the (ethical) Ten Commandments of Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5 since the former exhibits striking agreements with “the mantle of the Book

167 A. Alt, Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts (Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse 86, Band 1, 1. Heft), Leipzig 1934 (= id., Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I, Munich 1959, pp. 278–332).

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

237

of the Covenant” (Exod. 20:23ﬀ.; 23:12, 13b–19).168 Rowley (1951/ 1952) considered this to be a pre-Mosaic series of commandments borrowed from the Kenites that continued to enjoy validity among the southern tribes of Israel for a signiﬁcant period of time. It would seem, nevertheless, that Exod. 34:11–26 does not contain a cultic Decalogue (cf. Halbe 1975; Houtman, commentary 1996, p. 692) and that we should no longer speak of two Sinai Decalogues to be ascribed to E (the ethical Decalogue) and J (the cultic Decalogue) respectively. 2. The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:23–23:33) A. Jepsen, Untersuchungen zum Bundesbuch (BWANT 41), Stuttgart 1927; A. Jirku, Das weltliche Recht im Alten Testament, Gütersloh 1927; A. Menes, Die vorexilischen Gesetze Israels (BZAW 50), Giessen 1928; M. Noth, Die Gesetze im Pentateuch, Halle 1940 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum AT [TB 6], Munich 1960, pp. 9–141); H. Cazelles, Etudes sur le Code de l’alliance, Paris 1946; A. Alt, Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts, in: id., Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I, Munich 19592, pp. 278–332; H. A. Brongers, Oud-oosters en bijbels recht, Nijkerk 1960; E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des apodiktischen Rechts (WMANT 20), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1965; L. Rost, “Das Bundesbuch”, ZAW 77 (1965), 255–259; S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (SVT 18), Leiden 1970; F. L. Horton, “A Reassessment of the Legal Forms in the Pentateuch and their Functions”, SBL Seminar Papers 2 (1971), 359–360; J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,10 –26. Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT 114), Göttingen 1975; H. J. Boecker, Recht und Gesetz im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient, Neukirchen-Vluyn 19842; F. Crüsemann, “Das Bundesbuch—historischer Ort und institutioneller Hintergrund”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT 40), Leiden 1988, pp. 27–41; E. Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des “Bundesbuches” Ex XX 22—XXIII 13, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1988; id., “Interdependenzen zwischen Geschichte und Rechtsgeschichte des antiken Israels”, Rechthistorisches Journal 7 (1988), 347–368; id., Rechtsgeschichte der Redaktionen im Kodex E“nunna und im “Bundesbuch”: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche und rechtsvergleichende Studie zu altbabylonischen und altisraelitischen Rechtsüberlieferungen, Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1989; id., Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart etc. 1994; R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, Paris 1988; L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22–23,33). Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW 188), Berlin/New York 1990; Y. Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b–23,33 (OBO 105), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1991; 168

Cf. F. E. Wilms, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34, Munich 1973.

238

chapter eight

J. W. Marshall, Israel and the Book of Covenant: An Anthropological Approach to Biblical Law, Atlanta GA 1993; C. Houtman, Das Bundesbuch, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997; T. D. Alexander, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus XIX 1–XXIV 11”, VT 49 (1999), 2–20; R. Rothenbusch, Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung im “Bundesbuch” (Ex 21,2–11.18–22,16) und ihr literarischer Kontext im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen (AOAT 259), Munster 2000 (lit.!).

The designation Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:23–23:19 together with 23:20–33, the latter constituting an epilogue written in the Deuteronomistic spirit) is borrowed from Exod. 24:7. In any event, the legal corpus was known prior to the time of Deuteronomy since the latter document continuously presupposes the Book of the Covenant: Deuteronomy 12–26 constitutes an historical and literary reinterpretation thereof. The Book of the Covenant constitutes a once independent collection of laws that, in spite of frequent argument to the contrary, should not be ascribed to one single Pentateuchal source (E). The document, which contains material of various sorts and from a variety of origins, would appear to have had a complex history. The legal provisions contained therein are likewise formulated in a variety of ways. The “ordinances” (mi“patîm) of 21:1–22:17 (Hebr. 21:1–22:16), for example, contain prescriptions formulated in a casuistic fashion (“when [someone] . . ., then . . .”; 21:12–17 employs a participial style and the formula “he shall certainly be put to death” diﬀers formally from its surroundings). Reference is made to bonded slavery (21:1–11), the violation of another’s physical integrity (21:12–36) and the theft of another’s property (22:1–17, Hebr. 21:37–22:16). Derived from common law, such prescriptions exhibit both formal and content-based agreements with other Ancient Near Eastern legal codes and may have circulated as an independent document. Socioreligious prescriptions, formulated as a rule in apodictic style (e.g. “you shall (not) . . .”), follow in 22:18–23:9 (Hebr. 22:17–23:9) relating to a variety of ‘heinous’ practices (witchcraft, bestiality, idolatry; 22:18–20, Hebr. 22:17–19), care for the socially powerless (22:21–27, Hebr. 22:20–26), the reviling of God169 and the cursing of “a leader

169

For an early interpretation of the term ’Elohîm (“God” or “gods”) see P. W. van der Horst, “‘Gij zult van de goden geen kwaad spreken’: de Septuaginta-vertaling van Exodus 22:27(28)”, NTT 46 (1992), 192–198.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

239

of your people”170 (22:28, Hebr. 22:27), cultic gifts (22:29–30, Hebr. 22:28–29), the meat of ‘mangled’ animals (22:31, Hebr. 22:30), justice in the context of a lawsuit (23:1–3,6–9) and willingness to help one’s neighbour (23:4–5). They appeal to our human sense of responsibility and kindness, to our respect for God and our superiors, to our concern for the socially underprivileged and our love for the truth. In the last analysis, they have to do with a way of living one’s life that cannot be enforced by juridical means, a way of living that remains fundamental for a person who is dedicated to God and the welfare of the religious community as a promoter of social harmony. The text would appear to contain a number of Deuteronomistic interpolations (cf. 22:21b, 23b–24, 27 [Hebr. 22:20b, 22b–23, 26]; 23:9b, 13). The distinction between casuistically and apodictically formulated legal prescriptions was promoted primarily by Alt in his 1934 article, reprinted in his Kleine Schriften of 1959. He considered the former to reﬂect the “(common)law of the gate” and the latter a “divine law” typical of Ancient Israel. Alt did not account for mixed forms containing both casuistic and apodictic formulations. While he considered the participial formulation of legal prescriptions to be apodictic law, there are good reasons to categorise such formulations under casuistic law. Some scholars have oﬀered a more reﬁned subdivision to that of Alt (cf. Cazelles 1946; Horton 1971) or have proposed changes in the terminology employed (e.g. Gerstenberger 1965; Boecker 19842). Alt’s thesis that apodictic law was typically Israelite has turned out to be untenable.

The above mentioned prescriptions found in 21:1–22:17 (Hebr. 22:1–22:16) and 22:18–23:9 (Hebr. 22:17–23:9) are surrounded by a number of ordinances concerning the cultic service of yhwh (20:22–26 [“the altar code”]; 23:10–19 [“the cultic calendar”]), which exhibit striking agreements with Exod. 34:10–26 (cf. Halbe 1975). A sermon exhibiting Deuteronomistic characteristics was added to the complex in the form of an epilogue (Exod. 23:20–33). In terms of its origin, the Book of the Covenant stands apart from the Sinai event. Commentators correctly point out that the legal prescriptions of the former bear no demonstrable relationship in terms of content with the establishment of the covenant at Sinai and that

170 It is diﬃcult to determine whether allusion is being made at this juncture to a tribal chief or a king. The former is more probable.

240

chapter eight

presence in the promised land is presupposed (people live in houses [Exod. 22:2, 7–8, Hebr. 22:1, 6–7] and ought to visit established sanctuaries [Exod. 23:17, 19]; reference is made to a grain and wine harvest [Exod. 22:29, Hebr. 22:28; cf. 23:10–11] and to olive trees [Exod. 23:11]). In the context of literary transmission, however, the Book of the Covenant is closely associated with the Sinai tradition (cf. how Exod. 24:1 clearly refers back to Exod. 20:22; see Alexander, op. cit., 1999). The Book of the Covenant should be considered more of an expression of Israel’s desired law than an expression of its actual legal praxis. The “ordinances” and the apodictically formulated segments of this collection of laws contain traces of a legal system that conforms in many respects with Ancient Near Eastern legal norms and the spiritual values respected in Israel’s Umwelt. A great deal has been written concerning the age of the Book of the Covenant. Given the total absence of reference to urban commercial culture and the monarchy (later interpolations excepted), a dating of the legal corpus during the period of the judges or the early period of the kings cannot be excluded. 3. Legislation concerning the tabernacle (Exodus 25–31, 35–40; Leviticus 8–9) G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch, Stuttgart-Berlin 1934; F. M. Cross, “The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach”, BiAr 10 (1947), 45–68; A. Kuschke, “Die Lagervorstellung der priesterschriftlichen Erzählung”, ZAW 63 (1951), 74–105; K. Koch, Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16. Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung (FRLANT 71), Göttingen 1959; D. W. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Problems of the Greek Exodus, Cambridge 1959; F. M. Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle”, BAR 1 (1961), 201–228; M. Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle”, HUCA 36 (1965), 191–226; B. A. Levine, “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch”, JAOS 85 (1965), 307–318; V. Rabe, “The Identity of the Priestly Tabernacle”, JNES 25 (1966), 132–134; M. Görg, Das Zelt der Begegnung (BBB 27), Bonn 1967; T. E. Fretheim, “The Priestly Document: Anti-Temple?”, VT 18 (1968), 313–329; R. Schmitt, Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft, Gütersloh 1972; Y. Aharoni, “The Solomonic Temple, the Tabernacle, and the Arad Sanctuary”, in: H. A. Hoﬀmann Jr. (ed.), Orient and Occident (AOAT 22; FS C. H. Gordon), Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, pp. 1–8; B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL), Philadelphia 1974; B. Pelzl, “Das Zeltheiligtum von Ex 25ﬀ.: Die Frage nach der Möglichkeit seiner Errichtung”, UF 7 (1975), 379–387; id., “Thesen

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

241

zur Entstehung des Zeltbauberichtes von Ex 25ﬀ und seiner Geschichte”, UF 8 (1976), 323–326; V. Fritz, Tempel und Zelt. Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift (WMANT 47), NeukirchenVluyn 1977; P. J. Kearny, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40”, ZAW 89 (1977), 375–387; M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1978, pp. 149vv.; R. E. Friedman, “The Tabernacle in the Temple”, BiAr 43 (1980), 241–248; A. Biran (ed.), Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, Jerusalem 1981 (containing F. M. Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle in Recent Research”, pp. 169–180); V. Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle”, JAOS 105 (1985), 21–30; H. Utzschneider, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25– 40; Lev 8–9) (OBO 77), Freiburg/Göttingen 1988; C. R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament, Washington DC 1989; B. J. Diebner, “Gottes Welt, Moses Zelt und das salomonische Heiligtum”, in: Th. Römer (ed.), Lectio diﬃcilior probabilior? (FS F. Smyth-Florentin), Heidelberg 1991, pp. 127–154; B. Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterlichen heiligtumskonzeption”, in id., Gottes Gegenwart in Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, 214–46.

Wellhausen and his followers considered the biblical data concerning the tabernacle as a temporary and portable structure that housed the ark of the covenant, formed the focal point of the liturgy (Lev. 17:1–9) and served as “the tent of meeting” (Exod. 33:7), as the location of God’s revelation to be a historical ﬁction penned by postexilic priestly authors and a projection of the Solomonic temple in the Mosaic period. Scholars have rightly criticised this presentation. Information concerning the tabernacle in Exodus 25–31, 35–40 and Leviticus 8–9 tends rather to represent the result of a combination of an extremely ancient tent tradition, as is still to be found in Exod. 33:7–11, and elements of a tabernacle tradition that had its roots in turn in traditions surrounding the wilderness sanctuary and Ancient Near Eastern temple traditions. The latter were indeed inﬂuenced, in part, by information gleaned from the Temple of Solomon (B. S. Childs, op. cit., 1974, pp. 512ﬀ.). Scholars have endeavoured to solve the lack of harmony in the information we have at our disposal concerning the tabernacle by hypothesising three diﬀerent redactions (Baentsch) or by presupposing the existence of two diﬀerent layers of P throughout the entire Pentateuch (P a and P b: Von Rad and Galling). Such arguments have turned out to be unconvincing. Irregularities observable in texts relating to the tabernacle can be ascribed to a signiﬁcant extent to later interpolations and to traces left behind by older traditions. Elements

242

chapter eight

of an ancient tent tradition that narrated God’s encounter with Moses (cf. Exod. 33:7–11) have been preserved in Exod. 25:22; 29:42; 30:6, 36. The ancient tabernacle tradition contained reference to the construction of a tent sanctuary with its various ﬁttings according to the model thereof revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exod. 25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8; Num. 8:4). It is worthy of note that this presentation cannot be regarded as a constituent part of later priestly theology and as such cannot be found in Exodus 35–39(40). While the aforementioned chapters consistently and closely follow God’s instructions as found in Exodus 25–31 with reference to the description of the implementation of the construction of the tabernacle, the diﬀerences should certainly not be ignored. The organisation of the material found in Exodus 25–31 on the one hand and in 35–39(40) on the other frequently diﬀers. In terms of style and terminology, both text segments do not always follow the same path. Chapters 35–39(40), the Septuagint version of which diﬀers extensively from that of the Masoretic tradition, represents a later stage in the development of the priestly theology than Exodus 25–31. No convincing argument has been raised to the present in support of dating the codiﬁcation of the aforementioned chapters in the exilic, let alone post-exilic period. While the description of the tabernacle establishes a bridge with the temple of Solomon, it would be wrong to insist that the portable tent sanctuary of the wilderness period is a historical ﬁction, especially in light of the sanctuary at Shiloh (cf. Josh. 18;1, 8, 9; 1 Samuel 1–4; Jer. 7:12, 14; 26:6, 9) and the tent set up for the ark by David (2 Sam. 6:17). 4. The sacriﬁcial laws (Leviticus 1–7) R. Dussaud, Les origines cananéeens du sacriﬁce israélite, Paris 1941; R. Rendtorﬀ, Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift (FRLANT 62), Göttingen 1954, 19632; id., Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alten Testament (WMANT 24), NeukirchenVluyn 1967; L. Moraldi, Espiazione sacriﬁcale e riti espiatori nell’ambiente biblico e nell’Antico Testamento (AnBibl 5), Rome 1956; N. Snaith, “Sacriﬁces in the Old Testament”, VT 7 (1957), 308–317; R. de Vaux, Les sacriﬁces de l’Ancien Testament (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 1), Paris 1964; R. Schmid, Das Bundesopfer in Israel, Munich 1964; A. H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester (FRLANT 89), Göttingen 1965; H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel, London 1967; B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, Leiden 1974; J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience. The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 18), Leiden 1976; id., Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36), Leiden 1983; L. Rost,

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

243

Studien zum Opfer im Alten Israel (BWANT 113), Stuttgart 1981; B. Janowsky, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen (WMANT 55), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982; M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against their Ancient Near Eastern Background”, in: Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem 1983, pp. 95–129; G. A. Anderson, Sacriﬁces and Oﬀerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance (Harvard Semitic Monographs 41), Atlanta GA 1987; L. L. Grabbe, Leviticus (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1993.

In spite of their relatively late codiﬁcation, the sacriﬁcial laws of Leviticus 1–7, which would appear to have once existed as an independent collection (at least chapters 6–7; cf. Lev. 7:37–38), reﬂect ancient traditions associated with the temple in Jerusalem. It would likewise seem that cultic customs (certainly those of the Ancient Near East) tended to remain more or less unaltered over several centuries. Together with Rendtorﬀ (1954; 1967), one must distinguish between chapters 1–5, which contain a collection of cultic prescriptions for lay people, and chapters 6–7, which were written with the priests in mind. The latter chapters contain a list of rather short prescriptions, instructions concerning the sacriﬁce and the activities surrounding it. They are introduced by the stereotype formula: “This is the ritual of the burnt oﬀering, grain oﬀering etc.” (Lev. 6:9, 14, 25 [Hebr. 6:2, 7, 17]; 7:1, 11). The sequence of the various types of sacriﬁce here in chapters 6–7 (burnt oﬀering, grain oﬀering, sin oﬀering, guilt oﬀering, peace oﬀering or oﬀering of well-being) diﬀers to a degree from that found in chapters 1–5 (burnt oﬀering, grain oﬀering, peace oﬀering, sin oﬀering, guilt oﬀering). Particular emphasis is placed in chapters 6–7 on the parts of the sacriﬁce ascribed to the priests. A number of sacriﬁces are designated as "i““è, which is better translated as “oﬀering/oblation”171 than “burnt oﬀering” (cf. NBG). The burnt oﬀering (Lev. 1:2–17; 6:8–13) was entirely consumed by ﬂame and enjoyed a reconciliatory function. The grain oﬀering (2:1–16; 6:14–23) was unleavened and unsalted as a sign of the covenant (2:13). The peace oﬀering (3:1–17; 7:11–21, 28–34) was a voluntary oblation in thanksgiving or accompanying a vow. The expression “peace oﬀering” is a translation of the Hebrew zèbach “elamîm and is not the best choice [better to speak of an “oﬀering of well-being” (Grabbe, NRSV), of a “Heilsmahlopfer” (Elliger) or of a “Gemeinschaftsschlachtopfer” (Noth; Rendtorﬀ )]. The sin oﬀering (4:1–5:13; 6:24–30; Milgrom:

171 Cf. J. Hoftijzer, “Das sogenannte Feueropfer”, in: Hebräische Wortforschung (FS W. Baumgartner; SVT 16), Leiden 1967, pp. 114–134.

244

chapter eight

“puriﬁcatory oﬀering”) was usually made in the context of unintentional sin. The guilt oﬀering (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10; Milgrom: “reparation oﬀering”) would appear to have been made in the context of unintentional blasphemy of one kind or another.

Information gleaned from Leviticus 1–7 does not provide a complete picture of Israel’s sacriﬁces since no reference is made therein to the libation and the function of the grain oﬀering remains at least partly obscure. Whether one should presuppose prophetic inﬂuence in the references to the fact that sin and guilt oﬀerings were only to be made in the context of unintentional transgressions or sins committed due to negligence remains a question. It would seem that Jerusalem’s cultic legislation was associated with ethical prescriptions from early times (cf. Psalms 15 and 24). 5. The puriﬁcation laws (Leviticus 11–16) J. Döller, Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des Alten Testaments in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen VII 2/3), Munster 1917; S. Landersdorfer, Studien zum biblischen Versöhnungstag (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen X 1), Munster 1924; M. Löhr, Das Ritual von Lev 16, Berlin 1925; I. Schur, Versöhnungstag und Sündenbock, Helsingfors-Leipzig 1934; W. H. Gispen, De Levitische wet op de melaatschheid, Kampen 1945; Th. C. Vriezen, “The Term Hizza: Lustration and Consecration”, OTS 7 (1950), 201–235; W. Paschen, Rein und Unrein: Untersuchung zur biblischen Wortgeschichte, Munich 1970; J. Milgrom, “Sin Oﬀering or Puriﬁcation Oﬀering?”, VT 21 (1971), 237–239; J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, Leiden 1973; E. Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Deﬁlement and Mourning: Law as Theology, New York 1977; K. Seybold und U. Müller, Krankheit und Heilung, Stuttgart 1978; D. P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBL Diss. Series 101), Atlanta GA 1987; P. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World ( JSOT Suppl. 106), Sheﬃeld 1992; L. L. Grabbe, Leviticus (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1993, pp. 49–62.

Purity and the lack thereof had a fundamental role to play in Israel’s religion and liturgy. Cultic purity or impurity should not to be interpreted in terms of hygiene but rather as referring to a state of physical and spiritual purity or impurity that made access to the holy and the Holy One possible or impossible. While cultic purity implies moral “purity” it makes no explicit reference thereto. Leviticus 11–15 places the emphasis on matters that can be estab-

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

245

lished in the exterior forum. It is striking that reference to the sanctuary is barely evident in this regard, purity being related for the most part to every day life. Where priests had a role to play, they tended to function as diagnosticians and therapists (Gerstenberger). The literary unity of Leviticus 11–15 is conﬁrmed by the formulas introducing and concluding its six constituent parts: “yhwh spoke to Moses [and Aaron]” (11:1; 12:1; 13:1; 14:1; 14:33; 15:1) and “this is the ritual of . . .” (11:46; 12:7b; 13:59; 14:32; 14:54ﬀ.; 15:32–33). In terms of content the following themes are treated: pure and impure animals (Leviticus 11, cf. Deut. 14:3–21); the impurity of a woman after the birth of her child (12); dangerous skin diseases (13:1–46)172 and related mould on clothing (13:47–59); puriﬁcation oﬀerings (14:1–32); the formation of moulds in houses (14:33–57)173 and male and female genital discharges (15). In contrast to the preceding chapters, Leviticus 16, which describes the Great Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)174 with its celebratory rites for both the sanctuary and the people (cf. Vriezen 1950), is oriented towards the religious community (cf. Lev. 23:26–32; Num. 29:7–11). It describes a number of ceremonies (especially that of the scapegoat,175 which removed sin in a physical-symbolic fashion) that would appear to be very old, some of which stemming from the pre-Israelite period.176

172 E. V. Hulse, “The Nature of Biblical ‘Leprosy’ and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible”, PEQ 107 (1975), 87–105. 173 T. Seidl, Tora für den “Aussatz”-Fall: literarische Schichten und syntaktische Strukturen in Levitikus 13 und 14 (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 18), St. Ottilien 1982; S. Meier, “House Fungus: Mesopotamia and Israel”, RB 96 (1989), 184–192. 174 Cf. S. Landesdorfer, Studien zum biblischen Versöhnungstag, Munster 1924; K. Aartun, “Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag”, Studia Theologica 34 (1980), 73–109; B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5), Leiden 1974; J. Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36), Leiden 1983; D. P. Wright, op. cit., 1987. 175 O. Loretz, Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel (Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 3), Soest 1985; L. L. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation”, JSJ 18 (1987), 152–167; B. Janowski und G. Wilhelm, “Der Bock, der die Sünden herausträgt”, in: B. Janowski, K. Koch und G. Wilhelm (eds.), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament (OBO 129), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1993, pp. 109–159. 176 Cf. I. Zatelli, “The Origin of the Biblical Scapegoat Ritual: The Evidence of Two Eblaite Texts”, VT 48 (1998), 254–263.

246

chapter eight

6. The (so-called) Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26) A. Klostermann, “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz”, in: id., Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig 1893, pp. 368–418; B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien 4: Das Buch Leviticus, Giessen 1912, pp. 83–143; K. Rabast, Das apodiktische Recht im Deuteronomium und im Heiligkeitsgesetz, Hermsdorf 1948; W. Kornfeld, Studien zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Lev 17–26), Vienna 1952; K. Dronkert, De Molochdienst in het Oude Testament, Leiden 1953; R. North, The Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee (AnBibl 4), Rome 1954; R. Rendtorﬀ, Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift. Eine gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Göttingen 1954; L. E. Elliot-Binns, “Some Problems of the Holiness Code”, ZAW 67 (1955), 26–40; H. Graf Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT 6), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1961; R. Kilian, Literarkritische und formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes (BBB 19), Bonn 1963; Ch. Feucht, Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Theologische Arbeiten 20), Berlin 1964; W. Thiel, Erwägungen zum Alter des Heiligkeitsgesetzes, ZAW 81 (1969), 40–73; H. Jagersma, Leviticus 19 (diss.), Assen 1972; V. Wagner, “Zur Existenz des sogenannten ‘Heiligkeitsgesetzes’”, ZAW 86 (1974), 307–316; A. Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium (AnBibl 66), Rome 1976; W. Zimmerli, “‘Heiligkeit’ nach dem sogenannten Heiligkeitsgesetz”, VT 30 (1980), 493–512; G. Bettenzoli, “Deuteronomium und das Heiligkeitsgesetz”, VT 34 (1984), 385–398; I. Knohl, “The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals”, HUCA 58 (1987), 65–117; L. Grabbe, Leviticus (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1993, pp. 77–100.

Since August Klostermann (1837–1915) many have been inclined to consider the prescriptions found in Leviticus 17–26 (with Leviticus 27 as appendix), which he styled the Holiness Code (H or P h),177 as an originally distinct collection.178 The designation Holiness Code has its roots in the command: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (19:2; cf. also 20:7, 26; 21:6–7, 8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32–33). Determining the boundaries of H is not without diﬃculty. While Chapter 26, which announces blessing for those who keep the commandments and curse for those who do not, does appear to oﬀer a ﬁtting conclusion to a legal codex (cf. Exod. 23:20ﬀ. and Deuteronomy 28), scholars are unable to agree on whether the chapter should be

177 Cf. A. Klostermann, “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz”, Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie und Kirche 38 (1877), 401ﬀ. 178 Already in K. H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 1866, pp. 75–83, which designates Leviticus 17(18)–26 as a separate collection. The expression “Holiness Code” was coined by Klostermann.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

247

considered to form the conclusion of a once independent H or of a larger literary complex.179 It is possible to consider Leviticus 17 with its stipulations concerning the place of sacriﬁce and the prohibition against the use of blood or carrion as analogous to Deuteronomy 12 and Exod. 20:24–26 and as the opening of H. In such a case, however, one will be obliged to note that this chapter lacks the prominent superscription180 and formal characteristics evident in the following chapters. While it is possible to consider the expression “I am yhwh” (Lev. 18:2, 4, 5, 6 etc. up to and including 26:45) as a formula typical of H, one must also be aware that it occurs elsewhere (Exod. 6:7; 12:12; 29:46; Lev. 11:44; Num. 3:13, 41, 45; 10:10; 15:41). Greater signiﬁcance lies in the fact that chapters 18 and 20 contain doublets as well as evidence of a number of interpolations. Lev. 19:5–10, for example, would appear to interrupt the cohesion between the surrounding verses while the references to the calendar and the bread oﬀerings in 24:1–9 constitute something of a Fremdkörper in the accepted collection. Similarly, the midrash in 24:10ﬀ. concerning the punishment due for blasphemy is clearly a late interpolation (cf. Num. 15:32–36). Some segments of H, such as the prohibitions against incest (chapter 18), the determination of punishment in cases of incest (chapter 20) and the prescriptions found in 19:3–4, 11–12, 13–18, may indeed have originally existed as independent tractates. The command “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” or a related formulation thereof is lacking in chapters 23–26, although it has a parallel in Lev. 11:45 (outside H). There would appear to be suﬃcient reason to doubt whether the Holiness Code ever existed as an originally independent collection that was later to be redactionally incorporated into P, let alone, as is often claimed, as a programme of reformation (written in the spirit of Deuteronomy). Besides the fact that it nowhere presents itself as such, H is clearly too irregular, too incomplete and (given the doublets) too confusing to be so considered. Eerdmans (1912) was thus inclined to reject the suggestion that Leviticus 17–26 may have been written to provide the community returning from exile in Babylon 179 R. Rendtorﬀ (op. cit., 1954, p. 155) considers the chapter to be the conclusion to the entire law-giving event at Sinai beginning in Exodus 25 (cf. 26:46 and 27:34). See also Wagner, op. cit., 1974. 180 The introductory words of 17:1–2 constitute P’s customary introductory formula.

248

chapter eight

with a programme for post-exilic worship in Jerusalem. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that he likewise rejected the idea that H had ever functioned as an independent legal corpus. Elliger (HAT commentary, 1966) and Wagner (1974) later followed suit (cf. also Vink, Leviticus [BOT], 1962, p. 67 and Gerstenberger [ATD], 1993). Elliger (commentary 1966) envisaged the origin and development of Leviticus 17–26 in four stages in line with which he distinguished four literary layers (P h 1–P h 4). Wagner (1974) considered H to be part of a literary unit running from Exodus 25 to Leviticus 26 (Exodus 25–31: sanctuary construction plans and inventory; Leviticus 1–7: rituals; Leviticus 11–22: cultic impurity; Leviticus 23, 25: sacred days; Leviticus 26: conclusion). Unable to ﬁnd a distinct caesura in Leviticus 17, he rejected H as a once independent document.

While the exhortatory segments of H exhibit certain agreements with Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic preaching, agreements with Ezekiel are nonetheless of particular interest, especially those found in Leviticus 26 (cf. Lev. 26:4–13 with Ezek. 34:25–31; Lev. 20:2–6 with Ezek. 14:1–11). It is for this reason that H (if one prefers to uphold the idea of an independent collection) has been frequently dated in the period of the Babylonian exile (recognising at the same time that much older elements have been integrated therein; cf. Jagersma [1972]). It would appear, however, that Ezekiel was already familiar with Leviticus 26 and thus dependent on H (cf. Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1 [BK], 1969, pp. 70* ﬀ. and Milgrom).181 A pre-exilic dating for the Holiness Code is thus more or less certain: Leviticus 17–26 contains (with the possible exception of Lev. 24:10–16) no compelling indications that might force us to date these chapters during or after the Babylonian exile. The presupposed prophetic inﬂuence on a number of chapters of H together with its resistance against ‘Canaanisation’ of Israel’s religion and cult, in particular the polemic against the worship of Molech (18:21; 20:1–7; cf. 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10; cf. Dronkert 1953), are easily explained as a reaction to the downfall of the Northern Kingdom and the cultic practices current in Judah at the time. Several segments of H may thus stem from the

181

J. Milgrom, “Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel”, in: C. A. Evans and S. Talmon (eds.), The Quest for Context and Meaning (FS J. A. Sanders), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997, pp. 57–62.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

249

seventh century BCE (cf. Eerdmans 1912). Ezekiel’s use of Leviticus 26 and the inﬂuence of Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic circles on H allow us to conclude that the content of the Holiness Code stems in its ﬁnal redaction from the last decennia of the Judean monarchy. A number of scholars are inclined to focus in this regard on the period shortly after the reform of King Josiah (622 BCE), an event that must certainly have inﬂuenced priestly circles in Jerusalem. In the meantime, however, questions have been raised as to whether one should read Lev. 17:1–9 against the background of Deuteronomy 12:15–16, 20–25, in which the profane slaughter of cattle, sheep and goats is permitted under certain conditions. Given the reference to desert sacriﬁces to goat-demons (Lev. 17:7), Lev. 17:1–9 is clearly written from the perspective of Israel’s wilderness period. In the present author’s opinion, one should not read the said verses as a reference to the cultic centralisation prescribed by Deuteronomy and realised by King Josiah. The ordinance that cattle, sheep and goats were to be ritually slaughtered in the vicinity of the sanctuary (Lev. 17:3–9) can be explained simply as a measure insisted upon with Jerusalem as a city state in which the distance to the sanctuary was negligible ( J. G. Vink, BOT 1962).182 The dominant theme in Leviticus 17, moreover, is that of blood and how one should treat it.

Lev. 17:1–16 decrees that every slaughter ought to take place in the vicinity of the altar of yhwh so that its blood can be dashed against the altar and its fat burnt thereupon. It likewise forbids the consumption of blood (“for the life of the ﬂesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement”: v. 11). Those who hunt down a pure wild animal or bird are to pour out its blood and cover it with earth (vs. 13). Leviticus 18 contains decrees against incest, certain forms of marriage and perverse sexuality that enjoy deep tradition-historical roots. The various laws in 19:1–20:27 sometimes exhibit parallels with texts from the Book of the Covenant and from Deuteronomy 12 and 26. The penal laws of 20:10–21 constitute, for the most part, a doublet of chapter 18. The stipulations found in 19:3–4 and 11–12 are reminiscent of the Ten Commandments and begin with the command to honour one’s father and one’s mother. It is possible, but far from

182

It is not necessary to presuppose the situation after the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE) when Judah was reduced to a much smaller territory as R. Smend jr. does (p. 62).

250

chapter eight

certain, that we may be dealing here with a sort of “children’s decalogue” (Vriezen). Chapter 21 contains holiness regulations for the priests who, in like fashion to the sacriﬁcial animals, are not permitted to have any form of physical handicap. Chapter 22 follows with various provisions concerning the use of ‘sacred donations’ and chapter 24 contains a festival calendar. Lev. 24:17–22 deals with the right of retaliation or reprisal ( jus talionis). Leviticus 25 contains various ordinances concerning the sabbath and the jubilee year. Leviticus 26 speaks, by way of conclusion, over blessing and curse. Chapter 27 contains reference to the redemption of diﬀerent forms of vow and should be considered an appendix. 7. Various levitical and priestly laws (Numbers 5–6, 8–10, 15, 18–19, 27–30) See the commentaries referred to under e. above. R. Rendtorﬀ, Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift, Göttingen 19632; D. Kellermann, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 120), Berlin 1970.

The laws we encounter in the book of Numbers are highly varied and, as a rule, of a late date. They follow upon an elaborate description of a census among the Israelites (Numbers 1) and the encampment of the tribes (2), together with a detailed report on the census of the Levites (3–4; cf. also Numbers 26 [Hebr. 25:19–26:65]). Num. 5:1–4 contains the ordinance that “lepers” (cf. Leviticus 13), those with a ﬂow of blood and those persons who had become impure by coming into contact with a corpse are to be expelled from the camp. Num. 5:5–10 goes into further detail on the oﬀence of coveting another person’s property already mentioned in Lev. 6:1–7. Exhibiting the characteristics of a compilation, the text segment 5:11–31, the so-called “jealousy law”, describes the procedure that is to be followed in the event that a man should suspect his wife of adultery but lacks the necessary evidence to follow the usual legal proceedings. In order to determine her guilt or innocence, the woman is to submit herself to an ordeal whereby she is to drink water mixed with dust.183 As with the following law concerning the Nazarites 183

R. Press, “Das Ordal im Alten Testament”, ZAW 51 (1933), 121–140, 227–250;

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

251

(6;1–21),184 this segment of the text at least contains a number of very ancient prescriptions. Num. 6:22–27 contains the now familiar priestly blessing:185 yhwh bless you and keep you; yhwh make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; yhwh lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

Chapter 7 concerning the sacriﬁce at the dedication of the tabernacle, 8:1–4 on the calendar, 9:15–23 on the columns of smoke and ﬁre that cover the tabernacle, and 10:1–10 concerning the trumpets, provide a complement to the tabernacle laws in Exodus and clearly belong to the youngest traditions in this regard. From the literary perspective, Num. 9:1–14 would appear to be a late provision concerning “the second Passover”, dealing with the question as to what should happen when a person is unable to participate in the normal Passover period because of impurity or absence on a long journey. Num. 15:1–16 constitutes a late edition of an ancient sacriﬁcial table detailing the various grain oﬀerings that were to accompany certain animal sacriﬁces. Vv. 17–21, which ordain that the ﬁrst loaf from the ﬁrst batch of dough is to be given to yhwh as a gift, is clearly an addition. Vv. 22–31 deal with the oﬀerings to which the congregation or an individual is bound in the case of unintentional sin and form a possible older parallel to Lev. 4:1ﬀ. Text segments that are probably to be considered young from the literary perspective include Num. 15:32–36, the narrative of the man who violated the sabbath rest, and 15:37–40 that commands the making of tassels on the corner of one’s garment as a reminder of the commandments J. M. Sasson, “Numbers 5 and the ‘Waters of Judgment’”, BZ 16 (1972), 249–251; M. Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery. A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5,11–31”, HUCA 45 (1974), 25–45; H. Ch. Brichto, “The Case of the Sota and a Reconsideration of Biblical Law”, HUCA 46 (1975), 55–70; W. McKane, “Poison, Trial by Ordeal and the Cup of Wrath”, VT 30 (1980), 474–492. 184 E. Zuckschwert, “Zur literarischen Vorgeschichte des priesterlichen NazirGesetzes (Num 6:1–8)”, ZAW 88 (1976), 191–205. 185 Cf. J. L. Koole, Het laatste woord. De Aäronitische zegen Numeri 6:22–27 (Kamper Cahiers 3), Kampen 1967; P. D. Miller, “The Blessing of God: An Interpretation of Numbers 6, 22–27”, Interpretation 29 (1975), 240–251; K. Seybold, Der aaronitische Segen. Studien zu Numeri 6:22–27, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977; O. Loretz, “Altorientalischer Hintergrund sowie inner- und nachbiblischer Entwicklung des aaronitischen Segens (Num. 6:24–26)”, UF 10 (1978), 115–119; M. Fishbane, “Form and Reformulation of the Biblical Priestly Blessing”, JAOS 103 (1983), 115–121; M. C. A. Korpel, “The Poetic Structure of the Priestly Blessing”, JSOT 45 (1989), 3–13.

chapter eight

252

of the Lord, although the custom of making such tassels must have its roots in the pre-exilic period (cf. Deut. 22:12). Numbers 18 determines the obligations and income of the priests and the Levites while Numbers 19 contains the legal prescriptions relating to the unusual and probably very old “ritual with the red heifer”, which was to be burned in its entirety and its ashes used for the waters of puriﬁcation.186 Following the narration of Israel’s second population census (chapter 26), 27:1–11 oﬀers a midrash concerning the right of inheritance of daughters (cf. also chapter 36) while Numbers 28–29 contains a young sacriﬁcial table detailing the obligatory sacriﬁces that were to be made each day and on speciﬁc feasts. In an equally young tractate, Numbers 30 deals with the validity of vows made by women. In spite of the fact that the laws of the book of Numbers tend, from the literary perspective, to be young, their content frequently harks back to very old customs and provisions.

g. Deuteronomy You shall love yhwh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might (6:5)

Commentaries: S. R. Driver (ICC) 1895, 19013 (reprint 1951); A. Bertholet (KHC) 1899; C. Steuernagel (HKAT) 1900, 19232; E. König (KAT1) 1917; H. Junker (HSAT) 1933; id. (EB1) 19552; J. Ridderbos (KV) I 1950, II 1951; P. Buis et J. Leclerq (Sources Bibliques) 1963; G. von Rad (ATD) 1964, 19834; J. Wijngaards (BOT) 1971; A. Philips (CNEB) 1973; P. C. Craigie (NICOT) 1976; A. D. H. Mayes (NCB) 1979; G. Braulik (NEB) I 1986, II 1992; C. J. Labuschagne (POT) Ia-Ib 1987, II 1990, III 1997 (lit.!); L. Perlitt (BK) 1990–1994 (= Deut. 1:1–3:11); D. L. Christensen (WBC) 1991 (lit.!); M.Weinfeld (AB) 1991 (= Deuteronomy 1–11); E. Nielsen (HAT) 1995.

186

J. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow”, VT 31 (1981), 62–72; S. Webing, “Beobachtungen zum Ritual mit der roten Kuh (Num. 19,1–10a)”, ZAW 93 (1981), 341–364.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

253

Monographs and articles: J. Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums, Leipzig 1914; G. Hölscher, “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums”, ZAW 40 (1922), 161–255; Th. Oestreicher, Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz (BFchTh 27/4), Gütersloh 1923; A. C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy. A New Theory of its Origin, London 1924; id., Deuteronomy: The Framework to the Code, London-New York 1932; A. Bentzen, Die josianische Reform und ihre Voraussetzungen, Copenhagen 1926; W. Baumgartner, “Der Kampf um das Deuteronomium”, ThR 1 (1929), 7–25; G. von Rad, Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium (BWANT 36), Stuttgart 1929; F. Horst, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes. Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (FRLANT 45), Göttingen 1930 (= id., Gottes Recht (ThB 12), Munich 1961, pp. 17–154); M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943 = Tübingen 19673; J. H. Hospers, De numeruswisseling in het boek Deuteronomium, diss. Utrecht 1947; G. von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 40), Göttingen 19482; A. Alt, “Die Heimat des Deuteronomium”, in: id. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II, Munich 1959, pp. 250–275; B. Maarsingh, Onderzoek naar de ethiek van de wetten in Deuteronomium, Winterswijk 1961; O. Bächli, Israel und die Völker (ATANT 41), Zurich 1962; G. Minette de Tillese, “Sections ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous’ dans le Deutéronome”, VT 12 (1962), 29–87; R. Smend, Die Bundesformel (Theol. Studien 68), Zurich 1963; M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King. The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, Grand Rapids 1963; N. Lohﬁnk, Das Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11 (AnBibl 20), Rome 1963; K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen 1964; O. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (BBB 26), Bonn 1967; E. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford 1967; S. Loersch, Das Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen (SBS 22), Stuttgart 1967; P. Merendino, Das deuteronomische Gesetz (BBB 31), Bonn 1969; L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969; id., DeuteronomiumStudien (FAT 8), Tübingen 1994; Th. W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood (SBTh II/16), London 1970; J. Lindblom, Erwägungen zur Herkunft der josianischen Tempelurkunde, Lund 1971; S. Herrmann, “Die konstruktive Restauration. Das Deuteronomium als Mitte biblischer Theologie”, in: H. W. Wolﬀ (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (FS G. von Rad), Munich 1971, pp. 155–170; G. Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BWANT 93), Stuttgart etc. 1971; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972; C. J. Labuschagne, “Redactie en theologie van het boek Deuteronomium”, Vox Theologica 43 (1973), 171–184; C. M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy, London 1974; S. Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 139), Berlin-New York 1975; C. T. Begg, “The Signiﬁcance of the Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy: The Pre-History of the Question”, EThL 55 (1979), 116–124; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London 1979; D. E. Schweres, Die Rückverweise im Buch Deuteronomium (AnBibl 79), Rome 1979; St. A. Kaufman, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law”, Maarav 1 (1979), 105–158; H. D. Preuss, Deuteronomium

254

chapter eight

(EdF 164), Darmstadt 1982; L. J. Hoppe, “The Levitical Origins of Deuteronomy Reconsidered”, Biblical Research 28 (1983), 27–36; N. Lohﬁnk, “Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel”, Biblica 65 (1984), 297–329; id. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BEThL 68), Leuven 1985; id., Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I (SBAB 8), Stuttgart 1990, II (SBAB 12), Stuttgart 1991; E. W. Nicholson, God and his People, Oxford/New York 1986; G. Braulik, Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums (SBAB 2), Stuttgart 1988; id. (ed.), Bundesdokument und Gesetz. Studien zum Deuteronomium (HBS 4), Freiburg 1995; R. E. Clements, Deuteronomy (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1989; D. L. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, Winona Lake IN 1993; A. D. H. Mayes, “On Describing the Purpose of Deuteronomy”, JSOT 58 (1993), 13–33; J. O. Akao, “In Search of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Movement”, Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994), 174–189; F. García Martínez e.a. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy (FS C. J. Labuschagne; SVT 53), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1994; L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium-Studien (FAT 8), Tübingen 1994; M. Vervenne and J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (FS Chr. H. W. Brekelmans; BEThL 133), Leuven 1997; E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumsrahmens (FAT 30), Tübingen 2000;

The book Deuteronomy takes its name from the Greek term deuteronomion (“second Law”), which constitutes the Septuagint’s inaccurate translation of the Hebrew basic text of Deut. 17:18 (cf. also Josh. 8:32) which reads “copy of the Law (for the king)”. Chapters 12–26 of the document consist of an elaboration, reissue and actualisation of earlier laws, especially of several of those found in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21–23) to which they continually refer.187 In its current form, Deuteronomy presents itself for the most part as Moses’ farewell discourse, made in the ﬁelds of Moab on the opposite side of the Jordan (1:1,5; 34:1; cf. Num. 22:1). Exceptions to this include the ethnographical and geographical records found in 2:10–12,20–23; 3:9,13 (conclusion)-14; 10:6–7, the designation of the free cities in 4:41–43, Deuteronomy 27 (composed of several diﬀerent components and interrupting the cohesion of the surrounding chapters), passages in chapter 31 and the narratives from the book of Numbers continued in Deut. 32:48–52 and Deuteronomy 34. These latter segments to one side, the remainder of the book exhibits an entirely unique character on account of its style, choice

187 For a list of parallels between Exodus 21–23 and Deuteronomy see the commentary of G. von Rad (ATD), p. 8.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

255

of terminology, composition and characteristic preaching and forms the central core of Israel’s historical writings. Deuteronomy 1–3(4) not only recapitulates the period in the wilderness from Horeb to the boundaries of the promised land, it also looks forward to the content of the books that follow, functioning thereby as a canonical bridge between the preceding books of the Torah and those of the Former Prophets ( Joshua-2 Kings). Deuteronomy is justiﬁably referred to as “the middle point of the Old Testament” (G. von Rad) and as “the middle point of biblical theology” (S. Herrmann 1971). Given the reworking of a considerable number of historical and prophetic books by Deuteronomists writing in the spirit of Deuteronomy, the “reformatory theology” expressed in the book has enjoyed signiﬁcant and widespread elaboration. The document consists of the following segments: 1:1–4:43

Superscription of the book (1:1–5) and historical prologue spoken by Moses in the form of a recapitulation of events since the departure from Horeb together with an exhortation to observe God’s law (4:1–40)188 and an interpolation concerning the free cities on the east side of the Jordan (4:41–43) 4:44–11:32 Introductory exhortations with a view to the laws oﬀered thereafter in chapters 12–26 12–26 The laws of Deuteronomy 27 Addition relating to the memorial stones and altar on Mount Ebal; blessing on Mount Gerizim, curse on Mount Ebal 28 First concluding discourse: curse and blessing 29–30 Second concluding discourse: exhortation and words of comfort 31–34 Moses’ ﬁnal ordinances, the song (32) and blessing of Moses (33) together with the description of his departure A striking characteristic of the laws of Deuteronomy (12–26) is that they are presented within the framework of Mosaic speeches that exhibit a clearly homiletic ﬂavour and an evidently exhortatory style: Deuteronomy does not oﬀer a legislatory codex in the strict sense of the term but rather a sermon concerning God’s commandments. 188 C. T. Begg, “The Literary Criticism of Deut 4:1–40. Contributions to a Continuing Debate”, EThL 56 (1980), 10–55.

256

chapter eight

The book of Deuteronomy has been the subject of intensive research in the last two hundred years (for the history of research see Baumgartner 1929, Nicholson 1967, Loersch 1967, Seitz 1971). The literary and historical-critical approach to the book came to prominence after de Wette’s dissertation of 1805 and continued to set the trend throughout the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, reaching its high point in the work of Steuernagel (commentary 1900) and Hempel (1914). Formcritical and tradition-critical approaches to the book of Deuteronomy likewise exempliﬁed in the publications of Welch (1924, 1932), Horst (1930) and Alt (1959), culminated in the impressive contributions of Von Rad (1929, 19482). Von Rad was of the opinion that the book contained allusions to a repeated cultic event and argued (together with Welch and Alt, among others) in favour of locating its origins in Northern Israel. In line with G. Mendenhall,189 others made reference to a deed of covenant or Bundesformular (Baltzer,190 McCarthy,191 Kline192 etc.). Scholars maintained that parallels were evident with Hittite and neo-Assyrian vassal treaties with their historical prologue, the obligation to remain faithful to the supreme lord, their legal stipulations and their blessing and curse formulas. Support for this hypothesis was sought in the fact that the vocabulary of Deuteronomy was frequently reminiscent of such treaties and that certain segments of the book (especially chapter 28) exhibited a degree of kinship therewith.193 In spite of the apparent parallels, however, the hypothesis has remained the subject of debate since it tended to ignore the diﬀerences between the vassal treaties and Deuteronomy. The suggestion of a close relationship between the two has thus been seriously undermined. Recent decades have witnessed the emergence of a series of redaction-critical studies of Deuteronomy whereby the intentions of those who cast the book in its ﬁnal form tend as a rule to be aﬀorded greater interest than the endeavour to disentangle its preceding stages (Plöger 1967, Merendino 1969, Seitz 1971, Mittmann 1975). The research of Noth and Perlitt has had a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the study of Deuteronomy. In his Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien of 1943 the former defended the thesis that Deuteronomy 1–3(4) constituted the introduction to the Deuteronomistic history and Deuteronomy 5–11 the laws of Deuteronomy. Perlitt (1969) denied the hypothesis that the covenant between yhwh and his people had been a central datum of Israel’s faith from the beginning and argued for the initial emergence of a covenant theology at the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the sixth century BCE

189 G. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh 1955 (= BiAr 17 (1954), 26–46, 50–76). 190 K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen 1960. 191 D. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, Rome 1963. 192 M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King. The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, Grand Rapids 1963. 193 Cf. R. Frankena, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy”, OTS 14 (1965), 122–154.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

257

as a Deuteronomistic response to the crisis initiated by the fall of Israel’s northern kingdom and the threat confronting the southern kingdom. Nicholson194 has correctly pointed out, however, that the prophet Hosea was already familiar with such a covenant theology in the eighth century BCE (cf. Hos. 6:7; 8:1).

The thesis once defended by Wellhausen and Steuernagel, for example, which claimed that Deuteronomy had existed in two diﬀerent editions (chapters 1–4, 12–26, 27 and 5–11, 12–26, 28–30) and that the laws of chapters 12–26 had thus been provided with a double introduction and epilogue, has largely been abandoned. Such is clearly the case with respect to those who, together with Noth, consider Deuteronomy 1–3(4) as the introduction to an independent Deuteronomistic history spanning from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. Childs (1979, pp. 213–215) has argued with a degree plausibility, however, that chapters 1–4 in the present text have the following legislation in mind (see also 1:5). Moses, in his opinion, recapitulated Israel’s history from the departure from Horeb in order to draw attention to the new and critical situation of the moment: a new generation, a new leadership ( Joshua) and a new land (Canaan). During the period in the wilderness the older generation did not maintain its faith in the promised land and as such it was not allowed to enter it (1:19–2:15). The new generation, which had experienced God’s leadership and the defeat of the kings to the east of the Jordan (2:16–3:21), had to observe God’s commandments in Canaan (4:1–22) if it wanted to avoid dispersion among the nations (4:23–31). The aim of Deuteronomy was thus to actualise the law of the covenant in the aforementioned new situation. Childs’ hypothesis concerning the function of Deuteronomy 1–3(4) does not preclude interpolations and later redaction of the original text. Deut. 2:10–12, 20–23 and 3:9, 13b–14 have thus been designated as glosses introduced later into the text. For further detail on Deuteronomy 1–3 cf. Plöger, op. cit., 1967, N. Lohﬁnk, “Darstellungskunst und Theologie in Dtn 1,6–3,29”, Biblica 41 (1969), 105–134, A. N. Radjawane, Israel zwischen Wüste und Land. Studien zur Theologie von Deuteronomium 1–3, Mainz 1972 and D. L. Christensen, “Prose and Poetry in the Bible. The Narrative Poetics of Deuteronomy 1,9–18”, ZAW 97 (1985), 179–189.

194 E. W. Nicholson, God and his People. Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford 1986.

258

chapter eight

Deut. 4:44–11:32 serves as an introduction to the legal stipulations found chapters 12–26. After reference to the establishment of a covenant on Mount Horeb (5), the new generation of the people are reminded in the so-called Shema (“hear”: 6:4) of the confession fundamental to Israel’s religion “yhwh is our God; yhwh is one” (6:4), called upon to love God (6:5) and to keep his commandments (6:6–9). A number of other exhortations follow: a warning not to follow other gods (6:10–19) and to pass on God’s statutes to future generations (6:20–25), to live as a people chosen and sanctiﬁed by yhwh (7:7–11) and to disassociate themselves from the peoples of Canaan (7:1–6; cf. vv. 17–26), not to forget God while enjoying the prosperity of the promised land (8) and not to insist on their own righteousness (9:4–6). Indeed, as history has repeatedly proven, Israel is a “stubborn people” (9:7–10:11). A comprehensive ﬁnal exhortation (10:12–11:32) concludes the segment with a promise of blessing in response to obedience and an announcement of curse in response to disobedience to God’s commandments. The above description of the content of chapters 5–11 does not preclude the possibility that they have a complicated literary and redactional history and that they exhibit evidence of literary-historical layers (Plöger 1967, Seitz 1971, Lohﬁnk 1990, 1991). Deuteronomy 5, Deut. 9:7b–10:5 (which further explains 9:7a) and 11:2–32 thus leave the impression that they stem from a later Deuteronomistic hand (R. Smend jr.).

The core of the book of Deuteronomy is formed by the laws of chapters 12–26, which doubtlessly contain a signiﬁcant number of commandments stemming from a variety of periods with a complicated history. Scholars locate the original emphasis of these chapters either in liturgical purity (Reinheit) or in cultic centralisation (Einheit). The present text, nevertheless, explicitly demands the latter, once God has given his people rest from their enemies on every side and it lives in security (12:10, 14, 21, 26, cf. also 14:22–29; 15:19–23; 16:1–17; 17:8–13; 18:1–8). One can broadly subdivide Deuteronomy 12–26 into stipulations concerning the cult (12:1–16:17), prescriptions concerning oﬃcial ministries and institutions (16:18–18:22) and laws of various types (19:1–26:15). Much time and eﬀort has been spent on disentangling the literary and redactional layers that can be distinguished in these chapters. Evidence of the fact that the collection of legal prescrip-

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

259

tions does not stem from one and the same author is provided by the doublets (e.g. 12:5–7, 12:11–12, 12:15–17 and 12:20–25) and irregularities (16:21–17:7, for example, interrupts the cohesion between 16:18–20 and 17:8–13). Scholarly eﬀorts to determine the relationship between the laws of Deuteronomy and those of the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21–23) have noted somewhat surprisingly that roughly half of the latter reappear in the former. The recurring material consistently tends to be formulated in a more detailed fashion in Deuteronomy than in the Book of the Covenant and would appear to be adapted to fresh socio-economic conditions and ethical insights. The suggestion that Deuteronomy was intended to replace the Book of the Covenant or even to suppress it (see Eissfeldt) lacks support. It is more likely that Deuteronomy presupposed Exodus 21–23 as binding law (Fohrer) and only oﬀered those stipulations that required supplementation, correction and concretisation (Rendtorﬀ ). For a survey of the older layers and constituent collections that can be found in Deuteronomy 12–26 cf. Preuss, op. cit., 1982, pp. 112–132. See in addition the work of Merendino (1969) referred to above. The criteria that have resulted in the present composition of Deuteronomy 12–26 are not entirely transparent. This is particularly the case with respect to chapters 19–26. It is possible to ascribe the lack of consistent presentation in the material in part to the use of existing collections (see Merendino 1969 and Seitz 1971) and to later redactional interventions. In the context of distinguishing older and younger layers in the text of Deuteronomy 12–26 and in the preceding chapters, those who make use of the change in number from second person singular to second person plural and vice versa—so characteristic of the book—as an incontestable criterium for literary analysis (Hospers 1947, Braulik)195 must be placed on the same level as those who consider the same datum to be an exclusively stylistic feature. Indeed, the later Deuteronomistic segments of the book would appear for the most part to employ the plural (cf. esp. Minette de Tillesse 1962).

Chapters 28 and 29–30, however, which conclude the Mosaic discourse initiated in Deut. 1:6, also exhibit traces of considerable evolution.196 Chapter 27 has its own unique character, speaks of Moses

195 196

G. Braulik, Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik (AnBibl 68), Rome 1978. Cf. H. D. Preuss, op. cit., 1982, pp. 149ﬀ.

260

chapter eight

in the third person and, from the literary perspective, forms a redactionally composite text. It includes the command to inscribe the Law on the memorial stones on Mount Ebal (cf. Jos. 8:30–35) and to build an altar there for yhwh,197 followed by the commission to perform a ritual of blessing and curse on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (cf. Deut. 11:29–30).198 The blessing and curse texts of chapter 28 constitute an appropriate conclusion to the preceding commandments of chapters 12–26 (cf. Leviticus 26). After a new introduction (29:2; Hebr. 29:1) chapters 29–30 place the emphasis on the renewal of the covenant and announce the devastation of the land and the deportation of its inhabitants should the hearts of the people turn to the worship of foreign gods (29). At the same time, however, the prospect of liberation from exile after repentance is held up to the people and they are confronted with a fundamental option between blessing and curse (30).199 Chapters 31–34 relate the ﬁnal deeds and instructions of Moses as well as his death. They constitute a considerably Deuteronomistic reworking of material borrowed from JE (and P ?). The Song of Moses (32)200 and the Blessing of Moses (33)201 are considered later additions.

197 Cf. E. Noort, Een plek om te zijn. Over de theologie van het land aan de hand van Jozua 8:30–35, Kampen 1993. 198 Cf. G. Wallis, “Die Vollbürgereid in Deuteronomium 27,15–26”, HUCA 45 (1974), 47–63. 199 Song 7 of the Dutch Liedboek voor de kerken represents a masterful poetic rendition of Deut. 30:11–16 by Jan Wit. 200 P. W. Skehan, “The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (32:1–43)”, CBQ 13 (1951), 153–163; E. Baumann, “Das Lied Mose’s (Deut. 32,1–43) auf seine gedankliche Geschlossenheit untersucht”, VT 6 (1956), 414–424; G. E. Wright, “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-critical Study of Deuteronomy 32”, in: B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (FS J. Muilenburg), pp. 26–67; W. L. Moran, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses”, Biblica 43 (1962), 317–327; J. R. Boston, “The Wisdom Inﬂuence upon the Song of Moses”, JBL 87 (1968), 189–202; C. J. Labuschagne, “The Song of Moses: Its Framework and Structure”, in: I. H. Eybers e.a., De fructu oris sui: Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms (Pretoria Oriental Series 9), Leiden 1971, pp. 85–98; id., “The Setting of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy”, in: M. Vervenne and J. Lust (eds.), op. cit., 1997, pp. 111–129; S. Hidal, “Some Reﬂections on Deuteronomy 32”, ASTI 11 (1978), 15–21; A. van der Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut 32:43”, in: F. García Martínez e.a., Studies in Deuteronomy (SVT 53; FS C. J. Labuschagne), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1994, pp. 93–100; P. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OTS 37), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996. 201 A. G. J. van der Flier, Deuteronomium 33, diss. Leiden 1895; K. Budde, Der Segen Mose’s, Tübingen 1922; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Blessing of

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

261

Contemporary scholarship consistently dates the former to the period of the Babylonian exile. Such a hypothesis, however, is diﬃcult to reconcile with the apparent fact that this substantial poem once enjoyed an independent existence: according to Eissfeldt202 “what is no people” (v. 21) refers to the Philistines and not to the neoBabylonians, thus implying a considerably earlier date. In any event, the song now functions as “a witness against the Israelites” (31:19,21) to warn them of the consequences of abandoning yhwh while assuring them that God will turn to his people (32:36–43). The Blessing of Moses (33) consists of (frequently ancient; cf. Genesis 49) tribal proverbs203 placed within the framework of a song from the period of the early monarchy that praises the magniﬁcent deeds of Israel’s God.204 Deuteronomy 34 relates how Moses was allowed to see the promised land from afar but did not enter it. He died in the ﬁelds of Moab and no one “knows his burial place to this day” (34:6). “Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses” (34:10–12)! According to 2 Kings 22–23 a book of the law was found by the High Priest Hilkiah in the temple in Jerusalem, a discovery that led to the religious reform of King Josiah in 622 BCE. In addition to the centralisation of the liturgy, this reform led, among other things, to cultic puriﬁcation of Jerusalem’s temple, to the deconsecration of the “high places” (in which syncretistic religion had continued to thrive) and to the destruction of the altar at Bethel (2 Kgs 23:4–20). Following de Wette’s dissertation in 1805, the hypothesis that the book of Deuteronomy (at least in its oldest form) was identical with the book of the law discovered in the temple at the time of King Josiah has continued to enjoy considerable support. Moses”, JBL 67 (1948), 191–210; D. N. Freedman, “The Poetic Structure of the Framework of Deuteronomy 33”, in: G. Rendsburg e.a. (eds.), The Bible World (FS C. H. Gordon), New York 1980, pp. 25–46; J. A. Duncan, “New Readings for the ‘Blessing of Moses’ from Qumran”, JBL 114 (1995), 273–290. 202 O. Eissfeldt, Das Lied Moses Deuteronomium 32,1–43 und das Lehrgedicht Asaphs Psalm 78 samt einer Analyse der Umgebung des Moseliedes, Berlin 1958; id., “Die Umrahmung des Mose-Liedes Dtn 32,1–43 und des Mose-Gesetzes 1–30 in Dtn 31,9–32,47”, in: id., Kleine Schriften 3, Tübingen 1966, pp. 322–334. 203 H. J. Zobel, Stammesspruch und Geschichte (BZAW 95), Berlin 1965; C. J. Labuschagne, “The Tribes in the Blessing of Moses”, in: A. S. van der Woude (ed.), Language and Meaning (OTS 19), Leiden 1974, pp. 97–112; H. Seebass, “Die Stämmeliste von Deut XXXIII”, VT 27 (1977), 158–169. 204 I. L. Seeligmann, “A Psalm from Pre-regnal Times”, VT 14 (1964), 75–92; A. S. van der Woude, “Erwägungen zum Rahmenpsalm von Deuteronomium 33”, in: F. García Martínez e.a. (eds.), op. cit., 1994, pp. 281–288 (lit.!).

262

chapter eight

Even if one is inclined to accept the information provided by 2 Kings 22–23 to be historically reliable,205 however, the question of the origins and date of (proto-)Deuteronomy continues to lack a deﬁnitive response. It is clear in any event that the core of the work oﬀers a renewal of the Book of the Covenant found in Exodus 21–23. In one perspective, however, it goes a step further than the Book of the Covenant, at least in principle, namely with respect to the centralisation of the cult in the place chosen by yhwh (cf. Deuteronomy 12 together with Exod. 20:24). At the same time, when compared with the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy characteristically reinforces the emphasis on humanitarian and social legislation in a fashion that would appear to bear the mark of prophecy and Wisdom (22:1–4; 23:9–10, 15–16, 19–20; 24:6–22; 25:13–16; cf. also Deut. 5:14–15). Deuteronomy’s fervent insistence on obedience to the commandments and the love of God “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5) is likewise impressive. While a number of exegetes prefer to see Deuteronomy either as a consequence of Josiah’s reform or as the precursor thereto, there would appear to be good reason (with the recognition of later Deuteronomistic reworkings) to locate the origin of the document in an early period. Indeed, more or less every period in the history of Ancient Israel has been proposed as the point of origin of the book or at least signiﬁcant parts thereof. While they may not go so far as to ascribe Deuteronomy directly to Moses, conservative scholars are inclined to date it roughly to the period in which he lived and to see it as a covenant charter that was later reworked and expanded in the spirit of Moses (Craigie, commentary 1976; Kline 1963). Others have proposed the period of the judges (Wijngaards, commentary 1971) or of Samuel (Oestreicher 1923, Welch 1924, 1932) as the time at which at least the core of the book came into existence. Kinship between the preaching of Deuteronomy and the traditions of the Elohist (E), the Elijah narratives and Hosea (cf. also Deut. 27:12–26) has led a considerable number of scholars (including Bentzen 1926, Alt 1953, von Rad, commentary 1964) to locate Deuteronomy as a whole or for the most part in the Northern Kingdom, based

205 Cf. N. Lohﬁnk, “Zur neueren Diskussion über 2 Kön 22–23”, in: id. (ed.), op. cit., 1985, pp. 24–48.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

263

on the argument that the book was brought to Jerusalem after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BCE) by refugees from the north in like fashion to the book of Hosea. Others still are inclined to ascribe the authorship of the core of the book to court scribes from the time of King Hezekiah who had been inﬂuenced by Wisdom literature (Weinfeld 1972, Lohﬁnk 1963, Braulik 1988, Preuss 1982), while a further group consider the work to be a reaction to religious decline and syncretism rooted in a protest movement among those who had remained faithful to yhwh at the time of King Manasseh (Steuernagel, commentary 19232; Lindblom 1971). Some locate the origins of the book among Judean circles “the elders of the land” (see Bächli,206 cf. also Albertz).207 If one is not inclined to envisage the discovery of the book of the law in the temple during the reign of King Josiah as a deliberately staged event ( pia fraus), then (proto-)Deuteronomy must have been absent from public view for a considerable period of time in Judah in the ﬁrst three quarters of the seventh century BCE. The present author thus prefers to give priority to the thesis that Deuteronomy stems for the most part from Northern Israel. Aﬃnities with the Elohist (E), the Elijah narratives and Hosea support such a proposal together with the ancient traditions evident in the book. While it is likely that the document was enlarged by Deuteronomistic writers in the spirit of Deuteronomy after the reforms of King Josiah, distinction between the segments introduced in the course of such a redaction and those introduced when the document was published as a discourse of Moses continues to be a matter of dispute.208 Deuteronomy places considerable emphasis on God’s covenant with and election of Israel (Deuteronomy 5 and 7:7–10). While these concepts may not owe their origins to the book of Deuteronomy, they remain determinative for the spiritual framework in which the preaching of the book is presented. The relationship between yhwh and his people is founded on God’s gracious election and the covenant of the promise, ratiﬁed by the exodus from Egypt and the gift of 206 O. Bächli, Israel und die Völker. Eine Studie zum Deuteronomium (AThANT 41), Zurich 1962. 207 R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit I (ATD Ergänzungsreihe 8/1), Göttingen 1992, pp. 313ﬀ. 208 Cf. G. Braulik, in: E. Zenger u.a., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart 19982, pp. 132–35. An attempt to designate the various literary layers of Deuteronomy can be found in Preuss, op. cit., 1982, pp. 46–61, see also pp. 33ﬀ.

chapter eight

264

the land (7:7ﬀ.). Deuteronomy aspires to the goal of one single people in the service of the one God who has made it his own, one single liturgy in the one place yhwh has chosen for himself, and loving and God-fearing obedience in the land that He has given to Israel. The obedience called for serves as the unequivocal response to yhwh’s salviﬁc deeds. The election of Israel from among the nations does not only imply the absolute rejection of every form of idolatry, magical practice and impurity. Aware of Israel’s history, it also demands an unremitting engagement on behalf of the socially vulnerable, those bound to slavery and those who shared the land. Even if one is inclined to locate the codiﬁcation of Deuteronomy in the seventh century BCE, one is unable to escape the impression that the book serves to actualise extremely ancient Israelite religious and ethical values that may indeed have their roots in the time of Moses.

h. Joshua The story might easily have been told as an epic of national achievement; but it is told, not to the glory of Israel, but to the glory of Yahweh (G. W. Anderson)

Commentaries: C. Steuernagel (HKAT) 1899, 19232; H. Holzinger (KHC) 1901; A. Schulz (HSAT) 1924; C. J. Goslinga (KV) 1927; J. de Groot (TU) 1931; M. Noth (HAT) 1938, 19533; F. Nötscher (EB) 1950; B. J. Alfrink (BOT) 1952; J. Bright (IB) 1953; H. W. Hertzberg (ATD) 1953, 19856; J. Gray (NCB) 1967, 19862; J. Kroeze (COT) 1968; J. A. Soggin (CAT) 1970; id. (OTL) 1972; J. M. Miller and G. M. Tucker (CNEB) 1974; M. A. Beek (POT) 1981; M. H. Woudstra (NICOT) 1981; R. G. Boling (AB) 1982; T. C. Butler (WBC) 1983; M. Görg (NEB) 1991; V. Fritz (HAT) 1993; K. Spronk (TT) 1994; Sh. Ahituv (Mikra le Yisra"el) 1995; R. Hess (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries) 1996; R. D. Nelson (OTL) 1997.

Monographs and articles: A. Alt, Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. Territorialgeschichtliche Studien, Leipzig 1925 (= id., Kleine Schriften I, Munich 1953, pp. 89–125); id., “Judas Gaue unter Josia”, PJB 21 (1925), 100–116 (= id., Kleine Schriften II, Munich 1953, pp. 276–288); id., “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua”, FS Ernst Sellin, Leipzig 1927, 13–24 (= Kleine Schriften I, Munich 1953, pp.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

265

193–202); G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch. Literarisch untersucht und theologisch gewertet (BWANT IV/13), Stuttgart 1934; K. Möhlenbrink, “Die Landnahmesagen des Buches Josua”, ZAW 56 (1938), 238–268; M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (BWANT 52), Stuttgart 1930 (reprint Darmstadt 1980); id., Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943 (reprint Darmstadt 1963); id., “Überlieferunggeschichtliches zur zweiten Hälfte des Josuabuches”, in: Festschrift F. Nötscher (BBB 1), Bonn 1950, pp. 152–167; id., Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde I–II (published by H. W. Wolﬀ ), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971; S. Mowinckel, Zur Frage nach den dokumentarischen Quellen in Josua 13–19, Oslo 1946; id., Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch. Die Berichte über die Landnahme in den drei altisraelitischen Geschichtswerken (BZAW 90), Berlin 1964; C. A. Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel. A Critical Analysis of the Pre-deuteronomic Narrative of the Hexateuch, Oxford 1948; H. J. Kraus, Gilgal. Ein Beitrag zur Kultusgeschichte Israels, VT 1 (1951), 181–199; E. Nielsen, Shechem. A Traditio-Historical Investigation, Copenhagen 1955; J. Bright, Ancient Israel in Recent History Writing. A Study in Method (SBTh 19), London 1956; F. M. Cross and G. E. Wright, “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah”, JBL 75 (1956), 202–226; E. Jenni, “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige”, ThR 27 (1961), 1–13, 97–146; G. E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine”, BiAr 25 (1962), 66–87; R. Smend jr., Jahwe-Krieg und Stämmebund. Erwägungen zur ältesten Geschichte Israels (FRLANT 84), Göttingen 1963, 19662; J. A. Soggin, “Gilgal, Passah und Landnahme”, in: Volume du congrès Genève 1965 (SVT 15), Leiden 1966, pp. 263–277; D. Armerding, Conquest and Victory: Studies in Joshua, Chicago 1967; M. Weippert, Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stämme in der neueren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion (FRLANT 92), Göttingen 1967; F. Langlamet, Gilgal et les récits de la traversée du Jourdain ( Jos. III-IV) (Cahiers de la RB), Paris 1969; id., “Josué II et les traditions de l’Hexateuque”, RB 78 (1971), 5–17, 161–183, 321–354; id., “La traversée du Jourdain et les documents de l’Hexateuque. Note complémentaire sur Jos. III–IV”, RB 79 (1972), 7–38; J. A. Wilcoxen, “Narrative Structure and Cult Legend: A Study of Joshua 1–6”, in: J. C. Rylaarsdam (ed.), Transitions in Biblical Scholarship. Essays in Divinity VI, Chicago/London 1968, pp. 43–70 (culticdramatic explanation); R. Smend jr., “Das Gesetz und die Völker. Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte”, in: H. W. Wolﬀ (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (FS G. von Rad), Munich 1971, pp. 494–509; G. J. Wenham, “The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua”, JBL 90 (1971), 140–148; F. Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege. Kriegstheorieen und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des alten Israel (AThANT 60), Zurich 1972; O. Bächli, “Von der Liste zur Beschreibung. Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zu Jos. 13–19”, ZDPV 89 (1973), 1–14; G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition, Baltimore 1973; H. Weippert, “Das geographische System der Stämme Israels”, VT 23 (1973), 76–89; P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5), Cambridge MA 1973; A. G. Auld, “Judges 1 and History: A Reconsideration”, VT 25 (1975), 261–285; id., Joshua, Moses and the Land. Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938, Edinburgh 1980; J. Halbe, “Gibeon and Israel”, VT 25 (1975),

266

chapter eight

613–641; E. Otto, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT 107), Stuttgart 1975; M. Wüst, Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments I. Ostjordanland, Wiesbaden 1975; C. H. J. de Geus, The Tribes of Israel. An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis (SSN 18), Assen 1976; M. Metzger, “Probleme der Frühgeschichte Israels”, VF 22 (1977), 30–43; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London 1979; N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, Maryknoll NY 1979; D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, Winona Lake IN 1980; J. J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (Suppl. JSOT 5), Sheﬃeld 19812; B. Halpern, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan, Chico CA 1983; A. D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History, London 1983; F. S. Frick, The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel. A Survey of Models and Theories (Social World of Biblical Antiquity 4), Sheﬃeld 1985; E. Noort, Geweld in het Oude Testament, Delft 1985, 19902; id., “Geschiedenis als brandpunt. Over de rol van de archeologie bij de vestiging van Israël in Kanaän”, GTT 87 (1987), 84–102; Z. Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel, Jerusalem-Leiden 1986; G. W. Coats, “The Book of Joshua: Heroic Saga or Conquest Theme?”, JSOT 38 (1987), 15–32; R. G. Boling, The Early Biblical Community in Transjordan, Sheﬃeld 1988; I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem 1988; S. Kreuzer, Die Frühgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkündigung des Alten Testaments (BZAW 178), Berlin-New York 1989; M. D. Coogan, “Archaeology and Biblical Studies. The Book of Joshua”, in: W. H. Propp e.a. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters, Winona Lake IN 1990, pp. 19–32; V. Fritz, “Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan”, ZDPV 106 (1990), 63–77; Ph. R. Davies, In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (Suppl. JSOT 148), Sheﬃeld 1992, 19952; M. Ottosson, Josuabokenen programskrift för davidisk restauration, Uppsala 1991; R. S. Hess, “Early Israel in Canaan. A Survey of Recent Evidence and Interpretations”, PEQ 126 (1993), 125–142; A. N. W. Curtis, Joshua (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1994; S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham (eds.), The History of Israel’s Traditions. The Heritage of Martin Noth (Suppl. JSOT 182), Sheﬃeld 1994; C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament (SVT 58), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995; K. Bieberstein, Josua-Jordan-Jericho. Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1–6 (OBO 143), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1995; V. Fritz, Die Entstehung Israels im 12. und 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie 2), Stuttgart 1996; Z. Kallai, “The Twelve-Tribe Systems of Israel”, VT 47 (1997), 53–90; A. G. Auld, Joshua Retold. Synoptic Perspectives (Old Testament Studies), Edinburgh 1998; E. Noort, Das Buch Josua (EdF 292), Darmstadt 1998 (lit.!).

The book of Joshua forms a continuation of the conclusion to the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Josh. 1:1) and takes its name from the primary ﬁgure featured in the book, Joshua the successor of Moses. In line with his predecessor, Joshua exhorts the people to sanctify

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

267

themselves prior to important events ( Josh. 3:5; 7:13; cf. Exod. 19:10), oﬀer prayers of intercession for Israel (7:6–9; cf. Exod. 32:11–13; Deut. 9:25) and addresses the leaders of the people in a farewell discourse prior to his death (23:1ﬀ.; cf. Deut. 31:1ﬀ.). In spite of the similarities, however, he is clearly not a second Moses. He is obliged to follow the instructions of his predecessor (1:7,13; 4:10; 8:30–31; 11:15) and adhere to the Law of Moses (1:8; 8:31,34). Such details evidently stem, however, from a Deuteronomistic source and are of little assistance in our eﬀorts to trace the historical Joshua. The book of Joshua recounts the conquest and occupation of the land of Canaan and the subdivision thereof among the tribes of Israel (for the territories assigned to the Trans-Jordanian tribes of Ruben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh see Numbers 32; Josh. 13:8ﬀ.; 17:1). The primary narrative line of the text portrays the fulﬁlment of the promise of the land from Deuteronomy, which is coupled in its turn with the promise of the land found in the patriarchal narratives of Genesis (Deut. 30:20). The book consists of three principle parts: a. the conquest of the land (1–12) b. the subdivision of the land (13–21) c. the concluding chapters (22–24). After the introduction, in which Joshua is ascribed the task of taking possession of the land (1), the narrative recounts how two Israelite spies arrived in Jericho where they were protected from arrest by the prostitute Rahab (2),209 how the people crossed the Jordan with the ark of the covenant (3–4),210 how the men of Israel were 209 F. Langlamet, op. cit., 1971; G. M. Tucker, “The Rahab Saga ( Jos 2). Some Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Observations”, in: J. M. Eﬁrd (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays (FS W. F. Stinespring), Durham 1972, pp. 66–86; J. P. Floss, Kunden oder Kundschaftler? Literarwissenschaftliche Untersuchung zu Jos 2. I: Text, Schichtung, Überlieferung (ATSAT 16), St. Ottilien 1982; II: Komposition, Redaktion, Intention (ATSAT 26), St. Ottilien 1986; E. Noort, op. cit., 1998, pp. 131–146 (Forschungsgeschichte). 210 Cf. besides the contributions of Langlamet (1969, 1971, 1972) and Otto (1975), the articles of B. J. Alfrink, “De litteraire compositie van Jos 3 en 4: De overtocht over de Jordaan”, Studia Catholica 18 (1942), 185–202, J. A. Soggin, “Gilgal, Passah und Landnahme”, in: Volume du congrès Genève 1965 (SVT 15), Leiden 1966, pp. 263–277, E. Vogt, “Die Erzählung vom Jordanübergang Josue 3–4”, Biblica 46 (1965), 125–148, J. R. Porter, “The Background of Joshua 3–5”, SEÅ 36 (1971), 5–23 and B. Peckham, “The Composition of Joshua 3–4”, CBQ 46 (1984), 413–431. For the Forschungsgeschichte see E. Noort, op. cit., 1998, pp. 147–164.

268

chapter eight

circumcised at Gibeath-haaraloth (Hill of Foreskins) and how they kept the Passover (5:1–12),211 how the commander of the army of yhwh appeared to Joshua (5:13–15), how Jericho was miraculously occupied (6)212 and Ai (after initial defeat on account of Achan’s misappropriation of the ‘devoted things’)213 conquered214 (7:1–8:29), how Joshua built an altar for yhwh on Mount Ebal and read out the Law of Moses215 (8:30–35), how the Gibeonites were spared dispersion on account of their cunning (9),216 how Joshua came to the assistance of Gibeon against the ﬁve kings, killed the latter217 and occupied their territory (10) and how a Canaanite coalition was defeated in the north by the waters of Merom and Hasor was destroyed218 (11). 211 H. J. Kraus, “Zur Geschichte des Passa-Mazzot-Festes”, Evangelische Theologie 18 (1958), 47–67; E. Kutsch, “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Passahfeier und des Massotfestes”, ZThK 55 (1958), 1–35; P. Laaf, Die Pascha-Feier Israels. Eine literarkritische und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studie (BBB 36), Bonn 1970. 212 F. M. Abel, “L’anathème de Jéricho et la maison de Rahab”, RB 57 (1950), 321–330; L. Schwienhorst, Die Eroberung Jerichos. Exegetische Untersuchung zu Jos 6 (SBS 122), Stuttgart 1986; R. W. Robinson, “The Coherence of the Jericho Narrative. A Literary Reading of Joshua 6”, in: R. Bartelmus e.a. (eds.), Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte (OBO 126; FS Klaus Baltzer), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1993, pp. 311–336; E. Noort, “De val van de grote stad Jericho: Jozua 6. Kanttekeningen bij diachronische en synchronische benaderingen”, NTT 50 (1996), 265–279. For the Forschungsgeschichte see E. Noort, op. cit., 1998, pp. 164–172. 213 B. J. Alfrink, “Die Achan-Erzählung ( Jos 7)”, Studia Anselmania 25–26 (1951), 114–129. 214 M. Noth, “Bethel und Ai”, PJ 31 (1935), 7–29 (= id., Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde, published by H. W. Wolﬀ, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971, deel I, pp. 210–228); J. A. Callaway, “New Evidence on the Conquest of Ai”, JBL 87 (1968), 312–320; Z. Zevit, “Archaeological and Literary Stratigraphy in Joshua 7–8”, BASOR 251 (1983), 25–35. 215 Cf. E. Noort, Een plek om te zijn. Over de theologie van het land aan de hand van Jozua 8:30–35, Kampen 1993; id., “The Traditions of Ebal and Gerizim. Theological Positions in the Book of Joshua”, in: M. Vervenne and J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (BEThL 133; FS C. H. W. Brekelmans), Leuven 1997, pp. 161–180. 216 J. Liver, “The Literary History of Joshua IX”, JSS 8 (1963), 227–243; Y. M. Grintz, “The Treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites”, JAOS 86 (1966), 113–126; J. Blenkinsopp, Gibeon and Israel. The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel, Cambridge 1972; P. J. Kearney, “The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomistic History”, CBQ 35 (1973), 1–19; J. Halbe, Gibeon und Israel. Art, Veranlassung und Ort der Deutung ihres Verhältnisses in Jos IX”, VT 25 (1975), 613–641; B. Halpern, “Gibeon: Israelite Diplomacy in the Conquest Era”, CBQ 37 (1975), 303–316; A. D. H. Mayes, “The Gibeonites as a Historical and Theological Problem in the Old Testament”, PIBA 10 (1986), 13–24; Chr. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis im Lichte deuteronomistischer Kriegsgebote”, BN 34 (1986), 58–81. 217 M. Noth, “Die fünf Könige in der Höhle von Makkeda”, PJ 33 (1937), 22–36. 218 A. Malamat, “Hazor, the Head of All Those Kingdoms”, JBL 79 (1960),

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

269

The entire segment is rounded oﬀ with a survey of conquered territories and a (potentially old) list of defeated kings (11:16–12:24).219 After mention is made of the as yet unconquered territories (13:1–7) and the subdivision of the Trans-Jordanian territories is recounted (13:8–33) the greater portion of chapters 14–19 oﬀer a detailed survey of the inheritances of the tribes (Levi does not receive an inheritance but rather a few cities and pasture for their ﬂocks and herds [4:14], for “the oﬀerings to yhwh” and “yhwh, the God van Israel, himself ” are their inheritance [see 13:14,33]; Joseph is subdivided into Ephraim and Manasseh). This sizeable portion of the text is followed by a series of stipulations concerning the cities of refuge (20)220 and a list of Levite cities (21).221 For the content of chapters 22–24 see below. The genesis and evolution of the book of Joshua is much disputed and diﬃcult to determine. Distinction should be made between a literary-critical approach proposed, among others, by Wellhausen, Smend sr.,222 Eissfeldt and Fohrer who maintain that the sources encountered in the Pentateuch are also to be found in Joshua, and the tradition-historical view proposed by Noth (1943; following Alt) whereby the book in its present form is considered a component part of his postulated Deuteronomistic history. Both approaches are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, both draw attention to the fact that

12–19; J. Gray, Hazor, VT 16 (1966), 26–52; Y. Yadin, Hazor, the Head of All Those Kingdoms ( Jos 11,10). With a Chapter on Israelite Megiddo (The Schweich Lectures 1970), London 1972. 219 V. Fritz, “Die sogenannte Liste der besiegten Könige in Jos 12”, ZDPV 85 (1969), 136–161. 220 N. M. Nicholsky, “Das Asylrecht in Israel”, ZAW 48 (1930), 146–175; M. David, “Die Bestimmungen über die Asylstädte in Josua XX. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des biblischen Asylrechts”, OTS 9 (1951), 30–48; B. van Oeveren, De vrijsteden in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1968; A. G. Auld, “Cities of Refuge in Israelite Tradition”, JSOT 10 (1978), 26–40; A. Rofé, “The History of the Cities of Refuge in Biblical Law”, Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986), 205–239. 221 B. Mazar, “The Cities of the Priests and Levites”, in: Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (SVT 7), Leiden 1960, pp. 193–205; M. Haran, “Studies in the Account of the Levitical Cities. Preliminary Considerations”, JBL 80 (1961), 45–54, 156–165; A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Rome 1969, pp. 159–165; A. G. Auld, “The Levitical Cities: Texts and History”, ZAW 91 (1979), 194–206; R. G. Boling, “Levitical Cities: Archaeology and Texts”, in: A. Kort and S. Morschauser (eds.), Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, Winona Lake IN 1985, pp. 23–32; E. Ben-Zvi, “The List of the Levitical Cities”, JSOT 54 (1992), 77–106. 222 R. Smend, Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht, Berlin 1912, pp. 279ﬀ.

270

chapter eight

the book of Joshua exhibits a considerably Deuteronomistic construction and character (see esp. chapter 1, 11:15–23, 21:43–22:6 and chapter 23) while Deuteronomistic reworking is similarly evident elsewhere (cf., for example, 2:10–11; 4:21–24; 8:30–35 [see Deut. 27:1ﬀ.]; 9:1–2; segments of chapter 24). Given the fact that the proponents of classical source theory are inclined as a rule to ascribe only a few verses in Joshua 1–12 to P (4:19; 5:10–12; 9:17–21), several scholars prefer to speak in this regard of a redactor writing in the style of P rather than a continuation of the source as it is found present in the Pentateuch. The material providing the basic foundations of the narratives found in chapters 2–11(12) is not infrequently ascribed to E, at least for the most part. Others have argued in favour of an original short narrative to be ascribed to J that has been reworked in the spirit of the Elohist (see, for example, Vriezen). The attribution of the foundational component elements of Joshua 2–11 to E is rooted, nevertheless, in a negative consideration. While it is maintained that Judges 1 presupposes that the conquest of Canaan was the result of the activities of individual tribes, Joshua 2–11 appears to presuppose a combined Israelite action. Scholars endeavour to ascribe Judges 1 to J, proposing it to be an extract from the latter’s narrative concerning the conquest of the promised land (whereby a number of fragments, exclusively located in Joshua 13–21 would appear to correspond at the level of content: Josh. 15:13–19 [par. Judg. 1:11–15]; 15:63 [par. Judg. 1:21]; 16:10 [par. Judg. 1:29]; 17:11–13 [par. Judg. 1:27–28]; 19:47 [par. Judg. 1:34–35]). As a consequence, E is considered to be the author of the greater part of the original material of Joshua 2–11. Considerations related to Judges 1 aside (see under Judges below), there would appear, nevertheless, to be no decisive content based arguments available in support of such a conclusion. Not even an approximate degree of consensus has been achieved concerning the relevant distribution of the material contained in Joshua 2–11 over the hypothetical source documents J and E proposed for the Pentateuch! For these reasons, a signiﬁcant number tend to opt for the alternative proposed by Noth with regard to the origins and evolution of Joshua 1–12. Within the framework of his proposed Deuteronomistic history, Noth was inclined to reject the idea that Pentateuchal sources had continued into the book of Joshua. He maintained the presence of a series of primarily etiological and ortsgebunden sagas in Joshua

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

271

1–12223 that, with the exception of a few reports related to Shechem (8:30–35; cf. 24) and Hasor (11), all had their roots in the south. According to Noth, the sagas of Joshua 2–9 were coordinated with the traditions of Joshua 10–11 around 900 BCE by a Judean who related them in a secondary sense with the (Ephraimitic) ﬁgure Joshua. As noted above, Noth’s thesis tends to reduce the Pentateuch to little more than a torso, given that a JE narrative concerning the Landnahme is lacking, which in light of the content and predisposition of the JE histories in Exodus and numbers can scarcely be missed. Noth was forced to accept, therefore, that the JE narrative concerning the conquest of the land had worked itself loose and been misplaced in favour of the description of the same event in Joshua 2–11. In line with Noth, scholars frequently refer to etiological Benjaminite traditions in the case of Joshua 2–9, related to locations near or in the vicinity of the sanctuary at Gilgal where they were transmitted in the context of the cult (the ruined walls of Jericho [6], the house of Rahab [2 and 6:22–25], the twelve stones taken from the Jordan and set up at Gilgal [4:20–24], the ruins of Ai [8:28], the services performed by the Gibeonites at the sanctuary [9] etc.). Others correctly insist that etiological elements do not tend to play a primary role in the origins of historical traditions.224 Traditions are not in the habit of originating from scenic or other phenomena or from customs. Etiological elements in historical traditions would thus appear to be consistently secondary (cf. Josh. 4:20–21). Nevertheless, traditions are ortsgebunden in the sense that they have a Haftpunkt in a particular environment, c.q. a sanctuary (in the case of Joshua 2–9 that of Gilgal): they tend much more to be associated with individuals and groups, c.q. a people. The fact that the traditions found in Joshua 2–9 are located for the most part on Benjaminite territory does not as such provide conclusive proof that we are dealing with traditions originally associated with the sanctuary at Gilgal. The thesis that Joshua was related to these traditions at a secondary level is thus, at the very least, open to question. If one is inclined to ascribe a secondary role to the etiological elements in the narratives of Joshua 2–9, however, the degree of historical reliability of the traditions that speak of violent actions on the part of the Israelites tends to increase signiﬁcantly. Such an observation does not alter the fact that the conquest of the land of Canaan in a coordinated action of all the tribes

223 The term etiological is employed for a narrative that explains the origins of a custom, practice or speciﬁc geographical phenomenon: cf. 4:9 (the memorial stones); 5:9 (the name of Gilgal); 9:21,27 (the Gibeonites as lumberjacks and drawers of water). 224 Cf. J. Bright, Early Israel in Recent History Writing (SBTh 19), London 1956, pp. 89–110; B. O. Long, The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW 108), Berlin 1968.

272

chapter eight

of Israel under Joshua’s leadership ought to be understood as a late proposition based on evidence from elsewhere in the Old Testament. The image presented in Judges 1 of a gradual conquest of the land of Canaan by individual tribes spread over a considerable period of time and with only partial success suggests a greater degree of historical reliability than the theological conception thereof (with its own merits) presented in the book of Joshua. The inconsistencies observable in the Pentateuch are not infrequently also evident in Joshua 2–9. The crossing of the Jordan, for example is referred to on two occasions (3:1–4:1; 4:10–11). According to Josh. 4:8 (cf. also 4:20) twelve stones were taken from the river Jordan and set up at Gilgal, while 4:9 speaks of the setting up of twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan.225 The narrative of the fall of Jericho (chapter 6), originally a liturgical text (Hertzberg), exhibits a whole series of irregularities (Soggin). According to 8:3 Joshua positioned thirty thousand men in ambush to the rear of Ai on the evening before the second attack on the city, while 8:12 states that he sent ﬁve thousand men to the same place on the following morning. Both 10:26 and 10:37 report the death of the king of Hebron. According to 10:38–39 the city of Debir was captured by Joshua, according to 15:15–17 (cf. Judg. 1:11–13) by a certain Othniel. Of course, while such inconsistencies and doublets do not prove that the sources of the Pentateuch continue into the book of Joshua, they do require us to account for the fact that the transmitted text exhibits evidence of literary layers.

All things considered, it remains diﬃcult to make a choice between the claims of the supporters of the source hypothesis, who ﬁnd evidence of JE (and P) in the book of Joshua, and those who insist that the Pentateuchal sources do not continue into Joshua. Should one be inclined to doubt the thesis proposed by Noth that the narratives are primarily etiologically determined, then it remains possible, at least in principle, that JE traditions lie at the foundations of chapters 2–11, all the more so if one considers that J and E are better understood as tradents rather than authors and that P can be identiﬁed elsewhere in the book. One the other hand, given the thorough Deuteronomistic reworking of the book, a JE substratum is not directly demonstrable.226 It is the present author’s contention, therefore, that

225 The Dutch NBG translation obscures the contradiction by translating “also” in 4:9, a term not supported by the basic text. 226 G. Ernest Wright correctly points out in the commentary of Boling (AB): “As for the pre-Deuteronomistic material in chaps. 2–11 the question as to whether they are a continuation of Pentateuchal JE can only be raised; it cannot be answered” (p. 66). He himself is somewhat skeptical with respect to this possibility, however, since the formulation of the allusions to the passage through the Sea of Reeds in Josh. 2:10 and 4:23, for example, does not exhibit any agreements with Exodus 14.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

273

while pre-Deuteronomistic elements are present in chapters 2–11, these elements have been disguised to such an extent by a later Deuteronomistic redaction (under priestly inﬂuence) that they are virtually unrecognisable. In earlier editions of the present volume Vriezen argued that one can detect evidence in the narrative of Rahab’s rescue of the spies ( Joshua 2; cf. 6:22–25), the circumcision with stone knives (5:2–3; cf. Exod. 4:25), the manner whereby yhwh himself intervened in the battle (10:10–14) and the criticism that yhwh was not consulted in the deception of the Gibeonites (9:14) of Yahwistic features. On the other hand, however, he observed that a direct allusion to the promise of the land made to Abraham in the book of Genesis was lacking (which one ought to expect in relation to J) and that the governing role played by the Northern Israelite hero Joshua in the events of the book, together with the highly nationalistic predisposition thereof, explicitly argued against Yahwistic origins. Vriezen favoured a complete Elohist reworking of a short J narrative, whereafter Deuteronomists thoroughly reworked and supplemented the material as a whole along antiCanaanite lines (cf. also R. Smend sr.) and priestly authors included further interpolations. As is often the case with respect to the Pentateuch, he was of the opinion that it was not always possible to distinguish segments reminiscent of E and J from one another. Vreizen’s thesis is attractive in a number of ways. It allows one, for example, to accept priestly interpolations in chapters 3–6 in particular, in which the ark of the covenant has a central role to play, in spite of the fact that the Deuteronomistic redaction of the book contradicts the thesis that such interpolations were the last to be introduced (cf. also evidence of P in chapters 13–21 in Deuteronomistic context). Josh. 2:1 and 3:1 apparently presuppose Num. 25:1 (Shittim!). In light of Num. 27:12–29(P) and Deut. 31:14–17,23(E), the suggestion that Joshua (the Ephraimite!) acquired a leading role in the narratives of Joshua 2–9 at a later, secondary stage (see Noth) is open to question.

In addition to segments concerning the cities of refuge (20) and the cities ascribed to the Levites (21) in the context of the framing narratives (cf. 13:1–7 and 17:14–18; 18:1–10 and 19:49–51) chapters 13–21 describe the boundaries of the individual tribal territories and oﬀer, in addition, a list of place names together with a number of short reports concerning the Canaanites who continued to live in the land.227 Both Alt (1927) and Noth (commentary 1938, 19532)

227 E. Cortese, Josua 13–21. Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (OBO 94), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1990.

274

chapter eight

have argued that the boundary descriptions (in which Simeon, Dan and Issachar are missing) stem from the period of the judges. Alt (1925) maintained, furthermore, that the lists of place names belonging to Judah (15:21–62), Benjamin (18:21–28) and Simeon (19:2–8) as well as the brief references to Issachar, Zebulun, Asher and Naphtali (Ephraim and Manasseh are missing) stem from the time of King Josiah (639–609). In recent decades, however, scholars have tended to date the boundary descriptions later than Alt and Noth had proposed and the lists of place names earlier.228 While Alt and Noth were similarly inclined to date the lists of the cities of refuge (20) and the Levite cities (21) during the time of King Josiah, more recent studies have revealed that the establishment of both traditions dates back to around the tenth century BCE. Previous literary-historical criticism has found so many P elements in 13:15–32, 14:1–5 and segments of chapters 15–22 that it has become diﬃcult to subscribe to Noth’s thesis that chapters 13ﬀ. represent a Deuteronomistic text that made use of older material.229 P appears at this juncture, nevertheless, within the framework of a Deuteronomistic redaction. Chapters 13–21 also exhibit a number of inconsistencies and discrepancies, which in turn point to the disparate origin of the segments in question and/or later reworking. In 15:60, for example, Kiriath-jearim is counted as part of the inheritance of Judah while 18:28 includes it among the towns of the tribe of Benjamin. Eshtaol similarly belongs to Judah in 15:33 and to Dan in 19:41. Territorial boundaries combined with lists of place names are not provided for every tribe while the allotment of territory to Caleb is described twice (14:6–15; 15:13–19).

Chapters 22–24 contain reference to the return of the Trans-Jordanian tribes after they had provided assistance in the conquest of Canaan together with the account of their construction of an altar in the

228 Cf., for example, Z. Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel, Jerusalem-Leiden 1986; R. S. Hess, “Asking Historical Questions of Joshua 13–19: Recent Discussions Concerning the Date of the Boundary Lists”, in: A. R. Millard e.a. (eds.), Faith, Tradition and History. Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context, Winona Lake IN 1994, pp. 191–206. 229 See further the observations of G. Ernest Wright in R. G. Boling’s commentary (AB 1982), pp. 66–72. Cf. also J. E. Petersen, “Priestly Materials in Joshua 13–22. A Return to the Hexateuch?”, HAR 4 (1980), 131–146; J. Svensson, Towns and Toponyms in the Old Testament with Special Emphasis on Joshua 14–21 (Coniectanea Biblica OT Series 38), Lund and Stockholm 1994.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

275

region near the Jordan which the tribes west of the Jordan considered a rebellion against the Lord (chapter 22).230 While ancient sources would appear to have served as the basis of the chapter, a comprehensive Deuteronomistic reworking thereof is hard to refute. Chapter 23 contains the farewell discourse of Joshua (without speciﬁc location), which exhibits clear of evidence of Deuteronomistic authorship. Joshua 24, which narrates the so-called “alliance of Shechem”231 is evidently based on ancient traditions, especially in light of the fact that Joshua is not related to Shechem elsewhere in the book that bears his name (with the exception of 8:30–35; cf. Deut. 27:1–8). While the text gives the impression that the alliance took place immediately prior to Joshua’s death, the chapter nevertheless lacks a farewell discourse in the strict sense of the term. Indeed, it would appear more than anything else to consist of a self-obligation on the part of the people to serve yhwh. Some commentators argue that the chapters represent the reﬂection of a repeated cultic celebration of the renewal of the covenant in the tribal community. Recent research tends to be hesitant in supporting the once current and much defended position that we are dealing here with an E narrative enriched with Deuteronomistic interpolations.232 Chapter 24 concludes with reference to the death of Joshua and the location of his grave (24:29–30; cf. Judg. 2:8–9),233 a note alluding to Israel’s ﬁdelity to yhwh during 230 J. S. Kloppenborg, “Joshua 22, the Priestly Editing of an Ancient Tradition”, Biblica 62 (1981), 347–371. 231 J. L’Hour, “L’alliance de Sichem”, RB 69 (1962), 5–36, 161–184, 350–368; G. Schmitt, Der Landtag von Sichem (AzTh 1/15), Stuttgart 1964; V. Maag, Sichembund ( Jos 24) und Vätergötter, in: B. Hartmann e.a. (eds.), Hebräische Wortforschung (SVT 16; FS W. Baumgartner), Leiden 1967, pp. 205–218; J. Acius, The Historical Prologue in Jos 24:2–13. A Literary-Critical Analysis, Malta 1976; J. van Seters, “Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament”, in: B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon (Suppl. JSOT 31; FS G. W. Ahlström), Sheﬃeld 1984, pp. 139–158; W. T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (Suppl. JSOT 93), Sheﬃeld 1990; M. Anbar, Josué et l’alliance de Sichem ( Josué 24:1–28), Frankfurt am Main etc. 1992; H. Ringgren, “Der Landtag in Sichem”, in: H. Niemann e.a. (eds.), Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel und Theologie (FS K. D. Schunck), Frankfurt am Main etc. 1994, pp. 89–91; E. Noort, “Zu Stand und Perspektiven: Der Glaube israels zwischen Religionsgeschichte und Theologie. Der Fall Josua 24”, in: F. García Martínez, E. Noort (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism 5SVT 73; FS A.S. van der Woude), Leiden 1998, 82–108. 232 The supporting arguments would appear to have been undermined by M. Noth in his commentary on Joshua (pp. 138f.). 233 E. Noort, “Josua 24:28–31, Richter 2:6–9 und das Josuagrab. Gedanken zu einem Straßenschild”, in W. Zwickel (ed.), Biblische Welten (OBO 123; FS M. Metzger), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1993, pp. 109–130; D. Jericke, “Josuas Tod und Josuas Grab. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie”, ZAW 108 (1996), 347–361.

276

chapter eight

Joshua’s lifetime and that of the elders who outlived him (24:31; cf. Judg. 2:7), a report stating that the bones of Joseph transported from Egypt were buried at Shechem (24:32; cf. Gen. 50:24–25; Exod. 13:19) and a text concerning the death of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, and the city of his burial (24:33). The reworking of ancient literary traditions portraying the conquest and subdivision of the land in the book of Joshua exhibits clear evidence of Deuteronomistic theology. One the one hand, the unconditional divine gift of the promised land and its conquest as a whole is accentuated (cf. 1:3–5; 11:16–23; 21:43–45), while on the other hand the complete occupation thereof is made to depend on the people’s obedience to the Law of Moses (cf. 1:7–9a; 23:6–7) and reference is made to several regions that did not fall to the Israelites (cf. 13:1–7; 23; see also 15:63; 16:10; 17:11–13). Scholars remain at odds with regard to the possibility of a double Deuteronomistic redaction of the book on account of this discrepancy (cf. Smend jr. 1971). Childs (1979) maintains that chapters 1–12 of the book portray the period of Joshua as a paradigm for an obedient Israel and is unable to detect any internal contradiction with respect to texts such as Josh. 23:12–13. Notwithstanding the fact that it oﬀers a continuation of the narratives found in the Pentateuch, the book of Joshua ultimately separated itself from the latter, in spite of its profoundly Deuteronomistic reworking. Vriezen presumed that the priestly interpolations of cultic material in the Pentateuch had placed such a strong accent on Israel’s ancient liturgy and the classical period of revelation to Moses that the ﬁrst part of Israel’s history had to be separated from the documents that had appended themselves thereto. His observations in this regard, however, have to do with a canonical development and as such have little to say with respect to the literary relationship between the Pentateuch and the texts that follow it.

i. Judges The judges also, with their respected names, whose hearts did not fall into idolatry and who did not turn away from the Lord—may their memory be blessed (Sirach 46:11)

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

277

Commentaries: G. F. Moore (ICC) 1895, 19668; K. Budde (KHAT) 1897; W. Nowack (HKAT) 1900; M. J. Lagrange (Etudes Bibliques) 1903; C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges, London 19192 (reprint New York 1970); A. Schulz (HSAT) 1926; C. J. Goslinga (KV) 1937/1938, 19522; F. Nötscher (EB) 1950; J. M. Myers (IB) 1953; H. W. Hertzberg (ATD) 1954, 19856; J. de Fraine (BOT) 1955; J. Gray (NCB) 1967; R. G. Boling (AB) 1975, 19814; J. D. Martin (CNEB) 1975; J. A. Soggin (OTL) 1981, 19872; id. (CAT) 1987; P. B. Dirksen (TT) 1990; M. Görg (NEB) 1993; B. Lindars, Judges 1–5, Edinburgh 1998.

Monographs and articles: O. Eissfeldt, Die Quellen des Richterbuches, Leipzig 1925; M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (BWANT 4/1), Stuttgart 1930; id., Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943 (Tübingen 19673); id., “Das Amt des ‘Richters Israels’”, in: W. Baumgartner e.a. (eds.), Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, Tübingen 1950, pp. 404–417 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II (ThB 39), Munich 1969, pp. 71–85); C. A. Simpson, The Composition of the Book of Judges, Oxford/New York 1957; E. Täubler, Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter, Tübingen 1958; E. Jenni, “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige”, ThR 28 (1961), 129ﬀ.; R. Smend, Jahwekrieg und Stämmebund (FRLANT 85), Göttingen 1963; W. Beyerlin, “Gattung und Herkunft des Rahmens im Richterbuch”, in: E. Würthwein und O. Kaiser (eds.), Tradition und Situation (FS A. Weiser), Göttingen 1963, pp. 1–29; W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB 18), Bonn 1963, 19662; id., Die Bearbeitungen des “Retterbuches” in der deuteronomistischen Epoche (BBB 21), Bonn 1964; id., “Zu den ‘Richtern Israels’”, ZAW 77 (1965), 40–71; C. H. J. de Geus, “De Richteren van Israël”, NTT 20 (1965–1966), 81–100; id., “Richteren 1,1–2,5”, Vox Theologica 36 (1966), 32–53; id., The Tribes of Israel (SSN 18), Assen 1976; J. L. McKenzie, The World of Judges, Englewood Cliﬀs NJ 1966; K. D. Schunck, “Die Richter Israels und ihr Amt”, in: Volume du congrès Genève 1965 (SVT 15), Leiden 1966, pp. 252–262; D. A. McKenzie, “The Judges of Israel”, VT 17 (1967), 118–121; T. Ishida, “The Leaders of the Tribal League ‘Israel’ in the PreMonarchic Period”, RB 80 (1973), 514–530; I. Schlauri, “W. Richters Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Richterbuches”, Biblica 54 (1973), 367–403; D. M. Gunn, “Narrative Patterns and Oral Traditions in Judges and Samuel”, VT 24 (1974), 286–317; A. D. H. Mayes, Israel in the Period of the Judges (SBTh 29), London 1974; A. G. Auld, “Judges 1 and History: A Reconsideration”, VT 25 (1975), 261–285; A. J. Hauser, “The “Minor Judges”: A Revaluation”, JBL 94 (1975), 190–200; T. Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B. 198), Helsinki 1977; F. Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testaments und der Kampf

278

chapter eight

um den frühen israelitischen Staat (WMANT 49), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978; N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, New York 1979; J. A. Soggin, “Das Amt der ‘kleinen Richter’”, VT 30 (1980), 245–249; H. N. Rösel, “Die ‘Richter Israels’”, BZ 25 (1981), 180–203; H. Blok e.a., Geen koning in die dagen: over het boek Richteren als profetische geschiedschrijving, Baarn 1982; E. T. Mullen, “The “Minor Judges”. Some Literary and Historical Considerations”, CBQ 44 (1982), 185–201; M. L. Chaney, “Ancient Palestinian Peasant Movements and the Formation of Premonarchic Israel”, in: D. N. Freedman and D. F. Graf (eds.), Palestine in Transition, Sheﬃeld 1983, pp. 36–90; W. J. Drumbell, “‘In Those Days There Was No King in Israel . . .’: The Purpose of the Book of Judges Reconsidered”, JSOT 25 (1983), 23–33; A. D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile; A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History, London 1983; id., Judges (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1985; R. M. Good, “The Just War in Ancient Israel”, JBL 104 (1985), 385–400; N. P. Lemche, Early Israel (SVT 37), Leiden 1985; H. M. Niemann, Die Daniten (FRLANT 135), Göttingen 1985; F. E. Greenspahn, “The Theology of the Framework of Judges”, VT 36 (1986), 385–396; B. G. Webb, The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading (Suppl. JSOT 46), Sheﬃeld 1987; L. R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (Suppl. JSOT 68; Bible and Literature Series 14), Sheﬃeld 1988; U. Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch (BZAW 192), Berlin-New York 1990; R. Bartelmus, “Forschung am Richterbuch seit Martin Noth”, ThR 56 (1991), 221–259; R. H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges (SVT 63), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996; P. van Midden, Broedeschap en koningschap. Een onderzoek naar de betekenis van Gideon en Abimelek in het boek Richteren, Maastricht 1998.

The book of Judges takes its name from the six “major judges” and the six “minor judges” whose activities during the period prior to the emergence of Israel’s monarchy are not infrequently designated as “judging”:234 Othniel (3:5–11), Ehud (3:12–30), Barak (together with Deborah: 4–5), Gideon (6–8), Jephthah (10:6–12:7), Samson (13–16) and Shamgar (3:31),235 Tola (10:1–2), Jair (10:3–5), Ibzan (12:8–10), Elon (12:11–12), Abdon (12:13–15). The book can be divided into three parts: a) a survey of the military campaigns of the southern tribes and the house of Joseph (1:1–26) together with a list of territories not conquered by Israelite tribes (the so-called negative Besitzverzeichnis 1:27–36)

234 While the term “judges” is used in particular for the minor judges (10;2, 3; 12:8, 9, 11, 13, 14), it is also employed for Othniel (3:10), Deborah (4:4), Jephtha (12:7) and Samson (15:20; 16:31). 235 Some scholars include Shamgar among the major judges on account of Judg. 5:6.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

279

and the narrative concerning yhwh’s messenger at Bochim236 (2:1–5) [the “prologue”]; b) the narratives concerning the judges (3:7–16:31) preceded by an exhaustive Deuteronomistic introduction (2:6–3:6); c) the establishment of the sanctuary at Dan (17–18) and the outrage at Gibeah together with its consequences (19–21) [the “epilogue”]. Sections a) and c) thus make no allusion to the judges. Judg. 1:1–2:5 is often considered to be “an important chapter, an (albeit with later interpolations) historical source of the highest order” (Vriezen) and at the same time to be the conclusion to the Yahwistic history ( J). The few agreements to be observed therein with speciﬁc texts from the book of Joshua (15:13–19; 15:63 [against which background it is suggested that Judg. 1:21 be corrected]; 16:10; 17:12) leave one with the impression that we are dealing in principle with an ancient document, an impression supported in part by the anecdotal characteristics the text exhibits in places (1:12–15, 23–26). The document oﬀers a diﬀerent image of the conquest of the promised land, however, to that represented by the book of Joshua: Joshua does not have a role to play, the tribes act independently and the “entrance” into the land is more of a gradual inﬁltration than a swift invasion; instead of an extermination of the local population the text speaks of an expulsion. This latter datum points in the direction of the spiritual disposition of J, which is more lenient towards the world of the nations than E and less particularistic. Whether we are thus entitled to consider Judg. 1:1–2:5 as the conclusion to the Yahwistic history or as an excerpt from the J narrative concerning the conquest of the land remains a question. In the present author’s opinion the character of the text is too heterogeneous to warrant such a conclusion. However one is inclined to interpret the relationship between Josh. 24:28–31 and Judg. 2:6–9 (repetition with a few minor diﬀerences), it has been ﬁrmly established that Judg. 1:1–2:5 was once an independent document that was added to the book at a later date.237 This addition probably took place in order to explain 236

Possibly to be identiﬁed with Bethel. The words “it happened after the death of Joshua” (1:1a), which establish a link with the conclusion to the Book of Joshua, do not, however, form a part of the original document: the death of Joshua is only referred to in Judg. 2:8 and the texts that Judg. 1:1–2:5 has in common with the book of Joshua refer to events prior to the death of Joshua ( Josh. 15:13–19,63; 16:10; 17:12). 237

280

chapter eight

how the Israelites had allowed themselves to be so strongly inﬂuenced by the cult of the Canaanites in the period of the judges. In contrast to what is implied in the book of Joshua, the book of Judges suggests that the Israelites were unable to totally eradicate the cult of the former inhabitants of Canaan. Judg. 1:19b and 1:27–36 are of particular historical signiﬁcance because they serve to identify those regions that were still Canaanite in the early period of the kings. The core of the book of Judges can be found in Judg. 2:6–16:31, a extensive portion of text that has undergone a complex evolution. It consists of a collection of narratives presented for the most part within a speciﬁc framework: Israel does what is evil in the eyes of yhwh (3:7,12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1), He surrenders them into the hand of their enemy (3:8; 4:2; 6:1; 10:7; 13:1), the Israelites call out thereafter to yhwh (3:9,15; 4:3; 6:6; 10:10), He raises up a deliverer for the Israelites (3:9,15), the enemy is humiliated (3:30; 4:23; 8:28; 11:33) and rest is restored to the land (3:11,30; 5:31; 8:28). This framework is only complete in the case of the narrative of Ehud (3:12–30) and as good as complete with respect to the narratives concerning Deborah and Barak (4–5) and Gideon (6–8). The framework is not original to the narratives themselves since it tends to deviate from the latter at both the linguistic and stylistic levels and locate the emphasis diﬀerently: while the narratives associate the actions of individuals and tribes with hostile threats, the framework blames the situation of distress on Israel’s sin. This does not detract from the possibility that the narratives existed as an independent collection, dominated by a pan-Israelite perspective and by the holy wars whereby yhwh delivered his people, prior to the imposition of the framework. While the framework of 3:7–11 (in part); 3:12–15a (in part), 30; 4:1a, 2aa, 3a, 23–24; 5:31b; 6:1–2a, 6b; 8:28, 33–35 (in part); 10:6–16 (in part) and 11:33b is often taken to be Deuteronomistic, Beyerlin (1963) has shown that we are in fact dealing with a pre-Deuteronomistic structure rooted in the admonitions of the covenant feast and reset in narrative-didactic style. In agreement with the origins of the traditions concerning the major judges, Beyerlin maintains that the framework (with the exception of 3:7–11) stems from northern Israel. 2:11–19 (to which 2:20–3:6 was apparently added at a later date) and 6:7–10, however, are evidently of Deuteronomistic authorship. Those who follow Beyerlin are obliged to accept that the Deuteronomistic redaction of the book was signiﬁcantly more limited than is generally accepted.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

281

A good example of the genesis and evolution of the narratives relating to the judges can be found in that concerning Ehud in Judg. 3:12–30. The core of the narrative (3:15b–25) is made up of a folk tale intended to glorify a local hero. The accent has shifted, however, on account of later interpolations, to focus on yhwh who brought about the unmitigated defeat of the Moabites through the mediation of Ehud. In the ﬁnal phase of the tradition, the king of Moab becomes an instrument in the hand of God to punish Israel and Ehud’s intervention becomes a deed of divine clemency towards a sinful people. Chapters 4 and 5 speak of Israel’s victory against the forces of Sisera, the commander of the army of Jabin, the “king of Canaan” who reigned in Hazor (cf. Josh. 11:1–15), under the leadership of Deborah and Barak. Chapter 4 is written in prose while chapter 5 (the well-known Song of Deborah) is written in poetry. While both chapters would appear in principle to be relating the same events, they are not identical in terms of content. The core of chapter 4 is to be located in the story, set in an historical context, of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, who murdered Sisera in his sleep, thereby running counter to every Ancient Near Eastern rule of hospitality. Traces of literary growth are also evident in the Song of Deborah (chapter 5) that sings of the victory against Sisera: the core consists of 5:12–30, one of the oldest poetic pieces in Israel’s literature, while 5:2–11 and 5:31 transform it into a song of praise in honour of yhwh. The Gideon narrative (6–8),238 with the ancient tradition concerning Abimelech of Shechem as its appendix (9),239 enjoys a double background in two traditions that have been reworked according to the capacity of the author to form a single unit. In one narrative the judge is named as Gideon who defeats the Midianites, calling out the men of Ephraim who kill the Midianite captains Oreb 238 A. Malamat, “The War of Gideon and Midian: A Military Approach”, PEQ 85 (1953), 61–65; W. Beyerlin, “Geschichte und heilsgeschichtliche Traditionsbildung im Alten Testament. Ein Beitrag zur Traditionsgeschichte von Richter VI–VIII”, VT 13 (1963), 1–25; B. Lindars, “Gideon and Kingship”, JThS 16 (1965), 315–326; J. A. Emerton, “Gideon and Jerubbaal”, JThS 27 (1976), 289–312; id., “The ‘Second Bull’ in Judges 6:25–28”, Erets Israel 14 (1978), 52–55; P. van Midden, op. cit., 1998. 239 H. Reviv, “The Government of Shechem in the El Amarna Period and in the Days of Abimelech”, IEJ 16 (1966), 252–257; B. Halpern, “The Rise of Abimelek ben-Jerubbaal”, Hebrew Annual Review 2 (1978), 79–100; V. Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem in Jdc. IX”, VT 32 (1982), 129–144; H. N. Rösel, “Überlegungen zu Abimelech und Sichem in Jdc. IX”, VT 33 (1983), 500–503.

282

chapter eight

and Zeeb. In the other narrative (continued in chapter 9), however, the judge is referred to as Jerubbaal who defeats the Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna. In the latter account, which is possibly older than the former, the theme of kingship is treated: Gideon rejects it on theocratic grounds (8:23) while the so-called Jotham fable or the Parable of the Trees (9:8–15)240 contains a pointed satire on the value of the monarchy. In his book Das Königtum Gottes (19362) Martin Buber makes an appeal on the basis of Judg. 8:23 in favour of the ancient character of the idea of theocracy in Israel (cf. also Samuel 7–12; see below). Indeed, the possibility that the representation of yhwh as king arose in Israel under the inﬂuence of ancient traditions concerning El as god-king during the period of the judges cannot be rejected out of hand. The narratives referred to thus far stem from northern Israel. The content of this Retterbuch (Richter 1964) is surrounded and enclosed by information concerning Othniel (3:7–11) and information concerning the minor judges (10:1–5; 12:7–15) associated with the Jephthah narrative (10:6–12:6) together with the narratives relating to Samson (13–16). The narrative concerning Othniel lacks speciﬁc detail and would appear to be based on the framework accounts of the Retterbuch. Its Judean background (Othniel is presented as belonging to the tribe of Caleb: 3:9) is nevertheless clear and points in the direction of a Beispielstück (Wellhausen), intended to include Judah, which remained unmentioned in the deliverance accounts, in the events that took place in the period of the judges. The narratives concerning Jephthah241 and Samson242 are introduced by a segment (10:6–16) in which the sin of Israel is expressed 240 B. Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable: A New Form Critical Analysis”, JThS 24 (1973), 355–366. 241 W. Richter, “Die Überlieferungen um Jephtah, Ri 10,17–12,6”, Biblica 47 (1966), 485–556; J. A. Emerton, “Some Comments on the Shibboleth Incident ( Judges XII 6)”, in: A. Caquot e.a., Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985, pp. 149–157. 242 J. Blenkinsopp, “Structure and Style in Judges 13–16”, JBL 82 (1963), 65–76; J. L. Crenshaw, “The Samson Saga: Filial Devotion or Erotic Attachment?”, ZAW 86 (1974), 470–504; id., Samson: A Secret Betrayed, a Vow Ignored, Atlanta and London 1978; E. L. Greenstein, “The Riddle of Samson”, Prooftexts 1 (1981), 237–260; J. Cheryl Exum, “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance in the Samson Saga”, JSOT 19 (1981), 3–29; id., “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga”, VT 33 (1983), 30–54; P. Nel, “The Riddle of Samson”, Biblica 66 (1985), 534–545; O. Maragalith, “Samson’s Riddle and Samson’s Magic Locks”, VT 36 (1986), 225–234.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

283

in greater detail than in the preceding framework deliverance accounts. This need not imply, however, that the interpolated and subsequently reworked narrative concerning Jephthah is of a later date. The same is true for the narratives concerning Samson which (preceded by the birth account of chapter 13) do not allude to deliverance by yhwh in the two cycles of chapters 14–15 and chapter 16 but oﬀer rather a folk tale concerning an individual who excelled in physical prowess, courage and attractiveness towards the opposite sex. The list of “minor judges” (10:1–5; 12:7–15; see also 3:31) has been added together with the narratives concerning Jephthah and Samson. Once again this need not suggest that the list as such is of a later date. The reader would be better advised to consider the various references to the so-called “minor judges” as having been taken from ancient annals that evidently already existed in the period of the judges. According to Noth (1950), the minor judges were neither deliverers nor oﬃcials in service of Ancient Israel’s central liturgy. De Geus (1965–1966) describes them as local leaders and Mayes (1985, pp. 78–83) as judicial mediators. Their designation as judges has passed over to the deliverers described in chapters 3–8. Various supporters of the new and the newest documentary hypothesis have argued that evidence of the old Pentateuchal sources— with the exception of P—can be traced in the book of Judges. The fragmentation of the narratives that has resulted from this suggestion together with the fact that characteristic features of J are lacking in 3:7–16:31 has led scholars to conclude that alternative literary-historical explanations ought to be explored. Noth has argued, for example, that the author of Judges is to be identiﬁed with the author of the Deuteronomistic history. In his opinion the latter made use of a list of judges (10:1–5; 12:7–15) and a collection of narratives concerning tribal heroes stretching from Ehud to Jephthah. According to Noth, the introduction in 1:1–2:5, the accounts relating to Samson and chapters 17–21 represent literary growth. Beyerlin, on the other hand, has argued that the book of Judges—notwithstanding a number of later interpolations—already existed as an independent document before it was subjected to a limited Deuteronomistic redaction. The hypothesis that an original book of Judges was later connected to the preceding text (by repeating, at least in principle, Josh. 24:28–31 in Judg. 2:6–10) tends to support Beyerlin’s point of view. We have already noted above that (with respect to the term Judge)

284

chapter eight

we have reckoned with a northern Israelite Retterbuch (3:12–9:55— provided with a framework at a later date) from the early period of the kings to which the narratives concerning Jephthah and Samson together with the list of the minor judges was added and to which the Beispielstück (3:7–11) was provided as a supplement in a subsequent redaction. The historical-theological introduction of 2:11–3:6 (with various literary layers) would appear to have been added to the whole by a Deuteronomistic author. The third part of the book (chapters 17–21) consists of two independent narratives, the ﬁrst relating to the origins of the cult at Dan (17–18)243 and the second referring to the outrage at Gibeah (19–21;244 to which allusion is apparently made in Hos. 9:9 and 10:9) together with the consequent results for the tribe of Benjamin. The chapters in question clearly lack any evidence of Deuteronomistic reworking: the emphatic references contained therein to the period prior to the monarchy as a time of moral and social decay (17:6; 18:1; 21:25 “all the people did what was right in their own eyes”, cf. also 19:1) cannot be described per se as Deuteronomistic. The chapters exhibit a pro-monarchic disposition (cf. 18:1a and 19:1a) and tend to function more as an introduction to the books of 1–2 Samuel than as a conclusion to the book of Judges.

j. I–II Samuel Commentaries: H. P. Smith (ICC) 1899, 19514; W. Nowack (HKAT) 1902; K. Budde (KHC) 1902; P. Dhorme (Etudes Bibliques) 1910; W. Caspari (KAT) 1926; J. de Groot (TU) I, 1934, II, 1935; K. A. Leimbach (HSAT) 1936; M. Rehm (EB) 1949; A. van den Born (BOT) 1956; H. W. Hertzberg (ATD) 1956, 19826; C. J. Goslinga (KV) I, 1958, II, 1956; id. (COT) I, 1968. II,

243 Cf. M. Noth, “The Background of Judges 17–18”, in: B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (FS J. Muilenburg), London 1962, pp. 68–85. 244 Cf. J. Muilenburg, “Mizpah of Benjamin”, Studia Theologica 8 (1954), 25–42; A. Besters, Le sanctuaire central dans Jud. XIX–XXI, EThL 41 (1965), 20–41; K. D. Schunck, Benjamin (BZAW 86), Berlin 1963, pp. 57–79; H. W. Jüngling, Plädoyer für das Königtum, Richter 19, Rome 1981.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

285

1962; A. van den Born (BOT) 1956; J. Mauchline (NCB) 1971; P. R. Ackroyd (CNEB) I, 1971, II, 1977; H. J. Stoebe (KAT) I, 1973, II, 1994; P. Kyle McCarter Jr. (AB) I, 1980, II, 1984; F. Stolz (ZBK) 1981; R. W. Klein (WBC) 1983; R. P. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, Exeter 1986; A. H. van Zijl (POT) I/1, 1988, I/2, 1989 (= 1 Samuel); G. Hentschel (NEB) 1994.

Monographs and articles: L. Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3/6), Stuttgart 1926 (= id., Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament, Heidelberg 1965, pp. 119–253); O. Eissfeldt, Die Komposition der Samuelisbücher, Leipzig 1931; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943 (Tübingen 19673); E. Jenni, “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige. VI. Samuelbuch”, ThR 27 (1961), 136ﬀ.; A. Weiser, Samuel. Seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und religiöse Bedeutung (FRLANT 81), Göttingen 1962; id., “Die Legitimation des Königs David. Zur Eigenart und Entstehung der sogen. Geschichte von Davids Aufstieg”, VT 16 (1966), 325–354; R. A. Carlson, David—the Chosen King. A Traditio-historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel, Stockholm-Göteborg-Uppsala 1964; J. A. Soggin, Das Königtum in Israel: Ursprünge, Spannungen, Entwicklung (BZAW 104), Berlin 1967; L. Delekat, “Tendenz und Theologie der David-Salomo-Erzählung”, in: F. Maass (ed.), Das ferne und nahe Wort (FS L. Rost; BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, pp. 26–36; R. N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative (SBTh 2/9), London 1968; H. J. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums in den deuteronomistischen Abschnitten des 1. Samuelbuches (WMANT 31), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969; L. Schmidt, Menschlicher Erfolg und Jahwes Initiative (WMANT 38), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970; J. H. Grönbæk, Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1 Sam 15–2 Sam 5). Tradition und Komposition (Acta Theologica Danica 10), Copenhagen 1971; R. Rendtorﬀ, “Beobachtungen zur altisraelitischen Geschichtsschreibung anhand der Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids”, in: H. W. Wolﬀ (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (FS G. von Rad), Munich 1971, pp. 428–439; W. H. Schmidt, “Kritik am Königtum”, ibid., pp. 440–461; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108), Göttingen 1972; J. W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2”, JBL 91 (1972), 172–181; id., David’s Social Drama. A Hologram of Israel’s Early Iron Age (Social World of Biblical Antiquity 7), Sheﬃeld 1988; F. Schickelberger, Die Ladeerzählungen des ersten Samuel-Buches (FzB 7), Würzburg 1973; E. Würthwein, Die Erzählung von der Thronfolge Davids—theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung ? (ThSt 115), Zurich 1974; T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B. 193), Helsinki 1975; id., Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B. 198), Helsinki 1977; id., David (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 52), HelsinkiGöttingen 1990; W. Dietrich, “David in Überlieferung und Geschichte”,

286

chapter eight

Verkündigung und Forschung 22 (1974), 44–64; B. C. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy. The Growth and Development of 1 Samuel 7–15 (SBL Diss. Series 27), Missoula MT 1976; F. Langlamet, “Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne de I Rois I–II”, RB 83 (1976), 321–379, 481–528; T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah, Lund 1976; W. Dietrich, “David in Überlieferung und Geschichte”, VuF 22 (1977), 44–64 (lit.!); T. Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel (BZAW 142), Berlin-New York 1977; id., “Solomon’s Succession to the Throne of David. A Political Analysis”, in: id. (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, Winona Lake IN 1982, pp. 175–187; J. Kegler, Politisches Geschehen und theologisches Verstehen. Zum Geschichtsverständnis in der frühen israelitischen Königszeit (Calwer Theologische Monographien A 8), Stuttgart 1977; F. Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat (WMANT 49), NeukirchenVluyn 1978; D. M. Gunn, The Story of King David (Suppl. JSOT 6), Sheﬃeld 1978; id., The Fate of King Saul (Suppl. JSOT 14), Sheﬃeld 1980; C. Conroy, Absalom, Absalom! Narrative Art and Language in 2 Samuel 13–20 (AnBibl 81), Rome 1978; L. Humphreys, “The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9–31”, JSOT 6 (1978), 18–27; id., “The Rise and Fall of King Saul: A Study of the Ancient Narrative Stratum in 1 Samuel”, JSOT 18 (1980), 74–90; id., “From Tragic Hero to Villain: A Study of the Figure of Saul and the Development of 1 Samuel”, JSOT 22 (1982), 95–117; id., The Tragic Vision and the Hebraic Vision, Philadelphia 1985; F. Langlamet, “David et la maison de Saul”, RB 86 (1979), 194–23,481–516, 87 (1980), 161–210; P. R. Ackroyd, “The Succession Narrative (So-Called)”, Interpretation 35 (1981), 383–396; J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Assen-Maastricht I 1981, II 1986, III 1990, IV 1993; R. P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1984; W. Brueggemann, David’s Truth, Philadelphia 1985; H. Donner, “Die Verwerfung des Königs Saul”, in: Sitzungsberiche der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a.M. 19/5, Wiesbaden 1983, pp. 229–260; B. Peckham, “The Deuteronomistic History of Saul and David”, ZAW 97 (1985), 190–209; G. Bettenzoli, “Samuel und das Problem des Königtums”, BZ 30 (1986), 222–236; id., “Samuel und Saul in geschichtlicher und theologischer Auﬀassung”, ZAW 98 (1986), 338–351; A. F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings. A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1–2 Kings 10) (CBQ Monograph Series 17), Washington DC 1986; U. Berges, Die Verwerfung Sauls (FzB 61), Würzburg 1989; J. S. Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil. A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2”, JBL 109 (1990), 41–60; P. Mommer, Samuel (WMANT 65), NeukirchenVluyn 1991; W. Dietrich, David, Saul und die Propheten. Das Verhältnis von Religion und Politik nach den prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum in Israel (BWANT 122), Stuttgart 19922; W. Dietricht, Th. Naumann, Die Samuelbücher (EdF 287), Darmstadt 1995.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

287

The Septuagint (which, particularly with respect to 1 Samuel, frequently deviates from the Masoretic tradition)245 and the Vulgate designate the books of Samuel and Kings together as 1–4 Kingdoms (lxx: basileioon A–D; V: libri regnorum I–IV ). The fact that the death of Samuel is already mentioned in 1 Sam. 25:1 (cf. 28:3) does indeed make the designation of the ﬁrst two segments of the four as 1–2 Samuel somewhat unfortunate. The separation of the books of Samuel and the books of Kings can already be observed in the Dead Sea Scrolls and would appear to have been brought about by 2 Samuel 21–24, which exhibits the characteristics of an interpolation (cf. also 1 Chron. 29:29 in which “the records of the seer Samuel, the records of the seer Nathan and the records of the seer Gad” would appear to refer to 1–2 Samuel). The subdivision of Samuel into two books is of a later date and appears to be arbitrary on literary grounds and in terms of content: in spite of the reference to the death of Saul, there is no striking caesura between 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1 and 1 Kings 1–2 clearly ought to be reckoned as part of the family history of David (see below). The books of 1–2 Samuel deal with the end of the period of the judges and the beginning of Israel’s monarchy under Saul and David. The contents thereof can be summarised as follows: a. Samuel and Saul (1 Samuel 1–15) 1–3 Birth and call of Samuel; prayer of Hannah (2:1–10); Eli and his sons 4–6 (with 2 Samuel 6) Account of the ark 7–12 The emergence of the monarchy 13–15 Saul’s military campaigns and rejection b. The appearance of David (1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 8) 16 The anointing of David. David at the court of Saul 17 David defeats Goliath

245 The Hebrew text is a source of signiﬁcant problems; cf. S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, Oxford 1890, 19132; P. A. H. de Boer, Research into the Text of 1 Samuel I–XVI (diss. Leiden), Amsterdam 1938; id., “1 Samuel XVII. Notes on the Text and the Ancient Versions”, OTS 1 (1942), 79–104; id., “Research into the Text of 1 Samuel XVIII–XXXI”, OTS 6 (1949), 1–100; E. C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19), Missoula MT 1978; S. Pisano, Additions and Omissions in the Books of Samuel. The Signiﬁcant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO 57), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1984 (lit.!).

288

chapter eight

Saul’s jealousy and David’s ﬂight. Pledge between David and Jonathan 21–27 David as guerrilla. Nabal and Abigail. David among the Philistines 28 Saul consults a medium 29–30 David sent back by the Philistines. Revenge against the Amalekites 31 The death of Saul and of his three sons 1 David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan 2–4 David becomes king of Judah. Conﬂict with Saul’s son Ish-bosheth. Abner defects to David 5 David becomes king of Israel and conquers Jebus. Victory against the Philistines 7 The promise of Nathan. David’s prayer of thanksgiving 8 David’s victories. David’s oﬃcials c. David’s family history (2 Samuel 9–20) 9 David and Mephibosheth 10 David’s conﬂict with the Ammonites and the Arameans 11 David and Bathsheba. The birth of Solomon 12 The punishment of Nathan and David’s penitence 13–14 Amnon and Tamar. Absalom’s ﬂight and return 15–19 The revolt of Absalom 20 The revolt of Sheba d. Appendices to the history of David (2 Samuel 21–24) 21 The Gibeonites and the house of Saul 22 David’s song of thanksgiving 23 David’s last words. David’s heroes 24 Census of the people and punishment. Construction of an altar on the threshing ﬂoor of Araunah 18–20

According to a signiﬁcant number of scholars (although see Flanagan 1972, 1988 and Stoebe, commentary 1994), 1 Kings 1–2 also belongs to the family history of David. These chapters make reference to the revolt of David’s son Adonijah, the death of David, Solomon’s accession to the throne and the initial acts of his reign. After David’s death, Solomon arranged the assassination of his rival Adonijah, the military general Joab (who had ultimately sided with Adonijah) and Shimei, whom David had once cursed (cf. 2 Sam. 16:5–14) and who had ignored Solomon’s command to remain in Jerusalem. The king also sent the priest Abiathar into exile in Anathoth.

1 and 2 Samuel contain narratives that relatively rarely exhibit traces of Deuteronomistic reworking. According to several scholars, such

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

289

reworking ought to be restricted to segments of 1 Samuel 7, 8, 10, 12 (in this instance almost the entire chapter) and 2 Samuel 7.246 There can be little doubt that the annals of 2 Samuel 8 and 21:15–22 and the lists found in 2 Sam. 3:2–5, 5:13–16, 8:16–18, 20:23–26 and 23:8–39 once enjoyed an independent existence. Moreover, 1–2 Samuel have incorporated ancient laments of David over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27) and over the military general Abner (2 Sam. 3:33–34), together with the so-called Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10). Given the fact that the latter makes reference to the king, the anointed one of yhwh (2:10), its provenance is probably from the Davidic-Solomonic period at the earliest, unless one is inclined to consider it rooted in Israel’s holy war tradition and one accepts 1 Sam. 2:10 to be a later addition. We ﬁnd in addition David’s Song of Thanksgiving (2 Samuel 22, corresponding in principle with Psalm 18), which ascribes the king’s achievements to God’s intervention, and David’s Last Words (2 Sam. 23:1–7), in which reference is made to the “eternal covenant” established by yhwh with the house of David. The date of these two lyrical texts cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. The remainder of 1 and 2 Samuel (together with 1 Kings 1–2) consists of a number of closely interrelated narrative cycles. 1 Samuel also exhibits traces, however, of more than one hand or at least evidence of the written form of diverse material from the oral tradition. This is supported by the presence of irregularities and doublets: cf., for example, 1 Sam. 16:14–23 (David at the court of Saul; cf. also 18:9ﬀ.) and 17:55–58 (Saul does not know David); the twicerepeated rejection of Saul (1 Sam. 13:13–14 and 15:23–26). The contradiction between 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Sam. 21:19 (who defeated Goliath: David or Elhanan?, cf. also 1 Chron. 20:5) can be solved, however, by correcting 2 Sam. 21:19 in line with 1 Chron. 20:5. In order to gain some understanding of the composition of 1–2 Samuel we can take the extensive segment known as the succession narrative or family history of David found in 2 Samuel 9–20 (to which many endeavour to include 1 Kings 1–2; 1 Kgs 2:13–46 is often taken to be secondary) as our point of departure. A signiﬁcant number of Old Testament scholars are of the opinion that this material constitutes a literary unity and the historian Eduard Meyer (1855–1930) has described it as a pearl of Ancient Near Eastern narrative art 246 Veijola (1975), however, maintains a much more extensive threefold redaction by DtrH, DtrP and DtrN.

290

chapter eight

and a ﬁrst order historical source. Von Rad247 characterised the author of this segment as a representative of the Davidic-Solomonic Aufklärung, while Vriezen248 identiﬁed its possible author as Zabud, the son of the prophet Nathan (1 Kgs 4:5), who assembled his narrative on the basis of reminiscences with respect to his father (others have proposed Ahimaaz [2 Sam. 15:27] or Husai [15:32–37] as author). According to Rost (1926), Von Rad, Vriezen249 and many others, the goal of the historical narrative was to legitimate Solomon as David’s rightful successor (cf. 1 Kgs 1:20, 27), representing as such an historical-political apology. In recent years, however, more and more scholars have been inclined to doubt this hypothesis. After a brief mention in 2 Sam. 12:24–25, Solomon does not return to the stage until 1 Kings 1, a somewhat unusual feature for a succession narrative speciﬁcally focused on him. It is for this reason that many prefer to speak of the “court-” or of the “family history of David”. Some are of the opinion that we are dealing here with a defence of the legitimacy of David’s kingship, which was not to be called into question on account of the latter’s sins (Bathsheba!) nor the revolt of his own son (Absalom!) or others (cf. the revolt of Sheba: 2 Samuel 20). Others have formed the opinion that the chapters in question are directed against David and Solomon. Such an interpretation is diﬃcult to defend, however. While it is true that the deeds of King David are related openly and in no uncertain terms, including the highly reproachable manner with which he took Bathsheba as his bride (2 Samuel 11–12), it is stated nevertheless that after David repented and did penance, yhwh “loved” Solomon, the son that Bathsheba bore to David after the death of their ﬁrst child (2 Sam. 12:24–25). In spite of the fact that the writing of David’s family history exhibits a “profane” character, it is explicitly stated that yhwh guided the events thereof (2 Sam. 17:14; cf. also 11:27; 12:1, 15; 1 Kgs 2:15). Others still consider the Thronfolgegeschichte to be a narrative that originally criticised David and Solomon and only later presented them in a more favourable light after redactional intervention (Würthwein 1974, but see the critique of Kegler 1977). Such 247

G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments I, Munich 1957, pp. 56ﬀ. Th. C. Vriezen, “De compositie van de Samuëlboeken”, Orientalia Neerlandica 1948, pp. 167–189. 249 Vriezen insists that the historical narrative draws attention in part to the right of the house of David to the throne in contrast to that of the house of Saul. 248

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

291

observations would appear, however, to have paid little attention to the possibility that an historical narrative that places implicit praise side by side with personal failures, need not necessarily be taken as evidence of a literary product that can be explained on the basis of redactional layers. In addition to Würthwein, Veijola (1975) and Langlamet (1976) similarly argue in favour of redactional layers. The characterisation of the succession narrative as a Wisdom document (Whybray 1968), wherein David is presented to Solomon as an example in the form of a critique of the monarch cast in chokmatic terms (Crüsemann 1978, pp. 180–193), is not without its problems. Wisdom and counsel would appear to function in the Thronfolgegeschichte in a far too diﬀerent fashion than one would be inclined to expect of a Wisdom book (cf., for example, 2 Sam. 13:3–5; 20:22; 1 Kgs 2:5–6 and see esp. Gordon [commentary 1986], pp. 42–43).

It is not only on the basis of content but also for literary reasons that one is inclined to wonder whether the expression Thronfolgegeschichte, which suggests a distinct literary composition, is in fact a fortunate choice of terminology. It is impossible to conceive of the succession narrative disconnected from the narratives related to the rise of David in 1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 5 (Aufstiegsgeschichte). The fact that commentators delimit the Thronfolgegeschichte and the Aufstiegsgeschichte of David in diﬀerent ways reinforces the suspicion that we are dealing in this instance with a single narrative cycle (some begin the succession narrative in 2 Samuel 5 or 6 [Rost (1926) in 6:16, 20–23; 7:11b, 16], Gunn (1978) in 2 Samuel 2–4, others as late as 2 Samuel 11). Most signiﬁcantly, however, chapters 2 Samuel 9ﬀ. presuppose knowledge of 1 Samuel 16ﬀ.: the same characters appear on several occasions in both the Thronfolgegeschichte and the Aufstiegsgeschichte (Mephiboshet, Joab and Abiathar). It is probable, therefore, that the literary complexes in question stem, at least in principle, from one and the same hand and, as a minimum, have been layered together. Their dissimilar character can be explained from the fact that the Aufstiegsgeschichte harks back to traditions of a diﬀerent nature to those found in the family history of David. The Aufstiegsgeschichte of David aims at showing that he became king in an absolutely legitimate manner by insisting that he was not a usurper and that he did not lay violent hands on King Saul (he spared his life on two occasions: see 1 Samuel 24 and 26): God

292

chapter eight

himself had rejected Saul on account of the latter’s disobedience and it was He who brought about the rise of David. Weiser (1966) dates the Aufstiegsgeschichte of David in the Solomonic period. Grönbæk (1971) considers it to contain a Judean protest against the territorial division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon. From the literary perspective, a substantial portion of the narratives concerning Saul in 1 Samuel 9–15 must have preceded the Aufstiegsgeschichte of David in 1 Samuel 16ﬀ., the former serving to herald the latter to a signiﬁcant extent. While chapters 13–14 (which contain reports of the military successes of Saul and his son Jonathan) and 15 (Saul’s conﬂict with the Amalekites) are written with a degree of sympathy for Saul, they reveal nevertheless that he was a tragic failure and that another would have to complete what he had started (cf. 1 Sam. 13:14; 15:28). Reference is made in 1 Sam. 13:7f. to a command that Samuel had given, according to 10:8 to Saul, making it clear that chapter 10 at least (and chapter 9 which cannot be separated therefrom) must have preceded the Aufstiegsgeschichte of David. Chapters 7–12 speak of the institution of the monarchy in Israel and have been the subject of much discussion. Since Wellhausen, scholars have endeavoured to argue in support of pro-monarchic and anti-monarchic (königsfreundliche and königsfeindliche) literary layers in these chapters consisting of 9:1–10:16; 11:1–15 and 7:2–8:22; 10:17–27; 12:1–25 respectively, whereby the pro-monarchic segments are considered to be the oldest. According to Wellhausen, the anti-monarchic segments represent a late Deuteronomistic perspective from the period in which the monarchy no longer existed. In his opinion they thus stem from the exilic or post-exilic period. The information provided by 11:1–15 is considered to be the most historically reliable. More recent research has shown, however, that this standpoint requires some revision. In earlier editions of the present volume Vriezen distinguished three narrative series concerning Saul’s kingship and its downfall in the aforementioned chapters and those that follow. He locates the ﬁrst series in the narrative concerning Saul’s victory (seized by the Spirit of God) over the Ammonite Nahash after which he was acclaimed as king by the people at Gilgal (11:1–11,15). The continuation of this narrative, according to Vriezen, is to be found in the military activities of Saul and Jonathan against the Philistines (13:2–5; 13:16–14:46). No reference is made to Samuel in this regard nor is there allusion to any immediate guilt on Saul’s part with respect to his own downfall. The reason for the latter is stated in 16:14ﬀ.:

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

293

the Spirit of God departed from Saul and an evil spirit from God descended upon him. For the author, Saul is clearly a tragic ﬁgure. The remaining two series, in Vriezen’s opinion, owe their existence to later reﬂection on Saul’s kingship and his downfall. According to him, the second series is formed by 1 Samuel 9 and 10:1–16, whereby 13:3b, 4, 6ﬀ. form a continuation. Saul was anointed by Samuel at God’s command and ordered to go to Gilgal and wait seven days for Samuel who intended to oﬀer sacriﬁce there. The latter put the king to the test by appearing so late that Saul oﬀered sacriﬁce himself. It was by reason of this disobedience, therefore, that Saul was rejected. Vriezen argues that the third series consists of (7); 8:6–22; 10:17–27; 11:12–14 and chapter 15, in which disobedience is repeatedly stated as the reason for Saul’s rejection (“to obey is better than sacriﬁce, and to heed than the fat of rams”, 15:22). Vriezen maintains that the institution of the monarchy in the second series stems from God and that while the third series is in conﬂict with the Yahwistic ideal it is nevertheless permitted by God. The latter represents the standpoint of Judean farming circles in the period following Solomon’s harsh administration, the former later prophetic considerations in which it is possible to recognise the hand of an E author. In Vriezen’s opinion the Deuteronomist changed little of the text he transmitted: he was only responsible for rewriting 1 Samuel 7 and 12 and for the introduction of v. 13, for example, into 2 Samuel 7.

Weiser (1962) and Hertzberg have defended the thesis that we should account for the presence of traditions stemming from diﬀerent cultic centra that have been associated with one another at a secondary stage (e.g. 8:1–22 is said to stem from Ramah and 10:17–27 from Mizpah). In contrast to Wellhausen and his followers, Weiser ascribed the anti-monarchical texts to an early phase of the tradition (followed therein by Ishida [1977] and Crüsemann [1978] among others). The fact that Israel did not have a monarchical form of government in the early stages of its history and that the monarchy did not even enjoy undivided support in the period of David and Solomon, tends to reinforce the suggestion that criticism of the monarchy may indeed have stemmed from an early period. According to current theory (albeit not unanimous), 1 Samuel 7 is a Deuteronomistic creation, which (in contrast to 9:16, 10:5 and chapters 13–15) portrays the unexpected and deﬁnitive defeat of the Philistines (7:13–14). The chapter would appear to be intended to show that the theocracy of the period of the judges was suﬃcient to protect Israel from external dangers. The designation of the Ebenezer stone set up by Samuel (“Thus far the Lord has helped

294

chapter eight

us”: vs. 12) suggests within the said framework that a king was not necessary for Israel’s well-being and salvation (Gordon, commentary 1986). In the present author’s opinion, 1 Samuel 7, which leans heavily towards the narratives of the judges, should not be referred to as Deuteronomistic, but should be understood rather as a reaction to northern Israelite critique of the monarchy clothed in an historical style and analogous to that of the prophet Hosea. The aforementioned critique is also placed on the lips of Samuel in the following chapter, although not without historical reasons. Chapter 8 has preserved ancient traditions whereby Samuel’s negative portrayal of the monarchy in 8:11–18 can be read as a description of the way Ancient Near Eastern kings endeavoured to behave rather than a retrospective projection of experiences during the reign of Solomon. 1 Sam. 9:1–10:16 present a completely diﬀerent atmosphere in which the story is told of Saul who was anointed king by Samuel at God’s command while searching for the lost donkeys of his father Kish. The textual segment 10:17–27, which narrates Saul’s appointment as king by lot during a gathering of the tribes at Mizpah, would appear to have been reworked in part. Once again, however, the suggestion that we are dealing here with Deuteronomistic redaction instead of northern Israelite commentary remains unconﬁrmed. Chapter 11 narrates how Saul, inspired by the Spirit of God in like fashion to the judges, saved the inhabitants of Jabesh in Gilead from the Ammonite king Nahash and was proclaimed king at Gilgal (11:1–11, 15). The latter fact is not entirely in conﬂict with Saul’s appointment as king during the tribal gathering at Mizpah (10:17–27) and points to a diﬀerent tradition that would appear to be continued in 13:2 with the reference to the military undertakings of Saul and Jonathan against the Philistines (13:2–5; 13:16–14:46). It would seem that Samuel did not ﬁgure in the original tradition. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that 11:12–14 should be considered a secondary harmonisation with 10:17–27. According to the majority of commentators, chapter 12 exhibits, for the most part, Deuteronomistic features. It is here that the monarchy is ﬁnally accepted, while the people are encouraged to have faith in yhwh with all their heart in the context of the new civil order. The chapter is in line with 1 Sam. 8:6–9,19–22; 10:17ﬀ.; 11:12–14 and chapters 7 and 15. As was the case with chapter 7, however, we might consider the possibility that chapter 12 (vv. 3–5 of which

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

295

clearly do not exhibit a Deuteronomistic style) may have its roots in northern Israelite preaching rather than in Deuteronomistic redaction. With the exception of the later reworked chapters 7 and 12 the remaining segments of 1 Samuel 7–12 leave the impression that they hark back to ancient traditions that were conﬁned to writing no later than the Solomonic period or shortly thereafter. They clearly form the prelude to the Aufstiegs- and Thronfolgegeschichte, which stem from the same period. The Shiloh traditions (1 Samuel 1–3) and the traditions concerning the ark (1 Samuel 4–6) precede the abovementioned chapters. Chapters 1–3, which refer to the birth of Samuel and his ministry before the Lord at Shiloh, the depravity of the sons of Eli and Samuel’s vocation, also contain the exceptional segment 2:27–36 (cf. 1 Kgs 2:27, 35b) in which an anonymous man of God predicts to Eli that his generation is to come to an end and to be replaced by a “reliable priest” (Zadok). It remains to be seen whether we are dealing here with a Deuteronomistic interpolation. In line with Rost (1926) many consider the history of the sacred ark250 to be an originally independent tradition describing the fortunes of the said cultic object—which was usually present in Shiloh— in the land of the Philistines and after its return to Israel. Scholars endeavour as a rule to associate 2 Samuel 6 therewith. Rost considered the narrative to contain the cultic legend of the temple in Jerusalem in which the ark ﬁnally came to rest. It should be borne in mind, however, that 1 Samuel 4–6 places the emphasis on the contrast between the God of Israel and the gods of the Philistines. The plague with which the latter were confronted is reminiscent of the fate of the Egyptians in the book of Exodus (cf. 4:8). If a distinct ark tradition ever existed it has now been integrated in its entirety in the text of the books of Samuel (cf. 7:2) and associated with the history of Eli and his sons Hophni and Phinehas. 250 H. Timm, “Die Ladeerzählung (1. Sam. 4–6; 2. Sam.6) und das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks”, Evangelische Theologie 26 (1966), 509–526; F. Schickelberger, Die Ladeerzählungen des ersten Samuelbuches, Würzburg 1973; A. F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6). A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study (SBL Diss. Series 16), Missoula MT 1975; P. D. Miller and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the Ark Narrative, Baltimore and London 1977; G. W. Ahlström, “The Travels of the Ark. A Religio-Political Composition”, JNES 43 (1984), 141–149; K. A. D. Smelik, Hidden Messages in the Ark Narrative. “An Analysis of I Samuel iv–vi and II Samuel vi”, in: id., Converting the Past (OTS 28), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1992, pp. 35–58 (lit.!).

296

chapter eight k. I–II Kings

Commentaries: J. Benzinger (KHC) 1899; R. Kittel (HKAT) 1900; A. ”anda (EH) 1911–1912; C. van Gelderen (KV) 1933–1947 (continued by W. H. Gispen 1956); M. Rehm (EB) 1949; J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman (ICC) 1951; A. van den Born (BOT) 1958; H. A. Brongers (POT) I, 1967, 19893. II, 19822; M. Noth (BK) 1968 (= 1 Kings 1–16); J. Gray (OTL) 19702, 19773; J. Robinson (CNEB) 1972, 1976; E. Würthwein (ATD) I, 1977, 19852, II, 1984; G. H. Jones (NCB) 1984; G. Hentschel (NEB) 1984–1985; S. J. de Vries (WBC) 1985 (= 1 Kings); T. R. Hobbs (WBC) 1985 (= 2 Kings); M. J. Mulder (COT) 1987 (= 1 Kings 1–7); M. Cogan and H. Tadmor (AB) 1988 (= 2 Kings); D. J. Wiseman (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries) 1993; W. Thiel (BK) 2000 (= 1 Kings 17,1–24).

Monographs and articles: C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, Oxford 1903; J. Begrich, Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda und die Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher (BHT 3), Tübingen 1929; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943 (Tübingen 19673); A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, Halle 1953, 19562; E. Jenni, “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige. VII. Königsbücher”, ThR 27 (1961), 142ﬀ.; J. Debus, Die Sünde Jerobeams. Studien zur Darstellung Jerobeams und der Geschichte des Nordreichs in der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (FRLANT 93), Göttingen 1967; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108), Göttingen 1972; H. Weippert, “Die deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher”, Biblica 53 (1972), 301–339; A. N. Radjawane, “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Ein Forschungsbericht”, ThR 38 (1973), 177–216; M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion. Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC (SBL Mon. Series 19), Missoula MT 1974; M. Rose, Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes. Deuteronomische Schultheologie und die Volksfrömmigkeit in der späten Königszeit (BWANT 106), Stuttgart 1975; T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 193), Helsinki 1975; T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Coniectanea Biblica, OT Series 8), Lund 1976; T. Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie, Helsinki 1978; R. E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem. A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (Suppl. JSOT 13), Sheﬃeld 1980; H. D. Hoﬀmann, Reform und Reformen. Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (AThANT 66), Zurich 1980; G. W. Ahlström, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

297

1), Leiden 1982; C. Levin, Der Sturz der Königin Athalja (SBS 105), Stuttgart 1982; S. Timm, Die Dynastie Omri. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jh. v. Chr. (FRLANT 124), Göttingen 1982; W. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129), Göttingen 1982; J. van Seters, In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, New Haven 1983; A. D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History, London 1983; B. O. Long, 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL), Grand Rapids 1984; R. M. Zorn, The Pre-Josianic Reforms of Judah, Michigan 1984; B. E. J. H. Becking, De ondergang van Samaria. Historische, exegetische en theologische opmerkingen bij II Koningen 17, Meppel 1985; S. L. McKenzie, “The Prophetic History and the Redaction of Kings”, Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985), 203–220; B. Peckham, The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 35), Atlanta GA 1985; H. Weippert, “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung”, ThR 50 (1985), 213–249; A. Lemaire, “Vers l’histoire de la rédaction des Livres des Rois”, ZAW 98 (1986), 221–235; B. Halpern, The First Historians, San Francisco 1988; J. H. Hayes and P. K. Hooker, A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and its Implications for Biblical History and Literature, Atlanta GA 1988; R. D. Nelson, “The Anatomy of the Book of Kings”, JSOT 40 (1988), 39–48; W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172), Berlin-New York 1988; id., 1 & 2 Kings (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1997; J. G. McConville, “Narrative and Meaning in the Books of Kings”, Biblica 70 (1989), 50–73; A. Moenikes, “Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des sogenannten Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks”, ZAW 104 (1992), 333–348; S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (SVT 42), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1991; G. Knoppers, Two Nations under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. I. The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam, II. The Reign of Jeroboam, The Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah (HSM 52–53), Atlanta GA 1993–1994; B. Gieselmann, “Die sogenannte josianische Reform in der gegenwärtigen Forschung”, ZAW 106 (1994), 223–242; E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 33), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996; P. S. F. van Keulen, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists. The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21:1–18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 38), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996; L. K. Handy (ed.), The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997.

The books of 1–2 Kings, which constitute one single document from the outset, can be subdivided as follows: a) the history of Solomon (1 Kings 1–11); b) a report of the vicissitudes of the kings of Israel and Judah from the time of the division of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom (1 Kings

298

chapter eight

12–2 Kings 17), into which the narratives concerning the prophets Elijah and Elisha have been integrated; c) the last days of the kingdom of Judah, the governorship of Gedaliah, his assassination by Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, and the release of King Jehoiachin by Ewil-Merodach, king of Babylon (2 Kings 18–25). While the later division of Kings into two books would appear to have taken place on account of the size of the document, it is nevertheless an arbitrary division. 1–2 Kings contain information from a variety of diﬀerent origins. Particular mention can be made in this regard of the book of the history of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41), the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah (14:29; 15:7, 23, etc.) and the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (14:19; 15:31 etc.). A number of narrative cycles are also in evidence: a) the description of the end of David’s reign and the accession of Solomon to the throne (1 Kings 1–2), which is generally considered to be the conclusion of the family history of David (see further 1–2 Samuel); b) the Elijah cycle (1 Kings 17–19, 21251 and 2 Kings 1–2), a northern Israelite prophetic account interrupted by narratives concerning King Ahab;252 c) the Elisha cycle (2 Kings 2–8, 13);253

251 R. Bohlen, Der Fall Nabot. Form, Hintergrund und Werden einer alttestamentlichen Erzählung (1 Kö 21) (Trierer Theologische Studien 35), Trier 1978; Y. Zakovich, “The Tale of Naboth’s Vineyard”, in: M. Weiss (ed.), The Bible from Within, Jerusalem 1984, pp. 379–405; A. Rofé, “The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story”, VT 38 (1988), 89–104. 252 G. Fohrer, Elia (AThANT 53), Zurich 1957, 19682; O. H. Steck, Überlieferung und Zeitgeschichte in den Elia-Erzählungen (WMANT 26), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968; R. P. Carroll, “The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel”, VT 19 (1969), 400–415; R. A. Carlson, “Elie à l’Horeb”, ibid., 416–439; R. Smend, “Das Wort Gottes an Elia. Erwägungen zur Komposition von 1 Reg 17–19”, VT 25 (1975), 525–543; id., “Der biblische und der historische Elia”, in: Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974, Leiden 1975, pp. 167–184; G. Hentschel, Die Elijaerzählungen. Zum Verhältnis von historischem Geschehen und geschichtlicher Erfahrung (Erfurter Theologische Studien 33), Leipzig 1977; W. Thiel, op. cit., 2000, 1–13 (Lit.!) 253 R. A. Carlson, Elisée—le sucesseur d’Elie, VT 20 (1970), 385–405; H. Chr. Schmitt, Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, Gütersloh 1972; H. Schweitzer, Elischa in den Kriegen (StANT), Munich 1974; H. J. Stipp, Elischa—Propheten—Gottesmänner (ATSAT 24), St. Ottilien 1987.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

299

d) an Ahab source (1 Kings 20 and 22:1–38), potentially stemming from northern Israelite prophetic circles (cf. 20:35–43; 22:5–28); e) an Isaiah source (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19), which (with the exception of 18:14–16 and the addition of the “prayer of Hezekiah” [Isa. 37:14–20]) is repeated in Isaiah 36–39. Several Vorlagen, which would have been available to the authors from the oral tradition or in written form, can also be traced. These include prophecies of Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kgs 11:29–39; 14:1–18), of Shemaiah (12:21–24) and of an unidentiﬁed prophet (12:33–13:34), a report of the war between Ahab and Ben-hadad (1 Kings 20), the history of Jehu (2 Kings 9ﬀ.)254 together with archival information on the construction of the temple and its vessels (1 Kings 6 and 7). The various sources have been collected together as a whole by Deuteronomistic writers and placed in an historical framework. Cross255 and Nelson256 presuppose a double redaction of the books of Kings (cf. also Provan 1988): a Josianic (Dtr1) and an exilic (Dtr2), a position already defended by Keunen and Wellhausen in the preceding century. Partly in line with Jepsen (1953), who accounted for a priestly, prophetic and Levitical reworking, Smend jr. and his followers Dietrich (1972) and Veijola (1978) distinguish three redactions in the so-called Deuteronomistic history and also, as such, in the books of Kings: an initial historically oriented work (DtrH), a redaction by a prophetically disposed redactor (DtrP) extended, remodelled and cast in its present form by “nomistic” writers (DtrN) paying particular attention to Mosaic legislation.257 The place in which the material came into existence is the subject of dispute. If one is inclined to accept a Josianic redaction 254 G. W. Ahlström, “King Jehu—A Prophet’s Mistake”, in: A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt (eds.), Scripture in History and Theology (FS J. C. Rylaarsdam), Pittsburg 1977, pp. 47–69; C. C. Smith, “Jehu and the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III”, ibid., pp. 71–105; Y. Minokami, Die Revolution des Jehu (GTA 38), Göttingen 1989; W. Gugler, Jehu und seine Revolution. Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen, diss. Kampen 1996 (lit.!). 255 F. M. Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History”, in: id., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge Mass. 1973, pp. 274–289. 256 R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (Suppl. JSOT 18), Sheﬃeld 1981. 257 J. van Seters (“The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch. The Case against it”, in: M. Vervenne and J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (BEThL 133), Leuven 1997, pp. 301–319) explicitly rejects a nomistic redaction (DtrN) of Joshua-2 Kings.

300

chapter eight

together with Cross and Nelson then one will be likely to consider Judah as the point of origin of at least part of the work. Such a perspective, however, leaves the question of the exilic ﬁnal redaction, which some locate in Babylon, unanswered. Several commentators allude in this regard to circles of survivors who had remained after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (587 BCE). In contrast to the narratives concerning David in 2 Samuel, 1 Kings 1(3)-11 harks back to a portrayal of the character of Solomon behind the narratives concerning the events of his reign and his work in spite of its many superlatives and its gloriﬁcation of the person of the king. It would already appear at this juncture that the contents of the books of Kings cannot be placed on a single line with those of 1–2 Samuel. This does not detract from the fact that the books of Kings also contain a number of splendid accounts, namely the ElijahAhab narratives and the Isaiah-Hezekiah narratives. The history of Solomon (1 Kings 1–11) begins with the narrative of his accession to the throne (1) and the elimination of his rivals (2) by assassination (Adonijah, Joab, Shimei) or exile (the priest Abiathar). A central place in the history is given to the construction of the temple with the preparations and dedication in chapters 5–8. Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the temple (8:22–53)258 constitutes a classic example of Deuteronomistic theology. Solomon, however, is not only presented as the founder and protector of the temple cult, but also as a wise king who asked yhwh for an “understanding heart” on the ﬁrst occasion God appeared to him at Gibeon (3:4–15)259 and received riches and honour in addition to what he had asked. The many proverbs and songs ascribed to Solomon, together with his knowledge of ﬂora and fauna (4:29–34; Hebr. 5:9–14), bear witness to his wisdom. His impressive judicial competence (3:16–28), however, much praised by the visiting Queen of Sheba (10:1–13, esp. v. 9), also serves as proof thereof. Reference is made in the aforementioned textual segment and elsewhere (4:21–28, Hebr. 5:1–8; 9:10–28; 10:14–29) to the power of the king and the opulence with which he had surrounded himself, particularly with respect to his building activities (5–7; 9:17–19). The second occasion upon which God appeared 258 E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8,14–61 (CBET 3), Kampen 1993. 259 M. Görg, Gott-König-Reden in Israel und Ägypten (BWANT 105), Stuttgart etc. 1975.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

301

to Solomon (9:1–9) follows his prayer at the dedication of the temple and explicitly attaches the condition of obedience to God’s commandments and ordinances to the promised blessing made to Solomon and his descendants. The segment looks forward in the present context to 11:1–8, which relates how the king allowed himself to be tempted into idolatry in his later years by his many foreign women. The kingdom was only spared being torn apart during Solomon’s lifetime “on account of David” (11:9–13). The events that followed took place, nevertheless, while Solomon was still in power: the king not only faced external threat from the Edomites (11:14–22) and an Aramean (11:23–25) adversary, but also on the internal front from his servant Jeroboam, the son of Nebat (11:26–28). The latter was supported in his opposition to Solomon by the Shilonite prophet Ahijah who, by way of a sign act, tore his garment into twelve pieces and gave ten of them to Jeroboam (11:29–39). While the break up of the kingdom into ten and two tribes was deferred on account of Jeroboam’s ﬂight to Egypt until after the death of Solomon, the account of 11:29–39 nevertheless forms a trait d’union with the following narratives (cf. further Debus 1967). The details related in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah after the break up of the kingdom tend as a rule to be located in an identical framework whereby virtually every king is given a parallel introduction and the report of his fortunes is rounded oﬀ with a stereotype concluding formulation. The aforementioned framework relating the fortunes of the individual kings contains chronological data whereby the beginning of a king’s reign is given together with the duration thereof. Use is made in addition of synchronistic dating (as long as the Northern Kingdom continued to exist; cf. 1 Kgs 15:1,9,25,33 etc.).260 Where the kings of Judah are concerned, information is often added concerning the age of a particular king when he acceded to the throne and the name of the queen mother (cf. 260 J. Begrich, Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda und die Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher (BHTh 3), Tübingen 1929; E. R. Thiele, The Mysterous Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Chicago 1951, Grand Rapids MI 19833A; A. Jepsen und R. Hanhart, Untersuchungen zur israelitisch-jüdischen Chronologie (BZAW 88), Berlin 1964; J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Princeton 1964; V. Pavlowsky und E. Vogt, “Die Jahre der Könige von Juda und Israel”, Biblica 45 (1964), 321ﬀ; K. T. Andersen, “Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda”, Studia Theologica 23 (1969), 69ﬀ.; J. H. Hayes and P. K. Hooker, op. cit., 1988; W. H. Barnes, Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel (HSM 48), Atlanta GA 1991; G. Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Leiden 1996.

302

chapter eight

e.g. II 8:25–26; 11;21–12:1, Hebr. 12:1–2; 14:1–2). A religious evaluation follows with respect to each king which, in the case of the kings of Israel, is usually negative because they did “what was evil in the sight of yhwh, walking in the way of Jeroboam and in the sin that he had caused Israel to commit” by setting up golden calves in the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan together with the construction of temples (houses) on sacriﬁcial high places (1 Kgs 12:25–32; cf. 1 Kgs 15:26,34 etc.).261 Among the many kings of Judah, Asa (1 Kgs 15:11ﬀ.), Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:43), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:2), Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:3), Azariah (Uzzia) (2 Kgs 15:3ﬀ.) and Jotham (2 Kgs 15:34) are given a positive evaluation, in spite of reference to the fact that the sacriﬁcial high places continued to exist during their reign. The kings are frequently held up against the example of King David. The appraisal of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:3–6) and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:2; 23:5) is unashamedly positive, especially on account of the fact that they got rid of the sacriﬁcial high places. The portrayal of the deeds of the various kings is rounded oﬀ (as noted above) with a stereotype concluding note, which refers the reader for further information to the chronicles of the kings of Israel (c.q. Judah), together with a mention of their death and an allusion to their successor (cf. 1 Kgs 14:19–20,31; 15:7–8,23–24 etc.). Information on the respective kings provided within the framework is not infrequently summary in fashion, being consistently limited to relatively short records of sickness (2 Kgs 15:5), a conspiracy to which a particular king fell victim (2 Kgs 15:10, 14, 25, 30; 21:23–24), important international events (2 Kgs 15:19–20, 29, 37), internal Israelite hostilities (1 Kgs 15:6,16ﬀ.) or good relations (1 Kgs 22:45). It is evident that history has been written here from a religious perspective, whereby accents are placed in a fashion unfamiliar to modern historical writing (cf., for example, the information provided concerning King Omri who was undoubtedly extremely powerful from the political point of view: 1 Kgs 16:21–28; cf. Timm 1982). Substantial narratives in which prophets emerge predicting the downfall of the kings together with their descendants bear particular witness to the aforementioned tendency. As a rule, the prophecies contained in such narratives take the form of an announcement

261

Cf. J. Debus, op. cit., 1967.

ancient israel’s great historical masterpiece

303

of judgement with a message formula (“thus says yhwh”), a motivation and a notiﬁcation of judgement (cf. 1 Kgs 14:7–11 [ Jeroboam I], 16:1–4 [Baasha], 21:20b–24 [Ahab], see also 2 Kgs 9:6–10). Where the predicted misfortune has already taken place, the text explicitly states that the latter is entirely in line with the word of the prophet in question (cf. 1 Kgs 15:29; 16:12; 22:38; 2 Kgs 9:36; 10:17). While they have clearly undergone Deuteronomistic reworking, these narratives may stem from among the followers of Elijah, especially in light of the fact that they represent the northern Israelite standpoint that viewed the division of the kingdom as a divine judgement against the house of David. The Elisha narratives have their own speciﬁc character: Elisha is not only a miracle worker, he also engages in politics (2 Kgs 8:7–15; 9:1ﬀ.; 13:14–19). These narratives may likewise stem from among the pupils of the respective prophet. Information on the ﬁnal century of the kingdom of Israel and the contemporaneous history of Judah is plainly sparse. Reference to the fall of Israel in 2 Kgs 17:7–23, however, contains a comprehensive theological interpolation on the part of a Deuteronomistic author in which the fall of the Northern Kingdom is ﬁrmly blamed on Israel’s sins, in particular the construction of the sacriﬁcial high places and idolatry. In spite of continuous prophetic warnings, the people had not maintained their trust in yhwh, had shown contempt for his ordinances and had rejected his covenant. The foundational indiscretion is to be located in the “sin of Jeroboam I”, who had led Israel astray from the true service of yhwh (cf. Becking 1975). The Isaiah narratives found in the history of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1–20:21)262 are more substantial and focus in particular on the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (701 BCE). With the exception of the report found in 18:14–16 concerning Hezekiah’s payment of tribute to Sennacherib (borrowed from annals), events are narrated in a twofold version (18:17–19:9a, 36–37 and 19:9b–35), the second of which places particular emphasis on Hezekiah’s piety (cf. his prayer in 19:15–19). A similar emphasis on the king’s ﬁdelity to God is expressed in the account of his illness and recovery in 20:1–11. His reception of a Babylonian delegation in 20:12–19 tends, on the other hand, to place him in a less favourable light.

262 J. Rosenbaum, “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Deuteronomistic Tradition”, HThR 72 (1979), 23–44; see also I. W. Provan, op. cit., 1988.

304

chapter eight

Accounts narrated in the books of Kings reach their climax in 2 Kings 22–23 in which reference is made to the discovery in the temple of the book of the law and the cultic reformation of King Josiah (see further under Deuteronomy). Once again, information on the last king of Judah and even on fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE tends to be limited. It is striking that no allusion is made to the prophet Jeremiah. The oft expressed opinion that the latter maintained a dismissive stance with respect to the reforms of Josiah is probably incorrect. Based on a comparison between the concluding chapter of 2 Kings and the largely analogous Jeremiah 52 one can conclude that the second, augmented edition of Kings originally ended with 2 Kgs 25:21 (cf. Jer. 52:27) to which a segment from Jeremiah 40 concerning the fortunes of Gedaliah, the governor appointed by the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25:22–26) and the report of the amnesty granted by King Ewil-merodach to King Jehoiachim (2 Kgs 25:27–30) were added during the Babylonian exile ( Jer. 52:28–30 oﬀers a survey of the prisoners deported by Nebuchadnezzar II in 597, 587 and 581 prior to the allusion to the aforementioned amnesty). If the second version of Kings originally ended with 2 Kgs 25:21, then one can accept that the books came to light shortly after the deportation into exile (an allusion to the deportation of 581 [cf. Jer. 52:30] is lacking). They endeavour to explain why the people of God, who had been set apart as His inheritance (1 Kgs 8:53), had been confronted with such catastrophic punishment on account of their sins against yhwh in disobedience to the Law of Moses and the witness of the prophets.

CHAPTER NINE

THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE

a. Introduction B. Duhm, Israels Propheten, Tübingen 19222; R. B. Y. Scott, The Relevance of the Prophets, New York 1944, 19682; P. Volz, Prophetengestalten des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 1949; M. Buber, Der Glaube der Propheten, Zurich 1950; G. Fohrer, “Neuere Literatur zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie”, ThR 19 (1951), 277–346, 20 (1952), 193–271; id., “Zehn Jahre Literatur zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (1950–1960)”, ThR 28 (1962), 1–75, 235–297, 301–374; id., “Neue Literatur zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (1961–1970)”, ThR 40 (1975), 193–209, 337–377, 41 (1976), 1–12; A. Neher, L’essence du prophétisme, Paris 1955; H. W. Wolﬀ, “Hauptprobleme alttestamentlicher Propheti”, Evangelische Theologie 15 (1955), 446–468 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB 22), Munich 1964, pp. 206–231); C. Kuhl, Israels Propheten (Dalp Taschenbücher 324), Munich 1956; G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments II. Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels, Munich 1960, 19756; A. J. Heschel, The Prophets: An Introduction I–II, New York 1962; J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1963; C. F. Whitley, The Prophetic Achievement, Leiden 1963; W. Zimmerli, Das Gesetz und die Propheten, Göttingen 1963; A. K. Grayson – W. G. Lambert, “Akkadian Prophecies”, JCS 18 (1964), 7–30; S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament. Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (BWANT 85), Stuttgart 1965; id., Ursprung und Funktion der Prophetie im alten Israel, Opladen 1976; C. Westermann, Grundformen prophetischer Rede, Munich 1964; id., Prophetische Heilsworte im Alten Testament (FRLANT 145), Göttingen 1987; J. Scharbert, Die Propheten Israels I–II, Cologne 1965–1967; H. Orlinsky (ed.), Interpreting the Prophetic Tradition, Cincinnati 1969; J. F. Ross, “Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari”, HThR 63 (1970), 1–28; K. Koch, “Die Briefe ‘prophetischen’ Inhalts aus Mari. Bemerkungen zu Gattung und Sitz im Leben”, UF 4 (1972), 53–77; J. M. Schmidt, Probleme der Prophetenforschung, Verkündigung und Forschung 17 (1972), 39–81; W. H. Schmidt, Zukunftsgewißheit und Gegenwartskritik. Grundzüge prophetischer Verkündigung (BSt 64), NeukirchenVluyn 1973; M. Haran, “From Early to Classical Prophecy: Continuity and Change”, VT 27 (1977), 385–397; E. Noort, Untersuchungen zum Gottesbescheid in Mari. Die “Mariprophetie” in der alttestamentlichen Forschung (AOAT 202), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977; M. Weinfeld, “Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature”, VT 27 (1977), 178–195; S. B. Parker, Possession Trance and Prophecy in Pre-exilic Israel, VT 28 (1978), 271–285; K. Koch, Die Propheten I–II (Urban-Taschenbücher 280–281), Stuttgart 1978–1980, 19953 (revised and expanded edition); P. H. A. Neumann (ed.),

306

chapter nine

Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Heinrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung 307), Darmstadt 1979 (lit.!); S. Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSM 30), Chico CA 1980; R. R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, Philadelphia 1980; D. L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel’s Prophets (Suppl. JSOT 17), Sheﬃeld 1981; M. Weippert, “Assyrische Prophetien der Zeit Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals”, in; F. M. Fales (ed.), Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological and Historical Analysis (Orientis Antiqui Collectio 17), Rome 1981, pp. 71–115; R. Coggins e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition (FS P. R. Ackroyd), Cambridge 1982; J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, Philadelphia 1984, 19962; H. W. Wolﬀ, “Prophet und Institution im Alten Testament”, in: T. Rendtorﬀ (ed.), Charisma und Institution, Gütersloh 1985, pp. 87–101; A. Malamat, “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents”, in: P. D. Miller e.a. (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion (FS F. M. Cross), Philadelphia 1987, pp. 33–52; J. Mays and P. J. Achtemeier (eds.), Interpreting the Prophets, Philadelphia 1987; A. Deissler, Dann wirst du Gott erkennen. Die Grundbotschaft der Propheten, Freiburg 1987; A. Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible—Their Literary Types and History, Jerusalem 1988; M. Weippert, “Aspekte israelitischer Prophetie im Lichte verwandter Erscheinungen des Alten Orients”, in: G. Mauer und U. Magen (eds.), Ad bene et ﬁdeliter seminandum (AOAT 220; FS K. Deller), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988, pp. 289–319; F. E. Deist, “The Prophets: Are we Heading for a Paradigm Switch?”, in V. Fritz e.a. (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch (FS Otto Kaiser; BZAW 185), Berlin-New York 1989, pp. 1–18; Maria de Jon-Ellis, “Observations on Mesopotamian Oracles and Prophetic Texts: Literary and Historiographic Observations”, JCS 41 (1989), 127–186; T. W. Overholt, Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity, Minneapolis 1989; O. H. Steck, Prophetische Prophetenauslegung, in: H. F. Geißer e.a. (eds.), Wahrheit der Schrift—Wahrheit der Auslegung, Zurich 1992, pp. 198–244; H. M. Barstad, “No Prophets? Recent Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy”, JSOT 57 (1993), 39–60; T. Collins, The Mantle of Elijah. The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books (The Biblical Seminar 20), Sheﬃeld 1993; M. Nissinen, “Die Relevanz der neuassyrischen Prophetie für die alttestamentliche Forschung”, in: M. Dietrich und O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica—Ugaritica—Biblica (AOAT 232; FS K. Bergerhof ), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, pp. 217–258; R. P. Gordon (ed.), “The Place is Too Small for Us”. The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 5), Winona Lake IN 1995; R. E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy. From Oracles to Canon, Louisville KY 1996 (collection of already published articles); O. H. Steck, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis. Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort, Tübingen 1996; Y. Gitay (ed.), Prophecy and Prophets: The Diversity of Contemporary Issues in Scholarship (SBL Semeia Studies), Atlanta GA 1997; A. Rofé, Introduction to the Prophetic Literature (The Biblical Seminar 49), Sheﬃeld 1997; J. Jeremias, Neuere Tendenzen der Forschung an den Kleinen Propheten, in: F. García Martínez and E. Noort (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism (SVT 73; FS A. S. van der Woude), Leiden-Boston-Cologne

the prophetic literature

307

1998, pp. 122–136; Prophecy in the Hebrew Bíble. Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum, compiled by D. E. Orton (Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies 5), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2000.

The books of the prophets constitute a unique and independent literary complex within the Old Testament and, in fact, within the Ancient Near Eastern world as a whole. While there is some evidence of prophetic activity outside Israel, the prophecy of the Old Testament bears a singular character on account of its dimensions, its strikingly ethical-religious message and the vigorous personalities who express themselves therein. The use of the expression “Writing Prophets” for Israel’s classical prophets, whose preaching has been passed down to us in codiﬁed form, should not lead us to imagine that these individuals were primarily authors. On the contrary, their prophecies, as a rule, were oral communications. Their preaching was written down for the most part by others and the books that bear their name provide consistent and signiﬁcant evidence of additions and supplementations (c.q. actualisations) introduced at a later date. Prophets and prophetic texts are also to be found to a limited extent in the Ancient Near Eastern world that surrounded Israel. The Old Testament itself is familiar with the seer Balaam who worked at Pethor on the Euphrates (Numbers 22–24), reference to whom is also made in the inscription found at Deir "Alla (cf. chapter I). Elijah engaged in a conﬂict with 450 prophets of Baal and 400 of Asherah “who ate at Jezebel’s table” (1 Kgs 18:19). The Mari letters dating from the eighteenth century BCE make reference to individuals who worked for the good of king and state, uttering prophecies of salvation as well as warnings and admonitions.1 A letter from Taanach dating from the ﬁfteenth century BCE alludes to a “wise man of Asherah” from whom a sign and a word had been expected (see ANET, p. 490). The journey report of the Egyptian Wen-Amon dating from the eleventh

1

Cf. C. Westermann, “Die Mari-Briefe und die Prophetie in Israel”, in: id., Forschung am Alten Testament (ThB 24), Munich 1964, pp. 171–188; F. Ellermeier, Prophetie in Mari und Israel (ThOA 1), Herzberg 1968, 19772; H. B. Huﬀmon, “Prophecy in the Mari Letters”, BAR 3 (1970), 199–224; E. Noort, Untersuchungen zum Gottesbescheid in Mari. Die “Mari-Prophetie” in der alttestamentlichen Forschung (AOAT 202), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977; A. Schmitt, Prophetischer Gottesbescheid in Mari und Israel. Eine Strukturuntersuchung (BWANT 6/14), Stuttgart 1982; A. Malamat, “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents”, in: P. D. Miller e.a. (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Philadelphia 1987, pp. 33–52. See also the article by H. B. Huﬀmon in The Anchor Bible Dictionary V, pp. 477–482.

308

chapter nine

century BCE speaks of a young man from Byblos who provided the king with divine instruction while in a state of ecstasy (see chapter II and ANET, p. 26). The stele of King Zakir of Hamat refers to “seers”, who addressed a prophecy of salvation to their king (see ANET, pp. 655–656) during a massive siege of his city Hatarikka (Hadrach, cf. Zech. 9:1). It would thus appear from the information available to us that the uniqueness of the Writing Prophets of the Old Testament does not lie in the fact that a divinity allowed human messengers to announce his word but rather in the speciﬁcity of the message they conveyed. The king, for example, is seldom the addressee of a prophetic message in the Old Testament (in contrast to the texts outlined above). The message of the Writing Prophets consistently applied rather to a particular group among the people as a whole. In the pre-exilic period, their utterances frequently took the form of an unconditional prophecy of doom and judgement. Ancient Near Eastern prophecy is reminiscent of Israel’s court and cultic prophecy (cf. 1 Kings 22; Micah 3:11). In contrast to the Old Testament’s understanding of the meaning of the term “prophet”, contemporary usage tends to limit the word to a person who predicts a future event. This semantic development is not only due to the Christian church, which not infrequently interpreted the prophets as individuals who forecast the coming of the Messiah, but also the fact that visitors to ancient Greek shrines such as Delphi generally expected to receive an utterance over the future from the resident prophètès. Messianic prophecies are nevertheless rare in the Old Testament. In addition, the Hebrew word employed most frequently for a prophet (nabî ") means a person “called” by yhwh, while the Greek term prophètès originally meant a “spokesperson” for the divinity. Israel’s prophets were thus primarily mediators and preachers of a personal experience of divine revelation. From time to time, however, they were known to have given notice of pending disaster and to have announced future salvation. An additional expression employed for a prophet in the Old Testament is “man of God”, a designation employed, for example, with reference to Samuel, Elijah and Elisha, whereby a person is said to have the gift of healing, miracles and/or divination (cf. 1 Sam. 9:6–10; 1 Kgs 17:18,24; 2 Kgs 1:9–13; 4:7,9 etc.). A similarly ancient term is the “seer” (1 Sam. 9:9!; cf. also 2 Sam. 24:11; Amos 7:12), which referred to the visionary and auditory aspects of the divine revelation received by the prophet. Former prophets/prophetesses (Deborah, Samuel, Elijah), court prophets (Nathan, Gad) and younger Writing Prophets ( Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah) are referred to with the designation nabî " (feminine: nebî "a). The term was later applied to individuals who did not count directly as prophets (Abraham, Aaron, Miriam). The plural form of the term was employed for ecstatic groups of prophets and guilds of prophets as well as for the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18:19f.).

The prophets composed their preaching as a rule in poetic language, although prose segments are far from lacking, especially among the

the prophetic literature

309

later prophets such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai and Zechariah. In spite of the fact that it is included among the prophetic writings, the book of Jonah is not a prophetic book in the strict sense since it consists of a legend about a prophet. It remains evident, nevertheless, that its location among the prophetic books is not without precise reason: perhaps as a key to the understanding thereof (see further below in our treatment of the book of Jonah). The book of Daniel, which ﬁgures among the Prophets in modern translations but among the Writings in the Hebrew canon, is similarly misplaced as distinctively prophetic literature. In its ﬁnal redaction, Daniel represents a document from the second century BCE with an intense apocalyptic ﬂavour. The content of the prophetic books can be subdivided into prophecies, confessions and narratives relating to a particular prophet. The ﬁrst of these consists of preaching addressed to a particular person or to a particular faction among the people, the second of personal outpourings related to the prophet’s call and the fulﬁlment of his ministry and the third of information concerning a particular prophet collected and written down by his disciples or another third party. These three literary genres tend to be rather unevenly distributed over the various prophetic books. In addition to the entire book of Jonah, narratives about a prophet are to be found in Hosea (chapter 1), Amos (7:10–17), Isaiah (7; 20; 36–39) and Jeremiah (36–45). Evidence of the genre tends to be somewhat restricted in some of the remaining prophets and is entirely lacking in others. Confessions can be further subdivided into two literary forms: autobiographical segments, which describe the call, visions and other experiences of the prophet, and lyrical outpourings. The latter are in fact restricted to the book of Jeremiah, sometimes taking the form of a prayer. Prophecies, which run from short proverbial sayings to long sermons, reveal that the prophets considered themselves to be messengers of yhwh. Their utterances are thus frequently introduced with the messenger formula borrowed from epistolary literature: “thus says yhwh” (see chapter III). This did not exclude the possibility that a prophet might, on occasion, oﬀer his own analysis of a particular concrete reality based on revelation he had received in the past without waiting for a new divine revelation (see, however, Jer. 28:ﬀ.; 42:7).

310

chapter nine

The prophets not infrequently dressed their preaching in genres borrowed from everyday life or from the cult. The structure of Amos 5:2, for example, is based on the dirge or mourning song while that of Amos 4:4–5 clearly has its roots in priestly instruction. So-called ‘woe’ sayings (cf., for example, Isa. 5:20; Amos 5:18) were apparently borrowed from the funeral lament, portraying the addressees as condemned to death. Disputes found in particular in DeuteroIsaiah and Malachi, but also in earlier prophetic texts (cf. Amos 3:3–6,8; Jer. 13:23; 23:23ﬀ.), tend to either imitate everyday controversies or to be based in terms of form on discussions common to Wisdom circles. Prophetic exhortations, which could take the form of a warning (e.g. Isa. 1:16) or a call to conversion (e.g. Jer. 3:22), tend in terms of form to have their background in daily life or in cultic prophecy. Perhaps the most important prophetic genre is that of the announcement of doom. Following a formulation of the current state of aﬀairs (Lagehinweis), such announcements continued as a rule with “therefore”, the messenger formula “thus says yhwh” (Botenformel ) and a statement of impending judgement in the ﬁrst person of the divinity (Drohwort; cf., for example, Micah 2:1–3; Amos 3:9–11; 4:1–3). Scholars have endeavoured in this context to associate yhwh’s announcements of judgement with lawsuits (cf., for example, Jer. 2:4ﬀ.; Micah 6:1ﬀ.) and to designate such material as Judgement Speeches c.q. covenant lawsuits. It remains a question, however, if we are dealing here with an independent genre. The material at hand never portrays an entire court case but tends to be limited to elements borrowed from court proceedings such as indictments (e.g. Isa. 1:2–3), defence statements (e.g. Jer. 2:29) and verdicts (e.g. Hos. 4:1–3). In addition, there is little if any evidence to suggest that we are dealing in such instances with formal court proceedings since the material tends to be limited to disputes or disagreements between two parties. The Hebrew term rîb (“dispute [process]”) employed in this regard refers to an indictment on the part of yhwh against his people that has the potential to lead to a judgement, rather than to some kind of legal action. As counterpart to the prophecy of doom we ﬁnd the announcement of salvation, a proclaimed action rarely if ever motivated by human behaviour (cf., for example, Amos 9:11ﬀ.; Isa. 11:1–10; Jer. 31:31–34). While the Writing Prophets did not deny Israel’s salviﬁc traditions, they tended as a rule to draw diﬀerent conclusions therefrom

the prophetic literature

311

to those of their contemporaries. Amos (3:2), for example, never doubted that yhwh had entered into a speciﬁc relationship with his people but rather he accentuated the fact that such a noble status obliged the people to ﬁdelity to God’s commandments and did not aﬀord them the right to presume themselves protected by a divinely guaranteed inviolability or to engage in national self-satisfaction (cf. Amos 9:7). The relationship between the Writing Prophets and the monarchy and the cult deserves particular attention. While some prophets expressed reservations concerning the monarchy (Hosea, for example, stated that the kings were not appointed by God [Hos. 8:4]), the Davidic monarchy nevertheless provided material that gave shape to the prophetic expectation of a future salviﬁc ruler and the dawning of a salviﬁc kingdom (cf. Amos 9:11–12; Micah 5:1–3; Isa. 9:5–6, 11:1–9; Jer. 23:5–6, 30:9; Ezek. 37:15–28; Zech. 9:9–10). While the attitude of a number of the Writing Prophets towards the cult may, at ﬁrst sight, have been negative (cf. Amos 4:4–5; 5:21–23; Isa. 1:12–15) and their critique of cultic personnel may, from time to time, have been vigorous (cf. Hos. 4:4–10; Micah 3:11; Ezek. 22:26; Mal. 2:1–9), their negativity did not tend to be focused on the cult as such (as some Old Testament scholars maintain), but rather on a liturgy characterised by Canaanite practices, laxity and vulgar selfinterest. With the exception of Amos, the pre-exilic Writing Prophets would appear not only to have announced doom and destruction but also to have oﬀered the prospect of salvation and a prosperous future once judgement had passed (Isa. 29:1–8; Jer. 32: 13–15; Ezek. 20:39–44; Hos. 3:1–5). Those who maintain that such prophecies of salvation in their totality must be considered “inauthentic” utterances stemming from during or after the Babylonian exile are guilty of being hypercritical. In spite of the undeniably unique accent particular to each of the Writing Prophets, it remains striking that they exhibit a high degree of spiritual aﬃnity with one another. While Isaiah would appear to have been inﬂuenced by Amos and Jeremiah, this does not suﬃciently explain the eﬀectively homogenous character of Israel’s written prophecy. One can reasonably infer that the Writing Prophets were ﬁrmly grounded in the Mosaic tradition alongside ﬁgures such as Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Micaiah of Imlah and others, although they were more vigorous in rebuking social abuses, tended in their

312

chapter nine

reproaches to focus on particular factions or on the people as a whole rather than individual persons and were more intense in scrutinising the fundamental disorientation of God’s people than their predecessors. One can aﬃrm with conviction that the prophetic books were not written in their entirety by the individuals to whom they are ascribed (with the exception of Nahum?), although it is apparent from certain segments, such as the Denkschrift of Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–8:18) and Jer. 36:32, that the said prophets had begun to commit their words (or have their words committed) to writing. The primary content of the books that bear their names can, nevertheless, be recognised in principle as harking back to their preaching. In the present author’s opinion, the predominant contemporary tendency to limit the actual words (ipsissima verba) of the prophets to a minimum is not without diﬃculty, in spite of the need to account for the fact that the oral preaching thereof is often diﬃcult to retrieve, will have undergone changes in the process of codiﬁcation and will have been subject to signiﬁcant interpolations and redactional activity in its written form.

b. The Major Prophets The expression “Major Prophets” employed for Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel does not refer to the content or quality of their preaching but rather to the size of the books bearing their name. The collective expression “Latter Prophets” applied to them and the so-called Minor Prophets bears a canonical character and serves to distinguish the books of Isaiah to Malachi (with the exception of the book of Daniel, which appears in the Hebrew Bible under the Writings) from the historical writings of the “Former Prophets” ( Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings; see further chapter IV). 1. Isaiah J. Becker, Isaias—der Prophet und sein Buch (SBS 30), Stuttgart 1968; R. Lack, La symbolique du livre d’Isaïe. Essai sur l’image littéraire comme élément de structuration (AnBibl 59), Rome 1973; R. Rendtorﬀ, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja”, VT 34 (1984), 295–320; M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Postexilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171), Berlin-New York 1988; J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah (BEThL 81), Leuven 1989;

the prophetic literature

313

D. Carr, “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah”, JSOT 57 (1993), 61–80; R. J. Cliﬀord, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah and its Cosmogonic Language”, CBQ 55 (1993), 1–17; J. L. McLaughlin, “Their Hearts Were Hardened: The Use of Isaiah 6:9–10 in the Book of Isaiah”, Biblica 75 (1994), 1–25.

The book of Isaiah appears at ﬁrst sight to constitute a small library in itself, apparently dividable into three major parts: a) Isaiah 1–39 (Proto-Isaiah or First Isaiah), in which prophecies of the prophet Isaiah himself have, in part, been preserved; b) Isaiah 40–55 (Deutero-Isaiah or Second Isaiah) stemming from the latter period of the Babylonian exile; c) Isaiah 56–66 (Trito-Isaiah or Third Isaiah), a collection of prophecies from the post-exilic period. One should bear in mind, however, that the aforementioned parts are clearly related to one another. In addition to other reworkings, Proto-Isaiah underwent a Deutero-Isaianic redaction (although commentators tend to locate the boundaries thereof in diﬀerent places)2 and was evidently provided with an introductory chapter during the time of Trito-Isaiah. Some scholars maintain that Isaiah 34–35 together with 60–62 are Deutero-Isaian. Furthermore, one can consider Deutero-Isaiah in its present form in part as a Fortschreibung of Proto-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah as an actualising continuation of DeuteroIsaiah.3 The book of Isaiah serves to open the series of prophetic books in the Hebrew Bible, perhaps because it was the best loved and most popular of them all. The fact that the prophet Isaiah lived and worked before Jeremiah and Ezekiel, however, may have provided an additional chronological consideration in support of its location. a) Proto-Isaiah (Isaiah 1–39) If you do not stand ﬁrm in faith, you shall not stand at all (7:9)

2

Cf. the works of Steck (1985), Williamson (1994) and Sweeney (1996) referred to in the bibliography of Isaiah 1–39. 3 Cf. H. G. M. Williamson, “Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective”, in: J. C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS 34), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995, pp. 211–226 and the literature cited therein. Cf. also the commentaries of W. A. M. Beuken on Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah (POT).

314

chapter nine

Commentaries: B. Duhm (HKAT) 1892, 19224 (19685); A. Dillmann und R. Kittel (KeH) 1898; K. Marti (KHC) 1900; G. B. Gray (ICC) 1912 (1956); G. van der Flier (TU) 1923–1926; O. Procksch (KAT1) 1930; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1932; J. Fischer (HSAT) 1937; A. Bentzen, Jesaja. Bind I: Jes.1–39, Copenhagen 1944 (Danish); J. Steinmann (Lectio Divina), Paris 1950; E. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, Dublin 1941, 19602; J. Ziegler (EB) 1948 (1954); R. B. Y. Scott (IB) 1956; O. Kaiser (ATD) I 1960, 19815, II 1973, 19833; G. Fohrer I–II (ZBK) 1960–1962, reissue 1966–1967; L. A. Snijders (POT) 1969, 19853; P. Auvray (Sources Bibliques), 1972; A. Schoors (BOT) 1972; H. Wildberger (BK) I 1972, II 1978, III 1982; A. S. Herbert (CNEB) 1973; R. E. Clements (NCB) 1980; R. Kilian (NEB) I–II 1986, 1994; J. N. Oswalt (NICOT) 1986; J. D. W. Watts (WBC) 1986; E. Jacob (CAT) 1987 (= Isaiah 1–12); B.S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL) 2000.

Monographs and articles: S. H. Blank, Prophetic Faith in Isaiah, London 1958; Th. C. Vriezen, Essentials of the Theology of Isaiah, in: B. E. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (FS J. Muilenburg), London 1962, pp. 128–146; H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern (SVT 11), Leiden 1964; B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBTh 3), London 1967; G. Fohrer, “Entstehung, Komposition und Überlieferung von Jesaja 1–39”, in: id., Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (BZAW 99), Berlin 1967, pp. 113–147; id., Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung Jesajas, ibid., pp. 148–166; H. W. Hoﬀmann, Die Intention der Verkündigung Jesajas (BZAW 136), Berlin-New York 1974; W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik (Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 74), Munich 1976; F. Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (BZAW 137), Berlin-New York 1976; H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT 48), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977; J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique I–II (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1977–1978; P. R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah 1–12: Presentation of a Prophet”, in: Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (SVT 29), Leiden 1978, pp. 16–48; id., “Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function”, in: W. Delsman e.a. (eds.), Von Kanaan bis Kerala (AOAT 211; FS J. P. M. van der Ploeg), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982, pp. 3–21; R. E. Clements, “The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC”, VT 30 (1980), 421–436; id., “Beyond Tradition History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes”, JSOT 31 (1985), 95–113; W. Werner, Eschatologische Texte in Jesaja 1–39. Messias, Heiliger Rest, Völker (FzB 46), Würzburg 1982; R. Kilian, Jesaja 1–39 (EdF 200), Darmstadt 1983; R. Rendtorﬀ, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja”, VT 34 (1984), 295–320; H. Wildberger, Königsherrschaft Gottes. Jesaja 1–39, I–II (Kleine Biblische Bibliothek), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984; G. T. Sheppard, “The Anti-Assyrian Redaction and the Canonical Context of Isaiah 1–39”, JBL 104 (1985),

the prophetic literature

315

193–216; O. H. Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja (SBSt 121), Stuttgart 1985; Ch. Hardmeier, “Jesajaforschung im Umbruch”, VF 31 (1986), 3–31; K. A. D. Smelik, “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii”, OTS 24 (1986), 70–93; J. R. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah. A Eight-Century Prophet, Nashville 1987; C. R. Seitz (ed.), Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah, Philadelphia 1988; B. W. Anderson, “‘God with Us’—in Judgment and Mercy: The Editorial Structure of Isaiah 5—10(11)”, in: G. M. Tucker e.a., Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation, Philadelphia 1988, pp. 230–245; M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171), Berlin-New York 1988; id., Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16), Grand Rapids MI 1996 (lit.!); S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitic War (SBL Diss. Series 123), Atlanta GA 1990; S. Deck, Die Gerichtsbotschaft Jesajas: Charakter und Begründung (FzB 67), Würzburg 1991; Y. Gitay, Isaiah and his Audience. The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1–12 (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 30), AssenMaastricht 1991; P. D. Wegner, An Examination of Kingship and Messianic Expectation in Isaiah 1–35, Lewiston 1992; J. Werlitz, Studien zur literarkritischen Methode: Gericht und Heil in Jesaja 7,1–17 und 29,1–8 (BZAW 204), Berlin 1992; H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994; J. Barton, Isaiah 1–39 (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1995; R. F. Melugin and M. A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah (Suppl. JSOT 214), Sheﬃeld 1996; J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte. Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT 19), Tübingen 1997; U. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178), Göttingen 1997; C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition I–II (SVT 70), Leiden-New YorkCologne 1997; J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah (FS W. A. M. Beuken; BEThL 132), Leuven 1997; H. J. Bosman e.a. (eds.), Studies in Isaiah 24–27 (OTS 43), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2000., W. A. M. Beuken, Isaiah II (HCOT), Leuven 2000; id., Jesaja 1–12 (Herders theologischer Kommentar zum alten Testament), Freiburg 2003.

According to the superscription of the book named after him, Isaiah (“yhwh grants salvation”; lxx: Èsaias; V: Isaias), the son of Amoz, was apparently a (younger) contemporary of the northern Israelite prophet Hosea (cf. Isa. 1:1 and Hos. 1:1). He must have lived in Jerusalem from around 765 BCE to roughly 695 BCE. According to Isaiah 6, he was called to be a prophet in the year in which King Uzziah died (roughly 740 BCE).4 In addition to Uzziah, the 4 J. Bartel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte. Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT 19), Tübingen 1997, pp. 66–117; F. Hartenstein, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition (WMANT 75), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997.

316

chapter nine

superscription also claims that Isaiah saw his vision in the days of kings Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. He was also witness to the SyroEphraimitic war from 734–732 (cf. Isaiah 7), the Assyrian conquest of Damascus (732) and Samaria (722/721), the revolt of Ashdod in Philistea (713–711) and the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (701). Much in line with Nathan during the reign of King David, Isaiah was evidently familiar with the royal court (7:3; 37:5–7,21–35; 38:1–8; 39:3–8) and was certainly well informed of the political manoeuvres of the leading circles in Jerusalem (cf. 29:5). Whether we would be justiﬁed in including him among the Wisdom circles of Judah5 remains a question. His knowledge of the themes and traditions surrounding the temple cult in Jerusalem, however, was clearly profound. His preaching turned around Mount Zion, the fate of Judah/Jerusalem and the house of David. According to a pre-Christian legend alluded to in a pseudepigraphical text entitled the Martyrium of Isaiah (see chapter XIII) the prophet is said to have been killed during the time of King Manasseh by being sawn in half (cf. Hebr. 11:37). Isaiah was a married man. His wife, who was referred to as a prophetess (8:3), bore him sons who were given names foretelling deliverance: Maher-shalal-hash-baz (“The spoil speeds, the prey hastens”: 8:3–4) and Shear-jashub (“A remnant shall return”: 7:3, cf. 10:20–21). Several commentators also maintain that the ﬁgure Immanuel (“God with us”) referred to in Isa. 7:14 was also a son of Isaiah. Isaiah is more than once referred to as the greatest of Israel’s prophets and not without justiﬁcation. While his early preaching, in line with that of Amos, was turned against social mistreatment, his later prophecies also addressed the politics of the kings of Judah (cf. Dietrich 1976; Huber 1976). Isaiah came to know of yhwh as the Holy One and the Almighty King (cf. chapter 6). He thus refers to God continuously as “the Holy One of Israel” (cf. Isa. 1:4; 5:19,24; 10:20; 30:11 etc.), an expression apparently borrowed from him by Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 41:14,16,20; 43:3,14 etc.). While he preached the fall of Israel and

5 As proposed by J. Fichtner, “Jesaja unter den Weisen”, ThLZ 74 (1949), 75–80 and J. W. Whedbee, Isaiah and Wisdom, New York-Nashville 1971.

the prophetic literature

317

Judah, he may also have announced the new kingdom that God was to establish under the authority of “a shoot from the stump of Jesse” (11:1) for the “remnant” of the people who had maintained their faith in yhwh. If one is inclined to ascribe Isa. 2:2–5 and 11:1–9 to the prophet himself then it becomes evident that his future expectations were explicitly universalistic in character. Chapters 1–39 of the book of Isaiah have undergone a long and complex evolution, only part of the prophecies contained therein being ascribable to the prophet himself. The codiﬁcation of a number of his own statements may hark back to the prophet himself (cf. the ﬁrst person style of Isa. 6:1ﬀ.; 8:1ﬀ.) or may have been the work of a secretary. An important contribution to our knowledge of the genesis and evolution of Isaiah 1–39 has been provided by Hermann Barth (1977) in his Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit (cf. also, however, Vermeylen 1977–1978; Williamson 1994; Sweeney 1996), which supports the idea of a substantial reworking of the book during the reign of King Josiah (639–609). Clements (in his 1980 commentary) ascribed the following passages to this redaction: 7:21–25; 8:9–10; 10:16–19,20–23,24–27,33–34; 14:24–27; 17:12–14; 28:23–29; 29:5–8; 30:27–33; 31:5,8–9; 32:1–5,15–20. The present author is of the opinion that the Messianic prophecy of 8:23b–9:6 also belongs to this redaction (cf. Barth 1977). Isaiah 1–39 also underwent later reworking and expansion (cf., for example, Steck 1985 and Williamson 1994). The best synthesis in this regard can be found in U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt 5HBS 16), Freiburg 1998. Reservations with respect to the proposals of Otto Kaiser and U. Becker, who are inclined to ascribe only limited portions of Isaiah 1–12 to the prophet himself and date a substantial portion of Isaiah 13–39 to the Hellenistic period, remain diﬃcult to suppress.

Isaiah 1–39 can be divided into ﬁve distinct parts: Isaiah 1–12; 13–23; 24–27; 28–35 and 36–39. Our analysis of the content and character of the material will follow this subdivision. Of the material contained in Isaiah 1–12, Isa. 2:6–4:1 (with the exception of later interpolations) together with 5:1–7 (the song of the vineyard) and the associated ‘woe’ sayings of 5:8–24 and 10:1–3(4) stem from the earliest period of the prophet’s activity. These segments contain prophetic declarations primarily condemning abuses within Judah. The focus of the preaching ascribed to Isaiah in chapter 6 is described as the hardening of the people that had become ﬁt for

318

chapter nine

God’s judgement.6 It contains the words employed in the liturgy of the Christian church, often referred to as the Sanctus (“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory”, 6:3). The chapter functions as a foreword to the so-called Denkschrift of Isaiah,7 a document dating from the period of the Syro-Ephraimitic war that may originally have been written as a whole in autobiographical style (Isa. 6:1–8:18). This memorandum, which was later supplemented with a number of additional prophecies (6:12–13; 7:8b, 15, 21–22, 23–24, 25), contains an explicit appeal (in chapter 7) on the part of the prophet addressed to King Ahaz inviting him to have faith in God in spite of the threat he is facing from Aram and Israel (“If you do not stand ﬁrm in faith, you shall not stand at all”, 7:9b) together with the announcement of the birth of Immanuel (7:14; cf. Matt. 1:23), a passage of Scripture that has given rise to a whole series of commentaries, many of which take it to be a Messianic prophecy.8 The following chapter depicts the sign of Maher-shalalhash-baz (“The spoil speeds, the prey hastens”) as a prediction of

6 O. H. Steck, “Bemerkung zu Jesaja 6”, BZ NF 16 (1972), 188–206; J. L. McLaughlin, “Their Hearts Were Hardened: The Use of Isaiah 6, 9–10 in the Book of Isaiah”, Biblica 75 (1994), 1–25; F. Hartenstein, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition (WMANT 75), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997. 7 H. P. Müller, “Glauben und Bleiben. Zur Denkschrift Jesajas Kapitel vi.1–viii.18”, in: Studies on Prophecy (SVT 26), Leiden 1974, pp. 25–54; W. Werner, “Vom Prophetenwort zur Prophetentheologie”, BZ 29 (1985), 1–30; S. A. Irvine, “The Isaianic Denkschrift: Reconsidering an Old Hypothesis”, ZAW 104 (1992), 216–30. 8 Literature on the Emmanuel prophecy of 7:10–17 is virtually endless. We limit ourselves here to the following studies: K. Budde, “Das Immanuelzeichen und die Ahaz-Begegnung Jesaja 7”, JBL 52 (1933), 22–54; E. Hammershaimb, “The Immanuel Sign”, Studia Theologica 3 (1951), 124–142; J. J. Stamm, “Die Immanuelweissagung”, VT 4 (1954), 20–33; W. Vischer, Die Immanuel-Botschaft im Rahmen des königlichen Zionfestes (Theologische Studien 45), Zurich 1955; L. Köhler, “Zum Verständnis von Jesaja 7,14”, ZAW 67 (1955), 48–50; J. J. Stamm, “Neuere Arbeiten zum ImmanuelProblem”, ZAW 68 (1956), 46–53; id., “Die Immanuel-Perikope im Lichte neuerer Veröﬀentlichungen”, ZDMG Suppl. I (1968), 281ﬀ.; R. G. Bratcher, “A Study of Isaiah 7:14”, Bible Translator 9 (1958), 97–126; N. K. Gottwald, “Immanuel as the Prophet’s Son”, VT 8 (1958), 36–47; J. Lindblom, A Study of the Immanuel Section in Isaiah. Isaiah vii,1–ix,6, Lund 1958; H. W. Wolﬀ, Immanuel—Das Zeichen, dem widersprochen wird (BSt 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1959; id., Frieden ohne Ende. Jesaja 7,1–17 und 9,1–6 ausgelegt, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1962; W. McKane, “The Interpretation of Isaiah vii 14–25”, VT 17 (1967), 208–219; R. Kilian, Die Verheissung Immanuels. Jes. 7.14 (SBSt 35), Stuttgart 1968; J. J. Scullion, “An Approach to the Understanding of Isaiah 7:10–17”, JBL 87 (1968), 288–300; H. Gese, “Natus ex virgine”, in: id., Vom Sinai zum Sion, Munich 1974, pp. 130–146; E. R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, Garden City NY 1977; J. Jensen, “The Age of Immanuel”, CBQ 41 (1979), 220–239.

the prophetic literature

319

the sacking of Damascus and Samaria by the king of Assyria (8:1–4), a prophecy of doom concerning the mighty ﬂood of Assyria that will sweep over Judah (8:5–10), an appeal to regard God as holy (8:11–15) and Isaiah’s decision to bind up his testimony among his disciples (8:16–18). The warning not to expect anything beneﬁcial from consulting ghosts and familiar spirits (8:19–23a) stems from a later addition to the Denkschrift that may also stem from Isaiah himself.9 The familiar prophecy of salvation found in 8:23b–9:6, which speaks of a royal redeemer (“A child has been born for us, a son given to us”, 9:5a) and has developed an important role in the Christmas liturgy, cannot, however, be ascribed to the prophet. The verses in question probably date from the Josianic period.10 Isa. 5:25–29(30) and 9:7–20, a prophecy of judgement against Israel with “for all this his (God’s) anger has not turned away; his hand is stretched out still” as a recurring refrain, stem from the ﬁnal years of the Northern Kingdom. The Denkschrift and the additions attached thereto serve to separate the said segments and it would also appear that 9:7–20 originally preceded 5:25ﬀ. The composition of Isa. 5:8–10:3 is thus extremely complicated, not only because the prophecy of judgement contained in 5:25ﬀ. and 9:7–20 now surround the Denkschrift but also because of the fact that the likewise divided ‘woe’ sayings of 5:8–24 and 10:1–3(4) have been added.11 It is probable that the ‘woe’ saying against the haughtiness of Assyria (10:5–9, 13–15a), the portrayal of the menace facing Jerusalem (10:27b–34) and possibly the prophecy of the Messiah and the coming kingdom of peace (the Isaianic authorship of which is not infrequently denied) found in Isa. 11:1–9 (“a shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse”, 11:1) stem from the time of Ashdod’s revolt

9 Cf. A. S. van der Woude, “Jesaja 8:19–23a als literarische Einheit”, in: J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah (BEThL 132; FS W. A. M. Beuken), Leuven 1997, pp. 129–136. 10 Cf. A. Alt, “Jesaja 8,23–9,6. Befreiungsnacht und Krönungstag”, in: Festschrift A. Bertholet, Tübingen 1950, pp. 25–49 (= id., Kleine Schriften II, Munich 1953, pp. 206–225); H. Wildberger, “Die Thronnamen des Messias, Jes. 9,5”, ThZ 16 (1960), 314–332; H. P. Müller, “Uns ist ein Kind geboren. Jesaja 9,1–6 in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht”, Evangelische Theologie 21 (1961), 408ﬀ.; H. W. Wolﬀ, Frieden ohne Ende (BSt 35), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1962; J. Vollmer, “Zur Sprache von Jesaja 9,1–6”, ZAW 80 (1968), 343–350; H. Barth, op. cit., 1977, pp. 141–177. 11 Isa. 10:4 is secondary. 4a is intended to provide an answer to the questions posed in the preceding verse, 4b is borrowed from the refrain of the prophecy of 5:25–29(30) and 9:7–20.

320

chapter nine

against Assyrian authority (713–711) in which Judah also participated. Prophecies from the time of Hezekiah’s second revolt against Assyria (705–701) are taken up in chapters 28–33 (see below). Up to this point we have left Isaiah 1 and 2:1–5 untreated. They both consist of a superscription, the ﬁrst of which (1:1) can be explained as applying to the entire book of Isaiah, the second (2:1) as an introduction to the collection that is currently understood to end with Isaiah 12, or as a guarantee of the authenticity of 2:1–5 vis-à-vis Micah 4:1–5. Isaiah 1 is considered to be a representative summary of the preaching of the prophet.12 While the chapter certainly contains utterances of Isaiah himself (with the exception of 1:27–28, 29–31), they would appear to have been collected together at the time of TritoIsaiah as an introduction to the entire book, intended to inspire God’s people to strive after justice. It is probable that the material in question was originally to be found elsewhere in the book and was relocated to chapter 1 and partly supplemented for the aforementioned purpose. The incomprehensible foolishness of God’s unfaithful people is pointedly expressed: “an ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not understand”, 1:3. Isa. 2:2–5 contains a prophecy concerning the pilgrimage of the peoples to Mount Zion,13 upon which God is to establish his kingdom of peace (parallel in Micah 4:1–5). While the Isaianic origins of this segment are the subject of much dispute, the present author is of the opinion that the hypothesis should not be dismissed outright. In the context of Isaiah 2–11, the prophecy functions as a word of comfort intended to draw the reader’s attention to the ultimate magniﬁcence of God’s city and its temple. The following segments of chapters 1–12 are considered to be non-Isaianic (although unanimity in the matter has not been achieved): Isa. 1:1, 27–28, 29–31; 2:1, 10–11, 18, 20–22; 3:10–11, 18–23; 4:2–6; 5:15–16, 30; 6:12–13; 7:8b, 15, 21–25; 8:8b; 10:4, 10–12, 16–27a; 11:10–16; 12:1–6.

12 Cf. G. Fohrer, “Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung Jesajas”, ZAW 74 (1962), 251–268. 13 For a survey of scholarly discussion surrounding this text segment see R. Kilian, Jesaja 1–39, pp. 86–91.

the prophetic literature

321

The analysis we have oﬀered of Isaiah 1–12 should not lead the reader to ignore the ﬁnal redactional synthesis that these chapters clearly exhibit as a whole. Isa. 1:2–2:5 functions as an announcement of judgement but also as a promise: unfaithful Jerusalem shall once again become a city of justice and a faithful stronghold (1:16), to which the peoples shall come in pilgrimage (2:2–5). The prophecies of judgement concerning Jerusalem and Judah together with the critique of the prevailing temple liturgy and of idolatry found in Isaiah 1 are themes likewise employed by the author of Isaiah 66 (the ﬁnal chapter) to form an inclusion around the entire book. Isa. 2:6–4:6 constitutes a judgement concerning human arrogance and Jerusalem’s future puriﬁcation and divine protection. While the central segment, 6:1–9:6, portrays the failure of the Davidic dynasty under King Ahaz, its unwillingness to obey the prophetic word and the judgement that Assyria will execute, it also oﬀers the promise of the enemy’s ultimate downfall and the coming of the Messianic prince. The segment is enclosed by the ‘woe’ sayings of 5:8–24 and 10:1–3(4) as well as the judgement prophecies of 5:25–29(30) and 9:7–20. The following segments (10:5–11:16) portray Assyria as a disciplinary scourge in God’s hand while simultaneously denouncing its arrogance and announcing its downfall (10:33–34), after which a Davidic prince shall arise and a period of beatiﬁc peace shall dawn (11:1–9[10]). The exiles shall then return in a new exodus to the promised land (11:11–16). The psalm added to chapter 12 depicts the transformation from judgement to salvation in summary fashion. The redactional synthesis of Isaianic and non-Isaianic prophecies in Isaiah 1–12 would appear to have been the result of a long process stretching from the time of King Josiah to the post-exilic period. As a consequence, therefore, it should not be dissociated from the genesis and evolution of the other parts of the book. The lion’s share of Isaiah 13–23 consists of prophecies against the nations that tend with some consistency to be diﬃcult to date. Among them we ﬁnd the prophecy of doom against Babylon (13:1–14:23) with its biting derisive mocking song addressed to the Babylonian king (14:12–15). It goes without saying that this prophecy does not stem from Isaiah himself 14 since the prophet lived about a century

14 S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon. A Study of Isaiah 13,2–14 (Coniectanea Biblica, OT Series 4), Lund 1970.

322

chapter nine

prior to the Babylonian domination of the Western Semitic world. The same can thus be said of the prophecy against Babylon in 21:1–10. While the Isaianic authorship of several other segments of the text is often called into question, there would appear to be good reason to accept that the prophecies against Assyria (14:24–27) and Philistea (14:28–31) as well as Damascus and Ephraim (17:1–6, 10–11), the statement concerning the peoples in 17:12–14, the prophecy concerning Ethiopia (18:1–6) and a part of that concerning Egypt (19:1–4, 11–14) ultimately stem from him. The same is true for the divine utterance censuring Jerusalem’s levity after the withdrawal of Sennacherib in 701 (22:1–14)15 and the prophecy concerning the arrogance of the steward Shebna (22:15–19).16 On the other hand, the account found in Isa. 20:2–5, which describes how the prophet wandered round for three years “naked and barefoot” during the period of the revolt of Ashdod (713–711) “as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Ethiopia”, lands in which Judah had placed its political faith but which Isaiah maintained would become subject to Assyrian might, is evidently not to be ascribed to the prophet. With the exception of Isa. 19:16–25 and a number of minor additions, the prophecies against the nations were probably closed as a collection towards the end of the Babylonian exile or shortly thereafter. A redactor then supplemented the text with sayings of Isaiah familiar to him from (a) diﬀerent source(s) whereby the collection as a whole was given the authority of the prophet (cf. 13:1). Isaiah 24 –27, which scholars tend to designate the apocalypse of Isaiah,17 contain universal/eschatological prophecies of doom and sal15 This segment has been signiﬁcantly supplemented under the inﬂuence of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The original prophecy of Isaiah can be found in 22:1–3,12–14. 16 The following segment (22:20–25) concerning Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, is based on Josianic redaction and interpolation from a later date (vv. 24–25). 17 W. Rudolph, Jesaja 24 –27 (BWANT 62), Stuttgart 1933; J. Lindblom, Die Jesaja-Apokalypse. Jesaja xxiv–xxvii, Lund 1938; E. S. Mulder, Die teologie van die Jesajaapokalipse, Groningen-Djakarta 1954; G. Fohrer, “Der Aufbau der Apokalypse des Jesajabuches ( Jes. 24–27)”, CBQ 25 (1963), 34–45; M. L. Henry, Glaubenskrise und Glaubensbewährung in den Dichtungen der Jesajaapokalypse (BWANT 86), Stuttgart 1966; B. Otzen, “Traditions and Structures of Isaiah xxiv–xxvii”, VT 24 (1974), 196–206; J. Vermeylen, “La composition littéraire de l’apocalypse d’Isaïe”, EThL 50 (1974), 5–38; W. Millar, Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic (HSM 11), Missoula MT 1976; D. G. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27 (Suppl. JSOT 61), Sheﬃeld 1988; B. Doyle, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: A Study of the Use, Function and Signiﬁcance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27 (BETL, 157), Leuven 2000.

the prophetic literature

323

vation as well as songs. Although diﬃcult to date, the material would appear to stem from the period during and after the Babylonian exile. It is possible that the collection came into existence between 500 and 400 BCE on the basis of a document that was reworked in successive stages. The literary structure of these chapters has tended to be a source of signiﬁcant problems. After the prediction of world judgement (Isaiah 24), the text continues with a song of thanksgiving for liberation (25:1–5) and the description of a festival meal that yhwh shall lay out on Mount Zion for all the peoples (25:6–10a). The downfall of Moab is forecast (25:10b–12) and the possession of a strong city together with the humiliation of an anonymous stronghold is celebrated in song (26:1–6; cf. 27:10). 26:7–21 contains an impressive yet formally atypical collective lament (26:7–18), followed by a prophecy of salvation (26:19) and an appeal to Israel to adopt the correct attitude during the pending judgement (26:20–21). Chapter 27, which foretells yhwh’s victory over the chaos monster Leviathan (27:1), predicts a period of salvation for Israel in which the latter is compared to a vineyard (27:2–5; cf. 5:1–7), promises a time of growth for God’s people (27:6–11) and announces the return of the exiles (27:12–13), is similarly complex. An allusion to the resurrection of the dead is encountered for the ﬁrst time in the Old Testament in 26:19. With the exception of a prophecy against Samaria (28:1–6) as well as later interpolations such as 29:17–24 and 30:18–26, chapters 28–31 of Isaiah 28–35 contain utterances from the ﬁnal years of the prophet’s life. In 30:8 he is commanded to write down one of his most important prophecies as a sign for the people. Chapters 28–31 have preserved a number of Isaiah’s most inspiring and beautiful words of which 30:15: “In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength”, one of the prophet’s core statements in line with his conviction of the primacy of holding ﬁrm in faith (cf. 7:9), serves as a ﬁne example. With the possible exception of 32:9–14, chapters 32–35 cannot be ascribed to Isaiah. Isa. 32:1–5 (with vv. 6–8 as a later interpolation) and 32:15–20 probably constitute the conclusion of the Josianic redaction of his prophecies and serve as a witness to the expectation of a period of peace and well-being. While a number of commentators maintain that Isa. 32:9–14 contains the ﬁnal words of Isaiah, others are more inclined to envisage these verses as among the earliest words of the prophet and others still consider them to

324

chapter nine

be a non-Isaianic lament over the fall of Jerusalem in 587. Chapter 33,18 a prophetic liturgy which speaks of Jerusalem’s hardship and liberation, is a text stemming from the time of the Babylonian exile, announcing the swift decline of Israel’s enemy and comforting Judah’s survivors with a festive future perspective in the midst of their distress. Chapters 34–35, occasionally referred to as “the minor apocalypse of Isaiah” on account of their aﬃnity with Isaiah 24–27, are dependant on Deutero-Isaiah. They portray God’s judgement over the peoples, Edom in particular, and future salvation for Judah.19 The chapters probably stem from around 500 BCE. Isaiah 36–39 are generally considered to have been borrowed from 2 Kgs 18:13, 17–20:19,20 supplemented with a prayer ascribed to King Hezekiah (Isa. 38:9–20). Others maintain that priority should be given to Isaiah 36–39 (cf. Smelik 1986, pp. 71–74; Seitz 1988, pp. 109–116). In any case, chapters Isaiah 36–39 function as a bridge between the Assyrian background of the prophecies in chapters 1–39 and the Babylonian background of 40–55,21 contrasting the piety of Hezekiah with the inﬁdelity of Ahaz in Isaiah 7. Isaiah 36–37, which constitute a reﬂection on the threat to Jerusalem posed by Sennacherib in 701 BCE and the miraculous liberation of the city, stem from the time of King Josiah and exhibit signiﬁcant traces of theological deliberation. While chapters 38–39, which deal with Hezekiah’s illness and healing together with the delegation from Babylon, were clearly added in order to show that city’s liberation had to do with a very unique king, they likewise imply that Jerusalem would not be spared in the same fashion from the Babylonians.

Inﬂuenced by the vision portrayed in chapter 6, Isaiah continues to be overwhelmed by the holiness and majesty of yhwh. The particular sinfulness and guilt of his people experienced by the prophet

18 W. A. M. Beuken, “Jesaja 33 als Spiegeltext im Jesajabuch”, EThL 67 (1991), 5–35. 19 Claire R. Mathews, Defending Zion. Edom’s Desolation and Jacob’s Restoration (Isaiah 34–35) in Context (BZAW 236), Berlin-New York 1995. 20 2 Kgs 18:14–16 is an interpolation (narrative A), which is inconsistent with the context and is not to be found in Isaiah 36. The text of Isaiah 36–37 represents a compilation of two related narratives (narrative B 1: Isa. 36:1–37:9a plus 37:37–38; narrative B 2: Isa. 37:9b-36). 21 Cf. P. R. Ackroyd, op. cit., 1982; C. R. Seitz, Zion’s Final Destiny. The Development of the Book of Isaiah. A Reassessment of Isaiah 36–39, Minneapolis 1991.

the prophetic literature

325

in light of this awareness accounts for his lack of hesitation in addressing them as rulers of Sodom and people of Gomorrah (1:10) and explains the absolute certainty of the divine judgement that characterises his preaching. Sin, for Isaiah, constitutes disloyalty (1:2), contempt (5:24) and mockery towards yhwh (5:18–19) by a proud nation that had turned its back on God (17:10; 30:9–11). Given the name of his son Shear-jashub (“a remnant shall return”), however, the prophet clearly envisaged a remnant that would survive God’s judgement and was thus inspired to summon his listeners to conversion (30:15). It was his conviction that the sanctity of yhwh called for tranquil and trusting faith in God with the exercise of justice and righteousness as its consequence. While Zion, as the dwelling place of yhwh, played a prominent role in the preaching of Isaiah (6:36–37; 8:18; 14:32), it seems clear, nevertheless, that he did not share the conviction that God’s mountain enjoyed fundamental inviolability.22 The prophet was profoundly impressed by the awe-inspiring character of the counsel and deeds of the King of the world (28:29; 29:14), which implied both destruction and liberation. b) Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55) Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God (40:1)

Commentaries: A. van der Flier (TU) 1926; E. König, Das Buch Jesaja, Gütersloh 1926; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1926, 19724; P. Volz (KAT1) 1932, reprint 1974; J. Fischer (HSAT) 1939; F. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah II, Dublin 1943; J. Muilenburg (IB) 1956; C. R. North, The Second Isaiah. Chapters XL–LV, Oxford 1964; G. Fohrer (ZBK) 1964; C. Westermann (ATD) 1966, 19865; J. L. McKenzie (AB) 1968; P. E. Bonnard, Le Second Isaïe (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1972; A. Schoors (BOT) 1973; A. S. Herbert (CNEB) 1975; R. N. Whybray (NCB) 1975 (1981); K. Elliger (BK) 1978 (= Jes. 40:1–45:7); W. A. M. Beuken (POT) IIa 1979, 19862, IIb 1983; J. A. Koole (COT) I 1985, II 1990; J. D. W. Watts (WBC) 1986; N. Oswalt (NICOT) 1998; K. Baltzer, Deutero-Jesaja (KAT) 1999. See, in addition, the works of Dillmann-Kittel, Duhm, Marti and Schoors referred to under Proto-Isaiah.

22 Cf. Th. C. Vriezen, “Jahweh en zijn stad”, Jaarboek KNAW 1961–1962, Amsterdam 1962, pp. 88–113.

326

chapter nine

Monographs and articles: H. Gressmann, “Die literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas (Kp. 40–55)”, ZAW 34 (1914), 254–297; L. Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55) stilkritisch untersucht (BZAW 37), Giessen 1923; S. Mowinckel, “Die Komposition des deuterojesajanischen Buches”, ZAW 49 (1931), 87–112, 242–260; K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja in seinem Verhältnis zu Tritojesaja (BWANT 63), Stuttgart 1933; W. Caspari, Lieder und Gottessprüche der Rückwanderer (BZAW 65), Gießen 1934; J. Begrich, Studien zu Deuterojesaja (BWANT 77), Stuttgart 1938 (= id., Studien zu Deuterojesaja (ThB 20), Munich 1963, 19692); S. Smith, Isaiah Chapters XL–LV. Literary Criticism and History (Schweich Lectures 1940), London 1944; B. J. van der Merwe, Pentateuchtradisies in die prediking van Deuterojesaja, GroningenDjakarta 1955; P. A. H. de Boer, Second-Isaiah’s Message (OTS 11), Leiden 1956; L. G. Rignell, A Study of Isaiah Ch. 40–55, Lund 1956; C. Westermann, “Sprache und Struktur der Prophetie Deuterojesajas”, in: id., Forschung am Alten Testament (ThB 24), Munich 1964, pp. 92–170; H. M. Orlinsky and N. H. Snaith, Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah (SVT 14), Leiden 1967, 19772; J. Becker, Isaias—der Prophet und sein Buch (SBSt 30), Stuttgart 1968; C. Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (AnBibl 43), Rome 1970; D. Baltzer, Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja. Berührungen in der Heilserwartung der beiden Exilspropheten (BZAW 121), Berlin 1971; A. Schoors, I am God Your Saviour. A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. 40–55 (SVT 24), Leiden 1973; R. Albertz, Weltschöpfung und Menschenschöpfung untersucht bei Deuterojesaja, Hiob und in den Psalmen, Stuttgart 1974; E. Haag, “Gott als Schöpfer und Erlöser in der Prophetie Deuterojesajas”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 85 (1976), 193–213; R. F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40–55 (BZAW 141), BerlinNew York 1976; H. D. Preuß, Deuterojesaja. Eine Einführung in seine Botschaft, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976; H. C. Spijkerboer, The Structure and Composition of Deutero-Isaiah, diss. Groningen 1976; De Knecht. Studies rondom DeuteroJesaja, aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. J. L. Koole, Kampen 1978; J. H. Eaton, Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah, London 1979; H. C. Schmitt, “Prophetie und Schultheologie im Deuterojesajabuch”, ZAW 91 (1979), 43–61; K. Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch (OBO 24), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1979; M. Dijkstra, Gods voorstelling. Predikatieve expressie van zelfopenbaring in oud-oosterse teksten en Deutero-Jesaja, Kampen 1980; R. P. Merendino, Der Erste und der Letzte. Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40–48 (SVT 31), Leiden 1981; A. S. Kapelrud, “The Main Concern of Second Isaiah”, VT 32 (1982), 50–58; R. N. Whybray, The Second Isaiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1983; R. J. Cliﬀord, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah, New York 1984; A. Wilson, The Nations in Deutero-Isaiah. A Study on Composition and Structure (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 1), New York and Ontario 1986; H. J. Hermisson, “Einheit und Komplexität Deuterojesajas. Probleme der Redaktionsgeschichte von Jes 40–45”, in: J. Vermeylen (ed), Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BEThL 81), Leuven 1989, pp. 287–312; R. G. Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55 (FAT 1), Tübingen

the prophetic literature

327

1991; A. Laato, The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus. A Reinterpretation of the Exilic Messianic Programme in Isaiah 40–55 (Coniectanea Biblica, OT Series 35), Stockholm 1992; O. H. Steck, Gottesknecht und Zion. Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (FAT 4), Tübingen 1992; J. van Oorschot, Von Babel zum Zion. Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BZAW 206), BerlinNew York 1993; Ch. Streibert, Schöpfung bei Deuterojesaja und in der Priesterschrift (BEATAJ 8), Frankfurt a. M.-Bern 1993; R. F. Melugin and M. A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah 1996 (see above under Proto-Isaiah); H. M. Barstad, The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah: “Exilic” Judah and the Provenance of Isaiah 40–55, Oslo 1997; C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah 1997 (see above under Proto-Isaiah); J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah 1997 (see above under Proto-Isaiah); P. T. Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (SBL Diss. Series 161), Atlanta GA 1997.

Chapters 40–55 of the book of Isaiah, which are linked to the preceding chapters, do not stem from the prophet himself. No reference is made to him and the presumed historical situation is not that of the eighth century BCE: Jerusalem lies in ruins (44:26; 51:3), the addressees live in exile in Babylon (42:22; 48:20), the fall of Babylon is expected (46) and the Persian King Cyrus (Kores) serves as an instrument of liberation and restoration in the hand of God (45:1ﬀ.). While a number of points of contact are evident with respect to Isaiah 1–39 (e.g. the designation of God as the Holy One of Israel and Zion theology), essential diﬀerences are likewise observable: no allusions are made to a still prevailing Davidic dynasty and emphasis is ﬁrmly placed on the creative power of yhwh. In contrast, the author refers to earlier prophecies of Isaiah himself and explicitly accents the unicity of yhwh, besides whom no other god exists. The chapters are thus to be ascribed, for the most part, to an anonymous prophet who lived in exile in Babylon at the time of King Cyrus of Persia. Given the fact that his name is not known to us, scholars refer to him with the technical term Deutero-Isaiah. The content of the prophecies ascribed to Deutero-Isaiah should be dated to the period 545–540 BCE: military conquests by Cyrus are presupposed (41:2–3, 25; 45:1),23 but not his victory over Babylon (539 BCE). The prophet announces the destruction of the latter city

23 Cyrus incorporated Media into the Persian Empire around 550 and conquered Lydia in 546.

328

chapter nine

and the demise of its gods (46–47). In reality, however, Cyrus did not destroy Babylon nor did he bring an end to its cultic practices. As a consequence, there would appear to be no decisive reasons for dating chapters 49–55 and their predominantly salviﬁc forecast of a positive future for Zion after the fall of Babylon in contrast to chapters 40–48. Deutero-Isaiah can be characterised as a book of comfort (cf. 40:1 “Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God”), and its author as the preacher of an imminent time of well-being (40:3–9). In light thereof, it is evident that Deutero-Isaiah’s response to the doubts and misgivings of his people living in exile did not tend to employ the genre of prophetic announcements of judgement but made use rather of literary forms frequently borrowed from the cult such as oracles of salvation whereby a priest or cultic prophet endeavoured to provide a comforting response on God’s behalf to a lament or prayer of entreaty of an individual (c.q. the community). In addition to his use of announcements of salvation, however, the prophet also employed the dispute genre in which he defended himself against those who challenged his preaching and drew attention to the sovereignty of yhwh. The hymns24 and hymn-like passages (cf. 42:10–13; 44:23; 45:8; 48:20–21; 49:13; 52:7–10), which scholars often employ to mark the end of a segment of Deutero-Isaiah (Schoors 1973), are also worthy of note. The extent to which one can consider the text of Isaiah 40–55 as homogeneous remains the subject of scholarly dispute. Polemics against idolatrous images (40:19–20; 41:6–7; 42:17; 44:9–20; 45:16–17,20b; 46:5–8; 48:22) and the Songs of the Servant of yhwh (see below) are consistently ascribed to redactional reworking. Designation of the redactional layers to which these segments belong varies from person to person (cf. Schmitt 1979; Kiesow 1979; Merendino 1981; Hermisson 1989; Kratz 1991; Van Oorschot 1993).

Chapters 40–55 of the book of Isaiah are among the most impressive components of the Old Testament. The poet responsible for these chapters was inspired by a profound faith in his God, the Creator of heaven and earth, a God who would not abandon his

24 F. Matheus, Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied. Die Hymnen Deuterojesajas (SBSt 141), Stuttgart 1990.

the prophetic literature

329

people. yhwh is not only the God of nature but also the God of all peoples. The so-called Songs of the Servant of YHWH (42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12) enjoy a highly unique place within these chapters.25 Scholars are seriously divided, however, as to whether these songs should be considered older or younger than Deutero-Isaiah or whether they should be ascribed to Deutero-Isaiah himself. Further division is evident with respect to the cohesive unity of the material and the point at which it was integrated into the book. The identity of the Servant of yhwh, serves, if such be possible, as a source of even greater division. The Songs of the Servant to one side, the expression “Servant of yhwh” functions particularly in Deutero-Isaiah’s oracles of salvation as a designation for Israel and the personiﬁcation of the community waiting in hope for yhwh’s salviﬁc intervention. In the songs themselves, the Servant has an active role to play. Gifted with the spirit of God, he shall bring about the establishment of a new system of justice and torah (teaching) for the peoples shall go out from him (Isa. 42:1–4; some commentators include vv. 5–7 of 5–9). It would appear from 49:1–6, in which the Servant speaks in the ﬁrst person of his vocation from his mother’s womb, that his task is not limited

25 Literature on the songs of the Servant of the Lord is immense: J. P. M. van der Ploeg, Les chants du Serviteur de Jahvé, Paris 1936; C. Lindhagen, The Servant Motif in the Old Testament, Uppsala 1950; J. Lindblom, The Servant Songs, Lund 1951; R. J. Tournay, Les chants du Serviteur, RB 59 (1952), 355–384,481–512; V. de Leeuw, De Ebed Jahweh-profetieën, Assen 1956; C. R. North, The Suﬀering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, Oxford 19562; O. Kaiser, Der königliche Knecht (FRLANT 70), Göttingen 1959, 19622; J. Morgenstern, “The Suﬀering Servant”, VT 11 (1961), 292–320,406–431; E. Kutsch, Sein Leiden und Tod—unser Heil (Biblische Studien 52), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967; G. Fohrer, “Stellvertretung und Schuldopfer in Jes 52,13–53,12”, in: P. Rieger (ed.), Das Kreuz Christi, Göttingen 1969, pp. 7–31; J. A. Soggin, “Tod und Auferstehung des leidenden Gottesknechtes”, ZAW 87 (1975), 346–355; D. J. A. Clines, I, He, We and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 (Suppl. JSOT 1), Sheﬃeld 1976; R. N. Whybray, Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet. An Interpretation of Isaiah Chapter 53 (Suppl. JSOT 4), Sheﬃeld 1978; id., The Second Isaiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1983, pp. 66–78; P. Grelot, Les poèmes du Serviteur (Lectio Divina 103), Paris 1981; H. J. Hermisson, “Israel und der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja”, ZThK 79 (1982), 1–24; T. N. D. Mettinger, A Farewell to the Servant Songs, Lund 1983; O. H. Steck, “Aspekte des Gottesknechts in Deuterojesajas “‘Ebed-Jahweh-Liedern’”, ZAW 96 (1984), 372–390; id., “Aspekte des Gottesknechts in Jes. 52,13–53,12”, ZAW 97 (1985), 36–58; E. Haag, Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja, Darmstadt 1985; B. Janowski und P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), Der leidende Gottesknecht. Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte mit einer Bibliographie zu Jes 53 (FAT 14), Tübingen 1996 (lit.!).

330

chapter nine

to the “the restoration of the tribes of Jacob and the return survivors of Israel” (49:6a). He shall also serve as “a light to the nations, that my (= God’s) salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49:6b). It is striking that the Servant is explicitly identiﬁed with “Israel” in 49:3. In 50:4–9 he expresses his trust in God who has helped him “to remain courageous” in the exercise of his task in spite of the intense resistance he has had to face. In the fourth and best-known song (52:13–53:12) yhwh himself is ﬁrst to speak, ascribing an exalted status to the Servant that will astonish even the kings (52:13–15). Individuals designated as “we” continue by stating that the Servant has been chastised by God, has suﬀered on account of their injustice and has undergone a punishment that “that makes us whole”. While the death of the Servant is alluded to thereafter, vv. 10b–13, in which yhwh speaks once again, return to the theme of the future glory of the Servant as recompense for the fact that he has borne the punishment due to others upon himself. While no one should be surprised by the fact that the earliest Christian community had already associated Isa. 52:13–53:12 with the suﬀering and resurrection of Jesus Christ (cf., for example, Acts 8:32–35), it remains evident that the author of these verses had a contemporary or earlier ﬁgure in mind when he wrote. Scholars continue to argue in this regard, however, as to the identity of the Servant: a personiﬁcation of Israel (or a part thereof ) or an individual. Those who favour the collective hypothesis generally appeal to the designation of the Servant as Israel in Isa. 49:3. This perspective is maintained for the most part by those who consider the Servant Songs to be linked at the literary level to the context. Others argue that Isa. 49:5–6 as well as 53:4–6 are diﬃcult to reconcile with the identiﬁcation of the Servant with Israel, pointing out that the Servant is portrayed as an innocent individual (a characteristic diﬃcult to apply to Israel, cf. 40:2; 43:22–28) who is, albeit remarkably, not designated by name in the songs (with the exception of Isa. 49:3, in which “Israel” is probably a gloss). It is far from surprising, therefore, that some have interpreted the Servant as the “ideal Israel”, the righteous remnant, in contrast to the empirical Israel. Such a distinction within Israel as a whole, however, can be found nowhere else in Deutero-Isaiah. The individual interpretation of the Servant exhibits similar variety. Some are of the opinion that he represents a ﬁgure from Israel’s early history such as Moses or Jeremiah, while others recognise him as a messianic ﬁgure, a now

the prophetic literature

331

unknown contemporary of the author. Others still maintain an autobiographical interpretation: the Servant is Deutero-Isaiah himself who speaks in the ﬁrst person without introduction. For those who maintain this hypothesis, clear parallels with the call and confessions of Jeremiah ( Jer. 1:5, 10 and 11:18–20; 15:10–21; 18:18–23; 26:14–15 respectively) and the description of Ezekiel’s sign acts in Ezek. 4:4–8 serve as supportive arguments. The liberation from hardship and suﬀering referred to in Isaiah 53 is thus seen as an allusion to Deutero-Isaiah’s liberation from the prison in which he found himself on account of his prediction of the fall of Babylon (cf. Jer. 40:1–6). Such an explanation requires us to interpret Isa. 53:7–9 in the ﬁgurative sense, in line with the terminology employed in songs of lament, and to interpret the statement that he had “borne the sins of many” as implying that the consequences of the sins of the people had been transferred to him. Given the terms and expressions found in Isaiah 53, however, such an explanation remains unconvincing, at least at ﬁrst sight. Nevertheless, the objection that the Old Testament does not allude elsewhere to surrogate suﬀering is insuﬃcient proof that such a notion is not being alluded to here at this high-point in the prophetic tradition. Why and how chapters 40–55 came to be connected to the preceding chapters remains something of a mystery. Williamson26 has defended the thesis that Deutero-Isaiah never existed as an independent work and that it was always intended as a continuation of Proto-Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah, he argues, added his own words to the transmission of Isaiah because he considered the latter’s book to be sealed, as it were, until the time that God’s judgement belonged to the past and the day of liberation, of which the prophet considered himself the herald, had dawned. In this case Deutero-Isaiah is not only to be considered the ﬁnal redactor of Isaiah 1–39 but also the one who brought the preaching of his predecessor into line with his own time, creating a harmonious whole by combining his own preaching with the prophecies of Isaiah. Williamson’s thesis, however, presupposes the literary unity of Deutero-Isaiah (including the Songs of the Servant of yhwh). Others (including Hermisson 1989, Kratz 1991, Van Oorschot 1993) are more inclined to suggest points of contact between Proto-Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah in segments of Isaiah

26

H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah, Oxford 1994.

chapter nine

332

which they designate as Fortschreibungen, thus implying the existence of an originally independent Deutero-Isaiah. In addition, the material speciﬁed by Williamson in segments of Proto-Isaiah as DeuteroIsaianic reworking27 is far too disparate to have stemmed from one and the same hand. g) Trito-Isaiah (Isaiah 56–66) Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of yhwh has risen upon you (60:1)

Commentaries: See the commentaries referred to under Deutero-Isaiah (with the exception of Elliger and North); W. A. M. Beuken (POT) IIIa–b 1989; J. Koole (COT) III 1996.

Monographs and articles: K. Cramer, Der geschichtliche Hintergrund der Kap. 56–66 im Buche Jesaja, Dorpat 1905; R. Abramowski, Zum literarischen Problem von Jes. 56–66, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 96–97 (1925), 90–143; K. Elliger, Die Einheit des Tritojesaja ( Jesaja 56–66 ) (BWANT 3/9), Stuttgart 1928; id., “Der Prophet Tritojesaja”, ZAW 49 (1931), 112–141; id., Deuterojesaja in seinem Verhältnis zu Tritojesaja, Stuttgart 1933; H. Odeberg, Trito-Isaiah (Isaiah 56–66). A Literary and Linguistic Analysis, Uppsala 1931; W. Zimmerli, “Zur Sprache Tritojesajas”, Schweizerische Theologische Umschau 20 (1950), 110–122 (= id., Gottes Oﬀenbarung (ThB 19), Munich 1963, pp. 217–233); K. Pauritsch, Die neue Gemeinde. Die Botschaft des Tritojesaja-Buches literar-, form-, gattungskritisch und redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht (AnBibl 47), Rome 1971; G. Wallis, “Gott und seine Gemeinde. Eine Betrachtung zum Tritojesaja-Buch”, TZ 27 (1971), 182–200; E. Sehmsdorf, “Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Jesaja 56–66”, ZAW 84 (1972), 517–576; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, Philadelphia 1975, pp. 32–208; J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique II, Paris 1978, pp. 445–517; J. Blenkinsopp, “The Servants of the Lord in Third Isaiah, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 7 (1983), 1–23; G. J. Polan, In the Ways of Justice Toward Salvation. A Rhetorical Analysis of Isaiah 56–59, New York 1986; O. H. Steck, “Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 56–59”, BZ 31 (1987), 228–246; id., “Tritojesaja im Jesajabuch”, in: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah (BEThL 81), Leuven 1989, pp. 361–406; id., Studien zu Tritojesaja (BZAW 203), Berlin 1991; S. Sekine, Die tritojesajanische Sammlung ( Jes 56–66)

27 For example, 8:21–23a, 11:11–16 and chapter 12 together with 2:5, 5:30, 13:1, 14:1–4a, 22–23, chapters 33 and 35.

the prophetic literature

333

redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 175), Berlin 1989; K. Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch. Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie (WMANT 62), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990; Grace I. Emmerson, Isaiah 56–66 (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1992; W. Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66. Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches (BZAW 225), Berlin-New York 1994; P. A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah. The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66 (SVT 62), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995; B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah. Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration (Suppl. JSOT 193), Sheﬃeld 1995; L. Ruszkowski, Wolk und Gemeinde im Wandel. Eine Untersuchung zu Jes 56–66 (FRLANT 191), 2000.

Scholars have endeavoured to designate Isaiah 56–66 as Trito-Isaiah since the publication of Duhm’s commentary in 1892. While the technical term Trito-Isaiah accounts for the diﬀerences in literary style and historical background of these chapters when compared with Deutero-Isaiah, it does not oﬀer an answer to the question of authorship: one or more authors or a redaction of material collected from a variety of diﬀerent sources. Partly on account of the close relationship between Isaiah 55 and 56, scholars have become increasingly convinced that Trito-Isaiah never existed as an independent document and that it ultimately forms part of a gradual Fortschreibung of the book of Isaiah as a whole and of Deutero-Isaiah in particular. Indeed, Trito-Isaiah alludes continually to Deutero-Isaiah. The hypothesis that the prophecies contained in Isaiah 56–66 stem from the period after the Babylonian exile is supported by the fact that Babylon is nowhere mentioned in the said chapters and the departure from the city of exile has been transposed into an entry into the sanctuary of Jerusalem. Problems related to the promised land are the focus of attention: the situation of the temple on Mount Zion and conﬂicts between the oppressed and the oppressors within the people of God itself (Beuken, commentary 1989). The question preoccupying Trito-Isaiah turns around the awareness that the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah had not been fulﬁlled and a reﬂection on why this had happened. The core of Trito-Isaiah is formed by the announcements of salvation for Zion in chapters 60–62, which would appear to stem from a prophet who had functioned shortly after the Babylonian exile and before the reconstruction of the temple (520–515 BCE; cf. 60:13). The remaining prophecies tend to form, for the most part, a concentric circle around the core: the prayer of atonement in 63:7–64:12

chapter nine

334

(Hebr. 63:7–64:11)28 constitutes the counterpart to the accusations of 56:7–59:21 (interrupted by promises of salvation), which is followed by 65:1–66:14, in which reference is made to the punishment of the godless and salvation for the faithful “servants of yhwh”. Whether we can ascribe the prophecies of Trito-Isaiah to a single individual (according to Elliger [1933] a disciple of DeuteroIsaiah) or to a variety of ﬁgures stemming from diﬀerent periods remains a question of dispute. The latter option is more likely since the prologue 56:1–8 (following closely on chapter 55), which grants access to the cultic community to foreigners and eunuchs, and the epilogue 66:15–24, which speaks of the coming of yhwh in judgement and his worship by all living things, would appear to stem from a diﬀerent date than the core of Trito-Isaiah. In addition, 63:1–6 (yhwh’s announcement of vindication against the peoples) is evidently an interpolation in chapters 60–62 related to chapter 59. 2. Jeremiah O Lord, you have enticed me, and I was enticed (20:7a)

Commentaries: F. Giesebrecht (HKAT) 1894, 19072; B. Duhm (KHAT) 1901; C. H. Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia, Leipzig 1905; S. R. Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, London 1906; A. Condamin (Etudes Bibliques) 1920, 19363; J. W. Rothstein (HSAT) 19224; P. Volz (KAT1) 1922, 19282; G. Ch. Aalders (KV) I 1923, II 1925, 19532; Th. L. W. van Ravesteyn (TU) I 1925, II 1927; F. Nötscher (HSAT) 1934; W. Rudolph (HAT) 1947, 19683; A. Weiser (ATD) 1952/1955, 19696; J. P. Hyatt (IB) 1956; B. N. Wambacq (BOT) 1957; J. Bright (AB) 1965, 19782; A. van Selms (POT) I–III 1972–1974, I 19893, II 19842, III 19842; E. W. Nicholson (CNEB) I 1973, II 1975; J. A. Thompson (NICOT) 1980; J. Schreiner (NEB) I 1981, II 1984; R. P. Carroll (OTL) 1986; W. L. Holladay (Hermeneia) I 1986, II 1989; W. McKane (ICC) I–II 1986, 1996; S. Herrmann (BK) 1986–1990 (= Jer. 1:1–2:34); B. J. Oosterhoﬀ (COT) I 1990, II 1994 (= Jeremiah 1–29); id. (TT) 1994 (= Jeremiah 1–25); D. R. Jones (NCB) 1992; P. C. Craigie e.a. (WBC) 1992 (= Jeremiah 1–25); G. L. Keown e.a. (WBC) 1995 (= Jeremiah 26–52); G. Wanke (ZBK) 1995; J. R. Lundom (AB) 1999 (= Jer. 1–20).

28 I. Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7–64,11 als Ausdruck des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung (SBB 19), Stuttgart 1989.

the prophetic literature

335

Monographs and articles: S. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia, Oslo 1914; J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah, Cambridge 1922; J. P. Hyatt, “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy”, JNES 1 (1942), 156–173; H. H. Rowley, “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Deuteronomy”, in: Studies in the Old Testament Presented to T. H. Robinson, New York 1950, pp. 157–174; J. Bright, “The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah”, JBL 70 (1951), 15–29; H. Cazelles, “Jérémie et Deutéronome”, RSR 38 (1951), 5–36; W. L. Holladay, “Prototypes and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah”, JBL 79 (1960), 351–367; id., “The Recovery of Poetic Passages of Jeremiah”, JBL 85 (1966), 401–435; H. Graf Reventlow, Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia, Gütersloh 1963; J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah, Cambridge 1963; J. P. Hyatt, “The Beginning of Jeremiah’s Prophecy”, ZAW 78 (1966), 204–214; C. Rietzschel, Das Problem der Urrolle: Ein Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Jeremiabuches, Gütersloh 1966; J. M. Berridge, Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh: An Examination of Form and Content in the Proclamation of the Prophet Jeremiah, Zurich 1970; E. W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study in the Prose Tradition of the Book of Jeremiah, Oxford 1970; T. W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood, Naperville IL 1970; G. Wanke, Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift (BZAW 122), Berlin 1971; T. R. Hobbs, “Some Remarks on the Composition and Structure of the Book of Jeremiah”, CBQ 34 (1972), 257–275; J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6), Cambridge, Mass. 1973; H. Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW 132), Berlin 1973; W. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (WMANT 41), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973; id., Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (WMANT 52), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981; id., “Ein Vierteljahrhundert Jeremia-Forschung”, VF 31 (1986), 32–52; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (SBL Diss. Series 18), Missoula MT 1975; id., The Early Career of the Prophet Jeremiah, Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter 1993; W. L. Holladay, “A Fresh Look at ‘Source B’ and ‘Source C’ in Jeremiah”, VT 25 (1975), 394–412; id., The Architecture of Jeremiah 1–20, Lewisburg PALondon 1976; P. Welten, “Leiden und Leidenserfahrung im Buch Jeremia”, ZThK 74 (1977), 123–150; K. F. Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches (FRLANT 118), Göttingen 1978; P. M. Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (BEThL 54), Leuven 1981; R. P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant: Uses of Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, London 1981; id., Jeremiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1989, reprint 1993 (lit.!); H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129), Göttingen 1982; J. L. Crenshaw, “A Living Tradition: The Book of Jeremiah in Current Research”, Interpretation 37 (1983), 117–129; J. Goldingay, God’s Prophet, God’s Servant, Exeter 1984; L. G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs (eds.), A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, Winona Lake IN 1984; L. Stulman, The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah (SBL Diss. Series 83), Atlanta GA 1986;

336

chapter nine

R. Liwak, Der Prophet und die Geschichte. Eine literar-historische Untersuchung zum Jeremiabuch (BWANT 121), Stuttgart 1987; W. Beyerlin, Reﬂexe der Amosvisionen im Jeremiabuch (OBO 93), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1989; Ch. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas (BZAW 187), Berlin-New York 1990; S. Herrmann, Jeremia. Der Prophet und sein Buch (EdF 271), Darmstadt 1990; M. S. Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11–20 (SBL Monogr. Series 42), Missoula MT 1990; A. Graupner, Auftrag und Geschick des Propheten Jeremia. Literarische Eigenart, Herkunft und Intention vordeuteronomistischer Prosa im Jeremiabuch (BThS 15), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991; K. Seybold, Der Prophet Jeremia. Leben und Werk (Urban-Taschenbücher 416), Stuttgart-Berlin-Cologne 1993; D. Vieweger, Die literarischen Beziehungen zwischen den Büchern Jeremia und Ezechiel (BEATAJ 26), Frankfurt a. M.-Bern-New York 1993; W. Groß (ed.), Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung” (BBB 98), Weinheim 1995; H. O. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah: An Annotated Bibliography (American Theological Library Association 41), Lanham MD-Folkestone (Kent) 1996; A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer (eds.), The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception (BEThL 128), Leuven 1997; K. Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches (WMANT 72), Neukirchen Vluyn 1996; H. Lalleman-de Winkel, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition (CBET 26), Leuven, 2000.

The Old Testament text provides more information concerning the life and person of Jeremiah (probably best understood as “may yhwh exalt [him]”; lxx: Ieremias; V: Hieremias) than of any other prophet.29 Many of his experiences and emotional reactions thereto have been passed on to us in the (auto)biographical and lyrical segments of the book that bears his name. The prophet, who suﬀered more than most under the task appointed him (cf. Jer. 15:10–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–9,14–18), had his roots in the Benjaminite town of Anathoth, a ten hour walk to the north-east of Jerusalem. According to Jer. 1:1 he was the son of Hilkiah, one of the priests of Anathoth. Commentators have frequently identiﬁed the latter group with the descendants of Abiathar, the priest exiled by Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 2:26–27), but it is equally possible that they are to be identiﬁed with certain individuals who had migrated south prior to or after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BCE; cf. further Herrmann [commentary 1986]). A degree of kinship between the prophecies of Jeremiah and those

29 R. P. Carroll is extremely sceptical about the possibility of knowing anything about the historical Jeremiah. He argues in his commentary (1986) that the Jeremiah of the book represents virtually nothing more than the literary product of the redactors. Cf., however, the considerably more positive approach in line with earlier commentators of S. Herrmann, op. cit., 1990 and K. Seybold, op. cit., 1993.

the prophetic literature

337

of the eighth century prophet Hosea who served in northern Israel would tend to conﬁrm this hypothesis30 (points of contact are also evident between the preaching of Jeremiah and that of Ezekiel).31 Jeremiah lived at variance with his own immediate family on account of his preaching (cf. 12:6). In order to preach the words of judgement assigned to him he was obliged to remain unmarried and he was not permitted to enter a house of mourning or house of feasting (16:1–9). From the moment he was called, his prophecies were predominantly prophecies of judgement, although occasional salvation preaching was not completely lacking (cf. 1:10). As a consequence, he frequently crossed swords with his fellow villagers (11:18–23), priests and prophets (18:18; 26:11) and even with King Jehoiakim (chapters 26 and 36). Zedekiah sought his advice but by then it was too late (37:17–21; 38:14–28). He received the support Ahikam, the son of the inﬂuential writer Shaphan (cf. 26:24). Prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, he was branded a traitor, arrested, imprisoned and ﬁnally thrown into a pit, all on account of his preaching. This would have been the end of him if he had not be rescued on time, a deed to which King Zedekiah was privy (37:11–16; 38:1–13; see also 20:1–6). Another prophet named Uriah, who, like Jeremiah, preached his message against Jerusalem and Judah and is frequently identiﬁed as his pupil, was less fortunate. Uriah was put to death upon the instigation of King Jehoiakim ( Jer. 26:20–23).

According to Jer. 1:2 (cf. also 25:3; 36:2) Jeremiah was called as a prophet in the thirteenth year of King Josiah (627/626 BCE), prior thus to the latter’s cultic reforms in 622. Given that most of Jeremiah’s prophecies appear to stem form the period after the death of Josiah (609) and the lack of certainty as to whether he referred to the aforementioned reform, commentators frequently maintain that he remained silent between 622 and 609, impressed by improvements introduced by Josiah (cf. Volz, commentary 1928, pp. XXIII–XXIV). A number of scholars have proposed alternative dates for the prophet’s call,

30 K. Gross, “Hoseas Einﬂuß auf Jeremias Anschauungen”, Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift 42 (1931), 241–256,327–343. 31 Cf. J. W. Miller, Das Verhältnis Jeremias und Hesekiels sprachlich und theologisch untersucht, Assen/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1955; D. Vieweger, op. cit., 1993.

338

chapter nine

although none can be convincingly veriﬁed (cf. Herrmann, op. cit., 1990, pp. 28–30). Some consider the thirteenth year of King Josiah to be the year in which Jeremiah was born (cf. Holladay, commentary 1986; Seybold 1993, pp. 46–47). It is thus argued that the Deuteronomistic author of the superscription to the book made a mistake and that Jeremiah only commenced his public activities as a prophet during the reign of King Jehoiakim (609–598). Several arguments run counter to this claim: a number of revelations during the time of Josiah are ascribed to Jeremiah (cf. 1:2; 3:6; 36:2); the announcements contained in chapters 3 and 30–31 were originally addressed to the Northern Kingdom (later also to Judah) and are thus diﬃcult to relate to the period of Jehoiakim; the same announcements ﬁt more appropriately in the context of Josiah’s political stance with respect to Ephraim; the “enemy from the North” to which Jeremiah refers (1:14–15; 4:6; 6:1 etc.) need not necessarily allude to a well-deﬁned adversary such as the neo-Babylonian empire (that only served as a threat to Judah during the reign of King Jehoiakim). It seems reasonable to argue, therefore, that the prophet lived between 650 and 580 BCE. Jeremiah lived during a devastatingly harsh period in the history of the Ancient Near East: the fall of Nineveh (612) and the decline of the Assyrian empire, together with the rise of neo-Babylonian domination under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II. In his own land he was to witness the fall of Jerusalem in 597 under King Jehoiakim and that of 587 during the reign of Zedekiah, the last king of the Davidic dynasty. After the murder of Gedaliah who had been appointed governor by the Babylonians, Jeremiah found himself forced to ﬂee to Egypt together with his friend and secretary Baruch and a number of individuals who feared the reprisals of the Babylonian authorities (chapters 40–44). The curtain falls at this juncture over the remainder of his life. According to legendary information found in the Lives of the Prophets (see chapter XIII) he met his death by stoning in the land of the Nile at the hands of his own people. The book of Jeremiah can be divided into the following main sections: 1–25 primarily prophecies of Jeremiah 26–35 primarily narratives about Jeremiah’s activities 36–45 primarily narratives about Jeremiah’s vicissitudes

the prophetic literature 46–51 52

339

prophecies against the foreign nations appendix, largely corresponding with 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30

Following the superscription (1:1–3) and the account of the prophet’s call (1:4–10) Jeremiah 1–25 consist of two visions and a divine consolation speech (1:11–19), the motivation behind the fall of the Northern Kingdom, i.e. abandonment of yhwh (chapters 2–3) and the announcement of the attack upon Jerusalem and Judah by “the enemy from the North” (chapters 4–6). Chapters 1–6 as a whole reﬂect the prophet’s earliest preaching. Jeremiah’s temple discourse (7:1–15; cf. Jeremiah 26 which would appear to date this discourse in 609 BCE) serves to mark his ﬁrst public appearance in Jerusalem. Jeremiah 8–20 are of particular interest for their presentation of the complaints of the prophet (8:18–9:22; 10:17–25), his extraordinary confessiones (12:1–4; 15:10, 15–18; 17:12–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–18)32 and his symbolic acts (the linen loincloth: 13:1–11; the potter’s vessel: 18–19). Chapters 21–25 consist of words of judgement concerning Jerusalem and Zedekiah (21:1–10), the monarchy in general (21:11–22:9) and Shallum son of Josiah, Jehoiakim and Jehoiakin in particular (22:10–30), with additional material (following the woe saying concerning the iniquitous shepherds) containing a prophecy of salvation in relation to the Righteous Branch from the house of David (23:5–8); proverbs against false prophets (23:9–40); an autobiographical description of the two baskets of ﬁgs placed before the temple with a promise of salvation for the exiles of 597 and a prophecy of doom for those who had been spared in Jerusalem (24); the announcement of the fall of Judah under Babylonian aggression (25:1–11) and of the fall of Babylon (25:12–14). The remaining segments of chapter 25 would appear to serve as the introduction to the prophecies against the foreign nations of Jeremiah 46–51 which the Septuagint locates at this 32 Cf. W. Baumgartner, Die Klagegedichte des Jeremia (BZAW 32), Giessen 1917; N. Ittmann, Die Konfessionen Jeremias. Ihre Bedeutung für die Verkündigung des Propheten (WMANT 54), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981; A. R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context. Scenes of Prophetic Drama (Suppl. JSOT 45), Sheﬃeld 1987; K. M. O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1–25 (SBL Diss. Series 95), Atlanta GA 1988; K. F. Pohlmann, Die Ferne Gottes—Studien zum Jeremiabuch. Beiträge zu den “Konfessionen” im Jeremiabuch und ein Versuch zur Frage nach den Anfängen der Jeremiatradition (BZAW 179), Berlin-New York 1989; D. H. Bak, Klagender Gott— klagende Menschen. Studien zur Klage im Jeremiabuch (BZAW 193), Berlin-New York 1990; M. S. Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11–20 (SBL Monograph Series 42), Atlanta GA 1990.

340

chapter nine

juncture, albeit in a sequence that diﬀers from the Hebrew text. Chapters 21–24 relate to Jeremiah’s preaching during the period of Zedekiah. With the exception of chapters 30–31, often referred to as the Baruch Scroll,33 Jeremiah 26–35 contains, for the most part, narratives about the words of Jeremiah, some in the ﬁrst person and some in the third person. Following the narrative of the prophet’s temple discourse (26; cf. 7:1–15) we are introduced to a description of a symbolic act: Jeremiah is to make a yoke of straps and bars and place it on his neck in order to preach submission to Babylon (27), thereby coming into conﬂict with the prophet Hananiah (28). Chapter 29 contains a letter addressed to those who had been deported to Babylon in 597 with a prediction that the exile was going to last seventy years (29:10). Chapters 30–31 contain promises of restoration for both northern Israel and Judah.34 Jeremiah’s purchase of a ﬁeld from his nephew Hanamel also makes use of promises of restoration and salvation (32–33). After an urgent warning addressed to Zedekiah informing him that Nebuchadnezzar II was about to conquer Jerusalem (34:1–7), reference is made to divine punishment as a consequence of the revocation of the former decision to set the Hebrew slaves free (34:8–22, in line with Exod. 21:2 and Deut. 15:12). Chapter 35 thereafter presents the Rechabites as an example for Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah 36–45, the so-called Memoirs of Baruch, relate events in the life of Jeremiah: the burning of his ﬁrst scroll of prophecies by King Jehoiakim (36), his encounters with King Zedekiah (37–38), the cap-

33 His name is to be found as Berekjahu on one of the bullae stemming from the time of Jeremiah (cf. N. Avigad, “Baruch the Scribe and Jerahmeel the King’s Son”, BiAr 42 (1979), 114–118; id., Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. Remnants of a Burnt Archive, Jerusalem 1986, pp. 28–29): lbrkjhw bn nrjhw hspr (“belonging to Berekjahu, the son of Nerijahu, the scribe”). Other bullae contain the name of Jerahmeel (cf. Jer. 36:26) and that of Seraiah, the son of Neriah, the brother of Baruch ( Jer. 51:59). 34 S. Böhmer, Heimkehr und neuer Bund. Studien zu Jeremia 30–31 (Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 5), Göttingen 1976; B. Becking, “Bedrukte Rachel schort dit waren”, in: FS C. van Leeuwen (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 8), Utrecht 1989, pp. 9–22; id. “The Times They are A Changing: An Interpretation of Jeremiah 30:12–17”, SJOT 12 (1998), pp. 3–25; B. A. Bozak, Life “Anew”. A Literary-Theological Study of Jeremiah 30–31 (AnBibl 122), Rome 1991; G. Fischer, Das Trostbüchlein. Komposition und Theologie von Jer 30–31 (SBB 26), Stuttgart 1993.

the prophetic literature

341

ture of Jerusalem whereafter the prophet is released from his fetters (39:1–40:6), his forced departure to Egypt after the murder of Gedaliah (40:7–43:7) and his preaching in Egypt (43:8–44:30). The chapters are written in the third person and constitute a sort of apology intended to show that in spite of the accusations of treachery Jeremiah was the opposite of a traitor and that he remained faithful to the people in spite of their rejections. The ﬁnal chapter rounds oﬀ this segment of the book with a short prophecy of salvation from Jeremiah addressed to his secretary Baruch which reveals something of the latter’s spiritual struggle after he had wholeheartedly taken sides with the prophet (45). The prophecies against the foreign nations (46–51) constitute a separate collection35 and are addressed against Egypt, the Philistines, Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, Damascus, Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor, Elam and Babylon. The said prophecies stem from a variety of diﬀerent periods and would appear either to be only partially attributable to Jeremiah himself or to have been signiﬁcantly reworked at a later date (see, for example, the prophecies against Moab [48] and Edom [49:7–22]).36 The concluding chapter 52 deals with the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE and contains reference to the number of exiles deported by Nebuchadnezzar II in 597, 587 and 581 (52:28–30), which is lacking in the largely parallel text of 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30. Information on the genesis and evolution of the book of Jeremiah would appear to be more readily available than is the case with other prophetic documents. Jer. 36:1–4 informs us that the prophet allowed the prophecies uttered up to 605 to be written down by his secretary Baruch. Scholars have thus endeavoured to designate this collection as the primitive scroll. While we are also told that the latter was burned by King Jehoiakim, Jer. 36:32 informs us that the prophet dictated a more detailed version of his prophecies anew to Baruch. It would appear therefore that Jeremiah himself was responsible for the written codiﬁcation of his preaching. This fact conﬁrms our suspicion that other prophets were also responsible (either personally or via a secretary) for at least part of the written form of the books which bear their name and that the accounts of their 35

C. de Jong, De volken bij Jeremia, diss. Kampen 1978; Beat Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker. Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49 (FAT 20), Tübingen 1997. 36 Cf. L. H. K. Bleeker, Jeremia’s profetieën tegen de volkeren, Groningen 1894.

342

chapter nine

preaching activities should not be ascribed exclusively to their followers or to later generations. It remains virtually impossible to recover the contents of the socalled primitive scroll. Indeed, those who have endeavoured to do so generally arrive at diﬀering conclusions. Allusion to the fact that the scroll was read twice by Baruch and thereafter in part (three or four columns) by a certain Jehudi on a single day ( Jeremiah 36) makes it reasonable to assume, however, that it was relatively small. According to Vriezen the primitive scroll consisted roughly speaking of Jer. 25:1–13; 2:1–6:26; 7:29; 8:4–9:1; 9:10–26; 12:7–17; 13:12–17, 20–27; 15:5–9 together with the authentic Jeremian prophecies against the nations and Jer. 25:15–29. C. Rietzschel, Das Problem der Urrolle, Gütersloh 1966 (cf. also VT 18 [1968], 400–408) is of the opinion, however, that the scroll should be restricted to chapters 1–6. Holladay’s reconstruction thereof (commentary II, 1989, pp. 11ﬀ.) remains just as hypothetical as those of Vriezen and Rietzschel. Seybold (op. cit., 1993, p. 31) considers it probable that other segments of the book of Jeremiah were originally codiﬁed by the prophet himself in the form of independent scrolls or folios, such as the prophecies concerning Judah’s monarchy (21:11–23:8), those concerning the prophets (23:9–40) and an early collection of prophecies against the nations (46–51; note the reference to a book in Jer. 25:13).

Besides poetic segments written in metric fashion, chapters 1–25 also contain lengthy passages in a prose style employed not only for narrative material but also for several prophecies. The relationship between the poetic and prose passages, however, remains an ongoing point of discussion. Duhm’s 1901 commentary ascribes a signiﬁcant portion of the poetic passages to the prophet while considering the narrative prose segments (26–29; 32–45) to be the work of Baruch and the remaining material to be due to scribal interpolations from later centuries. In his Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia of 1914, Mowinckel made a distinction between four sources: A. the poetic segments ascribable to Jeremiah and composed in Egypt between 580 and 480 BCE; B. the narrative segments (19; 20; 26–29; 36–43), likewise written in Egypt, whereby Baruch’s authorship would appear to be uncertain; C. speeches stemming from Deuteronomistic circles in Babylon or Palestine around 400 BCE (7; 11; 18; 21; 25; 32; 34; 35; 44); D. anonymous prophecies of salvation (including chapters 30–31) dating from the late post-exilic period. Mowinckel later subscribed to the hypothesis that the prose segments of Jeremiah formed the writ-

the prophetic literature

343

ten accounts of the prophet’s followers who, under the inﬂuence of the reforms of Josiah, adapted and actualised his preaching along Deuteronomistic lines (cf. Nicholson 1970). Counter to this explanation several scholars have endeavoured to clarify the diﬀerences between the poetic and prose segments of the book from the perspective of historical linguistics: Bright (commentary 1965) maintains the existence of a unique style that emerged at the end of the seventh century and was employed by both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Weiser (commentary 1952–1953) and Reventlow (1963) argue that the combination has its origins in the cult and that it was employed in particular in priestly preaching. Hyatt (commentary 1956) and Thiel (1973, 1981), by contrast, adopt a redactional explanation, arguing that the prose segments of Jeremiah 1–25 together with the narratives about the prophet in chapters 26–45 were subject to a Deuteronomistic redactional reworking. Helga Weippert (1973), however, has convincingly pointed out essential diﬀerences between Deuteronomistic style and terminology and those segments of Jeremiah that have been designated Deuteronomistic. The reader would probably be best advised with respect to the prose segments to follow McKane (commentary 1986–1989) who favours the idea of a Fortschreibung of original prophecies of Jeremiah in a sort of Deuteronomistic style without insisting on a continuous and uniform Deuteronomistic redaction. In line with Mowinckel, Seybold (op. cit., 1993, pp. 21ﬀ.) distinguishes a (later reworked) layer A in Jeremiah 2–3, 4–6, 21–22, 23, 30–31 and 46–49, a narrative-biographical layer B consisting of chapters 26–45 that stems from Baruch and a Deuteronomistically inclined reworking of A and B (layer C). In contrast to Mowinckel, however, he considers layer D to consist of marginal comments incorporated for compositional reasons in the publication of the book as a whole.

The Septuagint version of the book of Jeremiah does not only locate the chapters containing the prophecies against the foreign nations in a diﬀerent place (immediately after Jer. 25:13a; adopting in addition a diﬀerent sequence) to that found in the Hebrew text (chapters 46–51), the Greek version of the book is also roughly 1/8 shorter than the Masoretic tradition.37 The discoveries at Qumran have 37 E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch (HSM 8), Missoula MT 1976.

chapter nine

344

proven once and for all that the Greek text is based on a Hebrew Vorlage.38 Scholars are at odds, however, as to which Hebrew text should be considered the most original: the Vorlage of the lxx or the proto-Masoretic text.39 It seems reasonable to accept, nevertheless, that a ﬁrst edition consisting for the most part of Jeremiah 1–51 (as preserved in the Septuagint with the prophecies against the foreign nations located after 25:13a) was put together by Baruch in Egypt (cf. the colophon lxx 51:31–35). A diﬀerent edition (as preserved in the Masoretic text) would appear to have been composed in Babylon, perhaps by Seraiah, the brother of Baruch, who went there in 594/593 BCE (cf. Jer. 51:59–64). 3. Ezekiel Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? (18:23)

Commentaries: A. Bertholet (KHC) 1897; R. Kraetzschmar (HKAT) 1901; P. Heinisch (HSAT) 1923; J. Herrmann (KAT 1) 1924; A. Troelstra (TU) 1931; A. Noordtzij (KV) 1932, 19562; A. Bertholet-K. Galling (HAT) 1936; G. A. Cooke (ICC) 1936 (1951); J. Ziegler (EB) 1948; A. van den Born (BOT) 1954; G. Fohrer – K. Galling (HAT 2) 1955; H. G. May and E. L. Allen (IB) 1956; G. Ch. Aalders (COT) 1955–1957; W. Eichrodt (ATD) I 1959 (19875), II 1966 (19843); R. Brunner (ZBK) 19692; J. W. Wevers (NCB) 1969; W. Zimmerli (BK) I–II 1969 (19792) (an excellent and detailed commentary); K. W. Carley (CNEB) 1974; M. Greenberg (AB) I–II 1983, 1997 (= Ezekiel 1–37); H. F. Fuhs (NEB) I 1984, II 1988; B. Maarsingh (POT) I–III, 1985, 1988, 1991; W. Brownlee (WBC) 1986 (= Ezekiel 1–19); M. Dijkstra (TT) I–II, 1986, 1989; L. C. Allen (WBC) 1990 (= Ezekiel 20–48), 1994 (= Ezekiel 1–19); K. F. Pohlmann (ATD) I (= Ezekiel 1–19); D. I. Block (NICOT) I, 1997 (= Ezekiel 1–24), II, 1998 (= Ezekiel 25–48).

38 Cf. E. Tov, “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran”, in: F. García Martínez (ed.), The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community = Revue de Qumrân 54 (1989), 189–206. 39 See, for example, S. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah. A Revised Hypothesis ( JSOT Sup 47), Sheﬃeld 1985; B. Becking, “Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation: A textual Comparison: Notes on the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah xxx–xxxi”, VT 44 (1994), pp. 145–169; H.-J. Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches (OBO 136), Freiburg Göttingen 1994.

the prophetic literature

345

Monographs and articles: J. Herrmann, Ezechielstudien (BWANT 2), Leipzig 1908; C. Kuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Buches Ezechiel, Tübingen 1917; G. Hölscher, Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch (BZAW 39), Giessen 1924; M. Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel, Philadelphia 1925; M. Buttenweiser, “The Date and Character of Ezekiel’s Prophecies, HUCA 7 (1931), 1–18; V. Herntrich, Ezechielprobleme (BZAW 61), Giessen 1932; C. Kuhl, “Zur Geschichte der Hesekiel-Forschung”, ThR 5 (1933), 92–118; id., “Neuere Hesekiel-Literatur”, ThR 20 (1952), 1–26; id., “Zum Stand der Hesekiel-Forschung”, ThR 24 (1957/1958), 1–53; W. A. Irwin, The Problem of Ezekiel, Chicago 1943; id., “Ezekiel Research since 1943”, VT 3 (1953), 54–66; N. Messel, Ezechielfragen, Oslo 1945; A. van den Born, Profetie metterdaad, Roermond-Maaseik 1947, pp. 61–79; C. G. Howie, The Date and Composition of Ezekiel (SBL Mon. Series 4), Philadelphia 1950 (1960); G. Fohrer, Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW 72), Berlin 1952; H. H. Rowley, “The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study”, BJRL 36 (1953), 146–190 (= id., Men of God, London 1963, pp. 169–210); W. Zimmerli, Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel. Eine theologische Studie (ATANT 27), Zurich 1954; K. von Rabenau, Die Entstehung des Buches Ezechiel in formgeschichtlicher Sicht, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Halle-Wittenberg. Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 5 (1955/1956), 659–694; H. Graf Reventlow, Wächter über Israel: Ezechiel und seine Tradition (BZAW 82), Berlin 1962; W. Zimmerli, “The Special Form- and TraditioHistorical Character of Ezekiel’s Prophecy”, VT 15 (1965), 515–527; id., “The Message of the Prophet Ezekiel”, Interpretation 23 (1969), 131–157; id., Ezechiel. Gestalt und Botschaft (BSt 62), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972; id., “DeuteroEzechiel?”, ZAW 84 (1972), 501–516; D. Baltzer, Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja (BZAW 121), Berlin 1971; L. Monloubou, Un prêtre devient prophète: Ezéchiel (Lectio Divina 73), Paris 1972; H. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels (FzB 14), Würzburg 1974; J. Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Ezechiel 1–39 (EHS 23/23), Bern 1975; F. L. Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezekielbuches (FzB 20), Stuttgart 1977; B. Lang, Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: Die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel (SBB 7), Stuttgart 1978, 19812; id., Ezechiel. Der Prophet und das Buch (EdF 153), Darmstadt 1981 (lit.!); L. Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt (Biblica et Orientalia 37), Rome 1980; J. Becker, “Erwägungen zur ezechielischen Frage”, in: L. Ruppert e.a. (eds.), Künder des Wortes (FS J. Schreiner), Würzburg 1982, pp. 137–150; R. E. Clements, “The Ezekiel Tradition: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis”, in: R. Coggins e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition (FS P. R. Ackroyd), Cambridge 1982, pp. 119–136; E. Kutsch, Die chronologischen Daten des Ezechielbuches (OBO 62), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1985; Ch. Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137), Göttingen 1985; L. J. McGregor, The Greek Text of Ezekiel (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18), Atlanta GA 1985; J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BEThL 74), Leuven 1986; R. W. Klein, Ezekiel. The Prophet

346

chapter nine

and his Message, Columbia 1988; E. F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy (Suppl. JSOT 78), Sheﬃeld 1989; R. M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19), Grand Rapids MI 1989; P. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (Suppl. JSOT 51), Sheﬃeld 1989; T. Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezekielbuch (BZAW 180), Berlin 1989; L. Boadt, “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 27–33”, HART 1 (1990), 1–21; S. Ohnesorge, Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu. Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14 –21; 20,1– 44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14,15–28 (FzB 64), Würzburg 1991; F. Fechter, Bewältigung der Katastrophe. Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch (BZAW 208), Berlin 1992; J. Galambusch, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel. The City as Yahweh’s Wife (SBL Diss. Series 130), Atlanta GA 1992; K. F. Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien. Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten (BZAW 202), Berlin-New York 1992; H. McKeating, Ezekiel (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1993 (lit.!); D. Vieweger, Die literarischen Beziehungen zwischen den Büchern Jeremia und Ezechiel 1993 (see above with respect to Jeremiah); R. Bisschops, Die Metapher als Wertsetzung. Novalis, Ezechiel, Becket (Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 23), Frankfurt, 1994; U. Feist, Ezechiel. Das literarische Problem des Buches forschungsgeschichtlich betrachtet (BWANT 138), Stuttgart 1995; F. L. Hossfeld, “Ezechiel und die deuteronomischdeuteronomistische Bewegung”, in: W. Groß (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB 98), Frankfurt 1995, pp. 271–295; T. Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (SVT 76), Leiden, 1999.

The fact that Ezekiel (“God strengthen [this child]”; lxx: Iezekièl; V: Hiezecihel), the son of Buzi, was a priest (1:3), explains his evident concern for the temple and its legislation as well as his style and use of terminology associated with the Priestly Codex (P). His preaching exhibits a degree of kinship with that of Jeremiah.40 Indeed, it is possible that he was familiar with the scroll written by Baruch in 605 BCE containing the prophecies of the latter (cf. Jer. 36:32). Ezekiel was deported from Jerusalem to Babylon in 597 BCE where he received his prophetic call in 593 (cf. Ezek. 1:2). His preaching continued up to 571 (cf. 29:17; he dates his prophetic activity from the moment of his own deportation and that of King Jehoiachin).41 During the exile he predicted the downfall of Jerusalem. According to Ezek. 24:16ﬀ., the prophet’s wife died during the siege of Jerusalem by the troops of Nebuchadnezzar II. Her death led to a period of silence on the part of the prophet, which only came to an end when he was informed by a messenger of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 40

J. W. Miller, Das Verhältnis Jeremias und Hesekiels sprachlich und theologisch untersucht, Assen/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1955; D. Vieweger, op. cit., 1993. 41 E. Kutsch, op. cit., 1985.

the prophetic literature

347

(33:21–22).42 After the fall of the city his penitential preaching made way for prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel. The once popular hypothesis that Ezekiel’s activities should be located in part (cf. Bertholet, commentary 1936) or even entirely in Jerusalem (cf. Herntrich 1933) can no longer be defended with any degree of conviction and is no longer maintained by contemporary exegetes.

Ezekiel’s complex personality has been the subject of a variety of divergent evaluations. Some have described him as an ecstatic, others as suﬀering from catalepsy and others still as mentally ill. It cannot be denied that he was a highly sensitive individual, that he exhibited a profound preoccupation with the visions he had received, that he possessed a paranormal clairvoyance and that certain matters aﬀected him to such an extent that he was literally struck dumb by them (cf. the death of his wife). Such observations, however, do not allow us to write him oﬀ as a sick individual. Deeply impressed by the majesty and righteousness of yhwh as well as the insigniﬁcance of human beings, Ezekiel’s prophecies reveal a degree of personal clarity that allowed the prophet to summon his listeners to conversion and individual responsibility (18) and to represent his hope for the restoration of Israel in a lively and colourful fashion (37). It would thus be unfair to dismiss him as pathologically disturbed or (on account of his concern for the cult) as an epigone among the prophets. Ezekiel did not hesitate at times to confront the truth concerning his people’s apostasy with pointed and sometimes even crude declarations: cf. the Bildreden concerning the apparently unfaithful foundling ( Jerusalem; chapter 16) and the portrayal of Samaria and Jerusalem as the prostitutes Oholah and Oholibah (23). In addition to this, however, he has a left a number of magniﬁcent songs to posterity (19: a lament over the princes of Israel; 28:12–19: a lament over the king of Tyre). He refers with some frequency to ancient biblical traditions and mythical representations (cf. the references to the Eden motif in the aforementioned lament over the king of Tyre [28:12–19], the allusion to the wise man Dan"el [14:14], with whom we are familiar from the Ugaritic tradition, and chapter 31 in which 42 E. Vogt, “Die Lähmung und Stummheit des Propheten Ezechiel”, in: id., Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel, Rome 1981, pp. 92–106.

348

chapter nine

the Pharaoh is compared with a mighty tree). Reference should be made, in addition, to the magniﬁcent allegories of the eagles and the vine (17) and the representation of Tyre as a splendid ship (27). The book of Ezekiel contains only prophecies and descriptions of personal experience, the latter having been noted in a diary by the prophet himself. Indeed, the document that bears his name carefully dates each one.43 Narratives concerning the prophet would thus appear to have been excluded. With the exception of the secondary superscription found in 1:3 (and 24:24) the entire work is written in the ‘I’ style. The book can be divided into three main parts that can be arranged more or less chronologically: 1–24 25–35 36–48

prophecies of judgement concerning Jerusalem and Judah prior to 587 prophecies against the foreign nations (interrupted by 33–34) announcement of salvation for Israel (interrupted by the prophecy against Gog in 38–39) dating from the period after 587

In addition to the call of the prophet and the task ascribed to him (1:1–3:27) the following elements of chapters 1–24 are worthy of particular attention: symbolic acts (4–5; 12:1–20; 21:11–12, 23–29; 24:1–24; cf. also 37:15–28), the temple vision (8–11),44 prophecies against false prophets and prophetesses (13), preaching related to the individual responsibility of the human person (18),45 Ezekiel’s teaching based on history (20)46 and the already mentioned allegories (17; 27) and Bildreden (16; 23). The prophecies against the foreign nations in chapters 25–32 are addressed to Ammon, Moab, Edom, the Philistines (25), Tyre (26:1–28:19),47 Sidon (28:20–26) and Egypt (29–32).48 Reference should 43 K. Freedy and D. B. Redford, “The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources”, JAOS 90 (1970), 462–485. 44 M. Greenberg, “The Vision of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 8–11: A Holistic Interpretation”, in: J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel (eds.), The Divine Helmsman (FS L. H. Silberman), New York 1980, pp. 143–164. 45 B. Lindars, “Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility”, VT 15 (1965), 452–467; G. H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse (SBL Diss. Series 126), Atlanta GA 1990. 46 F. Sedlmeier, Studien zur Komposition und Theologie von Ez 20 (SBB 21), Stuttgart 1990. 47 H. J. van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez 26,1–28,19). A New Approach (Biblica et Orientalia 20), Rome 1968. 48 L. Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt. A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (Biblica et Orientalia 37), Rome 1980.

the prophetic literature

349

also be made, however, to the word addressed to Edom in chapters 35 and 36 and the prophecy against Gog of Magog in chapters 38–39 (not infrequently determined to be a later interpolation).49 In addition to chapters 33 (Ezekiel is appointed as sentinel over the house of Israel), 34 (yhwh as the good shepherd)50 and 35 (God’s revenge concerning Edom), chapters 36–48 speak for the most part of future salvation. Israel shall be puriﬁed and established once again (36), shall rise again (37:1–14: the vision of the valley with the dry bones)51 and shall be reuniﬁed (37:15–28). The chapters containing the ‘blueprint’ of the temple (40–48),52 which apparently once circulated as a separate document, consists of a vision of the new temple (40–42),53 the announcement of yhwh’s return to his sanctuary (43; cf. 10:18–22), the laws of the sanctuary (44–46), the portrayal of the waters ﬂowing from the temple (47:1–12) and a description of the boundaries whereby the land is to be divided (47:13–48:35). Scholars tend to evaluate the historical evolution of the book of Ezekiel in a variety of ways: as a redactional compilation of preaching that stems from the prophet himself; as the result of a later reworking of an original ‘primary’ document; as made up of several diﬀerent layers that exhibit, at the level of content, either a priestly or prophetic character or are to be determined on geographical grounds (Palestinian or Babylonian); as Fortschreibung of the prophet’s oral discourse and segments he himself committed to writing, to be ascribed in part to Ezekiel and in part to others (see, for example, Zimmerli, commentary 1969). The reader would be well advised to account for later expansions, reworkings and redactional glosses54 whereby the 49 J. G. Aalders, Gog en Magog in Ezechiël, Kampen 1951; B. Erling, “Ezekiel 38–39 and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic”, in: Ex Orbe Religionum II (Studia G. Widengren), Leiden 1972, pp. 104–114; D. I. Block, “Gog in Prophetic Tradition: A New Look at Ez 38,17”, VT 42 (1992), 154–172. 50 B. Willmes, Die sogenannte Hirtenallegorie Ezechiel 34, Frankfurt am Main 1984. 51 E. Haag, “Ez 37 und der Glaube an die Auferstehung der Toten”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 82 (1973), 78–92; S. Wagner, “Geist und Leben nach Ez 37,1–14”, Theologische Versuche 10 (1979), 53–65. 52 H. Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 25), Tübingen 1957; J. D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10), Missoula MT 1976; M. Haran, “The Law-Code of Ezechiel 40–48 and its Relation to the Priestly School”, HUCA 50 (1979), 45–71; S. S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 49), Atlanta GA 1992. 53 W. Eichrodt, “Der neue Tempel in der Heilshoﬀnung Hesekiels”, in: Das ferne und nahe Wort (FS L. Rost = BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, pp. 35–48. 54 Cf. G. Fohrer, “Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel”, ZAW 63 (1951), 33–53 (= id., Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (BZAW 99), Berlin 1967, pp. 204–221).

350

chapter nine

various accounts of Ezekiel’s personal experiences and his prophecies were collected together. Hölscher (1924) ascribes only the ﬁner poetic segments of the book and some prose passages (the call account and the description of prophetic actions and visions) to Ezekiel himself. In so doing, however, he restricts the authentic material to a mere 144 verses. C. C. Torrey (Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy, New Haven 1930, reprint New York 1970) considers the book of Ezekiel to be a pseudepigraphal document dating from around 230 BCE, arguing that the prophet should be understood as an invention of the actual author of the book. As already noted, Herntrich (1933) restricts the location of the historical Ezekiel to Jerusalem prior to the ultimate fall of the city and considers the exilic material to have its roots in the activities of a follower of the prophet. In the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century scholars were inclined to view the book of Ezekiel as problematic on a variety of grounds and their studies have given rise to a number of theories, concerning the person of the prophet and the historical evolution of the book that bears his name, which are no longer tenable. The said diﬃculties tended to have their roots in the representation of Israel’s religion predominant at the time, whereby a sharp contrast between a (highly praiseworthy) prophetic religion and a (less worthy) priestly religion was presupposed and the idea of an “ethical monotheism” that superseded cultic legalism was the order of the day. It remains diﬃcult, however, to reconcile Ezekiel with such a perspective given the fact that he is presented as both prophet and priest simultaneously, exhibits legalistic tendencies and had a clear interest in cultic matters. A radical change in scholarly perspective with regard to the person and book of Ezekiel emerged in the second half of the twentieth century in particular in the work of Fohrer and Zimmerli. In spite of mutual diﬀerences and points of disagreement with respect to accentuation, however, contemporary exegetes are agreed that Ezekiel was called to be a prophet while in exile, that the location of his preaching was restricted to Babylon, that a signiﬁcant part of the content of the book that bears his name goes back to the prophet himself, that the distinction between prophetic and priestly elements lacks foundation and that the work has unmistakably undergone signiﬁcant Fortschreibung.55 Form-critical and tradition-historical studies of the work, moreover, have tended to force decennia of purely literary-critical studies into the shadows. While some scholars, including Garscha (1974), have continued to account for substantial redactional segments, others (including Boadt 1980, Lang 1981, Greenberg, commentary 1983) have been inclined in more recent years to ascribe a signiﬁcantly larger portion of the material to the prophet himself. 55

W. Zimmerli, “Das Phänomen der ‘Fortschreibung’ im Buche Ezechiel”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Prophecy (FS G. Fohrer = BZAW 150), Berlin-New York 1980, pp. 174–191.

the prophetic literature

351

Recent studies have tended to focus less attention on the origin and historical growth of the book and more on the literary structure and stylistic characteristics thereof based on the so-called new literary methods (Boadt 1980 and 1990, Greenberg commentary 1983 and 1997, Bisschops 1994, Renz 1999).

The signiﬁcance of Ezekiel, who was appointed by yhwh as sentinel over the house of Israel (cf. chapter 33),56 lies in the fact that he safeguarded his people in exile from syncretism, ﬁrst by way of prophecies of judgement and then by way of prophecies of salvation. His emphasis on the celebration of the sabbath (apparent from 20:12,13,16,20,21,24; 22:8,26; 23:38; 44:24;46:3)57 and his preaching concerning the renewed temple liturgy (chapter 40ﬀ.) constitute an important and substantial contribution to the religiosity of both early and later Judaism. His services to systematic theology later led him to be designated as the Calvin of the Old Testament. The Septuagint text of Ezekiel diﬀers in many respects from the Hebrew version. The latter is diﬃcult and sometimes even impossible to translate in places on account of apparently frequent textual corruption.58

c. The Twelve Minor Prophets J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt (Skizzen und Vorarbeiten V), Berlin 1892 (19634, reprint of the third edition of 1898); B. Duhm, Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten (Sonderdruck aus der ZAW), Giessen 1911; K. Budde, “Eine folgenschwere Redaktion des Zwölfprophetenbuchs”, ZAW 39 (1921), 218–229; R. E. Wolfe, “The Editing of the Book of the Twelve”, ZAW 53 (1935), 90–130; G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Minor Prophets”, JThS 39 (1938), 154–166, 260–273, 40 (1939), 393–405; A. Bruno, Das Buch der Zwölf: eine rhytmische und textkritische Untersuchung, Stockholm 1957; C. van Leeuwen, “De ‘Kleine Profeten’ in het onderzoek van de laatste tien jaar”, NTT 28 (1974), 113–129; E. Bosshard, “Beobachtungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch”, BN 40 (1987), 30–62; P. R. House, The Unity of the Twelve ( JSOT Supplement Series 97, Bible and Literature Series 56 W. Eichrodt, “Das prophetische Wächteramt. Zur Exegese von Ez 33”, in: Tradition und Situation (FS A. Weiser), Göttingen 1963, pp. 31–41; W. H. Brownlee, “Ezekiel’s Parable of the Watchman”, VT 28 (1978), 392–408. 57 W. Eichrodt, “Der Sabbat bei Hesekiel”, in: Tua Lex Veritas (FS H. Junker), Trier 1961, pp. 65–74. 58 Important contributions to the textual criticism of Ezekiel can be found in J. Lust (ed.), op. cit., 1986, pp. 7–119.

352

chapter nine

27), Sheﬃeld 1990; O. H. Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (BThS 17), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991; T. Collins, The Mantle of Elijah. The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books (The Biblical Seminar 20), Sheﬃeld 1993; J. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217), Berlin-New York 1993; id., Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218), Berlin-New York 1993; B. A. Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve. A Study in Text and Canon (SBL Dissertation Series 149), Atlanta GA 1995; J. W. Watts and P. R. House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature. Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (Suppl. JSOT 235), Sheﬃeld 1996; J. Jeremias, “Neuere Tendenzen der Forschung an den Kleinen Propheten”, in: F. García Martínez and E. Noort (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism (FS A. S. van der Woude; SVT 73), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1998, pp. 122–136.

See, in addition, the bibliography at the beginning of this chapter and that provided below in relation to the individual books. The book of Ezekiel is followed in the Hebrew Bible by the Dodekapropheton, the book of the Twelve Prophets. The earliest allusion to the Twelve Prophets can be found in Jesus Sirach in his “Praise of the Fathers” (49:10), which dates from the beginning of the second century BCE. The Jewish tradition (also Jerome) considered the works ascribed to the twelve as a single document. In reality, however, we are dealing here with several diﬀerent books, although recent scholarship has been more inclined to draw attention to mutual kinship between them than ever before. The descriptive expression “Minor Prophets”, which can be found as early as Augustine (De Civitate Dei 18,29), relates to the limited size of the books in question and not to the religious content thereof: the signiﬁcance of the preaching contained in these documents is not, as a rule, inferior to that found in the Major Prophets. The Septuagint does not only locate the Minor Prophets prior to the Major Prophets,59 the sequence thereof diﬀers from that found in the Hebrew Bible, the Vulgate and our modern translations: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum etc. (the remainder as in the Hebrew Bible, the Vulgate and modern translations). It would thus appear that a ﬁxed sequence for the Minor Prophets only came into force at a relatively late date. A Greek manuscript found in the Judean desert and dating from the ﬁrst century BCE, however, already 59 Possible for chronological reasons since Amos and Hosea were active as prophets before Isaiah.

the prophetic literature

353

appears to follow the same sequence as that of the Hebrew Bible.60 The sequence of the Minor Prophets in the Hebrew Bible would appear to be based on chronological considerations as well as the length of a given book and/or its contents. As the oldest writing prophets Hosea and Amos come ﬁrst and the rest follow. In spite of the fact that Hosea was a younger contemporary of Amos, however, the former’s book is clearly placed ﬁrst on account of its greater length and perhaps also on account of Hos. 1:2a (“when yhwh ﬁrst spoke through Hosea”). Joel would appear to be located prior to Amos because the conclusion of Joel and the beginning of Amos share the theme of yhwh’s judgement concerning the nations and the words “yhwh roars from Zion and utters his voice from Jerusalem” ( Joel 3:16, Hebr. 4:16; Amos 1:2). Obadiah could be placed after Amos because both books deal with the theme of the Day of the Lord. It is possible that Jonah was located prior to Nahum because both books make reference to Nineveh. Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah prophesied during the second half of the seventh century BCE and would appear to be placed together for this reason. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, whose works conclude the Dodekapropheton, belong among the post-exilic prophets. While the Septuagint would appear, for the most part, to have employed chronological considerations in ordering the Minor Prophets, the fact that Micah is located after Amos and prior to Joel suggests that length of the individual books also had a role to play. 1. Hosea Si in explanationibus omnium prophetarum sancti Spiritus indigemus adventu . . . quanto magis in explanatione Osee prophetae orandus est Dominus et cum Petro dicendum: Edissere nobis parabolam istam ( Jerome)61

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; W. R. Harper (ICC) 1905, 19534; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; E. Sellin (KAT 1) 60 Cf. E. Tov e.a., The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (DJD VIII), Oxford 1990. 61 If we require the advent of the Holy Spirit in the explanation of all the prophets . . . how much more must we pray to the Lord and implore with Peter in explaining the prophet Hosea: Explain this parable to us.

354

chapter nine

19292.3; L. H. K. Bleeker (TU) 1932; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1932; Th. H. Robinson (HAT) 1936, 19643; A. Weiser (ATD) 1950, 19858; C. van Gelderen and W. H. Gispen (COT) 1953; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; H. W. Wolﬀ (BK) 1961, 19904; E. Jacob (CAT) 1965, 19923; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1966; C. van Leeuwen (POT) 1968, 19843; J. L. Mays (OTL) 1969, 19752; D. J. McKeating (CNEB) 1971; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman (AB) 1980; A. Deissler (NEB) 1981; J. Jeremias (ATD) 1983; D. Stuart (WBC) 1987; G. I. Davies (NCB) 1992; A. A. Macintosh (ICC) 1997.

Monographs and articles: J. Lindblom, Hosea literarisch untersucht (Acta Academiae Aboensis Humaniora 5), Åbo 1928; H. G. May, “The Fertility Cult in Hosea”, AJSL 48 (1931), 73–98; H. S. Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche (Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1935:6), Uppsala 1935; Th. C. Vriezen, Hosea: profeet en cultuur, GroningenBatavia 1941 (inaugural speech); H. W. Wolﬀ, “‘Wissen um Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie”, Evangelische Theologie 12 (1952/53), 533–554 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, Munich 19732, pp. 182–205); id., “Hoseas geistige Heimat”, ThLZ 81 (1956), 83–94 (= op. cit., pp. 232–250); id., “Guilt and Salvation: A Study of the Prophecy of Hosea”, Interpretation 15 (1961), 274–285; B. W. Anderson, “The Book of Hosea”, Interpretation 8 (1954), 290–303; H. H. Rowley, “The Marriage of Hosea”, BJRL 39 (1956–1957), 200–233 (= id., Men of God, London 1963, pp. 66–97); W. Eichrodt, “‘The Holy One in your Midst’. The Theology of Hosea”, Interpretation 15 (1961), 259–273; H. L. Ginsberg, “Hosea’s Ephraim, More Fool than Knave: A New Interpretation of Hosea 12:1–14”, JBL 80 (1961), 339–347; E. M. Good, “The Composition of Hosea”, SEÅ 31 (1966), 21–63; I. H. Eybers e.a. (eds.), Studies on the Books of Hosea and Amos. Papers Read at the 7th and 8th Meetings of Die O.T. Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika, Potchefstroom 1964–1965; W. Brueggeman, Tradition for Crisis. A Study in Hosea, Richmond VA 1968; M. J. Buss, The Prophetic Word of Hosea. A Morphological Study (BZAW 111), Berlin 1969; J. F. Craghan, “The Book of Hosea: A Survey of Recent Literature on the First of the Minor Prophets”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 1 (1971), 81–100, 145–170; J. Vollmer, Geschichtliche Rückblicke und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und Jesaja (BZAW 119), Berlin 1971; I. Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments. Untersuchungen zum literarischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Micha zurückgehenden Bücher im hebräischen Zwölfprophetenbuch (BZAW 123), Berlin-New York 1971; F. Buck, Die Liebe Gottes beim Propheten Osee, Rome 1973; W. Kuhnigk, Nordwestsemitische Studien zum Hoseabuch (Biblica et Orientalia 27), Rome 1974; A. Gelston, “Kingship in the Book of Hosea”, OTS 19 (1974), 71–85; S. Bitter, Die Ehe des Propheten Hosea. Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Göttingen 1975; D. Kinet, Baal und Jahwe. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Hoseabuches (EHS XXIII, 87), Frankfurt-Bern 1977; J. Jeremias, “Hosea 4–7. Beobachtungen zur Komposition des Buches Hosea”, in: A. H. J. Gunneweg und O. Kaiser (eds.), Textgemäß (FS E. Würthwein), Göttingen 1979, pp.

the prophetic literature

355

47–58; id., “Zur Eschatologie des Hoseabuches”, in: J. Jeremias und L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten (FS H. W. Wolﬀ ), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 217–234; J. R. Lundbom, “Poetic Structure and Prophetic Rhetoric in Hosea”, VT 29 (1979), 300–308; id., “Contentious Priests and Contentious People in Hosea IV 1–10”, VT 36 (1986), 52–70; H. Utzschneider, Hosea. Prophet vor dem Ende. Zum Verhältnis von Geschichte und Institution in der alttestamentlichen Prophetie (OBO 31), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1980; E. Zenger, “‘Durch Menschen zog ich sie . . .’ (Hos 11,4). Beobachtungen zum Verständnis des prophetischen Amtes im Hoseabuch”, in: L. Ruppert e.a. (eds.), Künder des Wortes (FS J. Schreiner), Würzburg 1982, pp. 183–201; H. Balz-Cochois, Gomer. Der Höhenkult Israels im Selbstverständnis der Volksfrömmigkeit. Untersuchungen zu Hosea 4,1–5,7 (EHS XXIII, 191), Frankfurt-Bern 1982; L. Ruppert, “Erwägungen zur Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Hos 1–3”, BZ 26 (1982), 208–223; A. S. van der Woude, “Three Classical Prophets: Amos, Hosea, and Micah”, in: R. G. Coggins e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition (FS P. R. Ackroyd), Cambridge 1982, pp. 32–57; I. Emmerson, Hosea. An Israelite Prophet in Judaean Perspective (Suppl. JSOT 28), Sheﬃeld 1984; H. D. Neef, Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Hosea (BZAW 169), Berlin-New York 1987; G. A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. A Redaction-Critical Investigation (SBL Diss. Series 102), Atlanta GA 1987; P. J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archaeological Commentary, Philadelphia 1988; D. R. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History. The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy of Hosea (BZAW 191), Berlin-New York 1990; W. J. Doorly, Prophet of Love. Understanding the Book of Hosea, New York 1991; T. Naumann, Hoseas Erben. Strukturen der Nachinterpretation im Buch Hosea (BWANT 131), Stuttgart 1991; M. Nissinen, Prophetie, Redaktion und Fortschreibung im Hoseabuch (AOAT 231), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991; G. I. Davies, Hosea (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1993; Nelly Stienstra, YHWH is the Husband of his People. Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation, Kampen 1993; Else Kragelund Holt, Prophesying the Past. The Use of Israel’s History in the Book of Hosea (Suppl. JSOT 194), Sheﬃeld 1995; Ch. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, JHWH, Hosea und die drei Frauen im Hoseabuch, Evangelische Theologie 55 (1995), 114–140; J. Jeremias, Hosea und Amos. Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheton (FAT 13), Tübingen 1996; M. Th. Wacker, Figurationen des Weiblichen im Hoseabuch. Literarische, entstehungsgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Studien, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Hos 1–3 (HBS 8), Freiburg im Breisgau 1996; G. Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea (Suppl. JSOT 219), Sheﬃeld 1996; Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet. Hosea’s Marriage in Literary-Theoretical Perspective (Suppl. JSOT 212), Sheﬃeld 1996.

Hosea (abbreviation of Ho“a'ya: “yhwh has helped”; lxx: Osèe; V: Osee), the son of Beeri (1:1), prophesied from around 750–725 BCE in the Northern Kingdom (Israel) from which he originated. As such he is the only Writing Prophet (besides Nahum?, see below) who did not come from Judah in the south. As a younger contemporary of

356

chapter nine

Amos he was active in Samaria, Bethel and elsewhere some decades after the latter. While he is known to have lived through the SyroEphraimitic war (734–732; cf. 2 Kgs 16:5; Isaiah 7), it is probable that he was no longer around to experience the fall of Samaria in 722/721 BCE. It is striking that Hosea made use of the traditions concerning the patriarch Jacob and the exodus from Egypt (cf. 11:1; 12:4–6,13; 13:4). He shows great respect for the prophets who, from the time of Moses (12:14), had deﬁned his people in their preaching according to yhwh (6:5; 12:11). The core of Hosea’s message is turned against the excessive inﬂuence of the cult of Baal in the worship of yhwh (cf. 2:12, Hebr. 2:15; 2:15, Hebr. 2:18), a misleading priesthood (4:4–10), the disastrous foreign policy of the Northern Kingdom (5:13; 7:8–12) and catastrophic internal power struggles (7:3–7). For Hosea the only correct response to yhwh’s historical salviﬁc deeds and the covenant He had established with Israel (6:7; 8:1) is knowledge of God expressed in the maintenance of the Law of yhwh and in steadfast love (4:6; 6:6). Hosea was evidently a strict, penitential prophet, although he would appear never to have abandoned his belief in the restoration of his people (cf. chapter 2; 11:8–11; 14:5–9). The fact that Hosea was once described as foolish and even mad (9:7) can be explained as a hostile reaction to his judgement preaching. The hypothesis that he maintained a close relationship with prophetic-Levitical circles in the sanctuary at Shechem who were faithful to yhwh, opposed the priesthood of other temples and may have been responsible for the creation of Deuteronomy (Wolﬀ 1956), deserves serious consideration although deﬁnitive proof thereof is lacking. The representation of the prophet as a Bedouin62 or as kin to the Rechabites (cf. 2 Kgs 10:15,23; Jeremiah 35) has been convincingly rejected by Vriezen (1941). Given the complexity of the problems surrounding the designation of material in the Pentateuch as Elohist (E), the proposed dependence of Hosea on this documentary source is fraught with diﬃculty. There would appear, nevertheless, to be good reason to represent the prophet as having inspired Jeremiah:63 he shares the latter’s portrayal of the period in 62

P. Humbert, “Osée, le prophète bédouin”, RHPhR 1 (1921), 97–118. M. Schulz-Rauch, Hosea and Jeremiah. Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Hoseabuches (Calwer Theologische Monographien 16), Stuttgart 1996, is unwilling to consider direct inﬂuence on the part of Hosea on Jeremiah, only shared themes that are elaborated in a diﬀerent manner. 63

the prophetic literature

357

the wilderness as ideal courtship in the relationship between yhwh and his people ( Jer. 2:2f.; Hos. 2:14, Hebr. 2:17), a sense of anguish at the fact that Israel had abandoned its ﬁdelity to God and had gone after the Baals ( Jer. 2:5ﬀ.; Hos. 2:6,12, Hebr. 2:9,15; 9:10), the knowledge that sin was so deeply rooted in the heart of the people that it no longer had the capacity to return to yhwh ( Jer. 13:23; Hos. 5:4), but also the conviction that God would one day turn Israel’s fate around ( Jer. 30:18ﬀ.; 31:31; Hos. 2:14, Hebr. 2:17; 11:8ﬀ.). Little is known about Hosea’s life as such beyond what we ﬁnd in chapters 1 and 3. It remains extremely diﬃcult, however, to establish any kind of picture of what happened to him on the basis of this material. As a consequence, scholarly opinion on the contents of the said chapters is extremely diverse (cf. Davies 1993, pp. 79–92). According to chapter 1, Hosea was commanded by God to take a prostitute, Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, as his wife.64 Together they had three children, a son and a daughter followed by another son, to whom symbolic names were given: Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah (“not pitied”) and Lo-ammi (“not my people”). According to chapter 3 he was later to take an adulterous woman (whom he had purchased for ﬁfteen shekels) as his wife, refusing to allow her to have intercourse with other men and even refraining from having intercourse with her himself. Both marriages are interpreted symbolically. The ﬁrst represents Israel’s service of the Baals, the names given to the issue thereof predicting God’s judgement of his people: Jezreel, marked by the blood of Jehu (2 Kings 9ﬀ.), alludes to the imminent collapse of the monarchy (1:4–5), Lo-ruhamah to the end of God’s pity for the house of Israel (1:6) and Lo-ammi to the ruptured relationship between God and his people (1:9: “You are not my people and I am not your God [yours]”, cf. Exod. 3:14). The second marriage represents unfaithful Israel seeking to return to yhwh. A number of exegetes are of the opinion that the woman of chapter 1, which speaks about Hosea, and that of chapter 3, which contains a ﬁrst person singular autobiographical report by the prophet himself, should be identiﬁed with one another, arguing that Hosea must have taken his wife back after she had left him, turned to other men and ﬁnally ended up in 64

See H. H. Rowley, op. cit., 1956–1957; S. Bitter, op. cit., 1975; J. Schreiner, “Hoseas Ehe, ein Zeichen des Gerichts”, BZ 21 (1977), 163–183; Y. Sherwood, op. cit., 1996.

358

chapter nine

the gutter. This interpretation, however, is strongly inﬂuenced by Hosea 2 and runs counter to the reference to the purchase of a woman in 3:2. It is far from certain that we are dealing with a marriage as such in chapter 1, as is often argued.65 It seems likely, therefore, that the woman referred to in chapter 3 was not Gomer.

Chapter 2 can be considered a summary of Hosea’s preaching: yhwh is confronting his people with ruin on account of Israel’s inﬁdelity in following after the Baals; having led them into the wilderness, however, he will entice his loved one once again and grant salvation. While the chapter is clearly made up of originally independent prophecies, they have been so closely woven together at the redactional level that it is now almost impossible to set them apart. The material here exhibits the characteristic features of a court case (as is often apparent in the remaining prophecies of Hosea), whereby yhwh adopts the position of prosecutor, judge and executor of punishment while striving all the while to reach a settlement. While chapters 1–3 exhibit a degree of thematic cohesion, the following chapters are much more diﬃcult to evaluate and sub-divide. Scholars frequently argue in favour of two literary complexes after chapter 3, namely chapters 4–11 and 12–14. The ﬁrst complex begins with reference to a lawsuit brought by yhwh against the inhabitants of the land (4:1–3) and concludes with an impressive announcement of salvation in which God declares that he cannot abandon his faithless people (11:7–11). The chapters consist in the ﬁrst instance of two compositions, both of which are composed on the basis of a large literary unit and a smaller, parallel literary unit (4:4–19 plus 5:1–7; 5:8–7:16 plus 8:1–13). The said compositions are followed by words of judgement and doom on the part of the prophet and allusion to the resistance he had incited (9:1–9). The complex is rounded oﬀ (with the exception of the already mentioned verses 11:7–11) with a segment in which complaints and announcements of judgement are held up against the background of Israel’s past (9:10–11:6). In his 1983 commentary, Jeremias argues that the prophecies addressed against the perversion of Israel’s liturgy found in 4:4–5:7 should be located among Hosea’s earliest preach-

65

The verb “to take” would appear to refer to sexual intercourse in Hos. 1:2,3 as it does in Lev. 20:14,17,21 and not simply marriage (see, for example, NBG in v. 3).

the prophetic literature

359

ing while those of 5:8–9:9, which allude to Israel’s political activities as well as its religious apostasy, should be considered as stemming from the period of the Syro-Ephraimitic war.66 In his opinion, the material found in 9:10–11:11 should be dated to the ﬁnal years of Hosea’s prophetic activity. The authentic segments of the second complex, the once independent tradition of chapters 12–14 (14:10 is clearly a postscript added at a later date),67 would likewise appear to stem from the latter period. They contain a prophecy that exposes Israel’s deceitful behaviour from the time of the patriarch Jacob (12), an announcement that Ephraim is to be punished on account of his sins (13:1–14:1) and a call to repentance together with a promise of salvation (14:2–9).68 In his preface to the Twelve Minor Prophets, Jerome was among the ﬁrst to note concerning the book of Hosea: Commaticus est et quasi per sententias loquens (It consists of short sections and speaks, as it were, in proverbs). It is often extremely diﬃcult to trace Hosea’s own words in the highly compromised form transmitted by his followers and not infrequently fused with the language of the tradents’ Auftrittsskizzen (Wolﬀ ) of the prophet’s preaching. The assembled collection would appear to be ordered according to both chronology and content. A written copy of Hosea’s preaching also accompanied the refugees who escaped to the Southern Kingdom during the siege and fall of Samaria (722/721 BCE) and was actualised thereafter for Judean readers by way of a variety of interpolations (cf. 1:7; 1:10–12 [Hebr. 2:1–3]; 4:15; 5:5 conclusion; 6:11; 8:14b; 12:1b). While the majority of the book’s segments would appear to hark back both at the literary level and at the level of content to the

66 In the present author’s opinion, 5:8–6:6 stem from the period prior to the Syro-Ephraimitic war; cf. A. S. van der Woude, “Bemerkungen zum historischen Hintergrund von Hosea 5:8–6:6”, in: D. Garrone e F. Israel (eds.), Storia e tradizioni di Israele scritti in onore J. Alberto Soggin, Brescia 1991, pp. 299–308. 67 C. L. Seow, “Hosea 14:10 and the Foolish People Motif ”, CBQ 44 (1982), 212–224. 68 While the Hoseanic authorship of the latter text is often denied (see Jeremias in his commentary of 1983), this is probably unjustiﬁed (see the commentary of Van Leeuwen [19843]). For the interpretation of 14:9 as a dialogue between God and Ephraim see A. S. van der Woude, “Bemerkungen zu einigen umstrittenen Stellen im Zwölfprophetenbuch”, in: A. Caquot et M. Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 483–485.

chapter nine

360

prophet himself (e.g. 2:1–14 [Hebr. 2:4–17]; 3:1–4), the genesis and evolution of the document we now have at our disposal can only be traced by way of approximation. The reconstruction of the redaction history proposed by Wolﬀ in his 1961 commentary has not enjoyed widespread endorsement. The reworking of the book for Judean readers (Emmerson 1984) oﬀers proof, however, that the document must have achieved its ﬁnal form in the pre-exilic period (seventh century BCE). The preaching of Hosea, the “prophet of love”, is characterised by its emotive style and its use of imaginative language.69 On the one hand he compares yhwh’s wrathful behaviour with that of a wild animal (5:14; 13:7–8) while on the other he represents Israel’s God as a loving father whose heart is torn asunder at the sight of Ephraim’s inﬁdelity and by what he is being forced to do to his people. It is here that we encounter the most profound secret of Hosea’s message: the people that worshipped yhwh as a Baal, as a guarantor of fertility and prosperity, that denied God as its healer and expected restoration from Assyria (5:13), that responded to God’s salviﬁc deeds in history with ingratitude, has no other hope in sight than God himself, who in his burning anger shows mercy towards his people (11:7–11). Hosea held ﬁrm to his belief that yhwh would not allow his judgement of Israel to end in destruction and annihilation but rather in salvation and restoration for his people. The Hebrew text of the book of Hosea is among the most diﬃcult in the Old Testament and is not infrequently considered by scholars to be extremely corrupt. Apparent linguistic problems, however, need not necessarily have their roots in poor textual transmission, but may also (at least in part) have to do with our lack of knowledge with respect to the dialect characteristics of the Hebrew spoken in northern Israel. In his Studien zum Hoseabuche published in 1935 Nyberg was among the ﬁrst to support the originality of the Hebrew text that has been handed down to us. 2. Joel I will pour out my spirit on all ﬂesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy (2:28) 69 Cf. C. J. Labuschagne, “The Similes in the Book of Hosea”, in: Studies on the Books of Hosea and Amos, OTWSA 1964–1965, pp. 64–76; Brigitte Seifert, Metaphorisches Reden von Gott im Hoseabuch (FRLANT 166), Göttingen 1996.

the prophetic literature

361

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; J. A. Bewer (ICC) 1911, 19743; W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; E. Sellin (KAT1) 19292.3; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1932, 19522; L. H. Bleeker (TU) 1934; T. H. Robinson (HAT) 1936, 19643; J. Theis (HSAT) 1937; F. Nötscher (EB) 1948, 19572; A. Weiser (ATD) 1950, 19828; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; M. Bic, Das Buch Joel, Berlin 1960; C. A. Keller (CAT) 1965, 19923; H. W. Wolﬀ (BK) 1969, 19853; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1971; J. D. W. Watts (CNEB) 1975; L. C. Allen (NICOT) 1976; A. Deissler (NEB) 1981, 19852; D. Stuart (WBC) 1987; C. van Leeuwen (POT) 1993.

Monographs and articles: B. Duhm, Anmerkungen zu den zwölf Propheten, Giessen 1911, pp. 96–100; L. Dennefeld, Les problèmes du livre de Joël, RSR 4 (1924), 555–575, 5 (1925), 35–57, 591–608, 6 (1926), 26–49; A. S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies (UUÅ 1948/4), Uppsala and Leipzig 1948; Th. Chary, Les prophètes et le culte à partir de l’exil, Louvain 1955, pp. 190–216; J. Bourke, “Le Jour de Yahwé dans Joël”, RB 66 (1959), 5–31,190–212; O. Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2), Neukirchen 1959, pp. 117–128; A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, Cardiﬀ 1962; E. Kutsch, “Heuschreckenplage und Tag Jahwes in Joel 1 und 2”, TZ 18 (1962), 81–94; H. W. Wolﬀ, Die Botschaft des Buches Joel (Theol. Existenz heute 109), Munich 1963; H. P. Müller, “Prophetie und Apokalyptik bei Joel”, ThViat 10 (1965–1966), 231–252; W. Rudolph, “Wann wirkte Joel?”, in: F. Maass (ed.), Das ferne und nahe Wort. FS L. Rost (BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, pp. 193–198; F. R. Stephensen, “The Date of the Book of Joel”, VT 19 (1969), 224–229; G. W. Ahlström, Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem (SVT 21), Leiden 1971; G. S. Ogden, “Joel 4 and Prophetic Responses to National Laments”, JSOT 26 (1983), 97–106; W. S. Prinsloo, The Theology of the Book of Joel (BZAW 163), Berlin-New York 1985; id., “The Unity of the Book of Joel”, ZAW 104 (1992), 66–81; O. Loretz, Regenritual und Jahwetag im Joelbuch (UBL 4), Altenberge 1986; P. L. Redditt, “The Book of Joel and Peripheral Prophecy”, CBQ 48 (1986), 225–240; F. Deist, “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the Yom Yahweh?”, in: W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context. Old Testament and Semitic Essays for F. C. Fensham ( JSOT Suppl. 48), Sheﬃeld 1988, pp. 63–79; S. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ 16), Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York 1988; W. van der Meer, Oude woorden worden nieuw. De opbouw van het boek Joël, diss. Kampen 1989; R. Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1994.

Nothing is known about the life of Joel (“yhwh is God”; lxx: Iooèl; V: Iohel) let alone about that of his father Pethuel referred to in 1:1 (lxx: Bethuel). According to 2:1 the location of his preaching would appear to have been restricted to Jerusalem.

362

chapter nine

It is diﬃcult to date Joel’s prophetic activity with any certainty. Scholarly opinion varies in this regard from the ninth to the second centuries BCE, thus making him for some the oldest writing prophet and for others the youngest. Contemporary exegesis tends to be divided into two opposing camps, the one considering Joel to be a cultic prophet who functioned in the ﬁnal decades prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (Kapelrud 1948, Keller [commentary 1965], Rudolph [commentary 1971] and Van Leeuwen [commentary 1993]), the other locating him among the circles out of which the authors of Isaiah 24–27 and Zechariah 12–14 emerged and dating his prophetic activity around 400 BCE (see, for example, Wolﬀ, commentary 1969). Those who support the latter hypothesis argue that Joel’s preaching employs motifs and quotations borrowed from Amos, Isaiah, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Malachi (especially in the second part of the book), that a number of priests and elders are alluded to as leaders of the people (thus no reference to a king), that the language of the prophet is young and exhibits Aramaic inﬂuences, that the cult has an important place in his preaching, that he is to be located on the boundary between prophecy and apocalyptic and that his book presupposes the Babylonian exile (cf. 3:2–3, Hebr. 4:2–3).70 Problems surrounding the date of Joel’s appearance as a prophet are closely related to questions concerning the literary unity of the book that bears his name. The document can be divided into two parts. In the ﬁrst part the prophet addresses himself to the people on the occasion of a catastrophic plague of locusts71 accompanied by scorching heat that is presented as a portent of yhwh’s day of judgement. He calls upon the people to lament and insists thereby that the priests must organise a fast (chapter 1). Thereafter he alerts Jerusalem to the coming Day of yhwh, appeals for conversion and renewed fasting, and calls upon the priests to utter a prayer of deliverance (2:1–17). In the following verses yhwh has mercy on his people and oﬀers them hope of a future ﬁlled with abundance and fertility (2:18–27, Hebr. chapter 2). The second segment prophesies

70 The present author is not convinced that 3:2–3 (Hebr. 4:2–3) represents an allusion to deportations from Northern Kingdom after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BCE) or from the Southern Kingdom during the reign of Sennacherib (701 BCE) or after the fall of Jerusalem under Jehoiakin in 597 BCE. 71 According to 2:25 the plague repeated itself for a number of years.

the prophetic literature

363

the future outpouring of God’s Spirit, whereby all the people of Israel are to be gifted with prophecy and salvation is to be found for the faithful on Mount Zion (2:28–32, Hebr. chapter 3). An announcement of yhwh’s judgement over the nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat follows72 together with the promise of paradisiacal blessing for Judah and Jerusalem (chapter 3, Hebr. chapter 4). Based on this arrangement of the content, Duhm (1911) has argued that the eschatological segment (2:28–3:21, Hebr. chapters 3 and 4) should be considered a later addition to the preceding text. In his opinion, allusions to the Day of yhwh in chapters 1 and 2 must have been added later when 2:28–3:21 (Hebr. chapters 3 and 4) were written. In the present author’s opinion, however, the references to God’s day of judgement in chapters 1 and 2 are too ﬁrmly anchored in the text to be considered later interpolations.

While associations evidently exist between Joel 1:1–2:27 (Hebr. chapters 1–2) and 2:28–3:21 (Hebr. chapters 3–4; cf. 2:27 with 3:17, Hebr. 4:17, and 2:10 with 3:15, Hebr. 4:15), and in spite of arguments to the contrary (see, for example, Prinsloo 1985), the present author is inclined nevertheless to consider 2:28–3:21 (Hebr. chapters 3–4) a later addition to and expansion of the preceding text. In addition to the observation that Joel 1:1–2:27 (Hebr. chapters 1–2) exhibits a prophetic character while the remainder of the book would appear to be eschatological-apocalyptic, and that the earlier restoration of the fertility of the land (2:23–27) would seem to preﬁgure the paradisiacal blessing as predicted in 3:18 (Hebr. 4:18), the primary argument in support of our thesis is the theme of the Day of yhwh, which is directed against Jerusalem/Judah in the ﬁrst part of the book and against the nations in the second part. In the ﬁrst part of the book, the Day of judgment is averted by fasting and repentance because yhwh is zealous on behalf of his people, roots out and dispels the “northern army” (2:20)73 and grants his blessing to Jerusalem/Judah (2:21–27). In the second part of the book, however, the Day of judgement is inescapable, is (as noted above) to a signiﬁcant degree eschatological-apocalyptic (2:30–31, Hebr. 3:3–4;

72 The valley is geographically unknown. It probably represents a symbolic name meaning “yhwh gives judgement”. 73 For the various interpretations of “the northerner” see C. van Leeuwen, “The Northern One”, in: F. García Martínez e.a., The Scriptures and the Scrolls (FS A. S. van der Woude; SVT 49), Leiden 1992, pp. 84–99.

chapter nine

364

3:15–16a, Hebr. 4:15–16a) and is no longer a threat to Israel because yhwh will be “a refuge for his people and a stronghold for the children of Israel” (3:16b, Hebr. 4:16b; cf. 2:32, Hebr. 3:5). For these reasons it seems realistic to describe the second part of the book as a secondary addition, tying in with the prophecies found in Joel 1:1–2:27. It is not impossible that the latter are pre-exilic—on account of the reference to the “northerner”—and that Joel’s prophetic activity is to be dated to the ﬁrst decades of the sixth century BCE. The remaining chapters should thus be dated to the period around 400 BCE and be ascribed, of course, to a diﬀerent author. The authenticity of 3:4–8 (Hebr. 4:4–8) has been called into question on account of the fact that they interrupt the cohesion between 3:1–3 and 3:9–17, refer to a number of nations by name (Tyre, Sidon and Philistia) in contrast to the rest of the context, and aﬀord a signiﬁcant role to the notion of retribution. The text, however, is probably no younger than 343 BCE, the year in which Sidon was destroyed by the troops of the Persian king Artaxerxes III. Joel 3:18–21 (Hebr. 4:18–21) is likewise considered by some commentators to be a later interpolation.

The religious sentiment of the book in its present form can be described as one of comfort and encouragement in the context of an economically and politically discouraged community whereby a future perspective of liberation is oﬀered on the Day of yhwh and whereby paradisiacal fertility is presented as a genuine prospect (cf. Amos 9:13–15). Future salvation is set aside for the community and judgement awaits Israel’s enemies. Such a sentiment implies that the ﬁnal redaction of the book took place in the post-exilic period. Joel’s prophecy concerning the pouring out of the Spirit as described in 2:28–32 (Hebr. chapter 3) played a signiﬁcant role in the early Christian tradition. Peter considered the prophecy to have been fulﬁlled on the day of Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:17–21). 3. Amos Let justice role down like waters and righteousness like an ever-ﬂowing stream (5:24)

Commentaries: W. Nowack (KHAT) 1897, 19223; K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; W. R. Harper (ICC) 1905, 1953; E. Sellin (KAT 1)

the prophetic literature

365

1922, 19292–3; R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos, London 1929, 19603; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1932, 19522; C. van Gelderen (Commentaar op de Kleine Profeten) 1933; L. H. K. Bleeker (TU) 1934; T. H. Robinson (HAT) 1938, 19643; J. Theis (HSAT) 1937; F. Nötscher (EB) 1948, 19572; A. Weiser (ATD) 1950, 19858; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; H. E. W. Fosbroke and S. Lovett (IB) 1956; S. Amsler (CAT) 1965, 19923; M. Bic, Das Buch Amos, Berlin 1969; H. W. Wolﬀ (BK) 1969, 19853; J. L. Mays (OTL) 1969, 19784; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1971; H. McKeating (CNEB) 1971; A. Deissler (NEB) 1981, 19852; C. van Leeuwen (POT) 1985; J. A. Soggin (OTL) 1987; D. Stuart (WBC) 1987; F. I. Anderson and D. N. Freedman (AB) 1989; Sh. M. Paul (Hermeneia) 1991; J. Jeremias (ATD) 1995; A. S. van der Woude (TT) 1997.

Monographs and articles: E. Balla, Die Droh- und Scheltworte des Amos, Leipzig 1926; F. Horst, “Die Doxologien im Amosbuch”, ZAW 47 (1929), 45–54; A. Weiser, Die Prophetie des Amos (BZAW 53), Giessen 1929; F. Dijkema, “Le fond des prophéties d’Amos”, OTS 2 (1934), 18–34; J. Morgenstern, “Amos Studies I–IV”, HUCA 11 (1936), 19–140, 12–13 (1937–38), 1–53, 15 (1940), 59–304, 32 (1961), 295–350; A. Bentzen, “The Ritual Background of Amos i 1–ii 6”, OTS 8 (1950), 85–99; E. Würthwein, “Amos-Studien”, ZAW 62 (1950), 10–52; A. Neher, Amos. Contributions à l’étude du prophétisme, Paris 1950; V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriﬀswelt des Buches Amos, Leiden 1951; A. S. Kapelrud, Central Ideas in Amos (SNVAO II, 1956, 4), Oslo 1956, 19612; R. Fey, Amos und Jesaja. Abhängigkeit und Eigenständigkeit des Jesaja, NeukirchenVluyn 1963; H. Graf Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos (FRLANT 80), Göttingen 1962; R. Smend, “Das Nein des Amos”, Evangelische Theologie 23 (1963), 404–423; H. W. Wolﬀ, Amos’ geistige Heimat (WMANT 18), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964; id., Die Stunde des Amos: Prophetie und Protest, Munich 1969; W. H. Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches”, ZAW 77 (1965), 168–193; G. Farr, “The Language of Amos, Popular or Cultic?”, VT 16 (1966), 312–324; H. Gottlieb, “Amos og kulten”, DTT 30 (1967), 65–101 (Danish); J. L. Crenshaw, “The Inﬂuence of the Wise upon Amos. The ‘Doxologies of Amos’ and Job 5:6–15; 9:5–10”, ZAW 79 (1967), 42–51; id., “Amos and the Theophanic Tradition”, ZAW 80 (1968), 203–215; id., Hymnic Aﬃrmations of Divine Justice: The Doxologies of Amos and Related Texts in the Old Testament (SBL Diss Series 24), Missoula MT 1975; U. Kellermann, “Der Amosschluss als Stimme deuteronomistischer Heilshoﬀnung”, Evangelische Theologie 29 (1969), 169–183; E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos, Oxford 1970; J. Vollmer, Geschichtliche Rückblicke und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und Jesaja (BZAW 119), Berlin 1970; R. Gordis, “The Composition and Structure of Amos”, in: id. (ed.), Poets, Prophets and Sages: Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Bloomington-London 1971, pp. 217–229; I. Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments. Untersuchungen zum literarischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Micha zurückgehenden Bücher im hebräischen

366

chapter nine

Zwölfprophetenbuch (BZAW 123), Berlin 1971; G. Botterweck, “Die soziale Kritik des Propheten Amos”, in: FS J. Kard. Höﬀner, Cologne 1971, pp. 39–58; N. Fabian, Sozialkritische Ansätze in der alttestamentlichen Prophetie dargestellt am Propheten Amos, Münster i. W. 1972–1973; H. Berg, Die sogenannten Hymnenfragmente im Amosbuch, Bern und Frankfurt 1974; K. Koch e.a., Amos, untersucht mit den Methoden einer strukturalen Formgeschichte I–III (AOAT 30), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976; W. Eichrodt, “Die Vollmacht des Amos”, in: H. Donner e.a. (eds.), Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (FS W. Zimmerli), Göttingen 1977, pp. 124–131; J. M. Berridge, “Jeremia und die Prophetie des Amos”, TZ 35 (1979), 321–341; C. I. K. Story, “Amos—Prophet of Praise”, VT 30 (1980), 67–80; H. Gese, “Komposition bei Amos”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT 32), Leiden 1981, pp. 74–95; R. B. Coote, Amos Among the Prophets, Philadelphia 1981; A. S. van der Woude, “Three Classical Prophets” 1982 (see under Hosea); H. B. Huﬀmon, “The Social Role of Amos’ Message”, in: id. e.a., The Quest for the Kingdom of God (FS G. E. Mendenhall), Winona Lake IN 1983, pp. 109–116; A. van der Wal, “The Structure of Amos”, JSOT 26 (1983), 107–113; H. M. Barstad, The Religious Polemics of Amos (SVT 34), Leiden 1984; A. van der Wal en E. Talstra, Amos. Concordance and Lexical Survey, Amsterdam 1984; H. Weippert, “Amos. Seine Bilder und ihr Milieu”, in: id. e.a., Beiträge zur prophetischen Bildsprache in Israel und Assyrien (OBO 64), Freiburg-Göttingen 1985, pp. 1–29; A. van der Wal, Amos. A Classiﬁed Bibliography, Amsterdam 1986; A. G. Auld, Amos (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1986 (lit.!); J. Limburg, “Sevenfold Structures in the Book of Amos”, JBL 106 (1987), 217–222; J. H. Hayes, Amos, the Eighth-Century Prophet: his Times and his Preaching, Nashville 1988; P. J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archaeological Commentary, Philadelphia 1988: V. Fritz, “Amosbuch, Amosschule und historischer Amos”, in: id. e.a., Prophet und Prophetenbuch (BZAW 185; FS Otto Kaiser), Berlin-New York 1989, pp. 29–43; H. Gese, “Amos 8, 4–8: Der kosmische Frevel händlerischer Habgier”, ibid., pp. 59–72; M. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire. A Socio-Historical Approach, New York and Oxford 1989; G. F. Hasel, Understanding the Book of Amos. Basic Issues in Current Interpretations, Grand Rapids MI 1991 (lit.!); H. Reimer, Richtet auf das Recht! Studien zur Botschaft des Amos (SBSt 149), Stuttgart 1992; J. Jeremias, Hosea und Amos. Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheton (FAT 12), Tübingen 1995; M. Dijkstra, “Het boek Amos”, in: E. Eynikel and A. van Wieringen (eds.), Toen zond de Heer een profeet naar Israël. Het voorexilisch profetisme van het Oude Testament, Averbode 1996, pp. 23–46; J. Jeremias, Die Anfänge der Schriftprophetie, ZThK 93 (1996), 481–499; D. H. Rottzoll, Studien zur Redaktion und Komposition des Amosbuches (BZAW 243), Berlin-New York 1996.

Amos (“the one borne [by yhwh]”; lxx: Amoos; V: Amos) is the earliest Writing Prophet in the Old Testament. Thanks to the superscription of the book that bears his name and the account of his expulsion from the Northern Kingdom (7:10–17) we know more

the prophetic literature

367

about Amos than we do with respect to the other Minor Prophets. He lived in the eighth century BCE and came from Tekoa, a place located about 10 km south of Bethlehem. According to 7: 14 he was a “herdsman and a dresser of sycamores” by trade. His prophecies leave one with the impression that he was an educated man, well acquainted with the traditions of his people, very interested in questions of geography, and familiar with the events that had taken place in the past in neighbouring lands. The thesis defended by some that Amos functioned as a professional cultic prophet74 is contradicted by his own witness. It would appear from Amos 7:14–15 that he was not a prophet by profession and that he was taken by yhwh “from following the ﬂock” in order to serve as God’s emissary in the Northern Kingdom (Israel), an activity which he undertook for a year (maximum) between 760 and 750 BCE during the reign of King Jeroboam II (cf. 1:1). He was humiliatingly expelled thereafter by Amaziah, high priest of the sanctuary at Bethel, on account of his preaching of judgement. With the exception of the superscription and the account of the prophet’s expulsion from the Northern Kingdom (7:10–17),75 the book contains prophecies and confessions. The latter have been passed on to us in the form of visions experienced by Amos: the locusts (7:1–3), the devouring ﬁre (7:4–6), the plumb-line (7:7–9),76

74

Cf. H. H. Rowley, “Was Amos a Nabi?”, in: Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt, Halle 1947, pp. 191–198; H. Graf Reventlow, op. cit., 1962, pp. 7ﬀ.; B. J. Diebner, “Berufe und Berufung des Amos (Am 1,1 und 7,14f.)”, DBAT 23 (1986), 97–120. For 7:14f. see the survey of scholarly discussion on these verses in C. van Leeuwen, Amos 1985 (POT), pp. 284–286. 75 P. R. Ackroyd, “A Judgment Narrative between Kings and Chronicles? An Approach to Amos 7:9–17”, in: G. W. Coats and B. O. Long, Canon and Authority, Philadelphia 1977, pp. 71–87; H. Utzschneider, “Die Amasja-Erzählung (Amos 7, 10–17) zwischen Literatur und Historie”, BN 41 (1988), 76–101. 76 The translation of the Hebrew hapax legomenon ’anak is uncertain. Some exegetes consider it to mean tin and speak of the vision of the tin wall; cf. C. van Leeuwen, Amos 1985, pp. 272vv. and W. Beyerlin, Bleilot, Brecheisen oder was sonst? Revision einer Amos-Vision (OBO 81), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1988. See, however, H. Gese, op. cit., 1981, Ch Uehlinger, “Der Herr auf der Zinnmauer. Zur dritten Amos-Vision (Am VII 7–8)”, BN 48 (1989), 89–104 and H. G. Williamson, “The Prophet and the Plumb-Line. A Redaction-Critical Study of Amos VII”, OTS 26 (1990), 101–122.

368

chapter nine

the basket of summer fruit (8:1–3) and yhwh standing beside the altar (9:1–4).77 In the ﬁrst two visions the prophet manages to persuade yhwh not to execute punishment against Israel. In the third and fourth visions (as well as in the last, which diﬀers from the others in terms of form), however, God’s judgement is deﬁnitive.78 Written in autobiographical style and appearing to represent Amos’ religious experiences, the visions evidently represent the oldest segments of the book. The prophecies collected in the book of Amos can be divided into three groups: a) prophecies against the nations culminating in announcements of judgement for Judah and Israel (chapters 1–2); b) prophecies against the Northern Kingdom (chapters 3–6; 8:4–14; 9:7–10); c) two prophecies of salvation (9:11–12,13–15). The prophecies against the nations79 found in chapters 1–2 are characterised by the stereotype formula: “For three transgressions of N.N., and for four, I [= yhwh] will not revoke my punishment”.80 While the announcements of judgement are directed against neighbouring nations and cities (Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab), they reach their climax in the punishment declared against the

77 E. J. Waschke, “Die fünfte Vision des Amos-Buches (9, 1–4)—Eine Nachinterpretation”, ZAW 106 (1994), 434–445 considers the vision to be an actualising prophecy from the exilic period, harking back to the fall of Jerusalem. 78 It remains open for discussion whether we should follow V. Fritz, op. cit., 1989, and assume that the second and third visions are secondary and reﬂect the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722/721 BCE. 79 A. Bentzen, “The Ritual Background of Amos 1,2–2,16”, OTS 8 (1950), 85–99; M. Weiss, “The Pattern of the ‘Execration Texts’ in the Prophetic Literature”, IEJ 19 (1969), 150–157; S. M. Paul, “Amos 1,3–2,3, a Concatenous Pattern”, JBL 70 (1971), 397–403; K. N. Schoville, “A Note on the Oracles of Amos against Gaza, Tyre and Edom”, in: SVT 26 (1974), 55–63; J. Barton, Amos’ Oracles Against the Nations (SOTS Monograph Series 6), Cambridge 1980. V. Fritz, “Die Fremdvölkersprüche des Amos”, VT 37 (1987), 26–38 maintains that only a few verses of the prophecies against the nations hark back to Amos, but his opinion is disputed by G. Pfeifer, “Die Fremdvölkersprüche des Amos—spätere vaticinia ex eventu?”, VT 38 (1988), 230–233. The authenticity of the prophecies is explicitly defended by W. Rudolph, “Die angefochtenen Völkersprüche in Amos 1 und 2”, in: Shalom (FS A. Jepsen), Berlin 1971, pp. 45–49. 80 Cf. R. P. Knierim, “‘I Will not Cause It To Return’ in Amos 1 and 2”, in: G. W. Coats and B. O. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority, Philadelphia 1977, pp. 163–175.

the prophetic literature

369

Southern Kingdom ( Judah) and the Northern Kingdom (Israel). Based on form-critical considerations and on content, several commentators consider the prophecies directed against Tyre, Edom and Judah to be later additions to the original text. The present author remains unconvinced, however, especially if one considers that the prophecies constitute a rhetorical unit and without these elements the climax (the announcement of judgement over the Northern Kingdom in 2:6–16) is lost. The prophecies against the Northern Kingdom in chapters 3–6 are introduced by a legitimation of Amos’ judgement preaching. Precisely because Israel is God’s people, yhwh shall punish it on account of its sins (3:1–2). The fact that He has spoken leaves Amos powerless to evade the task assigned to him (cf. Jer. 20:7; 1 Cor. 9:16b): The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken; who can but prophesy? (3:8)

In the following judgement prophecies (3:9–6:14; 8:4–14; 9:7–10) against the Northern Kingdom and in particular against its capital city Samaria the prophet expresses his disgust in often rather candid language concerning the oppression of the poor by the rich who live in luxury81 and the authorities who ignore God’s law.82 With similar bluntness he riles against liturgical practices that have been reduced to a formality and twisted for the personal gain of those who abuse justice (5:21ﬀ.).83 A further striking feature of Amos’ preaching is his announcement of the coming “Day of the Lord” 81 O. Loretz, “Die prophetische Kritik des Rentenkapitalismus”, UF 7 (1975), 271–278; B. Lang, “Sklaven und Unfreie im Buch Amos (II 6; VIII 6)”, VT 31 (1981), 482–488; R. Bohlen, “Zur Sozialkritik des Amos”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 95 (1986), 282–301; G. Fleischer, Von Menschenverkäufern, Baschankühen und Rechtsverkehrern. Die Sozialkritik des Amosbuches in historisch-kritischer, sozialgeschichtlicher und archäologischer Perspektive (BBB 74), Frankfurt am Main 1989; R. Kessler, “Rentenkapitalismus, Tributarismus, antike Klassengesellschaft. Theorien zur Gesellschaft des alten Israel”, Evangelische Theologie 54 (1994), 413–427. 82 Cf. H. Donner, “Die soziale Botschaft der Propheten im Lichte der Gesellschaftsordnung in Israel”, Oriens Antiquus 2 (1963), 229–245 and further G. Fleischer, Von Menschenverkäufern, Bashankühen und Rechtsverkehrern. Die Sozialkritik des Amos in historischer, sozialgeschichtlicher und archäologischer Perspektive (BBB 74), Frankfurt am Main 1989. 83 6:1–7 should likewise be understood as referring to a religious institution rather than a luxurious private feast. The verses in question allude to a cultic-religious “brotherhood”, of the type familiar for centuries in the Ancient Near East, which aimed at achieving communion with the godhead by sharing a common meal with their honoured Lord.

370

chapter nine

(5:18–20).84 Amos’ audience associated this day with a day of divine judgement for the foreign nations and thus with a day of salvation for Israel. The prophet, by contrast, portrays this day as one of punishment for God’s own people and protests against the idea that God’s election of Israel was to be understood as a guarantee of salvation (9:7; cf. 3:1–2). The authenticity of the prophecies of salvation at the end of the book (9:11–12; 9:13–15) remains the subject of dispute. The ﬁrst of these alludes to the restoration of the “the booth of David that is fallen” (for some referring to the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon, for many to the end of the Davidic monarchy and for others to the temple in Jerusalem),85 while the second refers to future paradisiacal existence using vaguely mythological language. If one is inclined to deny the authenticity of these prophecies (the correct procedure in the mind of the present author), then one smoothes the way for describing Amos as a radical prophet of doom86 for whom the end of Israel was imminent (8:2). From the historical perspective, one can only associate salviﬁc expectations on the part of the prophet with 5:5. The question remains, however, whether Amos actually expected Israel to have a change of heart that might indeed have been enough to ward of God’s judgement. The somewhat reserved prospect of salvation described in 5:6,14–15 evidently stems from (an)other author(s). In the present text of the book 9:11–12 and 9:13–15 locate Amos’ radical judgement prophecy in the broader theological context of a God who did not forget his people in the midst of judgement and who oﬀered them the prospect of salvation beyond judgement. While scholars are likewise relatively consistent in considering the doxologies of 4:13, 5:8(–9) and 9:5–6 as later interpolations on account of their form, range of thought or presupposed lack of cohesion with the context, this perspective may nevertheless be unwarranted.87 84 Cf. C. van Leeuwen, “The Prophecy of the Yom yhwh in Amos V 18–20”, OTS 19 (1974), 113–134, who elaborates in some detail over the various standpoints adopted by scholars with respect to the origin and signiﬁcance of the Day of the Lord. 85 Cf. Sabine Nägele, Laubhütte Davids und Wolkensohn. Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie zu Amos 9,11 in der jüdischen und christlichen Exegese (AGAJU 24), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995. 86 Cf. R. Smend, op. cit., 1963. 87 Cf. W. Berg, Die sogenannten Hymnenfragmente im Amosbuch, Bern und Frankfurt am Main 1974; K. Koch, “Die Rolle der hymnischen Abschnitte in der Komposition

the prophetic literature

371

Evidently borrowed from ancient Israel’s psalmody, the doxologies underline the incomparable power of yhwh in creation and judgement within the framework of the so-called prophecies of doom. Opinion is divided with respect to the origin and evolution of the book of Amos. Apart from 9:11–15 and the later reworked superscription (1:1), 1:2, 3:1b, 3:7, 5:13, 5:25–26, 6:9–10, 8:3,4–14 and 9:8b would appear to have been added to the text of the book. W. H. Schmidt (1965) has ascribed a number of these passages to Deuteronomistic reworking (cf. also Kellermann [1969]).

Although commentators have endeavoured to locate the spiritual background of the book of Amos in kinship wisdom (Wolﬀ 1964), the cult (Reventlow 1962, Gottlieb 1967) or in the covenant renewal feast (Crenshaw 1968), their eﬀorts tend to provide an imbalanced if not incorrect picture of the prophet. The Hebrew text of the book of Amos is well-preserved and in better condition that the majority of other prophetic documents. 4. Obadiah Quanto brevius est, tanto diﬃcilius ( Jerome)88

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; J. A. Bewer (ICC) 1911 (reprint 1974); W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; E. Sellin (KAT1) 1929–19302.3; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1930, 19492; L. H. K. Bleeker (TU) 1934; J. Theis (HSAT) 1937; Th. H. Robinson (HAT) 1938, 19643; F. Nötscher (EB) 1948, 19572; A. Weiser (ATD) 1950, 19858; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; J. A. Thompson and N. F. Langford (IB) 1956; G. Ch. Aalders (COT) 1958; C. A. Keller (CAT) 1965, 19923; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1971; J. D. W. Watts (CNEB) 1975; L. C. Allen (NICOT) 1976; H. W. Wolﬀ (BK) 1977; A. Deissler (NEB) 1984; D. Stuart (WBC) 1987; C. van Leeuwen (POT) 1993; A. S. van der Woude (TT) 1997; J. Renkema (HCOT) 2003.

des Amos-Buches”, ZAW 86 (1974), 507–537; J. de Waard, “The Chiastic Structure of Amos V, 1–17”, VT 27 (1977), 170–177; C. I. K. Story, “Amos—Prophet of Praise”, VT 30 (1980), 67–80; N. J. Tromp, “Amos V 1–17: Towards a Stylistic and Rhetorical Analysis”, OTS 23 (1984), 65–85. 88 The shorter the more diﬃcult.

372

chapter nine

Monographs and articles: A. H. Edelkoort, “De profetie van Obadja”, NTT 1 (1946–1947), 276–293; M. Bi“, “Zur Problematik des Buches Obadja”, in: Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (SVT 1), Leiden 1953, pp. 11–25; G. Fohrer, “Die Sprüche Obadjas”, in: W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude (eds.), Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen dedicata, Wageningen 1966, pp. 81–93; H. W. Wolﬀ, “Obadja—ein Kultprophet als Interpret”, Evangelische Theologie 37 (1977), 273–284; P. Weimar, “Obadja. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse”, BN 27 (1985), 35–99; J. Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse. Die Komposition Obadja 1–21 interpretiert auf der Basis textlinguistischer und semiotischer Konzeptionen (Münchener Universitätsschriften: Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 28), St. Ottilien 1987; S. D. Snijman, “Cohesion in the Book of Obadiah”, ZAW 101 (1989), 59–71; R. Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1991; E. Ben-Zwi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (BZAW 242), Berlin-New York 1996.

Nothing is known of the person of Obadiah (“servant of yhwh”; lxx: Abd[e]ias or Obdeias; V: Abdias).89 While the hypothesis that he functioned as a cultic prophet (Wolﬀ 1977) cannot be dismissed, it is clear nevertheless that the location of his prophetic activity must have been Jerusalem. Diﬀerence of opinion with respect to the date of Obadiah’s prophetic activity has existed for a considerable period of time, some scholars locating him in the ninth century BCE, others in the post-exilic period. The conviction that he prophesied shortly after the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE) has justiﬁably gained ground in recent years. Indeed, he would appear to have personally experienced the collapse of the city and the temple and been forced to observe how Edom, a fraternal people, witnessed the catastrophe confronting Jerusalem and its sanctuary with malicious pleasure and how they added insult to injury by plundering Judean possessions and murdering refugees or handing them over to the Babylonians (Obadiah 10–14). The prophecy of Obadiah has been described as “a word of comfort on the ruins of Jerusalem for the downcast and shattered people that had remained there” (Oosterhoﬀ ). 89 Obadiah is not to be identiﬁed with the Lord Chamberlain of King Ahab (1 Kgs 18:3), as a number of rabbis and some Church Fathers maintain, nor with the lieutenant-colonel of King Josaphat referred to in 2 Chron. 17:7. Neither of these individuals was a prophet. The suggestion that the ﬁgure should be identiﬁed with one of the Obadiahs mentioned in the books of Ezra (8:9) and Nehemiah (10:5; 12:25) must be excluded for chronological reasons.

the prophetic literature

373

Sellin (commentary 1929–1930) dates Obadiah 1–10 to the time of King Joram (around 850 BCE) on the basis of 2 Kgs 8:20–24, arguing that Obadiah 11–14 were added in the early exilic period and that the remaining material should be dated around 400 BCE. In line with older commentators, J. Ridderbos (commentary 1930) dates the entire document in the period of Joram. A serious objection to this claim (and to that of Sellin) can be based on the fact that while 2 Kings 8 mentions a Judean defeat it does not speak of the collapse of Jerusalem (cf. Obadiah 11; 2 Chron. 21:16f., on the other hand, does mention the occupation of Jerusalem by Philistines and Arabs). By considering Obadiah 2ﬀ. to be a description rather than an announcement of judgement, Wellhausen was able to argue that Obadiah 1–14 should be dated in the ﬁfth or fourth centuries BCE, when Edom was overrun by Arab tribes. In line with the prophecies of Obadiah, allusions to Edom’s perverse pleasure at the fall of Judah and Jerusalem and its hostile behaviour towards its brother nation can be found in Ezek. 25:12ﬀ., 35:1ﬀ., Ps. 137:7 and Lam. 4:21.

The book of Obadiah consists of 21 verses only and is thereby the shortest book of the Old Testament. In spite of its diminutive size, however, the literary critical problems it presents are far from simple and in some instances impossible to solve with conclusive certainty. Several commentators subdivide the book as follows: 1–14+15b

15a+16–18

19–21

announcement of judgement against Edom on account of its hostile behaviour towards its brother nation Judah on the occasion of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE God’s day of judgement over the nations, the deliverance of the rest of Israel and the destruction of Edom by the house of Jacob/Joseph description of the future boundaries of the land of Israel and announcement of God’s royal dominion

Striking agreements are evident between verses 1b–5 and Jer. 49:9,14–16, a fact that has led some to argue in favour of Obadiah’s dependence on Jeremiah and others to favour the opposite hypothesis. The present author is of the opinion, however, that both text segments hark back to an older prophecy against Edom or to traditional liturgical material. Written in prose and subject in part to deﬁcient transmission, verses 19–20(21) link up with verse 17b (“the house of Jacob shall repossess its possessions”) and describe the reoccupation of the promise land together with the annexation of additional territories. The verses

chapter nine

374

in question would appear to be a later interpolation to 15a+16–18. The latter segment portrays the impending judgement of Edom in the context of the Day of the Lord that is about to overcome all foreign nations. Edom is thus presented as representative of the powers that endeavoured to endanger the salvation of God’s people. Their plans, however, were to no avail (“on Mount Zion there shall be escape”, v. 17a). The prophet Obadiah should be counted among those Judeans who had remained behind in their fatherland after the fall of Jerusalem. In spite of the fact that he personally experienced the catastrophe that had overcome Jerusalem and his salviﬁc expectations exhibit particularistic tendencies, the book does not focus on nationalistic feelings of hatred towards Edom but rather on divine justice: As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head (v. 15b).

5. Jonah Wenn . . . die Sammler des Kanon dieses Buch unter die kleinen Propheten gestellt haben, so kann dies nur gschehen sein, weil sie darin prophetische Wahrheiten in geschichtliche Form gekleidet erkannten (Keil)

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; J. A. Bewer (ICC) 1912, 19372; W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; L. H. K. Bleeker (TU) 1934; Th. H. Robinson (HAT) 1936, 19643; J. Lippl (HSAT) 1937; A. Weiser (ATD) 1950, 19828; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; F. Nötscher (EB) 1954; G. Ch. Aalders (COT) 1958; J. Ridderbos (KV) 19633; C. A. Keller (CAT) 1965, 19923; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1971; J. D. W. Watts (CNEB) 1975; L. C. Allen (NICOT) 1976; H. W. Wolﬀ (BK) 1977; A. Deissler (NEB) 1984; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 19852; D. Stuart (WBC) 1987; J. M. Sasson (AB) 1990; F. W. Golka (Calwer Bibelkommentare) 1991; J. Limburg (OTL) 1993; K. A. Deurloo (VHB) 1995; A. S. van der Woude (TT) 1997.

Monographs and articles: A. Feuillet, “Les sources du livre de Jonas”, RB 54 (1947), 161–186; id., “Le sens du livre de Jonas”, RB 54 (1947), 340–361; G. von Rad, Der Prophet Jona, Nürnberg 1950; K. H. Miskotte, Als de goden zwijgen, Amsterdam

the prophetic literature

375

1956, pp. 345–359 (= id., Verzameld Werk 8, Kampen 1983); N. Lohﬁnk, “Und Jona ging zur Stadt hinaus ( Jona 4,5)”, BZ 5 (1961), 185–203; H. W. Wolﬀ, Studien zum Jonabuch (Biblische Studien 47), Neukirchen-Vluyn 19652; G. M. Landes, “The Kerygma of the Book of Jonah”, Interpretation 21 (1967), 3–31; G. H. Cohn, Das Buch Jona im Lichte der biblischen Erzählkunst (SSN 12), Assen 1969; O. Kaiser, “Wirklichkeit, Möglichkeit und Vorurteil. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Buches Jona”, Evangelische Theologie 33 (1973), 91–103 (= id., Der Mensch unter dem Schicksal (BZAW 161), BerlinNew York 1985, pp. 41–53); R. E. Clements, “The Purpose of the Book of Jonah”, in: Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974, Leiden 1975, pp. 16–28; J. Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes (Biblische Studien 65), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975; L. Schmidt, De Deo (BZAW 143), Berlin-New York 1976; J. Magonet, Form and Meaning. Studies in the Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 2), Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1976, 19832; H. Witzenrath, Das Buch Jona. Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung (ATSAT 6), St. Ottilien 1978; G. Vanoni, Das Buch Jona. Eine literar- und formkritische Untersuchung (ATSAT 7), St. Ottilien 1978; A. S. van der Woude, “Compositie, strekking en plaats van het boek Jona”, Kerk en Theologie 29 (1978), 285–298; J. C. Holbert, “‘Deliverance Belongs to Yahweh’. Satire in the Book of Jonah”, JSOT 21 (1981), 59–81; G. M. Landes, “Linguistic Criteria and the Date of the Book of Jonah”, Erets Israel 16 (1982), 147–170; U. Steﬀen, Jona und der Fisch: Der Mythos von Tod und Wiedergeburt, Stuttgart 19852; D. L. Christensen, “Narrative Poetics and the Interpretation of the Book of Jonah”, in: E. R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Suppl. JSOT 40), Sheﬃeld 1987, pp. 29–48; A. et P. E. Lacocque, Le complexe de Jonas: une étude psychoreligieuse du prophète, Paris 1989; J. Day, “Problems in the Interpretation of the Book of Jonah”, OTS 26 (1990), 32–47; Th. Krüger, “Literarisches Wachstum und theologische Diskussion im Jona-Buch”, BN 59 (1991), 57–88; U. Steﬀen, Die Jona-Geschichte: Ihre Auslegung und Darstellung im Judentum, Christentum und Islam, Neukirchen 1994; R. Lux, Jona. Prophet zwischen “Verweigerung” und “Gehorsam”. Eine erzählanalytische Studie (FRLANT 162), Göttingen 1994; R. B. Salters, Jonah and Lamentations (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1994; U. Simon, Jona. Ein jüdischer Kommentar (SBSt 157, Stuttgart 1994; Ph. L. Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method and the Book of Jonah, Minneapolis 1994; R. F. Person, In Conversation with Jonah. Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah (Suppl. JSOT 220), Sheﬃeld 1996.

The book that has been passed on to us under the name of the prophet Jonah (“dove”; lxx: Ioonas; V: Ionas) diﬀers considerably from the other books of the Old Testament that have been classiﬁed among the prophetic documents. Instead of a collection of prophecies it contains a narrative about a prophet. The text recounts how yhwh commanded Jonah to ‘cry out’ judgement against the Ninevites on account of their wickedness. The

376

chapter nine

prophet endeavours to avoid his divine assignment by ﬂeeing to Tarshish90 by ship. The ship encounters a mighty storm sent by God, which only subsides after the sailors ﬁnd Jonah guilty by ‘casting lots’ and throw him overboard on his own advice. At this point Jonah is swallowed by a “large ﬁsh”, from the belly of which Jonah oﬀers a prayer to the Lord. After the ﬁsh spews him onto dry land, the prophet is commanded once again to announce judgement over Nineveh. He spends a single day in the city, which would normally take three days to cross. His preaching (“Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”, 3:4), however, appears to have its desired eﬀect. On the instigation of the king and his nobles, a period of fasting is proclaimed and the people of the great city repent and God decides to spare them. Jonah is extremely displeased at this turn of events and he complains to God that His merciful kindness, slowness to anger and readiness to relent has prevented him from being consistent in carrying out the punishment he had announced. God asks Jonah if is anger is justiﬁed but he receives no answer (4:4). The explanation for Jonah’s silence is provided in the form of a ﬂashback in 4:4–9. After he had preached judgement against Nineveh, the prophet had left the city in order to watch its destruction from a safe distance. He had intended to build himself a booth to protect himself from the heat of the sun (4:5),91 but God provided a “magic tree” (Heb. qiqayon—possibly a castor bean plant) that provided the necessary shade. By dawn the next day, however, God appointed a worm to attack the tree and it withered, leaving Jonah breathless and faint in the heat of the sun and unprotected against a “sultry east wind” that God had prepared. God once again asks Jonah if his anger, in this instance about the tree, is justiﬁed and the prophet answers frankly that he considers it madness to have deprived him of the shadow of the “magic tree”. Confronted with the same question with regard to the preservation of Nineveh (4:4) the prophet is then left speechless, aware that it makes little sense to complain for his own part of being deprived of God’s mercy while arguing that God should not have relented in punishing the Ninevites. God ﬁnally informs his prophet that it would have pained Him a great deal 90 While the location itself is diﬃcult to establish with any certainty, it probably refers to a Spanish port city. 91 For the conative-voluntative signiﬁcance of the narrative see J. P. Lettinga, Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch, Basel 1992, p. 174.

the prophetic literature

377

more to have been forced to destroy a mighty city with all its people and animals than Jonah had experienced at the withering of a mere tree (4:10–11). The evidently profound story of the prophet Jonah, which makes use of the style ﬁgure of the ﬂashback (1:5; 1:10 conclusion; 1:16 conclusion; 3:6–9; 4:5–9)92 and frequently employs the same words (e.g. “to go down”, “large”, “to have command of ”, “wickedness”), constitutes one of the most splendid examples of narrative art in the history of world literature and is clearly a unity. The so-called ‘psalm of Jonah’ (2:2–9, Hebr. 2:3–10)93 is in origin an individual song of thanksgiving, which according to the norms of logic does not strictly belong in the book as a whole. It would appear, however, that the author incorporated it into his narrative because of its allusion to the underworld (2:2, Hebr. 2:3), a motif corresponding with the context: the “large ﬁsh” symbolises the kingdom of the dead. In the present author’s opinion, the oft defended thesis that the psalm was added to the book at a later date should be rejected. The main ﬁgure of the narrative, Jonah, the son of Amittai, is referred to in 2 Kgs 14:25 as a contemporary of King Jeroboam II who predicted the restoration of Israel’s borders from Lebo-hamath in Syria as far as the Sea of the Arabah (the Dead Sea). Jonah, however, cannot be identiﬁed as the author of the book that bears his name on account of the text’s apparent dependence on JeremianDeuteronomistic theology (cf. Jer. 18:7), the nature of the decree of the king of Nineveh and his ministers that refers to the Persian period together with the signiﬁcant presence of Aramaisms. The book probably stems from the fourth century BCE (cf. 3:3, which states the Nineveh was a great city, implying that the author was only familiar with it from the tradition). The literary genre of the book is diﬃcult to establish with certainty since it does not appear to ﬁt the categories of historical-biographical account, allegory, parable or satire, and in the last analysis cannot be identiﬁed as a midrash or a novella. While Fohrer refers to

92 Cf. H. W. Wolﬀ, op. cit., 19652 and further A. S. van der Woude, “Nachholende Erzählung im Buche Jona”, in: A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch (eds.), Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume, Jerusalem 1983, pp. 263–272. 93 A. R. Johnson, “Jonah 2:3–10. A Study in Cultic Phantasy”, in: H. H. Rowley (ed.), Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, New York 1950, pp. 82–102; P. Weimar, “Jon 2,1–11: Jonapsalm und Jonaerzählung”, BZ 28 (1984), 43–68.

chapter nine

378

Jonah as a midraschartige Lehrschrift, his designation nevertheless fails to match the apparent uniqueness of both the content and literary character of the book. It is generally accepted that the author composed his work as a protest against a narrow-minded particularistic and nationalistic form of Jewish piety that desired to limit God’s salviﬁc deeds to Israel alone. The fact that the book does not present Jonah as a representative of a bigoted form Judaism and does not thematically develop any notion of contrast between Jews and pagans, however, leaves such a perspective with little if any support (cf. also Rendtorﬀ, p. 239). The central theme of the work is thus best understood as the relationship between God and his prophet. The latter is in agreement with the clearly two-sided perspective oﬀered by the book: any attempt to avoid divine vocation is doomed to failure (1–2) and the preservation of human beings (as well as animals!, cf. 4:11) weighs a great deal more in God’s eyes than the stubborn execution of His already announced judgement (3–4; cf. also 4:11 together with Ezek. 18:23,32). It would appear therefore that the book of Jonah, with its allusion to the unavoidability of God’s call and the conditional character of announcements of judgement (cf. in particular Jer. 18:7–8) is intended to serve as a sort of guide for reading and interpreting the prophetic literature. The New Testament contains particular reference to the book of Jonah in Mt. 12:38–41 and Lk. 11:29–30,32.

6. Micah He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God (6:8)

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; J. M. Powis Smith (ICC) 1911 (1965); W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; E. Sellin (KAT1) 19292.3; L. K. H. Bleeker (TU) 1934; T. H. Robinson (HAT) 1936, 19643; J. Lippl (HSAT) 1937; A. Weiser (ATD) 1950, 19797; J. Ridderbos (KV) 19522; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; R. E. Wolfe (IB) 1956; F. Nötscher (EB) 19572; R. Vuilleumier (CAT) 1971, 19902; H. McKeating (CNEB) 1971; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1975; L. C. Allen (NICOT) 1976; J. L. Mays (OTL) 1976, 19802; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 1976, 19853; H. W. Wolﬀ

the prophetic literature

379

(BK) 1982; D. R. Hillers (Hermeneia) 1984; A. Deissler (NEB) 1984; R. L. Smith (WBC) 1984; W. McKane, Micah: Introduction and Commentary, Edinburgh 1998.

Monographs and articles: B. Stade, “Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha”, ZAW 1 (1881), 161–172; id., “Weitere Bemerkungen zu Micha 4 und 5”, ZAW 3 (1883), 1–16; id., “Bemerkungen zu vorstehenden Aufsätze”, ZAW 4 (1884), 291–297; id., “Micha 1,2–4 und 7,7–20, ein Psalm”, ZAW 23 (1903), 163–171; H. Gunkel, “Der Micha-Schluß”, Zeitschrift für Semitistik 2 (1924), 145–178; F. C. Burkitt, “Micah 6 and 7. A Northern Prophecy”, JBL 45 (1926), 159–161; J. Lindblom, Micha literarisch untersucht (Acta Academiae Aboensis Humaniora VI,2), Helsingør 1929; K. Elliger, “Die Heimat des Propheten Micha”, ZDPV 57 (1934), 81–152; W. Beyerlin, Die Kulttraditionen in der Verkündigung des Propheten Micha (FRLANT 54), Göttingen 1959; O. Eissfeldt, “Ein Psalm aus NordIsrael. Micha” 7:7–20, ZDMG 112 (1962), 259–268 (= id., Kleine Schriften IV, Tübingen 1968, pp. 63–72); B. Renaud, Structure et attaches littéraires de Michée IV–V (Cahiers de la RB 2), Paris 1964; J. Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1965; T. Willis, “The Structure of the Book of Micah”, SEÅ 34 (1969), 5–42; id., “The Structure of Micah 3–5 and the Function of Micah 5:9–14 in the Book”, ZAW 81 (1969), 191–214; id., “A Reapplied Prophetic Hope Oracle”, in: Studies in Prophecy (SVT 26), Leiden 1974, pp. 64–76; A. S. van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-prophets”, VT 19 (1969), 244–260; id., “Deutero-Micha: ein Prophet aus Nord-Israel?”, NTT 25 (1971), 365–378; id., “Three Classical Prophets”, 1982 (see under Hosea); J. Jeremias, “Die Deutung der Gerichtsworte Michas in der Exilszeit”, ZAW 83 (1971), 330–354; I. Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese, 1971 (see under Amos); Th. Lescow, “Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 1–5”, ZAW 84 (1972), 46–85; id., “Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6–7”, ibid., 182–212; B. Renaud, La formation du livre de Michée (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1977; J. L. Mays, “The Theological Purpose of the Book of Micah”, in: H. Donner e.a. (eds.), Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (FS W. Zimmerli), Göttingen 1977, pp. 276–287; K. Jeppesen, “New Aspects of Micah Research”, JSOT 8 (1978), 3–32; id., “How the Book of Micah Lost its Integrity”, Studia Theologica 33 (1979), 101–131; H. Wolﬀ, “Wie verstand Micha von Moreshet sein prophetisches Amt?”, in: Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (SVT 29), Leiden 1978, pp. 403–417; J. de Waard, “Vers une identiﬁcation des participants dans le livre de Michée”, in: Mélanges Edmond Jacob = RHPhR 59 (1979), 509–516; D. G. Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis (SBL Diss. Series 89), Atlanta GA 1988; P. J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archaeological Commentary, Philadelphia 1988; G. Stansell, Micah and Isaiah: A Form and Tradition Historical Comparison (SBL Diss. Series 85), Atlanta GA 1988; R. Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah

380

chapter nine

(Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1991; M. A. Zapﬀ, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton (BZAW 256), Berlin-New York 1997; Gabriele Metzner, Kompositionsgeschichte des Michabuches (EHS 23, Theologie 635), Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York 1998.

As with Amos, Micah (abbreviation of Michaiah, “who is equal to yhwh?”; lxx: Michaias; V: Michaeas) was born and raised in the Judean countryside town of Moresheth, in the hill country southwest of Judah (1:1). Information on the period of his prophetic activity is to be found in Mic. 1:1 and Jer. 26:18. While the former text dates his activities to the time of kings Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, the latter restricts itself to the reign of Hezekiah. In the present author’s opinion, the author of the superscription of the book identiﬁed the Judean Micah from Moresheth with a ﬁgure of the same name from the Northern Kingdom who functioned as a prophet for around ten years and whose legacy is to be found in chapters 6–7 of the book (see below). The suggestion that Micah of Moresheth only prophesied during the reign of Hezekiah is conﬁrmed by the content of chapters 1–5 of the book that bears his name. Micah 1 stems from the ﬁnal years prior to the fall of Samaria (722/721 BCE). Chapters 2–5, on the other hand, should be dated from the time of the Assyrian king Sardon’s expedition against Ashdod in Philistea (712) rather than that of Sennacherib’s campaign against Jerusalem (701). In any event, they fall nevertheless within the period of Hezekiah’s reign. In spite of frequent suggestion that Micah was inﬂuenced by Isaiah and may indeed have been a disciple of the latter (cf. Isa. 8:16), conclusive evidence to this eﬀect is lacking (Stansell 1988). Micah’s perspective with respect to Zion (cf. 3:12), for example, clearly diﬀers from that of Isaiah (cf. Isa. 14:32). While it is true that both prophets expressed vehement resistance to the social injustices of their day, their critique diﬀers in both form and content. In the present author’s opinion, Mic. 4:1–3, which corresponds to a signiﬁcant degree with Isa. 2:2–4, was not uttered by Micah himself but rather by his opponents. Apparent agreements between the preaching of Isaiah and Micah can perhaps best be explained on a tradition-historical basis rather than on the basis of the dependence of the latter on the former. Scholars endeavour to explain the book of Micah according to the schema prophecies of judgement-prophecies of salvation, dividing it thereby into the following parts: 1–3 prophecies of judgement 4–5 prophecies of salvation

the prophetic literature 6:1–7:7 7:8–14

381

prophecies of judgement prophecy of salvation.94

Since Bernhard Stade (1881ﬀ.), the majority of exegetes have been inclined to ascribe only chapters 1–3 (with the exception of 2:12–1395 and a few glosses) to Micah himself. In addition, some consider 6:9–16 or 6:9–7:7 to be authentic. It is generally claimed that the remaining segments of the book date in part from the period immediately prior to the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE), in part from the exilic or post-exilic period. In our opinion, however, such a hypothesis is open to dispute from a variety of perspectives. The key to understanding the content of the book, rather, is to be found in the observation that chapters 2–5 represent the (possibly lightly reworked and actualised at a later date) rendition of a dispute between the prophet and his opponents96 and that chapters 6–7 stem from a northern Israelite divine messenger who also bore the name Micah. The confrontational character of Mic. 2–5 is not only suggested by the shifting content of the various pericopes but also by formal considerations in the sense of narrative markers (2:11c: “but this people continued to prophecy”; 3:1: “but I said”) and the use of “I” (Mic. 2:11; 3:1,8) and “we” (Micah’s opponents: 4:5; 5:4). If one is unwilling to accept the confrontational character of Micah 2–5, then one is forced to accept, particularly with respect to chapters 4–5, that the book consists of a more or less uncoordinated compilation of (frequently contradictory) prophecies of a variety of styles and dates. The hypothesis that chapters 6–7 do not stem from Micah of Moresheth but rather from a northern Israelite prophet (of the same

94 The subdivision of the text is not without its diﬃculties. The prophecies of judgement in chapters 1–3 contain a prophecy of salvation in 2:12–13, while the prophecies of salvation in chapters 4–5 contain elements alien to the genre (cf. 4:9–10,14; 5:4–5). The prophecies of 6:1–7:6 can only be characterised as prophecies of judgement with some degree of reservation, while verses 11–13 of 7:7–20 would appear to be more of an announcement of judgement against Assyria than a prophecy of salvation for Israel in which the reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem and the return of the exiles are predicted (cf. our commentary on Micah (POT), pp. 253–258). 95 For a survey of the various explanations of these verses see W. McKane, “Micah 2:12–13”, JNSL 21 (1995), 83–91. 96 See also J. de Waard, op. cit., 1979.

382

chapter nine

name and from virtually the same period) is acceptable for a variety of reasons:97 a) agreements between the preaching of (the northern Israelite prophet) Hosea and that of the book of Micah remain limited to chapters 6–7;98 b) the geographical and historical data found in Micah 6–7 refer without exception to northern Israel: Gilgal (6:5), Bashan and Gilead (7:14), Carmel (7:14), together with Omri and Ahab (6:16, the beginning of which should best be read: “and the idols of Omri and the works of the house of Ahab shall be destroyed”). In contrast to Micah 1–5, chapters 6–7 do not make a single reference to Jerusalem, Zion or Judah99 (the further unidentiﬁed city in 6:9 would appear on the basis of 6:16 to be a reference to Samaria rather than Jerusalem); c) as with Hosea, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, the exodus, wilderness and entry into the land traditions have an important role to play in chapters 6–7 (6:4–5; 7:15), while the theme of Zion, so characteristic of Micah 1–5, is completely lacking; d) the leaders of the people are referred to in completely diﬀerent terms in Micah 6–7 than in Micah 1–5 (compare 3:1,9,11 with 7:3); e) the use of language in Micah 6–7 diﬀers considerably from that of the preceding chapters. Based on the aforementioned considerations it is possible to distinguish three primary parts in the Book of Micah: 1 2–5 6–7

judgement preaching against Samaria, Jerusalem and southwest Judah (± 725 BCE) dispute between Micah and his opponents (± 712 BCE) Deutero-Micah: prophecies from Northern Israel (± 740–730 BCE).

97 The thesis favouring a northern Israelite origin for these chapters was defended as early as 1926 by F. C. Burkitt, op. cit., but has had virtually no recognition or response. 98 Compare 6:1f. with Hos. 2 and 4:1 (dispute proceedings); 6:4 with Hos. 11:1f., 12:10,14, 13:4; 6:5 with Hos. 5:2 (according to the corrected text read Shittim); 6:8 with Hos. 6:6; 6:11f. with Hos. 12:8f.; 6:14 with Hos. 4:10; 6:15 with Hos. 2:7f.; 7:2 with Hos. 4:1f.; 7:7 with Hos. 14:9. 99 A dating in the exilic or post-exilic period leaves the presence of northern Israelite names and the absence of reference to Jerusalem, Zion and Judah more or less inexplicable. Commentators consistently ignore these matters.

the prophetic literature

383

Chapter 1 constitutes a prophecy of judgement exhibiting a wellconsidered structure and unmistakeable climax written in the style of the prophecies against the foreign nations, Micah begins his preaching with the announcement of universal divine judgement (1:2–4), which is to befall in concreto Samaria (1:5–7), Jerusalem (1:8–12) and Lachis and its environs, the region in which Micah was born and raised (1:13–16). The prophet predicts the fall of Samaria and expects an (Assyrian) attack on Jerusalem and Judah from the north. Chapters 2–5 contain, in the ﬁrst instance, a prophecy of judgement against the social elite, who oppress the less prosperous (2:1–5). Counter to his opponents, who consider the covenant between God and his people to be a guarantee of salvation, the prophet exclaims that the promises of yhwh only apply to the righteous and not the oppressor (2:6–11b). Counter to their belief that the exiles deported after the fall of Samaria will return to Israel (2:11c–13), Micah insists in a speech addressed to the leaders of the people, whose social injustice and faith in false prophets he condemns, that Jerusalem and the sacred temple mountain shall be reduced to rubble on account of their misdeeds (3:1–12).100 A prophecy follows in 4:1–5 concerning the pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem and the establishment of the kingdom of peace. While the main lines of the prophecy run parallel with that of Isa. 2:2–4, it has nevertheless been adjusted in nationalistic terms. Although the text is generally considered to be a post-exilic interpolation, its nationalistic tone allows it to be read as a reaction on the part of Micah’s opponents to the latter’s announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem.101 The text of Mic. 4:6–7 (corresponding with 2:12–13), which announces the return of the exiles, and that of 4:8–9, in which the restoration of the undivided Davidic kingdom is predicted and an appeal is made to the inviolability of Jerusalem in an eﬀort to assuage the population’s anxiety in face of the approaching enemy (cf. 3:11), would appear to stem from Micah’s opponents. In contrast to this salviﬁc optimism, Micah predicts the exile of the population of the city and insists that the prospect of later divine redemption can only be considered after downfall and

100 In the present author’s opinion, J. M. Vincent’s arguments in favour of a late date for the text of 3:12 (“Michas Gerichtswort gegen Zion (3,12) in seinem Kontext”, ZThK 83 [1986], 167–187) lack justiﬁcation. 101 Cf. S. Talmon, “Typen der Messiaserwartung um die Zeitwende”, in: Probleme biblischer Theologie (FS G. von Rad), Munich 1971, pp. 579–580.

384

chapter nine

ruin (4:10). His opponents appeal once again to the inviolability of the temple mountain and God’s wondrous deeds (4:11–13). Micah responds by stating that while the king of Judah is to be profoundly humiliated, God shall bring forth a new son of David from Bethlehem who will reign according to his will (4:14–5:3). Micah’s opponents declare that the present king shall remain unharmed,102 because an alliance will be formed with other nations in the event of Assyrian aggression in order to bring the invader to defeat within their own borders (5:4–5).103 Micah expects nothing of Judah’s military intervention, but translates the vision of God’s people as a source of blessing among the nations (5:6). His opponents cling nevertheless to the notion of Judah’s military supremacy (5:7–8). The following pericope (5:9–14) can be dated as pre-exilic on account of its content and may have been introduced by a Deuteronomistic hand in order to establish a bridge between the preceding chapters and Deutero-Micah. The third primary segment of the text that, as outlined above, which would appear to stem from a northern Israelite prophet, describes a court battle between God and his people (6:1–8) on account of the apostasy of Israel. The ﬁnal verse of this segment is extraordinarily impressive: He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God (6:8).

The prophecies that follow against social injustice (6:9–16) contain an announcement of judgement against an unnamed city, to be identiﬁed in light of 6:16 with Samaria. The announcement of judgement in 7:1–7 would appear to allude to the royal murders that characterised the ﬁnal days of the history of the Northern Kingdom (cf. 2 Kgs 15:8–30). In line with Gunkel (1924), a signiﬁcant number of scholars consider 7:8–20 to be a prophetic liturgy composed on the basis of a song of trust (7:8–10), a prophecy of salvation (7:11–13), a prayer

102 For this explanation of the opening words of 5:4 see our commentary on Micah (19853), pp. 173–174, cf. 2 Sam. 17:3 conclusion. 103 This text segment favours a dating during the time of Micah, in particular prior to 712 BCE, when Sargon II set out on an expedition to punish the Philistine city of Ashdod. An exilic or post-exilic dating would leave the verses unexplained since the possibility of a Judean collaboration with other nations (5:4–5) would have to be excluded in the Babylonian, Persian and Greek periods.

the prophetic literature

385

reminiscent of the Volksklage (7:14–17) and a hymn of the community (7:18–20). In the present author’s opinion, however, the segment 7:11–13 is closer to an announcement of doom addressed against the “enemy (f.)” referred to in 7:8, which should clearly be identiﬁed with the Assyrians.104 Given the fact that the song would appear to presuppose the annexation of large chunks of the Northern Kingdom, one is obliged to date 7:8–17 around 730 BCE (cf. Eissfeldt 1962), rather than in the period of Nehemiah or thereafter as is often the case.105 Endeavours on the part of Jeremias (1971), Willi-Plein (1971), Lescow (1972), Mays (commentary 1976), Renaud (1977) and Wolﬀ (commentary 1982) to reconstruct the redaction history of the book of Micah have not resulted in any degree of unanimity. If our analysis of the book is correct, then the redaction history thereof is clearly less complicated than that proposed by the aforementioned authors. We support (setting aside a few glosses) a Deuteronomistic redaction during the reign of King Josiah, whereby chapters 6–7 were adjoined to the preceding chapters by means of 5:9–14, the superscription of the book received its ﬁnal form and was added to the original text together with 1:5bc and 1:7ab and possibly the concluding words of 6:16a and 6:16b. It is likewise possible that 7:18–20 represents a Deuteronomistically shaded supplement from the exilic period.

Micah’s powerful preaching against social injustice is frank and straightforward and often uses blunt and unreserved language. His emotional attachment to the people of the region of his birth comes to the fore in his frequent use of the expression “my people” (1:9; 2:9; 3:3,5). Counter to the salvation theology of his opponents, who expected the return of the exiles based on the promise of the land (2:12f.; 4:6f.), a glorious future for Jerusalem on account of the inviolability of Mount Zion (4:1ﬀ.; 4:11–13) and the restoration of the one Davidic monarchy over an undivided kingdom (4:8), Micah’s preaching takes a situation of adversity brought about by the sins of the elite as its point of departure. He too expects salvation from God, but only in and through judgement (4:10; 4:14–5:3; 5:6).

104

For further detail see our commentary on Micah (1976, 19853), pp. 253–258. A date during the time of Nehemiah links up with 7:11 in which reference is made to the (re)construction of the walls. The term used for “walls” in the basic text, however, cannot refer to the city walls of post-exilic Jerusalem (cf. Willi-Plein, op. cit., pp. 107–108). 105

chapter nine

386

Micah is well known for the messianic prophecy found in 5:1–3 and often claimed as inauthentic, which is alluded to in Mt. 2:6 in relation to the birth of Jesus (albeit in a slightly modiﬁed version): But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days (5:1).

7. Nahum Ex omnibus minoribus prophetis nemo videtur aequare sublimitatem, ardorem et audaces spiritus Nahumi (Robert Lowth)106

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; J. M. P. Smith (ICC) 1912; W. Nowack (KHAT) 19223; E. Sellin (KAT1) 19302.3; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1930; G. Smit (TU) 1934; H. Junker (HSAT) 1938; F. Horst (HAT) 1938, 19643; F. Nötscher (EB) 1948; K. Elliger (ATD) 1949, 19828; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; C. L. Taylor (IB) 1956; C. A. Keller (CAT) 1971, 19902; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1975; J. D. W. Watts (CNEB) 1975; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 1978, 19852; A. Deissler (NEB) 1984; R. L. Smith (WBC) 1984; B. Renaud (Sources Bibliques) 1987; O. P. Robertson (NICOT) 1990; J. J. M. Roberts (OTL) 1991; K. Seybold (ZBK) 1991; K. Spronk (HCOT) 1997 (lit.!).

Monographs and articles: H. Gunkel, “Nahum 1”, ZAW 13 (1893), 223–244; C. J. Goslinga, Nahums Godsspraak tegen Nineve, Zutphen 1923; P. Humbert, “Essay d’analyse de Nahoum 1,2–2,3”, ZAW 44 (1926), 266–280; id., “La vision de Nahoum 2,4–11”, AfO 5 (1928), 14–19; id., “Le problème du livre de Nahoum”, RHPhR 12 (1932), 1–15; A. Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum, Uppsala 1947; W. A. Maier, The Book of Nahum, St. Louis 1959; M. Bi“, Sophonie, Nahum, Habakuk (Lectio Divina 48), Paris 1968; J. Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (WMANT 35), NeukirchenVluyn 1970; C. A. Keller, “Die theologische Bewältigung der geschichtlichen Wirklichkeit in der Prophetie Nahums”, VT 22 (1972), 399–419; H. Schulz, Das Buch Nahum. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung (BZAW 129), Berlin 1973; K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (Biblica et Orientalia 26), Rome 1973; id., “Treaty Curses and the Book of Nahum”, CBQ 34

106 None of the minor prophets would appear to equal the loftiness, fervency and spiritual dauntlessness of Nahum.

the prophetic literature

387

(1973), 179–187; id., “The Divine Warrior and the War of Yahweh in Nahum”, in: M. Ward (ed.), Biblical Studies and Contemporary Thought, Sommerville MA 1975, pp. 68–76; id., “More Philological Studies in Nahum”, JNSL 7 (1979), 1–12; A. S. van der Woude, “The Book of Nahum: A Letter Written in Exile”, OTS 20 (1977), 108–126; B. Becking, “Is het boek Nahum een literaire eenheid?”, NTT 32 (1978), 107–124; id., “Divine Wrath and the Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Nahum”, SJOT 9 (1995), 277–296; R. J. Coggins, “In Wrath Remember Mercy. A Commentary on the Book of Nahum”, in: id. and S. P. Re’emi, Israel Among the Nations (International Theological Commentary), Grand Rapids 1985, pp. 1–63; D. L. Christensen, “The Book of Nahum: The Question of Authority within the Canonical Process”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31 (1988), 51–58; id., “The Book of Nahum as a Liturgical Composition: A Prosodic Analysis”, ibid. 32 (1989), 159–169; B. Renaud, “La composition du livre de Nahum. Une proposition”, ZAW 99 (1987), 198–219; A. J. O. van der Wal, Nahum, Habakuk. A Classiﬁed Bibliography, Amsterdam 1988; K. Seybold, Profane Prophetie. Studien zum Buch Nahum (SBS 135), Stuttgart 1989; R. Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1991; M. A. Sweeney, “Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum”, ZAW 104 (1992), 364–377; H. G. L. Peels, “Voed het oud vertrouwen weder”. De Godsopenbaring bij Nahum, Kampen 1993; Th. Lescow, “Die Komposition der Bücher Nahum und Habakuk”, BN 77 (1995), 59–85; K. Spronk (and N. H. Ridderbos), Worstelen met een wrekende God. De uitleg van het boek Nahum, Kampen 1995; K. Spronk, “Acrostics in the Book of Nahum”, ZAW 110 (1998), 209–222.

Direct information concerning the person of Nahum (“comforter”; lxx: Naoum; V: Nahum) and the period he was active as a prophet are not available to us. The superscription of his book (“oracle concerning Nineveh”: 1:1a) makes it clear, nevertheless, that he must have been at work prior to the fall of the Assyrian capital (612 BCE). Nah. 3:8 alludes to the conquest of the Egyptian Nile city of NoAmon (Thebes) by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in 664 BCE. Given the fact that the Egyptians were able to regain their independence fairly quickly, the reference to the fall of Thebes would appear to serve as an example of what was about to happen to Nineveh (3:8–10) and would only have been meaningful if it were not written too long after 664.107 Such a conclusion is in harmony with the fact that the power of the Assyrians was still unbroken at the time of Nahum (1:12; 2:13, Hebr. 2:14; 3:1ﬀ.). It is possible that the revolt of the Babylonian king Shamashshumukin against his

107

See also W. Maier, The Book of Nahum, St. Louis 1959, p. 36.

388

chapter nine

brother Ashurbanipal (652) was the occasion of Nahum’s prophecy concerning the fall of Nineveh (see Goslinga 1923). Scholars consistently refer to Nahum as a cultic prophet from Jerusalem. Spronk (commentary 1997) describes him, however, as a talented writer who was familiar with Assyrian vassal treaties and court annals. In his view Nahum is a pseudonym that alludes to the goal of his writing: to comfort the people of Judah in its suﬀering under Assyrian tyranny. There are no convincing reasons to consider the, at the time common personal name Nahum as an assumed name. For this reason, the suggestion already proposed by Ewald that Nahum belonged to the exiles from the Northern Kingdom deserves serious consideration and is supported by the following: according to Jerome (Corpus Christianorum 76A, 526) Elkosh, Nahum’s place of origin (cf. 1:1b), should be sought in northern Galilee; the book contains many Assyrian loan words; the prophet was clearly familiar with the city of Nineveh (its canals: 2:8; its Ishtar cult: 3:4; its walls of bricks and mortar 3:14f.), but is silent on the religious and social situation in Judah. If Nahum did indeed belong among the (descendants of the) deportees from the Northern Kingdom, then one is at liberty to interpret his book as a letter, sent to Judah from exile in order to comfort his co-religionists (cf. 1:1b; Van der Woude 1977). In line with the superscription of the book, Nahum’s preaching is devoted to the impending downfall of Nineveh and the Assyrian empire. The ﬁrst main subdivision (1:2–14) is introduced with a hymn to yhwh who punishes his enemies and brings redemption to his people (1:2–8). The song exhibits the features of a limited acrostic extending only as far as the middle letter of the Hebrew alphabet.108 It is probable that we are dealing here with a northern Israelite psalm (cf. 1:4b) that has been reworked by the prophet. The song is adapted to the actual situation: Judah must not abandon its trust in yhwh, for the Assyrian empire is doomed to destruction (1:9–11). The appeal is substantiated by a divine oracle, containing a prophecy

108 Cf. A. van Selms, “The Alphabetic Hymn of Nahum 1”, OTWSA 1969, pp. 33–45; S. J. de Vries, “The Acrostic of Nahum in the Jerusalem Liturgy”, VT 16 (1966), 476–481; D. L. Christensen, “The Acrostic of Nahum Reconsidered”, ZAW 87 (1975), 17–30; id., “The Acrostic of Nahum Once Again. A Prosodic Analysis of Nahum 1,1–10”, ZAW 99 (1987), 409–415; M. H. Floyd, “The Chimerical Acrostic of Nahum 1:2–10”, JBL 113 (1994), 421–437; K. Spronk, op. cit., 1998.

the prophetic literature

389

of salvation for Judah (1:12–13) and an announcement of judgement for the king of Assyria (1:14).109 In the second main subdivision (1:15–2:13, Hebr. 2:1–14), Judah is called upon in two parallel text segments to celebrate a feast, because the enemy is no longer to set foot in the land (1:15, Hebr. 2:1) and yhwh is about to restore “the majesty of Jacob” (2:1–2, Hebr. 2:2–3). An artiﬁcial description of the fall of Nineveh follows based on the prophet’s vision thereof (2:3–10, Hebr. 2:4–11), which is concluded with a mocking song against Assyria and its king (2:11–13, Hebr. 2:12–14). The third main subdivision contains a second poem concerning the fall of Nineveh (3:1–19) in which the following can be distinguished: a woe cry over the Assyrian capital as a city of bloodshed, deceit and plunder, the nakedness of which God will expose before the eyes of the nations (3:1–7); an announcement of doom in which the fate of Nineveh is compared with that of No-Amon (Thebes; 3:8–17); a mocking song against the king of Assyria (3:18–19). Although scholars have frequently denied the literary unity of the book of Nahum (Seybold 1989, Lescow 1995 and in an extreme fashion Schulz 1973), their arguments remain unwarranted (cf. Spronk, commentary 1997, pp. 3–5). It is implicitly recognised by Humbert (1932) and others, who consider the book to be a liturgy intended for the Israelite New Year’s feast in memory of the destruction of Nineveh. Without challenging their explicit appeal in support of the literary unity of the document, it should be stated nevertheless that the liturgy hypothesis misunderstands the prophetic-visionary character of chapters 2 and 3. The poetic language and style of the book of Nahum has been praised from every side. The prophet reveals himself to be “a man of rare poetic talent, warm emotion, captivating imagination and with an extraordinary gift for depicting what he had seen with his prophetic eye” (Goslinga 1923, p. 116). Nahum is often described as a nationalistic prophet of salvation and, as such, a forerunner of the opponents of Jeremiah. By representing the enemy of his people as the adversary of yhwh and predicting the downfall of the Assyrian empire because it terrorised the

109 The text is perhaps best translated: “I will make your grave into a rubbish heap” (cf. Assyrian kiqillutu).

chapter nine

390

world and abused human rights, however, his preaching is in line to a signiﬁcant degree with the prophecies against the foreign nations, as found elsewhere in the Writing Prophets. It is revealing that the prophet, having described the fall of Nineveh from the Judean perspective (chapter 2), returns to the same theme in chapter 3, only this time from a universal viewpoint. Nahum’s preaching is extremely vertical in its orientation to God (cf. 1:3b–5), whose hand he sees at work in world events. Rooted in such a conviction he was able to oﬀer comfort to his people in circumstances that appeared at ﬁrst sight to leave little if any room for hope and ultimate liberation. 8. Habakkuk The righteous shall live by their faith (2:4b)

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; B. Duhm, Das Buch Habakuk, Tübingen 1906; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; W. H. Ward (ICC) 1911 (1965); W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; E. Sellin (KAT1) 19302.3; G. Smit (TU) 1934; H. Junker (HSAT) 1938; K. Elliger (ATD) 1949, 19828; J. Ridderbos (KV) 19522; C. L. Taylor (IB) 1956; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; F. Nötscher (EB) 19572; F. Horst (HAT) 19643; C. A. Keller (CAT) 1971, 19902; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1975; J. D. W. Watts (CNEB) 1975; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 1978, 19852; A. Deissler (NEB) 1984; R. L. Smith (WBC) 1984; O. P. Robertson (NICOT) 1990; J. J. M. Roberts (OTL) 1991; K. Seybold (ZBK) 1991; C. van Leeuwen (TT) 1996.

Monographs and articles: D. J. van Katwijk, De profetie van Habakuk, Rotterdam 1912; H. H. Walker and N. W. Lund, “The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk”, JBL 53 (1934), 355–370; P. Humbert, Problèmes du livre d’Habacuc (Mémoires de l’Université de Neuchâtel), Neuchâtel 1944; E. Nielsen, “The Righteous and the Wicked in Habaqquq”, Studia Theologica 6 (1953), 54–78; W. Vischer, Der Prophet Habakuk, Neukirchen 1958; J. A. Sanders, “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul and the Old Testament”, Journal of Religion 39 (1959), 232–243; J. Jeremias, Theophanie. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1965; id., Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (WMANT 35), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970; M. Bi“, Sophonie, Nahum, Habaquq (Lectio Divina 48), Paris 1968; W. H. Brownlee, “The Composition of Habakkuk”, in: Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, Paris 1971, pp. 255–275; C. A. Keller, “Die Eigenart der Prophetie Habakuks”, ZAW

the prophetic literature

391

85 (1973), 156–167; D. E. Gowan, The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk, Atlanta GA 1976; P. Jöcken, Das Buch Habakuk. Darstellung der Geschichte seiner kritischen Erforschung mit einer Beurteilung (BBB 48), Cologne-Bonn 1977; id., “War Habakuk ein Kultprophet?”, in: H. J. Fabry (ed.), Bausteine biblischer Theologie. Festschrift für G. J. Botterweck (BBB 50), Cologne-Bonn 1977, pp. 319–332; E. Otto, “Die Stellung der Wehe-Worte in der Verkündigung des Propheten Habakuk”, ZAW 89 (1977), 73–107; id., “Die Theologie des Buches Habakuk”, VT 35 (1985), 274–295; J. G. Janzen, “Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk”, CBQ 44 (1982), 394–414; D. Bratcher, The Theological Message of Habakkuk, Richmond VA 1984; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Habakuk und das Problem des leidenden saddîq”, ZAW 98 (1986), 400–415; A. J. O. van der Wal, Nahum, Habakkuk. A Classiﬁed Bibliography, Amsterdam 1988; M. A. Sweeney, “Structure, Genre and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk”, VT 41 (1991), 63–83; R. D. Haak, Habakkuk (SVT 44), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1992; R. Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1994; Th. Lescow, “Die Komposition der Bücher Nahum und Habakuk”, BN 77 (1995), 59–85.

We know nothing more about the person of Habakkuk than what we can determine from the book that bears his unusual name (lxx: Ambakoum/Abbakoum; V: Habacuc/Abacuc), which designates a garden plant in Assyrian. Many consider him to have been a cultic prophet associated with the temple in Jerusalem, basing themselves on the presence of the term “prophet” (nabî ") in the superscriptions of 1:1 and 3:1, the manner whereby he received his revelations (2:1; 3:2, 16) and associations with cultic poetry evident in the text of the book. None of the aforementioned arguments, however, provides conclusive proof that Habakkuk belonged among the professional prophets in Jerusalem.110 In the document that bears his name, emphasis is placed on the prophet as individual, struggling with the problem of how God can look upon and tolerate the suﬀering of the righteous. While his book bears witness to profound human lament and visionary experience, it nowhere states that the revelations he received were to be passed on to others orally as was commonly required of other prophets. A variety of opinions exist with respect to the period in which Habakkuk lived. Duhm (commentary 1906) and others considered him to be a contemporary of Alexander the Great, but were only able to maintain their hypothesis by scrapping the designation 110

Cf. P. Jöcken, op. cit., 1977, pp. 319–332.

392

chapter nine

“Chaldeans” as a reference to the Babylonians in Hab. 1:6 and changing it to read “Kittites” as a reference to the Greeks. Research initiated by Humbert (1944) into the vocabulary and linguistic usage of the prophet, however, has demonstrated convincingly that Habakkuk’s visionary experiences took place around 600 BCE and that his style exhibits both prophetic and liturgical characteristics. Such a dating is conﬁrmed by 3:16c, which alludes to “the people who attack us in hordes”. Reference is clearly being made at this juncture to the raids carried out by the Babylonians and others against Judah following Johoiakim’s defection from King Nebuchadnezzar II (cf. 2 Kgs 24:2). Habakkuk remains silent, however, concerning the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians during the reign of Jehoiakim in 597 BCE. The content of chapters 1–2 probably stems, therefore, from around 604, that of chapter 3 (with the exception of the concluding verses) from around 600 BCE. After the superscription (1:1), the book can be subdivided as follows: 1:2–4 1:5–11 1:12–17

2:1–20 3:1–19

a complaint addressed to yhwh on account of the injustices that prevail in Judah a divine oracle concerning the advent of the invincible Chaldeans a second complaint addressed to yhwh on account of the high-handed and cruel behaviour of the Chaldeans and their king God’s response to the preceding complaint and the demise of the Chaldean ruler a vision granted to the prophet at a later date that was transformed into a song of the community.

The pericopes of the book outlined above form a literary unity and can be read in a logical sequence. Following the complaint concerning the social abuses that prevailed in Judah during the reign of King Jehoiakim (1:2–4),111 God announces the arrival of the much feared Chaldeans who are to punish the nations and Judah in particular as the rod of His discipline (1:5–11). The prophet responds with a further complaint, arguing that he cannot understand how God could make use of such a cruel king as that of the Babylonians,

111 M. D. Johnson, “The Paralysis of Torah in Habakkuk I 4”, VT 35 (1985), 257–266.

the prophetic literature

393

who was well-known for his inhuman deeds, as his instrument (1:12–17). While waiting in his watch tower for an answer from yhwh he is granted a revelation and told to write it down on a large tablet so that those who were able to read could read it. The revelation announces the downfall of the cruel leader and the preservation of the righteous that remain faithful to God (2:1–5).112 The fall of the Babylonian king is elucidated in the following verses in the form of a number of woe cries placed on the lips of the gathered nations (2:6–20). These verses should not, therefore, be disconnected from those that precede them (cf. Otto 1977; otherwise Jeremias 1970). Of the ﬁve woe cries, the third (2:12–14) and the ﬁfth (2:18–20) stem from a later date, lacking the threat addressed against the oppressor and the word-play that characterises the other woe cries. Chapter 3, the “psalm of Habakkuk”,113 is in origin a rendition of the vision granted the prophet a number of years later. In addition to Habakkuk’s reactions to the actual event and the vision (3:2, 16) it describes the epiphany of God from the south (Teman and Mount

112 W. H. Brownlee, “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk”, JBL 82 (1963), 319–325; A. S. van der Woude, “Der Gerechte wird durch seine Treue leben. Erwägungen zu Habakuk 2:4–5”, in; W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude (eds.), Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen dedicata, Wageningen 1966, pp. 367–375; id., Habakuk 2,4, ZAW 82 (1970), 281–282; S. Schreiner, “Erwägungen zum Text von Hab 2,4–5”, ZAW 86 (1974), 538–542; J. A. Emerton, “The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk II 4–5”, JThS 28 (1977), 1–18; J. G. Janzen, “Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances”, HThR 73 (1980), 53–78; J. M. Scott, “A New Approach to Habakkuk II 4–5a”, VT 35 (1985), 330–340. 113 Dom Bévenot, “Le cantique d’Habacuc”, RB 42 (1933), 499–525; W. J. Irwin, “The Psalm of Habakkuk”, JNES 1 (1942), 10–40; id., “The Mythological Background of Habakkuk”, Chapter 3, JNES 15 (1956), 47–50; W. F. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk”, in: H. H. Rowley (ed.), Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (FS Th. H. Robinson), Edinburgh 1950, pp. 1–18; H. Schmidt, “Ein Psalm im Buche Habakuk”, ZAW 62 (1950), 52–63; S. Mowinckel, “Zum Psalm des Habakuk”, TZ 9 (1953), 1–23; P. Béguerie, “Le psaume d’Habacuc”, in: Etudes sur les prophètes d’Israël (Lectio Divina 14), Paris 1954, pp. 53–84; J. H. Eaton, “The Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3”, ZAW 76 (1964), 144–171; E. Margulis, “The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Reconstruction and Interpretation”, ZAW 82 (1970), 409–441; U. Cassuto, “Chapter III of Habakkuk and the Ras Shamra Texts”, in: id., Biblical & Oriental Studies II, Jerusalem 1975, pp. 3–15; G. Fohrer, Das Gebet des Propheten Habakuk (Hab 3:1–16), in: A. Caquot e.a. (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985, pp. 159–167: B. Peckham, “The Vision of Habakkuk”, CBQ 48 (1986), 617–636; T. Hiebert, God of my Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3 (HSM 38), Atlanta GA 1986; id., “The Use of Inclusion in Habakkuk 3”, in: E. R. Follis (ed.), Direction in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Suppl. JSOT 40), Sheﬃeld 1987, pp. 119–140.

394

chapter nine

Paran; 3:3–7), his struggle with the adversary (clearly the Babylonians; 3:8–12), and his ultimate victory (3:13–15). Given the superscription, the doxology and the liturgical term selah, the vision would appear to have been used later by the community as a song and given an eschatological interpretation. It would also appear that 3:17–19, an impressive expression of faith in God at a time of need and the threat of famine, was added to the text at around the same time. The literary analysis we have oﬀered of Habakkuk runs counter to the hypotheses of Sellin and Humbert who maintain that the document represents a prophetic liturgy. If the latter were the case then the various references to the “godless” (1:4, 13; 3:13) c.q. “proud” (2:4, 5) would have to be identiﬁed with one and the same ﬁgure. Such an explanation, however, remains unacceptable. While most references to the “godless” may indeed allude to the king of the Chaldeans, the use of the term in 1:4 refers to the unjust in Judah. Some commentators identify “the godless one” with King Jehoiakim (Humbert 1944, Nielsen 1953). It remains diﬃcult, nevertheless, to argue that the said king had plundered many nations (2:8). In addition, the godless in 3:13 are explicitly distinguished from the anointed one of Israel. Jeremias (1970) identiﬁes the godless with the unjust in Judah, thus considering the woe cries of 2:6–20 as originally addressed against internal Judean enemies and seeing chapter 3 as a description of yhwh’s struggle against the godless in Judah. Such an explanation can only be justiﬁed if one sets 2:1–4(5) apart from the following woe cries. Furthermore, the content of 2:8 and 3:13 contradict the explanation. The majority of commentators are thus inclined to consider the godless as a designation for a foreign enemy, whereby some opt for the Assyrians (Budde, Eissfeldt), others for the Babylonians (Wellhausen, Sellin, Elliger, Keller, Rudolph) and a few for Alexander the Great (Duhm) or even the Seleucids. The vocabulary of Habakkuk alone is suﬃcient to exclude the latter two possibilities. Signiﬁcant objections have also been raised against identiﬁcation with the Assyrians. The pericope 1:12–17 presupposes 1:5–11, in which reference is made to the coming of the Chaldeans (Babylonians). The expression “the godless one” in 1:13 must thus refer to their king. The same is true for chapters 2 and 3 that constitute a response to the complaint of 1:12–17. J. Jeremias (1970) has suggested that the announcement of judgement against the great oppressor in 2:6–20 represents the result of an exilic reworking of the original prophecy of Habakkuk: 2:5b and 2:8, 10b, 13–14, 17–18, 19b, 20 should thus be considered as having been added to the text during the period of the Babylonian exile.

The question that so troubles Habakkuk, namely how God can allow the suﬀering of the righteous, serves as a cohesive force binding

the prophetic literature

395

together the themes of his book (the contestation of faith and the acceptance of faith). While his protest against godlessness in Judah is ﬁercely emotional (1:2–4), the prophet’s resistance to the lawless and self-aggrandising Chaldeans as the rod of God’s punishment (1:12) is even more demonstrative. While the divine response to his complaint oﬀers no reason to explain the why of this incomprehensible event, it does nevertheless oﬀer prospects for the future: Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them, But the righteous live by their faith (2:4).

The second segment of the quoted verse was of unique signiﬁcance in its support for the apostle Paul’s preaching concerning justiﬁcation by faith (in Christ; Rom. 1; 17; Gal. 3:11; cf. also Hebr. 10; 38).114 The book of Habakkuk has enjoyed renewed interest since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls among which a commentary on the book together with the text of the ﬁrst two chapters and an interpolated actualising interpretation related to the history of the Qumran community and the eschaton have been found (see further chapter XIV).115 The manuscript is of exceptional importance for text-critical reasons and for the eschatological explanation ascribed to the preaching of the prophet among certain Jewish circles around the beginning of the Common Era.

9. Zephaniah Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the Lord’s wrath (2:3)

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; J. M. P. Smith (ICC) 1911 (1965); W. Nowack (KHAT) 19223; G. Smit (TU) 1926; E. Sellin (KAT1) 19302.3; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1930, 19492; H. Junker (HSAT) 1938; F. Horst (HAT) 1938, 19643; F. Nötscher (EB) 1948; K. Elliger (ATD) 1949, 19828; D. Deden (BOT) 1953; C. L. Taylor (IB) 1956; C. A. Keller (CAT) 1971, 19902; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1975; J. D. W. Watts (CNEB) 1975; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 1978, 19852; R. L.

114 A. Feuillet, “La citation d’Habacuc II,4 et les premiers chapitres de l’epître aux Romains”, NThS 4 (1959–1960), 52–80; J. A. Fitzmyer, “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament”, in: id., To Advance the Gospel, New York 1981, pp. 236–246. 115 Cf. W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (SBL Monograph Series 24), Missoula MT 1979.

396

chapter nine

Smith (WBC) 1984; B. Renaud (Sources Bibliques) 1987; A. Deissler (NEB) 1988; O. P. Robertson (NICOT) 1990; J. J. M. Roberts (OTL) 1991; K. Seybold (ZBK) 1991; J. Vlaardingerbroek (COT) 1993; A. Berlin (AB) 1994.

Monographs and articles: P. C. Snijman, De profetie van Zefanja, Rotterdam 1913; G. Gerleman, Zephanja textkritisch und literarisch untersucht, Lund 1942; A. S. van der Woude, “Predikte Zefanja een wereldgericht?”, NTT 20 (1965), 1–16; H. Donner, “Die Schwellenhüpfer. Beobachtungen zu Zephanja 1,8f.”, JSS 15 (1970), 42–55; L. Sabottka, Zephanja. Versuch einer Neuübersetzung mit philologischem Kommentar (Biblica et Orientalia 25), Rome 1972; A. S. Kapelrud, The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah, Oslo 1975; G. Langohr, “Le livre de Sophonie et la critique d’authenticite”, EThL 52 (1976), 1–27; id., “Rédaction et composition du livre de Sophonie”, Le Muséon 89 (1976), 51–77; H. Irsigler, Gottesgericht und Jahwetag. Die Komposition Zef 1,1–2,3 untersucht auf der Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches (ATSAT 3), St. Ottilien 1977; G. Krinetzki, Zefanjastudien, Bern und Frankfurt am Main 1977; R. Edler, Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja (FThSt 126), Freiburg im Breisgau 1984; N. Lohﬁnk, “Zefanja und das Israel der Armen”, Bibel und Kirche 39 (1984), 100–108; K. Seybold, Satirische Prophetie: Studien zum Buch Zefanja (SBSt 120), Stuttgart 1985; id., “Die Verwendung von Bildmotiven in der Prophetie Zefanjas”, in: H. Weippert e.a. (eds.), Beiträge zur prophetischen Bildsprache in Israel und Assyrien (OBO 64), Fribourg CH/Göttingen 1985, pp. 30–54; B. Renaud, “Le livre de Sophonie: le jour de yhwh thème structurant de la synthèse rédactionelle”, RSR 60 (1986), 1–33; P. R. House, Zephaniah, A Prophetic Drama ( JSOT Supplement Series 69, Bible and Literature Series 16), Sheﬃeld 1987; I. J. Ball, Jr., Zephaniah: A Rhetorical Study, Berkeley CA 1988; H. Spieckermann, “Dies irae: Der alttestamentliche Befund und seine Vorgeschichte”, VT 39 (1989), 194–208; E. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (BZAW 198), Berlin 1991; M. A. Sweeney, “A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah”, CBQ 53 (1991), 388–408; R. Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1994; M. Weigl, Zefanja und das “Israel der Armen”. Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des Buches Zefanja (Österreichische Biblische Studien 13), Klosterneuburg 1994; W. Dietrich und M. Schwantes (eds.), Der Tag wird kommen. Ein interkontextuelles Gespräch über das Buch des Propheten Zefanja (SBSt 170), Stuttgart 1996; H. D. Neef, “Vom Gottesgericht zum universalen Heil. Komposition und Redaktion des Zephanjabuches”, ZAW 111 (1999), 530–546.

According to the superscription to the book that bears his name, the prophet Zephaniah (“yhwh has protected”; lxx and V: Sophonias) was the great grandson of a certain Hezekiah. Based in part on the unusually long genealogy provided by Zeph. 1:1, scholars have endeav-

the prophetic literature

397

oured to identify the latter with King Hezekiah of Judah. The fact, however, that the designation “the king of Judah”, normally employed elsewhere in the prophetic books, is lacking at this juncture and that the name Hezekiah is written in Hebrew in Zeph. 1:1 in a diﬀerent fashion to that found in the superscriptions to Hosea and Micah, makes such an identiﬁcation improbable.116 The long family tree is most likely intended to avoid any misunderstanding with respect to the prophet’s Judean pedigree since his father’s name, Cushi, can potentially be interpreted as “Ethiopian”. The superscription also tells us that Zephaniah was active as a prophet during the reign of King Josiah (639–609 BCE). The content of the book serves indirectly to conﬁrm and specify this date: the power of the Assyrians is still undiminished (2:13–15) and Assyrian culture still has a hold on Jerusalem (1:8–9). Syncretism prevails in the city (1:4–5) to a degree unacceptable after the cultic reforms of Josiah (622 BCE). The royal palace is governed by ministers and princes (1:8–9), but outside the superscription the king remains unmentioned and one is left with the impression that the governance of city and land was in the hands of some form of privy council during the period of Zephaniah’s prophetic activity. It seems logical, therefore, that we should date the prophet’s public appearance to around 630 BCE, when Josiah was still a minor (cf. 2 Kgs 22:1).117 The suggestion that Zephaniah prophesied in Jerusalem is conﬁrmed by the explicit reference in 1:4 (“this place”) together with the prophet’s familiarity with the topography of the city (1:10–11). The composition of the book gives rise to a number of problems for which no easy answer can be found. Several commentators explain the book on the basis of a number of short pericopes that were later brought together to form larger units. It remains possible, however, that text segments containing diﬀerent literary genres, motifs and accents, need not necessarily be the responsibility of later redactors and may indeed be ascribable to the prophet himself.118 Bearing 116

Alternatively J. Heller, “Zephanjas Ahnenreihe”, VT 21 (1971), 102–104. The suggestion proposed by J. P. Hyatt (“The Date and Background of Zephaniah”, JNES 7 [1948], 25–29) that the prophet enjoyed a period of activity during the reign of King Jehoiakim remains unlikely. L. P. Smith and E. R. Lacheman’s argument that the book represents a pseudepigraphal document from around 200 BCE (“The Authorship of the Book of Zephaniah”, JNES 9 [1950], 137–142) is to be rejected on canon-historical grounds. 118 Cf. A. S. Kapelrud, op. cit., 1975. 117

398

chapter nine

this in mind, we can subdivide the book as follows (excluding the superscription): 1:2–2:3 God’s judgement concerning Jerusalem and Judah on account of their idolatry and lack of righteousness, with special emphasis on the coming Day of the Lord, culminating in a call to humility and conversion 2:4–15 prophecies against foreign nations (Philistines; Moab/Ammon; Ethiopians; Assyrians)119 3:1–8 judgement concerning deﬁant Jerusalem 3:9–20 promises of salvation for Israel The fact that the book of Zephaniah has undergone a number of redactions cannot be denied. The traces thereof are to be found in particular in the prophecies against the Philistines (2:4–7) and Ammon and Moab (2:8–10). Whether the salviﬁc prophecies of 3:14–20, which are strongly reminiscent in style of Deutero-Isaiah, should be considered inauthentic remains to be seen (see, for example, Vlaardingerbroek, commentary 1993). Whatever the case, 3:20 should be understood as exilic in origin.

In light of the fact that Zeph. 3:3–4 is already presupposed in Ezek. 22:23–31, one is obliged to account for the possibility that the book was codiﬁed by the prophet himself or shortly after his appearance. The announcement of the day of yhwh’s judgement enjoys a central place in the preaching of Zephaniah. While the prophet’s conception of the Day of the Lord does not diﬀer in essence from that of Amos (5:18–20) and Isaiah (2:10–22), it nevertheless exhibits sharper contours. The familiar Dies irae, dies illa ascribed to Thomas of Celano (died ± 1225) is based on the representation of the Day of the Lord found in Zeph. 1:14–16. While the judgement of the foreign nations (2:4–15) is not further motivated in the book of Zephaniah, the reasons for the judgement of Jerusalem and Judah are clearly and explicitly stated: idolatry (1:4–5), conformity to worldly standards (1:8), self-suﬃciency (1:12–13), violence and deceit (1:9; 3:3), the inﬁdelity of Jerusalem’s prophets and the sacrilegious behaviour of her priests (3:4).

119 D. L. Christensen, “Zephaniah 2:4–15: A Theological Basis for Josiah’s Program of Political Expansion”, CBQ 46 (1984), 669–682; D. H. Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 (Biblical Interpretation Series 13), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995.

the prophetic literature

399

In the last analysis Zephaniah believes that the intervention of a merciful God will ultimately bring salvation by triumphing over human pride (cf. Isa. 2:12). yhwh will give his people120 “other, pure lips, so that all of them may call on the name of the Lord” (3:9), and He will leave a “humble and lowly people” in Israel’s midst, and they shall seek refuge in the name of the Lord (3:12). 10. Haggai Is it a time for you yourselves to live in your panelled houses, while this house lies in ruins? (1:4)

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; H. G. A. Mitchell (ICC) 1912 (1961); W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; G. Smit (TU) 1926; E. Sellin (KAT 1) 19302.3; H. Junker (HSAT) 1938; K. Elliger (ATD) 1949, 19828; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1952; D. Deden (BOT) 1956; D. W. Thomas (IB) 1956; F. Nötscher (EB) 19572; F. Horst (HAT) 19643; J. L. Koole (COT) 1967; T. Chary (Sources Bibliques) 1969; W. Rudolph (KAT 2) 1976; R. A. Mason (CNEB) 1977; S. Amsler (CAT) 1981, 19882; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 1982; D. L. Petersen (OTL) 1984; R. L. Smith (WBC) 1984; H. W. Wolﬀ (BK) 1986; P. A. Verhoef (NICOT) 1987; C. L. and E. M. Meyers (AB) 1987; A. Deissler (NEB) 1988; H. Graf Reventlow (ATD) 1993.

Monographs and articles: J. W. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner. Die grundlegende Scheidung von Judentum und Heidentum (BWAT 3), Leipzig 1908; P. R. Ackroyd, “Studies in the Book of Haggai”, JJS 2 (1951), 163–176, 3 (1952), 1–13; id., “The Book of Haggai and Zechariah I–VIII”, ibid., 151–156; id., Exile and Restoration, London 1968, 19763, pp. 153–170; H. W. Wolﬀ, Haggai (BSt 1), NeukirchenVluyn 1951; F. S. North, “Critical Analysis of the Book of Haggai”, ZAW 68 (1956), 25–46; R. T. Siebeneck, “The Messianism of Aggeus and ProtoZacharias”, CBQ 19 (1957), 312–328; H. H. Grosheide, De terugkeer uit de ballingschap (Exegetica 2/4), Den Haag 1957; F. Hesse, Haggai, in: A. Kuschke (ed.), Verbannung und Heimkehr (FS W. Rudolph), Tübingen 1961, pp. 109–134; K. Galling, “Serubbabel und der Hohepriester beim Wiederaufbau des Tempels in Jerusalem”, in: id., Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter,

120 The original reading would appear to be “my people” rather than “peoples”; cf. Vlaardingerbroek, op. cit. (commentary) 1993, p. 190.

400

chapter nine

Tübingen 1964, pp. 127–148; K. Koch, “Haggais unreines Volk”, ZAW 79 (1967), 52–66; W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8. Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10), Assen 1967; G. Sauer, “Serubbabel in der Sicht Haggais und Sacharjas”, in: F. Maass (ed.), Das ferne und nahe Wort (FS L. Rost; BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, pp. 199–207; H. G. May, “‘This People’ and ‘This Nation’ in Haggai”, VT 18 (1968), 190–197; O. H. Steck, “Zu Haggai 1,2–11”, ZAW 83 (1971), 355–379; K. M. Beyse, Serubbabel und die Königserwartungen der Propheten Haggai und Sacharja (Arbeiten zur Theologie I, 48), Stuttgart 1972; K. Seybold, “Die Königserwartung bei den Propheten Haggai und Sacharja”, Judaica 28 (1972), 69–78; R. A. Mason, “The Purpose of the “Editorial Framework” of the Book of Haggai”, VT 27 (1977), 413–421; id., “The Prophets of the Restoration”, in: R. Coggins, A. Philipps and M. A. Knibb (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, pp. 137–154; D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBL Monograph Ser. 23), Missoula MT 1977; R. J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1987; T. Unger, “Noch einmal: Haggais unreines Volk”, ZAW 103 (1991), 210–225; L. Bauer, Zeit des Zweiten Tempels—Zeit der Gerechtigkeit. Zur sozio-ökonomischen Konzeption im Haggai-Sacharja-Maleachi-Korpus (BEATAJ 31), Frankfurt am Main-BernNew York 1992; Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (Suppl. JSOT 150), Sheﬃeld 1993.

In spite of the fact that the prophet Haggai (“festival child”; lxx: Aggaios; V: Aggaeus) is spoken of elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Ezra 5:1; 6:14), we still know virtually nothing about him. In contrast to his fellow prophet and contemporary Zechariah, Haggai probably belonged to the population group that had remained in Judah after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. While his designation as a “prophet” (nabî "; 1:1,12; 2:2, Hebr. 2:1) makes it possible that he was a cultic functionary, this is far from certain. A great deal more detail is available to us with respect to the time and place of Haggai’s prophetic activity. It would appear from his prophecies that he preached between 29th August and 18th December 520 BCE, thus in the second year of the reign of the Persian king Darius I (522–486). Beyond Jerusalem no other options have been suggested for the place in which he was active as a prophet. Haggai devoted himself with heart and soul to the reconstruction of the temple, which had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 587. Shortly after permission was granted by the Persian king Cyrus (Kores) for the return of the Judean exiles, the altar of burnt oﬀerings was restored to use (cf. Ezra 3:1ﬀ.). The weak economic situation in

the prophetic literature

401

Judah and Jerusalem, however, prevented the complete rebuilding of the temple. Haggai interpreted the economic situation of the city as a consequence of the people’s reluctance to restore the house of yhwh, while they themselves “hurry about for their own houses” (1:9). The prophet is successfully able to inspire the governor Zerubbabel and the High Priest Joshua together with the people to set about the reconstruction of the sanctuary, foreseeing the salutary return of yhwh to his people after the temple had been restored (1:8; 2:20, Hebr. 2:19). With its 38 verses, the Book of Haggai is among the shortest books of the Old Testament, indeed only Obadiah is shorter. It contains four prophetic speeches: 1:4–11

a call for the reconstruction of the temple preceded by a complaint addressed to Zerubbabel and Joshua concerning the people’s opinion that the time for reconstruction had not yet come 2:1b–10 an exhortation to set about the work of rebuilding the temple with fervour accompanied by a promise that the nations will bring their treasures there and that the glory of the new temple will overshadow the temple of Solomon (Hebr. 1:15b-9) 2:16–20 the promise of material blessing after the beginning of the reconstruction of the temple walls attached to a request for priestly guidance in matters of purity and impurity (Hebr. 2:15–19) 2:21–24 a prophecy concerning the overthrow of the kingdoms of the nations and the designation of Zerubbabel, the grandson of King Jehoiakin as future messianic king (Hebr. 2:20–23) The publisher of the book located the prophecies of Haggai within a redactional framework, thus giving the present document the character of an historical report concerning the prophet’s activity and a ﬁrst reaction to his preaching (1:12–2:1a, Hebr. 1:12–15a). We consider it highly likely that the work, in its present form, came into existence prior to the completion of the reconstruction of the temple in 515 BCE, because the salviﬁc expectations associated with the restoration of the sanctuary and with Zerubbabel expressed therein did not come about.

402

chapter nine

While some have been inclined to consider the book of Haggai as an excerpt from a construction chronicle, it contains too little detailed information on the reconstruction of the temple to be understood in this way. A further hypothesis that suggests we read the text as a piece propaganda in support of the reconstruction of the temple “in order to help the Jewish community to hold ﬁrm in the years ahead” (Koole, commentary 1967) is equally unconvincing since the book was published by a redactor and not the prophet himself. Likewise, the thesis of Rudolph (commentary 1976), which sees the document as an apology for Haggai directed against his fellow prophet Zechariah “whose activities caused such a furore that there was a danger that the role of Haggai would be underestimated”, lacks suﬃcient support from the text we have at our disposal. The thesis defended by Rothstein (1908) and supported by many that Hagg. 2:16–20 (Hebr. 2:15–19) was originally located after 2:1a (Hebr. 1:15a) and that the expression “this people, this nation” in 2:15 (Hebr. 2:14) referred to the Samaritans must be rejected (cf. Koch 1967). Hagg. 2:16–20 (Hebr. 2:15–19) does not ﬁt after 2:1a (Hebr. 1:15a), because “now then” (2:16, Hebr. 2:15) always represents the turning point in an argument and thus requires the preceding description of a certain situation. In addition, Haggai never makes an appeal in the style of 2:16 (Hebr. 2:15) at the beginning of a prophecy (cf. 1:5 and 2:5, Hebr. 2:4). Koch (1967) has convincingly argued that form-critical considerations support the literary unity of 2:11–20 (Hebr. 2:10–19) and that the expression “this people and that nation” refers to the population of Judah and Jerusalem.

A constitutive element of Haggai’s preaching is represented by his call to renewed obedience to yhwh made concrete in his listener’s actual engagement in the reconstruction of the sanctuary in Jerusalem. The prophet endeavoured to breathe new life into the theology of the temple and thereby employed points of association in his preaching, albeit interpreted in an eschatological way, with pre-exilic Zion theology. While his Naherwartung of the kingdom of salvation remained unfulﬁlled, he was nevertheless able to oﬀer a discouraged people with all their material concerns the perspective of a new future. On account of his engagement on behalf of the temple, together with Zechariah he oﬀered Judaism a powerful source of spiritual vigour that was to be of decisive signiﬁcance for the national and religious unity of Israel in the period they were about to face. 11. Zechariah The preaching of Zechariah (“yhwh has remembered”; lxx: Zacharias; V: Zaccharias) is only found in chapters 1–8 of the book that bears

the prophetic literature

403

his name. Chapters 9–14, which is often referred to as DeuteroZechariah (“Second Zechariah”), were written by diﬀerent authors and stem from a later period to that of the prophet of 1–8. For this reason both segments of the book deserve to be treated separately. a) Zechariah 1–8 Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit (4:6)

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; H. G. A. Mitchell (ICC) 1912 (1961); W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; G. Smit (TU) 1926; E. Sellin (KAT 1) 19302.3; H. Junker (HSAT) 1938; K. Elliger (ATD) 1949, 19828; J. Ridderbos (KV) 19522; D. Deden (BOT) 1956; D. W. Thomas (IB) 1956; F. Nötscher (EB) 19572; R. Brunner (ZBK) 1960; F. Horst (HAT) 19643; T. Chary (Sources Bibliques) 1969; W. Rudolph (KAT 2) 1976; R. A. Mason (CNEB) 1977; S. Amsler (CAT) 1981, 19882; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 1984; R. L. Smith (WBC) 1984; D. L. Petersen (OTL) 1984; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers (AB) 1987; A. Deissler (NEB) 1988; H. Graf Reventlow (ATD) 1993; R. Hanhart (BK) 1998.

Monographs and articles: J. J. P. Valeton, De nachtgezichten van Zacharia, Nijmegen 1909; S. A. Cook, “The Age of Zerubbabel”, in: Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Th. H. Robinson, Edinburgh 1950, pp. 19–36; K. Galling, “Die Exilswende in der Sicht des Propheten Sacharja”, VT 2 (1952), 18–36; E. Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit (FRLANT 69), Göttingen 1956; F. Horst, “Die Visionsschilderungen der alttestamentlichen Propheten”, Evangelische Theologie 20 (1960), 193–205; K. Galling, Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter, Tübingen 1964; W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8 (SSN 10), Assen 1967; P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (OTL), London 1968, 19722; A. Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie. Un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil (Etudes Bibliques), Paris-Louvain 1969; P. R. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia (The New Clarendon Bible, OT IV), Oxford 1970; E. Lipinsky, “Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie”, VT 20 (1970), 25–55; R. J. Cliﬀord, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, Cambridge, Mass. 1972; S. Amsler, “Sacharie et l’origine de l’apocalyptique, in: Congress Volume Uppsala 1971 (SVT 22), Leiden 1972, pp. 227–231; K. Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau. Die Visionen des Propheten Sacharja (SBSt 70), Stuttgart 1974; D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBL Monogr. Series 23), Missoula MT 1977; S. Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSM 30), Chico CA 1980; R. J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1987;

404

chapter nine

H. G. Schöttler, Gott inmitten seines Volkes. Die Neuordnung des Gottesvolkes nach Sach 1–6 (Trierer Theologische Studien 43), Trier 1987; A. S. van der Woude, “Serubbabel und die messianischen Erwartungen des Propheten Sacharja”, ZAW 100 (1988, Supplement), 138–156; id., “Zion as Primeval Stone in Zechariah 3 and 4”, in: W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context. Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham (Suppl. JSOT 48), Sheﬃeld 1988, pp. 237– 248; L. Bauer, Zeit des zweiten Tempels 1992 (see under Haggai); M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (Suppl. JSOT 130), Sheﬃeld 1992; Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (Suppl. JSOT 150), Sheﬃeld 1993; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End. Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS 35), LeidenNew York-Cologne 1996, pp. 16–88.

The prophet Zechariah was a younger contemporary of Haggai who, like the latter, dedicated himself to the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Zech. 1:16; 4:9; Ezra 5:1–2; 6:14). According to Zech. 1:1 and 1:7, he was the son of a certain Berechiah and the grandson of Iddo. Elsewhere he is referred to as the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1; 6:14; cf. Neh. 12:16). This need not imply a contradiction since the Hebrew term for “son” in the Old Testament can also be used for grandson. It is possible, however, that the designation “son of Iddo” is a reference to the priestly family from which Zechariah stemmed (cf. Neh. 12:4,16). The latter is conﬁrmed by the prophet’s interest in the High Priest Joshua (3:1ﬀ.), his portrayal of the puriﬁcation of the temple precincts (3:8ﬀ.) and his prediction of a diarchic leadership of High Priest and messianic king in the future time of salvation (4:14; 6:13). Based on the list of priests and Levites returning from the Babylonian exile recorded in Neh. 12:1–5, which also includes the name Iddo, we can conclude that Zechariah was born in the diaspora and returned to Jerusalem with his family after the fall of the Babylonian empire. The information available to us suggests that Zechariah not only prophesied from 520 (Zech. 1:1) to 518 (Zech. 7:1), but also a couple of years later: the prophecy of Zechariah 3 seems to stem from the period immediately after the dedication of the temple in 515 BCE. The content of Zechariah 1–8 can be subdivided into three segments, each with its own date: 1:1–6 a call to repentance (October/November 520) 1:7–6:15 the nocturnal visions (February 519) I the horsemen II the four horns and the four blacksmiths

the prophetic literature

7:1–8:23

405

III the man with the measuring line (IV) the puriﬁcation of Joshua and the temple precincts V the lamp stand and the two olives VI the ﬂying scroll VII the woman and the ephah VIII the four chariots the “sermon for the fast” (December 518).

It will be apparent from the above that the major part of Zechariah 1–8 consists of the prophet’s nocturnal visions.121 The latter are written in an I-style cycle of seven visions to which the present fourth revelation, which diﬀers from the others in terms of form, was added at a later date. The original seven visions exhibit a strikingly symmetrical structure surrounding the central vision (V) with its uncharacteristically static formulation: the ﬁrst three are addressed centripetally to Jerusalem, the ﬁnal three centrifugally to the foreigner; the ﬁnal vision is the pendant of the ﬁrst. In terms of composition, the nocturnal visions of Zechariah, with their depiction of the content of the vision followed by an explanation, are reminiscent of the visions granted to Amos (7:1ﬀ.) and Jeremiah (1:13ﬀ.), although the elaboration thereof is much more extensive. Moreover, Zechariah’s nocturnal visions oﬀer a central place to the interpreting angel (angelus interpres) who represents yhwh’s messenger and the prophet’s dialogue partner, responding to the questions raised by the prophet in response to the vision. In contrast to current theories, the present author is of the opinion that the prophecies of 1:16–17, 2:6–13 (Hebr. 2:10–17), 4:6ab–10a and 6:9–15 should be considered an integral part of nocturnal visions I, III, V and VIII respectively, and not as later statements stemming from the diﬀerent periods of Zechariah’s prophetic activity. There is reason enough to accept that he experienced all seven visions in a single night (1:7–8) and that he published them himself in a memoir written by his own hand.

121

J. W. Rothstein, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (BWAT 8), Leipzig 1910; L. G. Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja. Eine exegetische Studie, Lund 1950; M. Bi“, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964; K. Seybold, op. cit., 1974; C. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (FRLANT 117), Göttingen 1977; O. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst (SBSt 84/5), Stuttgart 1977; D. L. Petersen, “Zechariah’s Visions. A Theological Perspective”, VT 34 (1984), 195–206; H. G. Schöttler, op. cit., 1987.

406

chapter nine

The nocturnal visions bear witness to the unconditional salvation that God desires to realise on behalf of his people. God is ﬁlled with zeal for his own, although external signs thereof are not immediately clear (I: 1:8–17). The world powers that have scattered Judah shall be cast to the ground (II: 1:18–21, Hebr. 2:1–4). Jerusalem shall provide enough space for those who return to her: God shall protect the city as a wall of ﬁre while the nations shall submit to Israel and many shall join themselves to the Lord (III: 2:1–13, Hebr. 2:5–17). As yhwh’s dwelling place, Mount Zion shall become the centre of the world, in which the High Priest and the king shall reign in the time of salvation (V: 4:1–14).122 Hidden evil shall be punished (VI: 5:1–4) and the stain of sin shall be removed from the land (VII: 5:5–11).123 Heavenly armies shall set forth in order to submit the world to God, and those who live far oﬀ shall be driven by His Spirit to come and assist in the construction of the messianic temple, once the messianic king and the High Priest of the coming time of salvation have appeared (VIII: 6:1–15). Our opinion that the prophecies of 1:16–17, 2:6–13 (Hebr. 2:10–17), 4:6ab–10a and 6:9–15 should not be detached from nocturnal visions I, III, V and VIII deserves further explanation. The pericope 1:16–17 harks back to the preceding text and constitutes the point of the ﬁrst vision. The composition of 1:14–17 exhibits remarkable parallels with 8:2–8 (Petitjean 1969). The pericope 2:6–13 (Hebr. 2:10–17) is barely thinkable without the preceding text, since it would appear from 2:8 (Hebr. 2:12) that the interpreting angel is speaking and not Zechariah. The text of this verse only ﬁts appropriately on the lips of the former (“to obtain glory He [= God] sent me regarding the nations that plundered you”). The following statement: “Then you shall know that the Lord of Hosts sent me (to you)” (2:9, Hebr. 2:13; 2:11, Hebr. 2:15; cf. 4:9; 6:15) likewise stems from the interpreting angel. The pericope 4:6ab–10a, which scholars endeavour to explain as a collection of prophecies of Zechariah inserted, according to the majority of commentators, into the original text of the ﬁfth vision, belongs in fact to the nocturnal vision. Without it several elements of the said vision would be impossible to explain. As Beuken (1967) has demonstrated, the 122 An alternative explanation of the vision is oﬀered by H. Gese, op. cit., 1970, p. 29: “Der kultische Leuchter ist das zeichenhafte Sein der göttlichen Epiphanie . . . und die beiden Gesalbten repräsentieren die neue Kultgemeinde, den Priester und den davidischen Tempelbauer, den neuen Kultus, durch den Gott seine doxa in die Welt ausstrahlt”. 123 For an alternative interpretation of the vision of the woman and the ephah see Ch. Uehlinger, “Die Frau im Efa (Sach 5,5–11). Eine Programmvision von der Abschiebung der Göttin”, Bibel und Kirche 49 (1994), 93–103.

the prophetic literature

407

expression “this is the word of yhwh to Zerubbabel” (4:6) is not used elsewhere as the introduction to an independent prophecy but always refers that that which precedes it. If one is inclined to consider 4:6ab–10a as a later interpolation then one will be obliged to emend 9b “then you (s) shall know” to read “then you (pl) shall know”, since “you (s)” only has meaning if the prophet himself is being addressed and not if he is the speaker. The text ﬁts perfectly in the context, however, if the formula employed in 9b stems from the interpreting angel (cf. also 2:9, 11, Hebr. 2:13, 15). In light of the fact that the same formula returns in 6:9–15, one is obliged to argue that the speaker is the interpreting angel here also and not God (who naturally cannot be sent). Furthermore, the ﬁnal vision would be left with an unsatisfactory ending if one maintains the conclusion thereof in 6:8. The basic text raises serious grammatical objections to the frequently proposed interpolation of 6:15a to 6:8.

If one dates the nocturnal visions (with the exception of the fourth) to the ﬁrst part of 519 BCE, then the “sermon for the fast” of chapters 7 and 8 must have been preached roughly two years later. It oﬀers a response to a certain Sharezer from Bethel who asks the prophet whether it is necessary to continue fasting in memory of the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE now that the restoration of the temple is in sight. The prophet declares that obedience to the will of God is better than fasting, whereby a person only serves himself, and that the days of abstinence are to be transformed into festival days because God shall turn to his people once again. With the exception of 8:8–13, verses reminiscent of the preaching of Haggai, it is possible to understand the “sermon for the fast” as a literary unity, although the majority of exegetes consider it to be a redactional collection of prophecies stemming from a variety of diﬀerent times. The Deuteronomistic style, recognisable in a number of passages of the “sermon for the fast”, has led several scholars to argue that it does not stem from Zechariah, at least in its present form. While it cannot be denied that parts of chapters 7 and 8 do indeed exhibit traces of redactional reworking, there is nothing to prevent us from ascribing the greater part of the “sermon for the fast” to Zechariah himself, especially if one is willing to accept the possibility of Deuteronomistic inﬂuence in his preaching style. The same is true for the call to conversion in 1:2–6. The fact that chapters 7–8 make the preservation of God’s gift of salvation dependent on a life of obedience to God’s commandments needs to stand in contrast to the unconditional character of the granting of salvation promised in the nocturnal visions (cf., for that matter, 6:15b).

chapter nine

408

The content of Zechariah’s preaching can be summarised in a single sentence: the time of God’s anger, expressed in exile and socioeconomic misery, is going to make way for a time of God’s merciful beneﬁcence in which the nations will also share. In line with Haggai, Zechariah harks back thematically to pre-exilic Zion theology, which he likewise interprets in eschatological terms. In the present author’s opinion, the suggestion that the prophet initially considered Zerubbabel to be the messianic king is based incorrectly on 6:11ﬀ. From the very beginning, Zechariah was convinced that a future Davidic king would stand at the head of the new kingdom together with the High Priest (4:14; 6:13; see further Van der Woude 1988). The hypothesis that 6:11 originally spoke of the coronation of Zerubbabel and that the text was changed “after the latter’s disappearance”, whereby the High Priest Joshua appeared with the crown on his head, should, in our opinion, be rejected. As a matter of fact, 6:11 states that the (royal) crown was placed at the disposal of Joshua (Van der Woude 1988). The crown was to be preserved in the temple (6:14) until the coming of the messianic king. The symbolic actions and words found in 6:11b–13 allude to the latter; the temple now being constructed is to be rebuilt by him as a messianic temple.124 In the present author’s opinion, “the two anointed ones” (literally “the sons of the oil”) referred to in 4:14, do not allude to Joshua and Zerubbabel, as is often argued, but to the king and the High Priest of the coming time of salvation (cf. 6:13).125

b) Deutero-Zechariah (Zechariah 9–14) Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey (9:9)

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; H. G. A. Mitchell (ICC) 1912 (1961); W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; G. Smit (TU) 1926; E. Sellin (KAT 1) 19302.3; H. Junker (HSAT) 1938; K. Elliger (ATD) 1949, 19828; J. Ridderbos (KV) 19522; D. Deden (BOT) 1956; R. C.

124 The belief that the temple would be rebuilt in the end time has found its way into the tradition; cf. Tobit 14:5, Jub. 1:17; 1 Enoch 90:28f., 91:13; Mt. 26:61 par. 125 See further A. S. van der Woude, op. cit., 1988.

the prophetic literature

409

Dentan (IB) 1956; F. Nötscher (EB) 19572; F. Horst (HAT) 19643; T. Chary (Sources Bibliques) 1969; W. Rudolph (KAT 2) 1976; R. A. Mason (CNEB) 1977; A. Lacocque (CAT) 1981, 19882; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 1984; A. Deissler (NEB) 1988; C. L. Meyers and E. Meyers (AB) 1993; H. Graf Reventlow (ATD) 1993; D. L. Petersen (OTL) 1995.

Monographs and articles: B. Stade, “Deuterozacharja. Eine kritische Studie”, ZAW 1 (1881), 1–96, 2 (1882), 151–172, 275–309; T. Jansma, “Inquiry into the Hebrew Text and the Ancient Versions of Zechariah ix–xiv”, OTS 7 (1950), 1–142; M. Delcor, “Les sources du Deutéro-Zacharie et ses procédés d’emprunt”, RB 59 (1952), 385–411; P. Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV. Structure littéraire et messianisme (Etudes Biblques), Paris 1961; O. Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 19622; D. R. Jones, “A Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah IX to XI”, VT 12 (1962), 214–260; B. Otzen, Studien über Deuterosacharja (Acta Theologica Danica 6), Copenhagen 1964; H. M. Lutz, Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Völker. Zur Vorgeschichte von Sach. 12,1–8 und 14,1–5 (WMANT 27), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968; M. Saebø, “Die deuterosacharjanische Frage. Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie”, Studia Theologica 23 (1969), 115–140; id., Sacharja 9–14. Untersuchungen von Text und Form (WMANT 34), NeukirchenVluyn 1969; I. Willi-Plein, Prophetie am Ende. Untersuchungen zu Sacharja 9–14 (BBB 42), Cologne 1974; R. Tournay, “Zacharie XII–XIV et l’histoire d’Israël”, RB 81 (1974), 355–374; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, Philadelphia 1975, pp. 280–401; P. L. Redditt, “Israel’s Shepherds: Hope and Pessimism in Zechariah 9–14”, CBQ 51 (1981), 631–642; J. Barton, Oracles of God. Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile, London 1986; R. F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School (Suppl. JSOT 167), Sheﬃeld 1993; Katrina J. A. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah. A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (CBET 6), Kampen 1994; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End. Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS 35), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996, pp. 89–133, 214–241.

The fact that Deutero-Zechariah (Zechariah 9–14) does not stem from the prophet responsible for chapters 1–8 is evident from the large number of diﬀerences between both main parts of the book of Zechariah. In spite of the apparent points of contact between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14, the suggestion that the signiﬁcant diﬀerences between the two segments can be explained by the hypothesis that the material from the latter segment represents the preaching of the prophet at an advanced age remains unsatisfactory.126 126 R. A. Mason, “The Relation of Zechariah 9–14 to Proto-Zechariah”, ZAW 88 (1976), 227–239.

410

chapter nine

The diﬀerences between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 are striking. In contrast to Zechariah 1–8, Deutero-Zechariah lacks any reference to the date of the prophecies. There is no mention of the construction of the temple, nothing is said of Joshua or Zerubbabel and there are no allusions to events or persons from the time in which the prophet lived and worked. The characteristic formulae of Zechariah 1–8 “then came the word of the Lord to me” and “thus says the Lord of hosts” are entirely absent from Deutero-Zechariah. According to Zechariah 9 and 10, eschatological liberation shall not be brought about by God’s heavenly armies (cf. 6:1ﬀ.), but by Judah and Ephraim (9:13–15) or by Judah alone (10:3–5), albeit with yhwh’s help (9:14; 10:3ﬀ.). The joint governance of the High Priest and the messianic king, which would appear to be a matter of some importance to the prophet (4:14; 6:13), is not alluded to in the announcement of the coming of the messianic king in 9:9–10 nor is it spoken of elsewhere. The prediction of the destruction of two-thirds of the community (13:8), the scattering of the ﬂock when its shepherd is struck (13:7) and the puriﬁcation of the remainder (13:9) completely contradict the witness of Zechariah. The prophecy of the conquest of Jerusalem (14:1–2) is likewise virtually impossible to ascribe to Zechariah. The walled city of 14:10 runs counter to the openness of Jerusalem referred to in Zech. 2:4–5 (Hebr. 2:8–9). If we can agree that Deutero-Zechariah does not stem from the priest-prophet responsible for Zechariah 1–8, it is likewise evident that the material of 9–14 was not written by a single author nor does it represent a literary unity. Indeed, the superscriptions of 9:1 and 12:1 already leave one with the impression that chapters 9–11 and 12–14 (the latter being referred to on occasion as Trito-Zechariah) represent two anonymous collections. The content of each only serves to conﬁrm this impression. The eschatology of the ﬁrst part of Deutero-Zechariah is prophetic-messianic, while that of the second part (especially chapter 14) has apocalyptic overtones. Attention is focused in chapters 9–11 on Judah and Ephraim (accounting for the return of the exiles), while 12–14 focuses on Jerusalem (lacking any reference to Ephraim and the reuniﬁcation of Israel’s tribes). The geographical boundaries of the promised land in 9–11 stretch far beyond the historical boundaries of Judah and Israel (9:1–8),127 while 127 The suggestion proposed by K. Elliger (“Ein Zeugnis aus der jüdischen Gemeinde im Alexanderjahr 332 v. Chr.”, ZAW 62 [1950], 63–115) and M. Delcor

the prophetic literature

411

12–14 only speaks of Southern Palestine (14:10). It is also apparent that the anonymous collections of 9–11 and 12–14 do not in themselves constitute literary unities. The diﬀerences between 9:1–10:2 and 10:3–11:3, for example, are too conspicuous to be able to ascribe them to one and the same author. Chapter 12’s emphasis on the inviolability of Jerusalem is diﬃcult to reconcile with the conquest of the city referred to in 14:1–2. Deutero-Zechariah thus represents an amalgamation of material brought together from diﬀerent times and diﬀerent authors. The majority of chapters, moreover, would appear to have been reworked at a later stage: the content of 9:13, which makes reference to the Greeks, together with that of 11:8, serves to support the conviction that the ﬁnal redaction of Deutero-Zechariah did not take place until after the arrival of Alexander the Great and should thus be dated in the last decades of the fourth century BCE. While Otzen’s (1964) dating of Zechariah 9–10 in the time of King Josiah and Zechariah 11 immediately prior to the Babylonian exile provided once widespread pre-exilic hypotheses on the dating of the material with a new lease of life, more recent exegesis has nevertheless been inclined to follow Stade’s (1881–1882) arguments in favour of a late date. This need not imply that the text of the said chapters did not, in places, preserve pre-exilic elements (Horst, commentary 19643; cf. esp. 9:1–11:3). The two anonymous collections can be subdivided and dated, albeit approximately, as follows: Zechariah 9–11 9:1–10:2 The messianic kingdom with a description of the promised land, the advent of the messianic king, the return of the exiles, the defeat of the world powers and future blessing (possibly from the ﬁfth century BCE) 10:3–11:3 Judah’s struggle for freedom and the return of the exiles from the Northern tribes (possibly from the ﬁfth century BCE)

(“Les allusions à Alexandre le Grand dans Zach. ix, 1–8”, VT 1 [1951], 110–124) that we should associate Zech. 9:1–8 with Alexander the Great’s expedition in SyroPalestine remains open to question (cf. the commentaries of W. Rudolph [1976] and A. S. van der Woude [1984]): the summary of territories and cities does not square with the route taken by Alexander. The text is perhaps better understood as a realisation of the promise of land once made to the patriarchs.

chapter nine

412 11:4–17

The so-called shepherd allegory,128 which apparently describes an attempt to maintain relationships between the worshippers of yhwh living in Samaria and the community in Judea (possibly from the ﬁfth century BCE)

Zechariah 12–14 12:1–13:6 Defeat of the enemies of Jerusalem and Judah, a lament for the ‘Pierced One’129 and the elimination of idolatry and false prophecy (possibly around 400 BCE) 13:7–9 The stricken shepherd and the puriﬁed remnant (possibly around 300 BCE) 14 The deliverance of plundered and looted Jerusalem at the appearance (theophany) of yhwh and the universal kingship of yhwh (around 300 BCE?) It is striking that Deutero-Zechariah continually harks back to ancient traditions. In a remarkable hermeneutical process we are presented with an ever increasing priestly scribal expertise, which placed long treasured traditions concerning Zion, the messiah, holy war etc. at the service of a portrayal of the coming time of salvation, the central theme of Deutero-Zechariah as a whole. One is still faced with the question as to whether one should accept that this represents a conscious opposition to the theocratic structure expressed in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Plöger 1959): theocracy and passionate eschatological expectation are not per se mutually exclusive. 12. Malachi See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me (3:1)

128 A. S. van der Woude, “Die Hirtenallegorie von Sacharja XI”, JNSWL 12 (1984), 139–149. Cf. likewise G. Wallis, “Pastor bonus”, Kairos 12 (1970), 220–234. 129 The identity of the mysterious Pierced One, over whom a lament is to be raised, is much disputed. Hanson and Lacocque oﬀer a collective explanation: an eschatological group suﬀering under a hierocratic faction (Hanson) and a righteous Judah suﬀering under Jerusalem (Lacocque). Individual interpretations include Isaiah, Zechariah ben Jehoiada (cf. 2 Chron. 24:20–22, cf. Mt. 23:35), King Josiah, Zerubbabel, the priest Joshua who was murdered by his brother in the temple precincts around 410 BCE (cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XI, 297ﬀ.); alternatively a ﬁgure from the second century BCE.: the High Priest Onias III, Simon the Maccabean or a martyr from the Maccabean period. The reference is reminiscent of the Suﬀering Servant in Isaiah 53, who was initially despised and rejected and later wounded/pierced (Isa. 53:5).

the prophetic literature

413

Commentaries: K. Marti (KHC) 1904; A. van Hoonacker (Etudes Bibliques) 1908; J. P. M. Smith (ICC) 1912 (1961); A. von Bulmerincq, Der Prophet Maleachi I, Dorpat 1926. II, Tartu 1932; W. Nowack (HKAT) 19223; E. Sellin (KAT 1) 19302.3; G. Smit (TU) 1934; H. Junker (HSAT) 1938; K. Elliger (ATD) 1949, 19828; J. Ridderbos (KV) 1952; D. Deden (BOT) 1956; R. C. Dentan (IB) 1956; F. Nötscher (EB) 19572; F. Horst (HAT) 19643; T. Chary (Sources Bibliques) 1969; W. Rudolph (KAT 2) 1976; R. A. Mason (CBC) 1977; R. Vuilleumier (CAT) 1981, 19882; A. S. van der Woude (POT) 1982; P. A. Verhoef (NICOT) 1987; A. Deissler (NEB) 1988; R. L. Smith (WBC) 1988; H. Graf Reventlow (ATD) 1993; D. L. Petersen (OTL) 1995; A. E. Hill (AB) 1998.

Monographs and articles: J. C. de Moor, De profeet Maleachi, Amsterdam 1903; A. von Bulmerincq, “Einleitung in das Buch des Propheten Maleachi”, Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Dorpatensis B/1–3, 1921, pp. 3–140, 1922, pp. 141–224; A. C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism, Edinburgh 1935; E. Pfeiﬀer, “Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maleachi: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Struktur”, Evangelische Theologie 19 (1959), 546–568; G. J. Botterweck, “Schelt- und Mahnreden gegen Mischehen und Ehescheidungen”, Bibel und Leben 1 (1960), 179–195; K. Elliger, “Maleachi und die kirchliche Tradition”, in: E. Würthwein und O. Kaiser (eds.), Tradition und Situation (FS A. Weiser), Göttingen 1963, pp. 43–48; H. J. Boecker, “Bemerkungen zur formgeschichtlichen Terminologie des Buches Maleachi”, ZAW 78 (1966), 78–80; G. Wallis, “Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis”, in: F. Maass (ed.), Das ferne und nahe Wort (FS. L. Rost; BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, pp. 229–237; I. H. Eybers, “Malachi— The Messenger of the Lord”, Theologia Evangelica 3 (1970), 12–20; J. A. Fischer, “Notes on the Literary Form and Message of Malachi”, CBQ 34 (1972), 315–320; Th. C. Vriezen, “How to Understand Malachi 1:11”, in: J. I. Cook (ed.), Grace upon Grace: Essays in Biblical Theology Presented to L. Kuyper, Grand Rapids 1975, pp. 128–136; D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy (SBL Monograph Series 23), Missoula MT 1977; A. Renker, Die Tora bei Maleachi (FTS 112), Freiburg 1979; S. Schreiner, “Mischehen—Ehebruch— Ehescheidung. Betrachtungen zu Mal 2,10–16”, ZAW 91 (1979), 207–228; A. S. van der Woude, “Der Engel des Bundes: Bemerkungen zu Maleachi 3:1c und seinem Kontext”, in: J. Jeremias und L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für H. W. Wolﬀ zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 289–300; id., “Malachi’s Struggle for a Pure Community: Reﬂections on Malachi 2:10–16”, in: J. W. van Henten e.a. (eds.), Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (FS J. C. H. Lebram; Studia Post-Biblica 36), Leiden 1986, pp. 65–71; A. E. Hill, “Dating the Book of Malachi: A Linguistic Reexamination”, in: C. Meyers and M. O’Connor (eds), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (FS D. N. Freedman), Winona

414

chapter nine

Lake IN 1983, pp. 77–89; S. L. McKenzie and H. W. Wallace, “Covenant Times in Malachi”, CBQ 45 (1983), 549–563; W. C. Kaiser, Malachi: God’s Unchanging Love, Grand Rapids 1984; B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger (SBL Dissertation Series 98), Atlanta GA 1987; R. Blake, The Rhetoric of Malachi, New York 1988; H. Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der “Schriftprophetie” auf Grund von Maleachi 1,6–2,9 (BEATAJ 19), Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York-Paris 1989; id., “Die Schriftprophetie und die Frage nach dem Ende der Prophetie: Überlegungen anhand von Mal 1,6–2,16”, ZAW 104 (1992), 377–394; J. O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (SBL Diss. Series 121), Atlanta GA 1990; E. Bosshard und R. G. Kratz, “Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch”, BN 52 (1990), 27–46; G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant. A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (SVT 52), LeidenNew York-Cologne 1993; Th. Lescow, Das Buch Maleachi. Texttheorie— Auslegung—Kanontheorie (Arbeiten zur Theologie 75), Stuttgart 1993; M. Krieg, Mutmaßungen über Maleachi (AThANT 80), Zurich 1993; C. Reynolds, Malachi and the Priesthood, New Haven, Conn. 1993; P. Redditt, “The Book of Malachi in its Social Setting”, CBQ 56 (1994), 240–255.

According to its superscription, the last prophetic book of the Old Testament is ascribed to Malachi (“my messenger”; lxx: Malachias; V: Malachi[as]). Based in part on the fact that the Septuagint in 1:1 speaks of “his (= God’s) messenger” instead of Malachi (“my messenger”), scholars have often expressed the opinion that the book should be understood as an anonymous document (in line with Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14). The designation “Malachi” is thus said to have been borrowed from Mal. 3:1 (“see, I send my messenger”). Given the fact that the latter text alludes to a heavenly ﬁgure and in light of the possibility that Malachi can be understood as a proper name (although it is not found elsewhere), however, an increasing number of scholars have been inclined to consider the designation as a personal name (cf. the commentaries of Rudolph 1976, Verhoef 1987, Deissler 1988 and Graf Reventlow 1993). The person of the prophet and the period in which he lived are so well hidden behind his preaching that it is impossible to determine the time of his prophetic activity with any degree of accuracy. The mention of a governor (appointed by the Persians) in Mal. 1:8 and the fact that the regulations imposed by Ezra and Nehemiah against mixed marriages between Jewish men and pagan women do not yet appear to be presupposed, more or less conﬁrm a dating of Malachi to the ﬁrst half of the ﬁfth century BCE (around 470). In any event, the prophet clearly lived in a period of enormous socio-economic

the prophetic literature

415

tension, which gave rise to ﬁerce diﬀerences of opinion within Israel’s post-exilic community (cf. Neh. 5:1–5) and increased religious scepticism (3:14) brought about by natural disasters (Mal. 3:11). Setting aside the superscription and the appendix to the conclusion of the work (4:4–6; Hebr. 3:22–24), the book contains six prophecies: The love of yhwh for Israel, illustrated by the fate of Edom Mal. 1:6–2:9 Condemnation of laxity in the liturgy and unworthy priests Mal. 2:10–16 Condemnation of marital inﬁdelity by entering into mixed marriages, whereby the former wife is set to one side and the identity of the covenant community is endangered Mal. 2:17–3:5 The coming judgement Mal. 3:6–12 Call to conversion Mal. 3:13–4:3 Comfort for those who have been impeached with a view to the coming day of yhwh’s judgement (Hebr. 3:13–21) Mal. 1:2–5

All six prophecies are discursive in style and based on the schema proposition—counter proposition—motivation of the proposition, whereby the preaching of Malachi acquires its vigorous character. This unique literary form probably reﬂects the nature of the prophet’s speeches addressed to the priests and the people. While Malachi draws particular attention to cultic misdemeanours, he is nevertheless inspired by the spirit of traditional prophecy: he points to the love of God for his people (1:2–5), which stands in bleak contrast to the liturgical decline brought on by the priests (1:6–2:9), the miserliness of the sacriﬁcial oﬀerings (3:8–10), the arguments that draw God’s righteousness into question (2:17; 3:13–15) and the marital inﬁdelity, inspired by covetousness, which undermines morale and the unity of the cultic community (2:10–16). For this reason the prophet believes that the day of judgement is at hand (3:5; 4:1, Hebr. 3:19) and he sees the messenger of God appearing to prepare for the advent of yhwh’s judgement (3:1).130 Malachi explicitly insists that the day of yhwh’s judgement will bring to light the diﬀerence between the righteous and the godless (3:18). 130

Cf. A. S. van der Woude, op. cit., 1981.

416

chapter nine

The pastoral character of the prophet’s preaching is determinative of its speciﬁc outreach: the spiritual needs of the cultic community in Jerusalem and Judea in the ﬁrst half of the ﬁfth century BCE. While Malachi understands yhwh to be a universal God, the prophet’s preaching does not exhibit universalistic characteristics. Where the latter are evident in the book they clearly represent a later hand (e.g. 1:11). The Hebrew text of the book of Malachi occasionally confronts us with serious diﬃculties (cf., for example, 2:12,15). The character of the evidently late concluding verses of the book, in which an appeal is made to remember the Law of Moses and the activities of the prophet Elijah as precursor of the Day of yhwh are sketched (4:4–6, Hebr. 3:22–24; cf. also Mt. 11:14; 17:11–12; Mk. 9:11–13; Lk. 1:17), remains the subject of discussion. Some consider the verses to be a conclusion to the book of Malachi, others as a concluding note to the Minor Prophets, others still as a sort of epilogue added to the textual complex Joshua-Malachi when the latter became canonical. The latter option is the most likely.

CHAPTER TEN

THE REMAINING LITERATURE (THE WRITINGS)

A third of the Hebrew Bible, referred to as the Writings (Ketubîm), consists of a number of poetic and historical books, the majority of which stem from the period after the Babylonian exile. A portion of the Writings, namely the Psalms and Proverbs, includes more ancient poems and sayings. The date of the book of Ruth is disputed. The book of Lamentations came into existence shortly after the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE).

a. The Psalms Da sihestu allen heyligen yns hertz (Luther)

Commentaries: F. Baethgen (HKAT) 1892, 19043; B. Duhm (KHAT) 1899, 19222; C. A. and E. G. Briggs (ICC) I 1906, II 1907; E. König, Die Psalmen, Gütersloh 1927; R. Kittel (KAT 1) 1929 5.6; H. Gunkel (HKAT ) 1929 4, 1986 6; H. Schmidt (HAT) 1934; A. Weiser (ATD) 1935, 198710; H. Herkenne (HSAT) 1936; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms, London 1939; F. M. Th. Böhl (TU) I–II 1946–1947 (= Psalms 1–89); B. Gemser (TU) III 1949 (= Psalm 90–150); F. Nötscher (EB) 1947; B. D. Eerdmans, The Hebrew Book of Psalms (OTS 4), Leiden 1947; E. Podechard, Le Psautier, Lyon 1949–1954; E. Kissane, The Book of Psalms I–II, Dublin 1953–1954; J. Ridderbos (KV) I–II 1955–1958; H. J. Kraus (BK) I–II 1960, 19896; N. H. Ridderbos (KV) I 1962 (= Psalms 1–41), II 1973 (= Psalms 42–60); A. Deissler, Die Psalmen I–III, Düsseldorf 1963–1965, 19896; M. Dahood (AB) I–III 1966–1970; N. A. van Uchelen (POT) I 1971, 19863, II 1977, 19862 (= Psalms 1–80); J. P. M. van der Ploeg (BOT) I–II 1971–1975; E. Beauchamp, Le Psautier I–II, Paris 1976–1979; J. W. Rogerson and W. McKay (CNEB) 1977; P. C. Craigie, M. E. Tate and C. Allen (WBC) 1983–1990; F. L. Hossfeldt – E. Zenger (NEB) 1993; Th. Booij (POT) III 1994 (= Psalms 81–110); K. Seybold (HAT) 1996 (lit.!).

418

chapter ten

Monographs and articles: Available literature on the Psalms is immense and can only be represented in part at this juncture. A detailed bibliography can be found in the commentary of K. Seybold (1996). D. Simpson (ed.), The Psalmists, London 1926; H. Gunkel und J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen, Göttingen 1933, 19753; S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I–VI, Kristiania 1921–1924, Amsterdam 19612; id., “Psalm Criticism between 1900 and 1935”, VT 5 (1955), 13–33; id., The Psalms in Israel’s Worship I–II, Oxford 1962 (revised version of Oﬀersang og sangoﬀer, Oslo 1951); Chr. Barth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten Testamentes, Zurich 1947 (republished in Stuttgart in 1977 by B. Janowski with a biography of C. Barth and a bibliography); M. Noth, “Gott, König, Volk im Alten Testament”, ZThK 47 (1950), 157–191 (= Gesammelte Studien zum AT [ThB 6], Munich 1960, pp. 188–229); J. J. Stamm, “Ein Vierteljahrhundert Psalmenforschung”, ThR 23 (1955), 1–68; D. Michel, “Studien zu den sogenannten Thronbesteigungspsalmen”, VT 6 (1956), 40–68; C. Westermann, Das Loben Gottes in den Psalmen, Göttingen 1953, 19684; id., Der Psalter, Stuttgart 1959, 19692; J. Becker, Israel deutet seine Psalmen (SBSt 18), Stuttgart 1966, 19672; id., Wege der Psalmenexegese (SBSt 78), Stuttgart 1975; H. J. Kraus, Gottesdienst in Israel. Grundriß einer Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Gottesdienstes, Munich 19622; D. J. A. Clines, “Psalm Research since 1955 I–II”, Tyndale Bulletin 18/20 (1967/1969), 103–125/105–125; R. C. Culley, Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms, Toronto 1967; F. Crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (WMANT 32), NeukirchenVluyn 1969; W. Beyerlin, Die Rettung der Bedrängten in den Feindpsalmen des Einzelnen auf institutionelle Zusammenhänge untersucht (FRLANT 99), Göttingen 1970; O. Keel, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament. Am Beispiel der Psalmen, Zurich-Einsiedeln-Cologne and Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972, 19844; K. Seybold, Das Gebet des Kranken im Alten Testament (BWANT 99), Stuttgart 1973; id., Die Wallfahrtspsalmen, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978; id., “Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung”, ThR 46 (1981), 1–18; id., Die Psalmen. Eine Einführung (UB 382), Munich-Basel 1986, 19912; id., “Psalmenkommentare 1972–1994”, ThR 60 (1995), 113–130; id., “Beiträge zur neueren Psalmenforschung”, ThR 61 (1996), 247–274; J. Kühlewein, Geschichte in den Psalmen, Stuttgart 1973; P. A. H. Neumann (ed.), Zur neueren Psalmenforschung (WdF 192), Darmstadt 1976; J. H. Eaton, “The Psalms and Israelite Worship”, in: G. W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation, Oxford 1979, pp. 238–273; F. J. Stendebach, “Die Psalmen in der neueren Forschung”, Bibel und Kirche 35 (1980), 60–70; B. Feininger, “A Decade of German Psalm-Criticism”, JSOT 20 (1981), 91–103; W. Brueggeman, The Message of the Psalms. A Theological Commentary, Minneapolis 1984; id., Israel’s Praise. Doxology against Idolatry and Ideology, Philadelphia 1988; G. H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, Chico CA 1985; P. D. Miller Jr., Interpreting the Psalms, Philadelphia 1986; E. Haag und F. L. Hossfeld, Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen (SBB 13; FS H. Groß), Stuttgart

the remaining literature (the writings)

419

19872; J. Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen (FRLANT 141), Göttingen 1987; E. S. Gerstenberger, Psalms. Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL), Grand Rapids 1988; H. Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart. Eine Theologie der Psalmen (FRLANT 148), Göttingen 1989; J. Day, Psalms (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1990; J. C. McCann, Jr. (ed.), The Shape and the Shapimg of the Psalter (Suppl. JSOT 159), Sheﬃeld 1993; W. L. Holladay, The Psalms through Three Thousand Years. Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses, Minneapolis 1993; E. Zenger, Mit meinem Gott übersprimge ich Mauern. Einführung in das Psalmenbuch, Freiburg 19934; H. P. Mathys, Dichter und Beter. Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO 132), Fribourg CH/Göttingen 1994; M. Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters. Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz (FAT 9), Tübingen 1994; P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997.

The book of Psalms (Hebr.: (sefer) tehillîm, “(book of ) laudations”; lxx: psalmoi, “songs sung to the accompaniment of stringed instruments”; V: Psalmi) constitutes one of the best-known and much loved segments of the Old Testament. More than any other biblical document, it has found a place of signiﬁcance in the liturgy of the synagogue and the Christian churches. Through the centuries it has formed a source of spiritual inspiration for many and it remains so to the present day. Its frequent allusion to the highs and lows of human experience has served as a point of attraction and personal support for countless individuals and communities, especially in times of diﬃculty, sadness and oppression. At the same time, it has provided human beings with expressive words of praise of God, glorifying his marvellous works in nature and in history. It is far from surprising, therefore, that the book of Psalms has given rise to a vast number of commentaries, articles and monographs. Scholarly research into the Psalms has led to a multiplicity of divergent opinions concerning the origins and signiﬁcance of this collection of songs in addition to the dating of its constituent parts. In the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth the Psalms tended for the most part to be considered as stemming to a signiﬁcant extent (according to several scholars) from the second century BCE. Opinions on the matter changed considerably after the discovery of Babylonian psalm literature dating back as far as the third millennium BCE. Scholars gradually came to the conclusion that the Psalms were much older than had hitherto been presumed and that a serious portion thereof should be dated to the

420

chapter ten

pre-exilic period. While Duhm, for example, was inclined to consider Psalm 137 as dating from the Babylonian exile and the oldest of the Psalms, later commentators ultimately came to consider it one of the youngest songs in the collection! The hypothesis that the majority of the Psalms date from earlier periods is supported indirectly by songs stemming from the century immediately prior to the beginning of the common era, which tend as a rule to be less formal in structure when compared with the poetry of the Old Testament and to exhibit increasingly the features of the so-called Mischgattungen (mixed genres). Examples can be found in the Psalms of Solomon (cf. chapter XIII) and in the documents of Qumran (cf. chapter XIV).

While it is reasonable to assume that the Psalms of the Old Testament were inﬂuenced by the poetic works of Israel’s Umwelt, it is also fair to say that the Psalm literature of Ancient Israel followed its own unique trajectory. Frequent agreements at the level of form and imagery with Ancient Near Eastern liturgical poetry, in particular Babylonian poetry, to one side, Israel’s Psalms exhibit a materially unique character on account of the fact that they are driven by a unique religious spirit. Old Testament scholars such as Begrich1 and Driver,2 together with orientalists such as Falkenstein and von Soden,3 have underlined this observation time and again. Direct inﬂuence derived from Sumerian-Akkadian psalmody is diﬃcult to prove. While it is clearly impossible to fully comprehend Israel’s lyrical works in separation from the West Semitic tradition, Canaanite and, in particular, Ugaritic inﬂuence should not be overstated. It is possible, nevertheless, that Psalm 29, for example, harks back to a Canaanite poem dedicated to the thunder God Hadad-Ba"al, and Ps. 139:8 may be reminiscent of a letter from El-Amarna (264:15f.): If we ascend to heaven or descend to the kingdom of the dead— our head is always in your hands.

1

In H. Gunkel – J. Begrich, op. cit., 1933. G. R. Driver, “The Psalms in the Light of Babylonian Research”, in: D. C. Simpson (ed.), The Psalmists, London 1926, pp. 109–175. 3 A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete, Zurich 1953, pp. 18–56 (= P. H. A. Neumann (ed.), Zur neueren Psalmenforschung, Darmstadt 1976, pp. 280–314). 2

the remaining literature (the writings)

421

Egyptian inﬂuence on Israel’s psalmody is occasionally evident, as would appear to be the case with respect to Psalm 104 and its similarity to the sun hymn of Akh-en-Aton (1364–1347 BCE).4 In the twentieth century Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932)5 is particularly well known for his Gattungsforschung, an approach that introduced a new impulse into psalm research. Gunkel was unique among his peers in insisting that one should seek the origin of the psalms in terms of their function rather than their history, exploring the background (Sitz im Leben) of the songs, establishing strict distinctions between the various psalm genres and drawing particular attention to the relationship between the psalms and the cult. While Gunkel accounted for songs with a cultic background as well as songs employed in a more personal spiritual context, the Norwegian scholar Sigmund Mowinckel (1884–1965) was more inclined to ascribe a cultic setting to virtually all of the psalms.6 Mowinckel associated a signiﬁcant number of the psalms with a presupposed New Year Feast (reconstructed for the most part on information borrowed from Babylonian texts), the autumnal celebration of yhwh’s “accession to the throne”, at which, according to Mowinckel, God’s acceptance of power over creation was celebrated. He also considered a number of the psalms, especially those containing prayers petitioning liberation from the enemy, as directed against evil-minded magicians. In contrast to Mowinckel, Birkeland7 interpreted the “enemy” in the Psalms as political adversaries of the king. In the present author’s opinion N. H. Ridderbos has made it clear that “those who bring about injustice” in the Psalms should be understood as the godless rather than as magicians.8 Many scholars are likewise correct in arguing that, given the character of Ancient Israel’s religion and conception of God, a hypothetical feast celebrating yhwh’s accession to the throne is diﬃcult to support. 4 Cf. A. M. Blackman, “The Psalms in the Light of Egyptian Research”, in: D. C. Simpson (ed.), The Psalmists, London 1926, pp. 177–197 (= P. H. A. Neumann, Zur neueren Psalmenforschung, Darmstadt 1976, pp. 134–155). 5 W. Klatt, Hermann Gunkel. Zu seiner Theologie der Religionsgeschichte und zur Entstehung der formgeschichtlichen Methode (FRLANT 100), Göttingen 1969. 6 For the relationship between the Psalms and the cult see N. H. Ridderbos, Psalmen en cultus, Kampen 1950 (= P. H. A. Neumann (ed.), Zur neueren Psalmenforschung, Darmstadt 1976. pp. 234–279). 7 H. Birkeland, Die Feinde des Individuums in der israelitischen Psalmenliteratur, Oslo 1933; id., The Evildoers in the Book of Psalms, Oslo 1955. 8 N. H. Ridderbos, De “werkers der ongerechtigheid” in de individuele Psalmen, Kampen 1939.

422

chapter ten

While Mowinckel associated a great many psalms with the New Year Feast, Artur Weiser (commentary 1935) defended the hypothesis that the Sitz im Leben of several songs was to be located in the Feast of the Covenant. Under the inﬂuence of the work of S. H. Hooke, primarily Scandinavian psalm research became enthralled with the so-called Myth and Ritual School, which placed great emphasis on the role of the king in the ritual of the Western Semitic Autumn Feast. The suggestion that the king in Ancient Israel had a decisive role to play in a cultic celebration structured around an Ancient Near Eastern pattern, however, was correctly called into question by Martin Noth in 1950 (see op. cit.). It seems reasonable to presume, therefore, that a large number of the psalms were not composed for cultic purposes, especially those that exhibit an utterly personal character and bear witness to individual piety. Such psalms can be distinguished from the Babylonian psalms, which generally exhibit a more liturgical style. Indeed, it is the personal character of the majority of Israel’s psalms that makes them immortal and accessible to every generation and every individual. These personal songs were later incorporated into the liturgical hymnals of the Jewish community and thereby placed at the service of the cult. The book of Psalms consists of a selection of songs from a variety of diﬀerent times and origins. Scholars continue to categorise the psalms according to a series of genres: a) hymns, cf. Psalms 33, 65, 67, 68, 100, 103, 104, 113, 117, 135, 136, 145–150; songs lauding the kingship of YHWH such as Psalms 47, 93, 96–99 constitute a speciﬁc subdivision of the Hymn genre; b) royal psalms, cf. Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 110, 132; c) laments of the people, cf. Psalms 44, 60, 74, 79, 80, 83, 90; d) individual laments, cf. Psalms 3, 5, 6, 22, 38, 39, 42–43, 51, 61, 69, 86, 88, 102, 130, 140–143; e) psalms of blessing and curse, cf. Psalms 28, 134, 137; f ) pilgrimage psalms, cf. Psalms 120–134, together with Psalm 84; g) victory songs, cf. Psalms 46, 66, 76; h) individual songs of thanksgiving, cf. Psalms 9, 18, 32, 116; i) Israel’s songs of thanksgiving, cf. Psalm 124, 129; j) historical psalms, cf. Psalm 78, 105, 106, 114; k) praise of the Law, cf. Ps. 19:8ﬀ.; Psalm 119.

the remaining literature (the writings)

423

The above classiﬁcation, borrowed for the most part from Gunkel and Begrich (1933), must frequently be understood as bearing a merely relative character since several psalms, especially those of later date, are mixed in terms of genre. Several authors have detected an exaggerated style compulsion in the work of Gunkel and his followers and have preferred to reduce the number of genres to a minimum. Westermann (1953), for example, combined the hymns and the songs of thanksgiving into a single genre, which he referred to as psalms of praise. He then divided the latter into berichtendes Lob and beschreibendes Lob, the ﬁrst instance lauding God’s salviﬁc deeds, the second lauding God himself. In addition, Westermann distinguished laments of the individual and laments of the people. In his opinion the addressation of God in the psalms vacillates between the two poles of lament and praise. In his 1971–1975 commentary Van der Ploeg likewise oﬀered a much simpliﬁed genre subdivision: lyrical poems (consisting of songs of praise and prayers) and non-lyrical psalms (consisting of didactic poems and narrative poems). The Septuagint (followed by the Vulgate) exhibits a diﬀerent subdivision of the Psalms when compared to that of the Hebrew Bible, correctly considering Psalms 9 and 10 as a single psalm and incorrectly combining Psalms 114 and 115. In addition, Psalms 116 and 147 are each subdivided into two songs. The comparative result can be seen in the following schema: Hebrew text

1–8 9–10 11–113 114–115 116:1–9 116:10–19 117–146 147:1–11 147:12–20 148–150

Greek text

1–8 9 10–112 113 114 115 116–145 146 147 148–150 151 For the apocryphal Psalm 151 see chapter XIV. In addition to the songs collected in the book of Psalms, several other books of the Old Testament contain poetic material: cf. the Song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2), the Song of Jonah ( Jonah 2) and the Prayer of Hezekiah (Isa. 37:15–20). Psalm 18 has a parallel in 2 Samuel 22, Ps. 105:1–15 in 1 Chron. 16:8–22 and Psalm 96 in 1 Chron. 16:23–33.

424

chapter ten

A number of psalms or parts thereof are virtually repeated word for word within the book of Psalms itself: Psalm 14 = Psalm 53; Ps. 40:14–18 = Ps. 70:2–6; Ps. 57:8–12 plus Ps. 60:7–14 = Ps. 108:2–14. Such parallels serve as proof that the book of Psalms is based on several individual collections. A small number of psalms would appear to consist of more than one independent song: cf. Ps. 19:1–7 and 19:8–15; Ps. 24:1–6 and 24:7–10. Psalms 9 and 10, on the other hand, together with Psalms 42 and 43 constitute single poems.

The division of the Psalter into ﬁve books (Psalms 1–41; 42–72; 73–89; 90–106; 107–150) is based on the presence of doxologies (expressions of praise) at the end of Psalms 41, 72, 89 and 106. Psalm 150 constitutes a concluding statement of praise with respect to book 5 and the Psalter as a whole. The division dates back to the ﬁnal redaction of the book of Psalms at the earliest and would appear to have been introduced by analogy with the division of the Pentateuch. The quantitative disparity between the various books and the diﬀerent expressions employed in the characteristically liturgical doxologies serve to support the idea that we are dealing with a secondary division introduced at a later date. The latter runs counter to the original collections upon which basis the Psalter was compiled. The following divisions can thus be made: a) the ﬁrst Davidic Psalter 3–41. With the exception of Psalm 33, the superscriptions of these songs ascribe their authorship to David; b) the so-called Elohistisc Psalter 42–83, in which the divine designation yhwh is replaced for the most part by "Elohîm (= God; cf. the parallel Psalms 14 and 53). This compilation would appear to be based on a series of originally independent collections: the Psalms of Korah 42–49 (concluded by a Psalm of Asaph 50); the second Davidic Psalter 51–71 (with the addition of the Psalm of Solomon 72); the Asaph Psalms 73–83. A non-Elohistic appendix is to be found in Psalms 84–89, consisting of Korahite songs (84–85 plus 87–88), a prayer of David (86) and a didactic poem of Ethan (89); c) Psalms 90–118, sometimes referred to as the Mosaic Psalter (cf. Ps. 90:1), which is likewise further divided into smaller units including: the Yahweh is King Psalms 93–99, the third Davidic Psalter (101; 103; 108–110) and the “Egyptian Hallel” (113–118), which belonged to the liturgy of Passover (cf. Mt. 26:30; Mk. 14:26); d) the pilgrim psalms 120–134, a sort of vademecum for pilgrims to which Psalms 135–136 or the “Major Hallel” are appended;

the remaining literature (the writings)

425

e) the fourth Davidic Psalter 138–145, which consists to a large extent of prayers; f ) the Minor Hallel 146–150, a series of hymns. With the exception of Ps. 72:20, we continue to lack both external and internal information on the formation of the book of Psalms as we now know it. The majority of hypotheses in this regard tend to be speculative (cf. Whybray 1997). In spite of this, organisational principles can be observed nevertheless with respect to smaller subdivisions of the book: Psalms 50 and 51, for example, would appear to have been consciously located together because they both place the sacriﬁce of the heart above that of animals, while Psalms 34 and 35 both allude to the angel of yhwh. Psalms 3–5 belong together as morning and evening prayers, Psalms 20 and 21 as petitioning victory for the king and giving thanks thereafter. It remains diﬃcult to determine with any certainty if the ﬁnal redaction of the book of Psalms was eschatologically motivated and programmatically reﬂected in the introductory Psalms 1 and 2 in the sense that the messianic time of salvation and preservation during the ﬁnal judgement were made dependent on obedience to the Law. The hypothesis that the sequence of the Psalms corresponds with the weekly recitation of a portion of the Torah during the triannual (Palestinian) cycle of Law readings in the synagogue is likewise open to serious doubt. Indeed, such an association would leave the original small collections of Psalms unexplained. While opinions on the goal of the Psalm collection are divided, it is reasonable to presume that they were not only intended as devotional literature. Indeed, it would seem that their primary purpose was to serve as the hymnal of the temple cult. A number of the superscriptions allude to this fact: e.g. Psalm 100: “a song for the praise oﬀering”; Psalms 38 and 70: “at the memorial oﬀering”; Psalm 92: “a song for the Sabbath Day”. Other superscriptions, including “for the choirmaster” (translation uncertain) and references to certain Levitical guilds of singers (Korahites [42ﬀ.], Asaph [73ﬀ.]) bring us into the domain of sanctuary liturgy. A further text from Qumran (David’s poetical works = 11QPsa XXVII 2–11) ascribes a number of songs speciﬁcally intended for the cult (for the daily burnt oﬀering, for the oﬀerings on the Sabbath and for those of the new months and all feast days together with the Great Day of Atonement) to David together with several other psalms.

426

chapter ten

It is perfectly clear from Amos 5:23 that songs had been sung in the context of the temple liturgy from of old. The same verse also alludes to the fact that the said songs were sung to musical accompaniment. Indeed, several of the superscriptions oﬀer indications as to the manner with which a song was to be accompanied: e.g. Psalms 4 and 6: “to stringed instruments”; Psalm 5: “to the ﬂute”. The superscriptions often add in addition some indication as to the way in which a psalm was to be sung or recited: e.g. Psalm 22:1: “according to ‘the hind of the dawn’”; Psalm 45:1: “according to ‘the lilies’”. Eerdmans explained various superscriptions on the basis of the content of the text. He maintained, for example, that 'al mût labben (Ps. 9:1) should not be understood as “according to ‘the death of the son’”, but rather “on the death of N.N., by the son”. In his opinion the psalm was thus intended to be sung at the death of a father. Eerdmans related the superscription of Psalm 30 to the dedication of the home and was able to draw signiﬁcant support from the superscription of Psalm 102 for his hypotheses. While the psalm superscriptions are known to be redactional additions, a number of the terms employed therein remain something of a mystery: e.g. ma“kîl (32, 42, 44–45, 52–55, 74, 78, 88–89, 142; NBG: “didactic poem”), miktam (16, 56–60; NBG: “precious/jewel) and “iggayon (7:1; NBG: “lament”). A satisfactory explanation of the term sela found in no less than forty of the psalms remains to be given. Scholars have associated the word with musical accompaniment (pause, musical interlude or repeat), as well as with the liturgical actions of the community (silence, kneeling).

The date of origin of the individual Psalms can, as a rule, no longer be determined. Only a few thereof, such as Psalms 126 and 137, which must have been composed in haste after the Babylonian exile, exhibit clear historical characteristics. The superscriptions are secondary and do not as such oﬀer a satisfactory basis for resolving issues of date. Under normal circumstances internal evidence should provide some indication with respect to dating the material but the available information is of such a general character that it does not allow us to draw historical conclusions. In spite of these limitations, it is reasonable to assume that royal psalms such as Psalms 2, 20–21 and 72 stem from the pre-exilic period. Psalm 110 has a potential date of origin in the Davidic or Solomonic period. On account of their apparent kinship with Canaanite hymns and their antiquated style Psalms 29 and 68 can be taken as somewhat older. On the other hand, songs that exhibit a clearly didactic character are usu-

the remaining literature (the writings)

427

ally considered to be younger. The hypothesis that some of the Psalms date from the Maccabean period is undermined by the fact that Jesus Sirach already understood the book of Psalms to be sacred scripture around 180 BCE. The manuscripts of Qumran likewise tend to conﬁrm the book’s canonical status rather than counter it. It is probable that the book of Psalms achieved its deﬁnitive form in the third century BCE. The frequently employed superscription “of David” ascribes a great many of the Psalms to the king of Israel who was a poet according to 2 Samuel 1 and a musician according to Amos 6:5. While it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a number of the Psalms do indeed stem from David, the aforementioned superscription (the Septuagint version of which diﬀers on more than one occasion from the Hebrew text) in principle does not allow us to draw historical conclusions. The hypothesis defended by a number of Scandinavian scholars, among them I. Engnell, that ledawid (“for David”) should in fact be interpreted as “for the king” has turned out to be incorrect. It is evident from both the New Testament and the manuscript discoveries of Qumran that, next to Deuteronomy and Isaiah, the Psalms must have belonged to the most read literature of ancient Judaism and early Christianity. The textual transmission of the Psalms (especially the older Psalms) is occasionally deﬁcient. The Psalm Scrolls from Qumran exhibit (albeit minor) variants when compared with the Masoretic tradition. The Psalm Scroll from Cave 11 of Qumran published by J. A. Sanders9 not only exhibits a variant Psalm sequence to that found in the Old Testament but also contains songs not found therein including Psalm 151 and two poems known to us from the Syriac tradition: Psalms 154–155.10

b. Job Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad also? (2:10)

9 J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (DJD 4), Oxford 1965; id., The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, Ithaca NY 1967. 10 For these Psalms see A. S. van der Woude, “Die fünf syrischen Psalmen”, in: JSHRZ 4, pp. 29–47. For the ﬁrst Psalm Scroll from Cave 11 of Qumran see P. W. Flint, op. cit., 1977.

428

chapter ten

Commentaries: K. Budde (HKAT) 1896, 19132; B. Duhm (KHC) 1897; S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray (ICC) 1921 (1971); M. Buttenweiser, The Book of Job, London 1922; P. Dhorme (Etudes Bibliques) 1926; L. H. K. Bleeker (TU) 1926, 19352; E. König, Das Buch Hiob, Gütersloh 1929; P. Szczygiel (HSAT) 1931; G. Hölscher (HAT) 1937, 19522; E. Kissane, The Book of Job, Dublin 1939; N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, Jerusalem 1941, 1957; C. Larcher, Le livre de Job, Paris 1950, 19572; A. Weiser (ATD) 1951, 19888; S. Terrien and P. Scherer (IB) 1954; F. Stier, Das Buch Ijjob, Munich 1954; J. H. Kroeze (COT) 1961; S. Terrien (CAT) 1963; G. Fohrer (KAT2) 1963; M. Pope (AB) 1965, 19744; F. Horst (BK) I, 1968 (= Job 1–19); C. Epping and J. T. Nelis (BOT) 1968; H. H. Rowley (NCB) 1970; N. Habel (CNEB) 1975; F. Hesse (ZBK) 1978; R. Gordis, The Book of Job. Commentary, New Translation, and Special Notes, New York 1978; A. de Wilde, Das Buch Hiob (OTS 22), Leiden 1981; A. van Selms (POT) I, 1982, II, 1983; id. (TT) 1984; N. C. Habel (OTL) 1985; W. Groß (NEB) 1986; J. E. Hartley (NICOT) 1988; D. J. A. Clines (WBC) 1989 (lit.!).

Monographs and articles: F. Baumgärtel, Der Hiobdialog. Aufriß und Deutung (BWANT 61), Stuttgart 1933; A. Alt, Zur Vorgeschichte des Buches Hiob, ZAW 55 (1937), 265–268; C. J. Lindblom, La composition du livre de Job, Lund 1945; A. H. Edelkoort, Het boek Job en het probleem van het lijden, Den Haag 1946; G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint I. Book of Job, Lund 1946; C. Kuhl, “Neuere Literaturkritik des Buches Hiob”, ThR 21 (1953), 163–205, 257–317; id., “Vom Hiobbuch und seinen Problemen”, ThR 22 (1954), 261–316; C. Westermann, Der Aufbau des Buches Hiob (BHTh 23), Tübingen 1956, (CThM 6) Stuttgart 19783; H. Gese, Lehre und Wirklichkeit in der alten Weisheit, Tübingen 1958; H. H. Rowley, “The Book of Job and its Meaning”, BJRL 41 (1958), 167–207 (= id., From Moses to Qumran, London-New York 1963, pp. 139–183); G. Fohrer, “Zur Vorgeschichte und Komposition des Buches Hiob”, VT 16 (1956), 249–267; id., Studien zum Buche Hiob, Gütersloh 1963; A. Jepsen, Das Buch Hiob und seine Deutung, Berlin 1963; M. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job”, HUCA 37 (1966), 73–106; N. N. Glatzer, “The Book of Job and its Interpreters”, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Cambridge MA 1966, pp. 197–220; id., (ed.), The Dimensions of Job, New York 1969; A. Guillaume, Studies in the Book of Job, with a New Translation, Leiden 1968; P. S. Sanders (ed.), Twentieth Century Interpretations of the Book of Job, Englewood Cliﬀs NJ 1968; N. Snaith, The Book of Job. Its Origin and Purpose, London 1968; J. Lévêque, Job et son Dieu. Essai d’exégèse et de théologie biblique I–II (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1970; H. P. Müller, Hiob und seine Freunde, Zurich 1970; id., Das Hiobproblem (EdF 84), Darmstadt 1978, 19953; G. von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, Neukirchen 1970, pp. 267–292; J. Barr, “The Book of Job and its Modern Interpreters”, BJRL 54 (1971–1972), 28–46; J. H. Kahn,

the remaining literature (the writings)

429

Job’s Illness: Loss, Grief, and Integration, Oxford 1975; R. Laurin, “The Theological Structures of Job”, ZAW 84 (1972), 86–92; P. A. H. de Boer, “Haalt Job bakzeil?”, NTT 31 (1977), 181–194; O. Keel, Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob. Eine Deutung von Ijob 38–41 vor dem Hintergrund der zeitgenössischen Bildkunst (FRLANT 121), Göttingen 1978; V. Kubina, Die Gottesreden im Buche Hiob (Freiburger Theologische Studien 115), Freiburg i. Br. 1979; A. R. Ceresko, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Rome 1980; J. D. Crossan (ed.), The Book of Job and Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics (Semeia 19), Chico CA 1981; V. Maag, Hiob. Wandlung und Verarbeitung des Problems in Novelle, Dialogdichtung und Spätfassung (FRLANT 128), Göttingen 1982; G. Fohrer, Studien zum Buche Hiob (1956–1979) (BZAW 159), Berlin-New York 1983; J. L. Crenshaw, A Whirlpool of Torment, Philadelphia 1984; W. E. Aufrecht (ed.), Studies in the Book of Job, Waterloo, Ontario 1985; J. H. Eaton, Job (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1985 (1987); E. Noort, Een duister duel. Over de theologie van het boek Job, Kampen 1986; J. Vermeylen, Job, ses amis et son Dieu. La légende de Job et ses relectures postexiliques (Studia Biblica 2), Leiden 1986; R. Girard, Job: The Victim of his People, Stanford 1987; J. van Oorschot, Gott als Grenze (BZAW 170), Berlin-New York 1987; P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven (HSM 43), New Haven 1988; W. Vogels, Belichting van het bijbelboek Job, Boxtel-Leuven 1989; Katharine J. Dell, The Book of Job as Sceptical Literature (BZAW 197), Berlin-New York 1991; Ellen van Wolde, Meneer en mevrouw Job. Job in gesprek met zijn vrouw, zijn vrienden en God, Baarn 1991, 19952; L. G. Perdue and W. C. Gilpin (eds.), The Voice from the Whirlwind. Interpreting the Book of Job, Nashville 1992; G. Fuchs, Mythos und Hiobdichtung. Aufnahme und Umdeutung altorientalischer Vorstellungen, Stuttgart 1993; M. Witte, Vom Leiden zum Lehren. Der dritte Redegang (Hi 21–27) und die Redaktionsgeschichte des Hiobbuches (BZAW 230), Berlin-New York 1994; B. Siertsema (ed.), Job: steen des aanstoots?, Kampen 1996.

From the literary perspective, the book of Job (Hebr. "Iyyôb = Akkadian Ajjâbu, “where is the [divine] father?”;11 lxx: Ioob; V: Iob) constitutes something of a high point in the Old Testament. It is universally considered one of the most magniﬁcent poetical works of world literature. The content of the book is also remarkable, its profoundly human qualities giving it an almost timeless character. Indeed, the fact that the book belongs among the Old Testament documents that can only be dated by approximation serves to underline its agelessness. The book introduces us to a pastoral society, strongly reminiscent of the period of the patriarchs.12 11

Cf. Amarna Letter nr. 256, 6. Typical of this period is the use of the term qe“îta, “a piece of silver”, only found elsewhere in Gen. 33:19 and Jos. 24:32 (42:11), Job’s great age (42:16) and the expression “old and full of days” (42:17, cf. Gen. 25:8; 35:29). 12

430

chapter ten

Job, the main character of the document, is described in Ezek. 14:14 and 14:20 side by side with Noah and Dan"el (familiar to us from Ugaritic texts) as a pious and blameless individual from bygone days (cf. Job 1:1). He is not portrayed as an Israelite but rather as a man of substance and property who lived among the inhabitants of the East (1:3) in the land of Uz (1:1). While the territory in question is diﬃcult to locate with any certainty, it seems more likely that it should be traced to the mountain region of the Druze with its foreshore to the east of the Lake of Galilee than to Edom.13 The place of origin of the document itself, however, remains unclear. Given the fact that the author considers Job to be one of the inhabitants of the East, it is probable that he once lived in Canaan and may indeed have been an Israelite. The author of the book was an original and deeply religious ﬁgure who had clearly struggled with the problem of (undeserved) human suﬀering. Some have described his work as a theodicy but such a designation might occasion misunderstanding. It was not the author’s intention to provide a theoretical justiﬁcation for God’s governance or to contradict the tradition of retribution. The book of Job is rather a reﬂection on how one should live with the suﬀering that can suddenly, and without identiﬁable reason, overcome a person in the context of one’s relationship with God. Although the book of Job is rightly included among the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament, its poetic quality goes far beyond that of traditional proverbial wisdom. Indeed, the very fact that it calls one of the core concepts of Wisdom literature into question, namely that God rewards good and punishes evil, sets it apart. While Job’s friends can do nothing more than argue on the basis of their long held conviction that suﬀering is the result of sin, Job himself is not aware of any misdemeanour on his own part. He denies in front of his friends that the suﬀering with which he is being confronted is punishment for some secret wrongdoing. He therefore accuses the Almighty in no uncertain terms that He is unjust (9:22–24), reproaches God for denying him his rights (27:2) and complains that the Almighty

13 Localisation in Bashan-Hauran has been proposed (cf. Gen. 10:23; 22:21) or a territory between Edom and Arabia (cf. Lam. 4:21). J. C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism (BEThL 91), Leuven 19972, pp. 131–162 has argued strongly in favour of identifying Job with the king of Ashteroth in the Bashan region mentioned in the El-Amarna letters (256 and 364).

the remaining literature (the writings)

431

has become his enemy (6:4; 7:12; 9:17–18; 16:9–14 etc.). While strong protests and pointed challenges are laid at God’s doorstep, Job arrives nevertheless at a profound faith in God in spite of God who “bears the visage of Satan” (cf. 16:18–22; 19:25–27). In the last analysis Job withdraws nothing of what he has said (the translation of 42:6 is often incorrect in this regard). His encounter with the Creator (chapter 38ﬀ.), however, ultimately deepens his knowledge of God: “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee” (42:5). Job recognises the limited nature of his knowledge of the Almighty (42:3) and confesses his lowly stature in the face of God’s majestic creative authority: Therefore I recognise my insigniﬁcance and consider myself dust and ashes (42:6). The problem of the suﬀering of the innocent together with the theme of divine justice has been the focus of attention on more than one occasion in the Ancient Near Eastern world.14 Perhaps the closest example thereof to the content of the book of Job can be found in the Sumerian tractate referred to by S. N. Kramer “Man and his God. A Sumerian Variation of the Job Motif ”.15 After an exhortation that human beings should praise their god at all times, the author tells the story of a young man who had lived an exemplary life and who had suddenly been confronted with sickness and misfortune. His lament takes up the largest part of the unfortunately fragmentary text that we have at our disposal. At the end of his prayer to his personal god he confesses his sins and is liberated thereafter from all his misery. The diﬀerence with the biblical text is clear: the Sumerian poem is aimed at the gloriﬁcation of the divinity, the Israelite document the justiﬁcation of the person Job; in the former the main character confesses his sins, in the latter Job maintains his innocence to the end. The dialogue between a believer and a sceptic found in the so-called “Babylonian theodicy”,16 and the renowned Ludlul bel nemeqi (“Let me praise the lord of wisdom”)17 are even further removed from the book of Job. In 14 Cf. W. von Soden, “Das Fragen nach der Gerechtigkeit Gottes im Alten Orient”, in: H. P. Müller (ed.), Bibel und alter Orient. Altorientalische Beiträge zum Alten Testament von Wolfram von Soden (BZAW 162), Berlin-New York 1985, pp. 57–75; H. P. Müller, “Keilschriftliche Parallelen zum biblischen Hiobbuch. Möglichkeit und Grenze des Vergleichs”, Orientalia 47 (1978), 360–375; TUAT III/1, pp. 110–162 (W. von Soden). 15 See ANET, pp. 589–591. 16 Introduction, transcribed text and translation in W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford 1960, pp. 63–89. Cf. ANET, pp. 438–440, 601–604; COS I, pp. 492–495. 17 Introduction, transcribed text and translation in W. G. Lambert, op. cit., (preceding note), pp. 21–62. Cf. also ANET, pp. 596–600; COS I, pp. 486–492.

432

chapter ten

the “Babylonian theodicy” the unfortunate individual accuses the gods of injustice in their governance of the world while his friend accuses him in turn of lacking respect for the divine disposition. A solution to the problem of suﬀering is not given. The latter poem, which is aimed at the gloriﬁcation of the god Marduk, the lord of wisdom, oﬀers a cultic solution conﬁrmed by the petitioner’s visit to the temple of the godhead. The only similarity with the book of Job is to be found in the lament over undeserved suﬀering. The diﬀerence between the response to suﬀering oﬀered by the Babylonian and the biblical author can be seen as follows: the former maintains that evil in the world has been introduced by the gods and that the human person must resign him or herself to this fact. Human persons can only survive by piously seeking divine favour. In spite of the cutting accusation of 9:22–24 and aware of his innocence, Job appeals to God’s justice and maintains that God shall be his keeper and redeemer (16:19–21; 19:25–27):18 if a human person justiﬁes the majesty of God in all His deeds, the Almighty shall justify the faithful in return. Given the incidental character of the parallels with the Babylonian poetic texts, it seems reasonable to assume that the latter did not inﬂuence the author of the book of Job.

Considerable lack of agreement exists as to the actual question being raised by the book of Job. Is Job being portrayed as one who continues to honour yhwh in good times and in bad (1:21; 2:10), as one who is convinced that God is his defender, guarantor and redeemer (16:19; 19:25), or as one who has to learn that anyone challenging God (in court) will ultimately be forced to taste defeat (9:15)? Is he being oﬀered insight into the fact that God’s intentions for any human life are never completely fathomable (11:7–9; 15:8), that mortal men and women cannot fully grasp the meaning of things, but are called rather to fear the Lord (28:1–28) and to recognise the majesty of the Creator and Keeper, a recognition that renews human life? Commentators may be obliged to account for all of these aspects in reading Job, especially in light of the fact that the document itself does not intend to be a theoretical essay. Job represents a slice of life, an attempt to respond to the problem of the suﬀering of good people. It is stated that Job, in spite of (or better: thanks to) his rebellion and bitter protests and in contrast to his friends, “spoke of me (yhwh) what is right” (42:7). Job does this “in the uniqueness of his confessions in the prologue, in his vehement 18 R. Kessler, “‘Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebet’. Sozialgeschichtlicher Hintergrund und theologische Bedeutung der Löser-Vorstellung in Hiob 19,25”, ZThK 89 (1992), 139–158.

the remaining literature (the writings)

433

laments and profound accusations, in his challenging God and his faith in God against God, the Lord, who is witness, guarantor and redeemer, as well as in the determination of his own place in the encounter with God who presents himself as the Creator” (E. Noort, in: Siertsema (ed.), op. cit., 1996, p. 18). The book of Job consists of a narrative prose frame with 1:1–2:13 as prologue and 42:7–17 as epilogue surrounding a number of dialogues in poetic form. The prologue relates how Satan (the accuser) calls Job’s piety into question, arguing that it is dependent on his riches, and is given leave by God to take everything from him. Although Job is faced with the loss of his property and, in addition, the loss of his own children, he perseveres nevertheless in his piety (1:21). Satan is then granted leave in a second round to aﬄict Job with an arduous illness. In spite of his wife’s exhortation to curse God, however, Job continues to trust in the Lord and he allows no such unseemly words to pass his lips (2:10). Job’s friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar come to visit him and are initially stunned into silence by his suﬀering. After a bitter complaint on the part of Job in which he curses the very day of his birth (chapter 3), three series of dialogues follow (4–14; 15–21; 22–27) between Job and his friends. Eliphaz and Bildad present their arguments on three occasions (chapters 4–5, 15, 22 and 8, 18, 25 respectively), Zophar on two occasions (chapters 11, 20), each of which is followed by a response on the part of Job. The dialogues contain several elements reminiscent of Wisdom literature, the lawsuit and psalmody (particularly the individual lament). They present the reader/audience with a progressive, step by step portrayal of the discussion between Job and his friends, the interventions of the latter varying from consolation to cutting accusation, and of the former from lament to a declaration of personal innocence in the form of an “oath of puriﬁcation” (31). Each of Job’s friends reacts to the situation in his own way and with his own speciﬁc points of emphasis: “Elifas, der Würdevolle, der Weise vor andern, der sich auf seine Lebenserfahrung und selbstempfangene Oﬀenbarungen beruft, Bildad, der eitle Schönredner, der sich auf Zeugnisse und Überlieferung stützt, Zofar, der rohe Polterer, der mit Allerweltsweisheiten und Gemeinplätzen um sich wirft” (Budde). The third series of dialogues is a signiﬁcant source of diﬃculty: the segment is shorter than the two preceding segments; a third argument on the part of Zophar is absent; Bildad’s third speech (25:2–6) consists of a mere ﬁve verses; certain passages ascribed to Job would appear to ﬁt more appropriately on the lips of his friends (24:18–25; 27:7–10,13–23) or would appear

434

chapter ten

to be digressions (24:1–15; 26:5–14). While it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that portions of these chapters have been misplaced, the reconstruction of the third series of dialogues in its original form remains a precarious task. Scholarly attempts to do so have led to a variety of quite distinct proposals, most of which are strongly hypothetical. Eaton (1985) has suggested, for example, that 27:7–23, which portrays the punishment of the godless, is an ironic warning on Job’s part addressed to his friends in response to their unjust accusations (cf. 27:11–12). Other scholars have presupposed that the third series of dialogues was introduced by a redactor19 who ascribed a more orthodox vision of the problem of innocent suﬀering to Job than is found in the preceding chapters. The Targum of Job from Cave 11 of Qumran (11QtgJob; see further chapter XIV) presupposes the present Hebrew text.

After Job’s friends present their arguments and Job oﬀers his responses, the text continues with a Wisdom Song (28) and the “last words” of Job (29:1–31:40), at the conclusion of which he declares his innocence under oath and challenges the Almighty to give answer. The text then introduces the reader to a certain Elihu (32:1–6a), who takes oﬀence at the words uttered by Job and his friends, which he attempts to counter with a ﬁve-fold argument (32:6b–22; 33; 34; 35; 36:1–37:24).20 Job oﬀers no response. In chapter 38 the Almighty answers Job “out of the whirlwind” (38:1), not to condemn him but rather to bring him to an awareness of the majesty of God who manifests himself in creation in a manner that human persons cannot comprehend (chapters 38–41). Job is at ﬁrst humbled by God’s response (39:34–38, Hebr. 40:1–5) and then brought to confess his own nothingness (42:1–6). The story concludes with a report of Job’s vindication in front of his friends and the return of his many earthly possessions (42:7–17). While the framework narrative would appear to have its roots in ancient tradition,21 its unity with the dialogues should be upheld 19 Cf. C. Westermann, op. cit., 1956, pp. 24–25, 102; H. Gese, “Die Frage nach dem Lebenssinn: Hiob und seine Folgen”, ZThK 79 (1982), 161–179, esp. p. 164; H. J. Hermisson, “Notizen zu Hiob”, ZThK 86 (1989), 125–139. 20 D. N. Freedman, “The Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job”, HThR 61 (1968), 51–59; Th. Mende, Durch Leiden zur Vollendung. Die Elihureden im Buch Ijob (Ijob 32–37) (Trierer Theologische Studien 49), Trier 1990. 21 V. Maag, op. cit., 1982 distinguishes two sources: an independent novella concerning an Aramean (1:1–2:10 and 42:10–17) and a narrative concerning an Edomite Job that constitutes the surrounding framework of the poetical dialogues (2:11–13 and 42:7–9). Maag’s thesis is not convincing since, given the evidence of the present prologue and epilogue, much material must have been lost from both narratives when they were later combined.

the remaining literature (the writings)

435

nevertheless, in spite of evident tensions between them at the level of content22 and form.23 Written in a reﬁned style, the framework narrative is insuﬃcient without the dialogues and is a necessary prerequisite thereof. In addition, 8:4 would appear to hark back to the reference to the death of Job’s children in the prologue, while the mention of Job’s friends in 42:7–9 clearly alludes to the preceding chapters. The framework narrative ultimately serves to intensify the dialogues: “God is duelling with Satan and Job knows nothing about it” (Noort). Support should therefore be given to the hypothesis that the poet of the dialogues had an ancient saga concerning Job’s prosperity, trials, faith in God and ultimate reinstatement at his disposal, a tradition that served as the point of departure for his own work. The originality of the Satan scenes (1:6–12; 2:1–7) has been called into question. The occasionally defended opinion that Job 42:12–17 is lacking in the Targum of Job found in Cave 11 at Qumran (11QTgJob) can no longer be maintained on account of the vague yet still legible remains of letters to be found in the damaged document.24 Diﬀerences between the Masoretic Text of 42:1–6 and that of the Targum can be explained on theological grounds. The author of the latter does not allow Job to speak “without insight” (42:3) nor does he allow him—in line with later ideals of piety—to recognise his own nothingness (42:6).

What we have said so far does not take away from the fact that the book of Job contains a number of interpolations. Commentators consistently include the Song of Wisdom in Job 28 among the latter (in addition to certain segments from the third series of dialogues; see above), a chapter that impressively describes how humanity is incapable of ﬁnding the way to Wisdom’s dwelling in spite of its technical skills: the path to Wisdom is known to God alone. God has nevertheless revealed wisdom to human beings, the only wisdom they need to live meaningful lives: “Truly, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding” (28:28). Given the fact that Job had indeed lived his life in such a fashion, the 22 Cf., for example, the patient Job of the prologue and the impassioned Job of the dialogues. 23 The framing narrative employs yhwh as a rule, while the dialogues tend to speak of “God” or “the Almighty”. 24 See F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11: II (DJD XXIII), Oxford 1998, p. 170.

436

chapter ten

song —which may have been borrowed from an Ancient Israelite treasury of songs—is clearly located in a functionally appropriate place after the dialogues in which Job pleads his innocence and his speech in chapters 29–31 in which he challenges the Almighty to answer him. The speeches of Elihu (32–37)25 are also evidently secondary, interrupting the cohesion between chapters 31 and 38 and exhibiting a diﬀerent tone to the preceding chapters in terms of form (a monologue), poetic style (inferior to that of the dialogues) and language (more Aramaisms than in the preceding chapters). In addition, Elihu is not mentioned in the preceding or subsequent chapters. In terms of content his speeches repeat many of the ideas already raised by the three friends and anticipate what follows to such an extent that one is obliged to consider either chapters 32ﬀ. or 38ﬀ. as secondary. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that chapters 32–37 are a later addition. In addition to their emphatic insistence on God’s justice, interpolation speeches focus in particular on the proposition that the suﬀering of the righteous is intended to bring him or her to a sense of his or her own sinfulness, to protect him or her from reckless aberrations and to call him or her to conversion (36:8–10). An echo of detachment is more evident in the words of Elihu than in the dialogues, leaving one with the impression that the text represents a polemic against doubts emerging among later generations as to God’s righteousness. In spite of the fact that Elihu’s speeches do not appear to belong to the original text of the book of Job, they nevertheless enjoy a functional place in the text. By speaking of a wisdom that is aware of the boundaries God has set for her and by drawing attention to the association between wisdom and creation, Elihu’s words establish a bridge between the dialogues that precede them and the Gottesreden that follows. Several scholars are also inclined to consider the description of Behemoth (hippopotamus/primeval monster) in 40:10–19 (Hebr. 40:15–24) and the description of Leviathan (crocodile/sea monster) in 40:20–41:25 (Hebr. 40:25–41:26) as later additions. The poems in question are much

25 Theresia Mende, Durch Leiden zur Vollendung. Die Elihureden im Buche Ijob (Ijob 32–37) (Trierer Theologische Studien 49), Trier 1990. Her acceptance of several reworkings of the speech of Elihu is disputed by M. Wahl, Der gerechte Schöpfer. Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Elihureden Hiob 32–37 (BZAW 207), Berlin-New York 1993.

the remaining literature (the writings)

437

more detailed than those referring to other animals (cf. 39:1–33 [Hebr. 38:39–39:30]). In addition, they would appear to interrupt the cohesion between 40:1–9 (Hebr. 40:6–14) and 42:1–6. Other scholars defend their authenticity (Keel 1978, Kubina 1979). The suggestion that the Gottesreden of 38:1–39:33 (Hebr. 38:1–39:30) and 40:1–41:25 (Hebr. 40:6–41:26) together with Job’s responses in 39:36–39 (Hebr. 40:3–5) and 42:1–6 may be due to redactional intervention has elicited a variety of reactions.26 Some explain the verses in their totality as secondary while others support their originality. Others still steer a middle course, taking a single Gottesrede and a single response on the part of Job as their point of departure. The latter are identiﬁed for the most part in 38;1–39:35; 40:2–9 (Hebr. 38:1–40:2,7–14) and in 39:36–39 (Hebr. 40:3–5), 42:1–3abb,5–6 respectively. In the present author’s opinion, however, the verses referred to from chapter 42 serve as a climax to the book of Job and cannot be missed from the book as a whole. It is likely, therefore, that at least one Gottesrede originally preceded this segment of the text. It would be incorrect to consider 42:10–17, which relates how Job’s perseverance in faith is justiﬁed in concrete terms with the restoration of earthly property and the birth of children, as a secondary interpolation. It is sometimes argued on (false) theological grounds that the segment in question is “worldly” and thus inappropriate in the context of the book’s elevated character. For an ancient Israelite, however, justiﬁcation only becomes true reality when restoration is made manifest in earthly blessings. It is for this reason that 42:10–17 cannot be removed from its place after the prologue and the dialogues. Setting the abovementioned interpolations to one side, the establishment of the date of origin of the original book remains a complicated task. The apparently archaic portrayal of the environment and the treatment of the theme of retribution (cf. Psalms 37, 49 and 73; Jer. 12:1–2; Ezekiel 18 and 33) do not as such exclude the possibility of codiﬁcation prior to the period of the Babylonian exile. Linguistic data does not support the establishment of deﬁnitive conclusions. On the other hand, the representation of Satan as a sort

26 Cf. J. van Oorschot, Gott als Grenze. Eine literar- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Gottesreden des Hiobbuches (BZAW 170), Berlin-New York 1987.

chapter ten

438

of heavenly prosecutor (cf. Zechariah 3), the determined rejection of the traditional notion of retribution together with the Krise der Weisheit (Schmid),27 to which the book as a whole bears witness, and the dependence of Job 12:9b on Isa. 41:20 signalled by Van Selms (commentary 1982, p. 109) argue for a date of origin after the Babylonian exile, probably in the fourth century BCE. The book of Job has exercised continuous inﬂuence in both the Jewish and Christian world. Indeed a number of expressions in which the word Job is employed have found their way into modern usage (e.g. ‘the patience of Job’). Countless theologians, philosophers and men/women of letters have praised its excellence and visual artists of every kind have found in it a source of great inspiration.

c. Proverbs The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom (9:10a).

Commentaries: G. Wildeboer (KHC) 1897; W. Frankenberg (HKAT) 1898; C. H. Toy (ICC) 1899; H. Wiesmann (HSAT) 1925; B. Gemser (TU) I 1929, II 1931; id. (HAT) 1937, 19632; V. Hamp (EB) 1949; W. H. Gispen (KV) I 1952, II 1954; J. P. M. van der Ploeg (BOT) 1952; C. T. Fritsch and R. W. Schloerb (IB) 1955; H. Ringgren (ATD) 1962, 19803; A. Barucq, Le livre des Proverbes (Sources Bibliques), Paris 1964; R. B. Y. Scott (AB) 1965, 19852; W. McKane (OTL), 1970, 19803; R. N. Whybray (CNEB) 1972; O. Plöger (BK) 1984; L. A. Snijders (TT) 1984; A. Meinhold (ZBK) I–II 1991; R. N. Whybray (NCB) 1994; E. W. Tuinstra (POT) I 1996 (= Proverbs 1–9).

Monographs and articles: G. Kuhn, Beiträge zur Erklärung des salomonischen Spruchbuches (BWANT III,16), Stuttgart 1931; W. Baumgartner, “Die israelitische Weisheitsliteratur”, ThR 5 (1933), 259–288; J. Fichtner, Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitischjüdischen Ausprägung (BZAW 62), Berlin 1933; G. Boström, Proverbiastudien. Die Weisheit und das fremde Weib in Spr. 1–9 (LUÅ I, 30/3), Lund 1935; H. Gese, Lehre und Wirklichkeit in der alten Weisheit. Studien zu den Sprüchen Salomos und zu dem Buche Hiob, Tübingen 1958; U. Skladny, Die älteren Spruchsammlungen in Israel, Göttingen 1962; R. N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs. The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 (SBTh 45), London 1965; id., The Intellectual Tradition 27

H. H. Schmid, Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit (BZAW 101), Berlin 1966.

the remaining literature (the writings)

439

in the Old Testament (BZAW 135), Berlin 1974; id., “Yahweh-Sayings and their Contexts in Proverbs 10,1–22,16”, in: M. Gilbert (ed.), La sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BEThL 51), Leuven 1979, pp. 153–165; id., The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (Suppl. JSOT 168), Sheﬃeld 1994; W. McKane, Prophets and Wise Men, London 1965; C. Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1–9. Eine formund motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung unter Einbeziehung ägyptischen Vergleichmaterials (WMANT 22), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1966; J. Conrad, “Die innere Gliederung der Proverbien”, ZAW 79 (1967), 67–76; H. J. Hermisson, Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit (WMANT 28), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968; G. von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970, 19853; P. W. Skehan, Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom (CBQ Monographs 1), Washington DC 1971; B. Lang, Die weisheitliche Lehrrede. Eine Untersuchung von Sprüche 1–7 (SBSt 54), Stuttgart 1972; id., Frau Weisheit. Deutung einer biblischen Gestalt, Düsseldorf 1975 (reworked in: id., Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess Redeﬁned, New York 1986); J. Thompson, The Form and Function of Proverbs in Ancient Israel, The Hague 1974; W. Bühlmann, Vom rechten Reden und Schweigen. Studien zu Proverbien 10 –31 (OBO 12), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1976; J. Gammie e.a. (eds.), Israelite Wisdom (FS S. Terrien), New York 1978; M. Gilbert (ed.), La sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BEThL 51), Leuven 1979; E. Hornung und O. Keel (eds.), Studien zu altägyptischen Lebenslehren (OBO 28), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1979; J. D. Crossan (ed.), Gnomic Wisdom (Semeia 12), Chico Ca 1980; J. G. Williams, Those Who Ponder Proverbs: Aphoristic Thinking and Biblical Literature (Bible and Literature Series 2), Sheﬃeld 1981; J. L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom. An Introduction, London 1982; P. J. Nel, The Structure and Ethos of the Wisdom Admonitions in Proverbs (BZAW 158), Berlin-New York 1982; E. Noort, De oudtestamentische wijsheidsliteratuur als ervaringstheologie, GTT 83 (1983), 158–166; C. V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Bible and Literature Series 11), Sheﬃeld 1985; F. W. Golka, “Die Königs- und Hofsprüche und der Ursprung der israelitischen Weisheit”, VT 36 (1986), 13–36; H. D. Preuss, Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur, Stuttgart 1987; L. Boström, The God of the Sages. The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs (Coniectanea Biblica 29), Stockholm 1990; C. Westermann, Wurzeln der Weisheit. Die ältesten Sprüche Israels und anderer Völker, Göttingen 1990; id., Forschungsgeschichte zur Weisheitsliteratur 1950 –1990, Stuttgart 1991; H. A. McKay and D. J. A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages. Essays in Honour of R. N. Whybray (Suppl. JSOT 162), Sheﬃeld 1994; J. Day e.a. (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel. Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, Cambridge 1995: J. D. Martin, Proverbs (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1995.

The book of Proverbs (Hebr. mi“le (”elomo): “the [skilful] proverbs (of Solomon)”; lxx; paroimiai: “proverbs/sayings”; V: proverbia), which is located in the Septuagint, the Vulgate and in modern bible translations between the Psalms and the book of Qoheleth, represents the biblical wisdom book par excellence. While Job and Qoheleth both belong to the Old Testament’s Wisdom literature as such, they diﬀer

440

chapter ten

considerably from the book of Proverbs in terms of form and content. Furthermore, Job and Qoheleth stem, at least for the most part, from one speciﬁc author, while Proverbs is a collective work that represents Israel’s traditional ‘school’ wisdom. Wisdom (chokma) in the Ancient Near Eastern world represented a highly respected branch of spiritual-cultural life.28 Almost universally considered the property of the gods, wisdom was understood as their gift to human beings (cf., however, Gen. 4:20–23) to allow mortal men and women to succeed in life and achieve happiness. In addition to magic/mantic capacities29 (cf. Exod. 7:11ﬀ; Daniel), wisdom consisted of technical skills/crafts (cf. Exod. 35:30ﬀ.) as well as the art of governance, the capacity to make ethical distinctions between good and evil, conducive and damaging, true and misleading etc. Common sense and worldly wisdom, however, held pride of place in biblical wisdom. The concept achieved technical signiﬁcance through the work of certain groups who devoted themselves to the formulation and collection of rules for daily living, which they passed on to their pupils.30

28

For Sumerian-Akkadian Wisdom Literature see J. J. A. van Dijk, La sagesse suméro-akkadienne. Recherches sur les genres littéraires des textes sapientaux, Leiden 1953; E. I. Gordon, Sumerian Proverbs: Glimpses of Every Day Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Philadelphia 1959; W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford 1960; B. Alster, Studies in Sumerian Proverbs, Copenhagen 1974; id., Some New Babylonian Wisdom Literature, in: J. Day e.a. (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel. Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, Cambridge 1995, pp. 30–42;—for Egyptian Wisdom Literature see M. Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context. A Study of Demotic Instructions (OBO 52), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1983; H. van Es, De kunst van het sturen. Spreuken uit Egypte en Israël, Delft 1985; H. Brunner, Altägyptische Weisheit. Lehren für das Leben, Darmstadt 1988; J. D. Ray, “Egyptian Wisdom Literature”, in: J. Day e.a. (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel, Cambridge 1995, pp. 17–29.—For the relationship between Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom and that of Ancient Israel see further: J. Fichtner, Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitisch-jüdischen Ausprägung (BZAW 62), Berlin 1933; M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (FS H. H. Rowley; SVT 3), Leiden 1955; H. H. Schmid, Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit. Eine Untersuchung zur altorientalischen und israelitischen Weisheitsliteratur (BZAW 101), Berlin 1966; J. Day, “Foreign Semitic Inﬂuence on the Wisdom of Israel and its Appropriation in the Book of Proverbs”, in: J. Day e.a. (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel, Cambridge 1995, pp. 55–70. 29 H. P. Müller, “Magisch-mantische Weisheit und die Gestalt Daniels”, UF 1 (1969), 79–94. 30 Cf. A. Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël (OBO 39), Fribourg/Göttingen 1981; id., “Sagesses et écoles”, VT 34 (1984), 270–281; id., “The Sage in School and Temple”, in: J. G. Gammie and L. G. Pardee (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990, pp. 165–181; J. L. Crenshaw, “Education in Israel”, JBL 104 (1985), 601–615.

the remaining literature (the writings)

441

Exercised of old in Mesopotamia and Egypt, wisdom was strongly associated in such contexts with oﬃcial government circles, with the palace and the temple (which in essence belonged together), with priests and civil servants (the “scribes”) and with the king as sacral ﬁgure, who served as the ﬁnal instance in legal matters (cf. 2 Sam. 14:17,20; 1 Kings 3). While practical kinship wisdom and conventional (popular) wisdom must have existed and functioned for a long time, court wisdom only made its appearance in Israel when Solomon organised his kingdom along Ancient Near Eastern lines with its elaborate civil apparatus. Jer. 18:18 reveals that in later centuries wise individuals served as advisers to Israel’s leadership side by side with priests and prophets. Wisdom not only exercised a profound inﬂuence on Israel’s historical writings and the Psalms, it also left its impression on Israel’s prophetic preaching.31 Primarily in the Egyptian context32 but also in the Babylonian-Assyrian world (cf. Achikar)33 wisdom was practiced among the more senior court oﬃcials. It goes without saying that highly civilised nations such as Egypt, Assyria and Babylon employed an extensive network of minor oﬃcials who served the king in the midst of the people, ensured the collection of taxes, kept the court informed of local issues and perhaps also engaged in teaching. Senior oﬃcials in the capital cities and particularly those involved in the court tended to be assigned more important duties, serving as secretaries to the major civil services up to and including chancellor. Such individuals also served as scribes, recording the annals of the king and taking care of correspondence with foreign courts. It is more than likely that many among them will have been familiar with foreign aﬀairs on account of their many trips abroad or of their foreign birth. In spite of the fact that very little literary evidence is available to us concerning the world of civil administration in the Old Testament, we have enough information to conﬁrm that scribes existed in Israel from the time of Solomon.34 The extent of Israel’s civil service remains unknown. If we account for the fact that Israel existed without a monarchy for a considerable period of time, forming a national community under the leadership 31

Cf. the contributions of various authors in J. Day e.a. (eds.), op. cit., 1995, pp.

94ﬀ. 32 H. Brunner, Altägyptische Erziehung, Wiesbaden 1957; R. J. Williams, “Scribal Training in Ancient Egypt”, JAOS 92 (1972), 214–221. 33 Cf. P. Grelot, “Les proverbes araméens d’Ahikar”, RB 68 (1961), 178–194; id., Documents araméens d’Egypte (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient), Paris 1972, pp. 427–452; J. C. Greenﬁeld, “The Wisdom of Ahiqar”, in; J. Day e.a. (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel. Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, Cambridge 1995, pp. 43–52. 34 J. Begrich, “Sofer und Mazkîr”, ZAW 58 (1940/41), 1–29.

442

chapter ten

of family chiefs, it is possible that its civil service was fairly limited. It is apparent from Jer. 36:12, however, that the inﬂuence of the ‘wise’ was far from insigniﬁcant. Indeed, Jer. 8:8–9 refers to them in the same breath as the scribes. While this need not imply that all civil servants were scribes skilled in the art of living, they belonged nonetheless to intellectual circles among whom a universal form of moral learning was held in high esteem. The international character of the wisdom tradition is also apparent from the book of Proverbs, which includes typically Israelite popular and spiritual wisdom side by side with proverbs that clearly exhibit Egyptian inﬂuence (esp. 22:17ﬀ.).35 It is evident from the content of wisdom literature as a whole and the book of Proverbs in particular that the scribes in question were responsible for the education of the children of the wealthier classes. The style of the book of Proverbs, for example, bears witness to the fact that in many respects the practice of wisdom had a pedagogical function: teachers address themselves to their audience or refer to their readers with the words “my son” (Prov. 1:8,10,15 etc.) or “children” (4:1).

Israel’s wisdom is Eastern, i.e. rooted in religious/theological concerns. In spite of the fact that it is often oriented towards the human person and his or her happiness, it does not exhibit an exclusively humanistic character nor does it value a fundamentally philosophical life option detached from anything religious. Should one wish to compare biblical wisdom with a particular domain from among the contemporary sciences then the closest parallel would have to be that of (theological) ethics. One should bear in mind, however, that Ancient Near Eastern wisdom, including that of Israel, addressed itself to reality as a whole. What we have noted so far does not detract from the fact that Israel’s wisdom literature enjoyed its own characteristic features. While Egyptian wisdom tended for the most part to be associated with court oﬃcials, Israel’s wisdom is more democratic, addressing young 35 W. O. E. Oesterley, “The Teaching of Amen-em-ope and the Old Testament”, ZAW 45 (1927), 9–24; id., The Wisdom of Egypt and the Old Testament, London 1927; K. F. D. Römheld, Wege der Weisheit. Die Lehren Amenemopes und Proverbien 22,17–24,22 (BZAW 184), Berlin-New York 1989. For the relevant Egyptian texts see, in particular, W. McKane, Proverbs (OTL), London 19772, pp. 51–150 and Fr. J. Steiert, Die Weisheit Israels—Ein Fremdkörper im Alten Testament? Eine Untersuchung zum Buch der Sprüche auf dem Hintergrund der ägyptischen Weisheitslehren (Freiburger Theologische Studien 143), Freiburg 1990. C. Kayatz, a. w. 1966, has demonstrated a degree of kinship between Proverbs 1–9 and older Egyptian Wisdom Literature on the basis of which he argues for a pre-exilic dating for the said chapters. R. N. Whybray likewise recognises kinship with Egyptian literature in his Wisdom in Proverbs. The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 (SBTh 45), London 1965, 1967 2, although he is inclined to date Proverbs 1–9 in part before and in part after the exile.

the remaining literature (the writings)

443

people in general. The teaching of Israel’s wise individuals is more ethical and less intellectual in nature when compared with its Egyptian counterpart. It does not promote a morality of class distinction, places explicit emphasis on the obligations of children towards their parents, respects the place of women and condemns adultery and immoral behaviour, treasures friendship and stresses the importance of caring for the poor and the weak. All these characteristics can be explained against the background of Israel’s unique religious heritage. In addition to its clearly ethical-religious character, Israel’s wisdom also placed an emphasis on divine retribution in the here and now. The books of Job and Qoheleth bear witness to the fact that the latter not infrequently occasioned diﬃculty. Israel’s monotheism also exercised signiﬁcant inﬂuence on its wisdom literature. For further information on the literary form of the wisdom saying see chapter VI. Following its introductory verses (1:1–7) the book of Proverbs consists of a variety of collections, almost all of which are provided with a superscription: a) detailed exhortatory lessons introducing and commending wisdom (1:8–9:18);36 b) proverbs of Solomon (10:1–22:16); c) words of the wise (22:17–24:22) with d) appendix (“these also are sayings of the wise”: 24:23–34; e) proverbs of Solomon copied by the “the oﬃcials of Hezekiah” (25–29); f ) the words of Agur son of Jakeh (30:1–14), followed by numerical aphorisms (30:15–33); g) the words of Lemuel, king of Massah, taught to him by his mother (31:1–9); h) an alphabetical poem praising the virtues of a capable wife (31:10–31).37

36 Cf. C. Kayatz, op. cit., 1966 and R. N. Whybray, “Some Literary Problems in Proverbs I–IX”, VT 16 (1966), 482–496; id., Wisdom in Proverbs. The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 (SBTh 45), London 1967 2; N. C. Habel, “The Symbolism of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9”, Interpretation 26 (1972), 131–157. 37 E. Jacob, “Sagesse et alphabet. A propos de Proverbes 31,10–31”, in: A. Caquot et M. Philonenko (eds.), Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, Paris 1971, pp. 287–295; Th. P. McCreesh, “Wisdom as Wife: Proverbs 31:10–31”, RB 92 (1985), 25–46.

444

chapter ten

The greater part of the documents assembled together in the book of Proverbs thus constitute two collections ascribed to Solomon (10ﬀ. and 25ﬀ.), to which an introduction and a number of appendices have been added. The fact that we are dealing with a variety of collections is indirectly conﬁrmed by the Septuagint. The lxx not only diﬀers signiﬁcantly from the Masoretic Text in several places or exhibits a longer text, it has also consistently incorporated the smaller collections in diﬀerent places: 22:17– 24:22e + 30:1–14 + 24:23–34 + 30:15–33 + 31:1–9 + 25–29 + 31:10–31.

Solomon was considered the father of wisdom in part because he was held to be the wisest king Israel had known (cf. 1 Kgs 4:29–31 [Hebr. 5:9–11]; 10:1–10) and in part because of his marital associations with the Egyptian court (11:1). The designation is not without reason and there can be little doubt that he contributed to the development of the practice of chokma in Israel. According to 1 Kgs 4:32–33 (Hebr. 5:12–13), he himself composed countless songs and sayings. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the book of Proverbs is ascribed to him (1:1) in spite of the fact that he was not its author. The extent to which the aforementioned collections contain proverbs dating from the time of Solomon is diﬃcult to determine. According to 1 Kgs 4:33 (Hebr. 5:13) the subjects of Solomon’s proverbs were taken from the world of ﬂora and fauna. There are few points contact that might assist us in dating the verses preserved in the book of Proverbs. While scholars frequently date the collections without exception to the post-exilic period their advice remains inaccurate: Wisdom literature across the board is no younger than the Pentateuch and the Prophets. There is likewise no sound reason to doubt the statement found in Prov. 25:1, which maintains that “the oﬃcials of Hezekiah” collected together those proverbs associated with the name of Solomon. In addition, it is clear that some proverbs presuppose the monarchy (16:10, 12–13; 20:8, 26, 28; 21:1; 22:11; 25:2–7). A pre-exilic origin for several proverbs is also supported by striking similarities between the short collection found in 22:17ﬀ. and the Egyptian proverbs of Amenemope (roughly 1000 BCE).38 Together with Gemser (commentary 19632), 38

Irene Grumach, Untersuchungen zur Lebenslehre des Amenemope (Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 23), Munich 1972; K. F. D. Römheld, Wege der Weisheit. Die Lehren Amenenopes und Proverbien 22,17–24,22 (BZAW 184), Berlin-New York 1989.

the remaining literature (the writings)

445

it seems reasonable to date the primary collection (10ﬀ.) in the period between Solomon and Hezekiah and that of 25–29—in line with the superscription of 25:1—during the reign of the latter. The same is true for “the words of the wise” (22:17–24:22). While the remaining appendices are more diﬃcult to place chronologically, the alphabetic poem found in 31:10–31, which is familiar to us as “the praise of a capable wife”, may well stem from preexilic times on account of its Palestinian ﬂavour and the rural character reﬂected in its content. The chronological location of the words of Agur (30:1–14) and Lemuel (31:1–9), names that suggest nonIsraelite origin, are even more diﬃcult to determine. It is possible that both individuals came from Massah (30:1 [if one reads “those from Massa” instead of “an oracle”]; 31:1), which, according to Gen. 25:14, was located in northern Arabia. The introductory chapters 1–9 would appear to be younger. Their edifying style and their personiﬁcation of wisdom are reminiscent of later wisdom books such as Jesus Sirach and the Sapientia Salomonis. Eﬀorts have been made to date wisdom on theological grounds. While some have favoured pre-exilic origin on the basis of evident kinship with Ancient Egyptian wisdom literature (Kayatz 1966; or partly pre-exilic [Whybray 19672]), it seems probable, therefore, that the chapters in question, at least with respect to their ﬁnal redaction, stem from the period after the Babylonian exile. Following the superscription and the prologue associated therewith in Prov. 1:2–7, which would appear to be intended as an introduction to the entire book as well as to chapters 1–9, the said chapters consist for the most part of admonitions and wisdom poems. The text warns against the company of the wicked (1:8–19), followed by a poem in which the inexperienced are urged to turn to wisdom (1:20–33). A second admonition (2) concerning the proﬁt to be gained from wisdom deals with the correct attitude one should maintain with respect to God and one’s fellow human beings and points out the dangers of associating with the godless and ‘strange’ women. The latter themes are further elaborated in succession in chapters 3–7 (interrupted by a wisdom poem 3:13–20 and exhortations 3:21–35; 4:1–9; 6:1–19). The theme of the ‘strange’ woman is aﬀorded particular attention. Lady wisdom introduces herself in an elaborate poem (8), appealing to her children to listen to her. She is portrayed as having been called into existence before all created things as God’s “little child” (8:30). A further wisdom poem (9), containing the invitation of Lady Wisdom and Lady Folly, is linked with the preceding chapter.

446

chapter ten

The book of Proverbs as a whole should be dated after the Babylonian exile, stemming perhaps from the ﬁfth or fourth century BCE. The text of the Septuagint (as noted above) does not consistently follow that of the Hebrew tradition. It contains forty proverbs that are not represented in the Masoretic Text and lacks twenty proverbs to be found in the latter. There is thus clear evidence to suggest that the book was subject to revision over a long period of time. In summary, the book of Proverbs situates us among the urban elite that was clearly in contact with the manual workers and farm labourers. Familiar with court and king, the said elite practiced wisdom as a sort of stewardship and their words contain an explicitly ethical component: the wise are righteous and the foolish are wicked. wisdom functioned in every day life as a sort of guide, which one could only make one’s own by honouring yhwh. Happiness and misfortune, life and death, were in his hands (cf. Prov. 16:9): “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom” (Prov. 9:10a, cf. 1:7a). d. The ﬁve megilloth (scrolls) Immediately following the book of Proverbs, the Hebrew Bible contains ﬁve relatively short documents: Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth, Lamentations and Esther. In later centuries these documents were read in the synagogue at speciﬁc times: the Song of Songs on the feast of Passover, the book of Ruth during the feast of Shavuot, Qoheleth during the feast of Succoth, Lamentations during the fast in commemoration of the destruction of the temple on the ninth day of Ab and Esther on the feast of Purim. The ancient practice of reading from parchment scrolls during the liturgy, a practice maintained to the present day with respect to Esther, led to the books in question being referred to as the megillôt, the Hebrew term for “scrolls”. The Mishnah was already familiar with reading the book of Esther during the feast of Purim from a scroll, referred to simply as megilla “scroll” that did not contain any other biblical book. Synagogal reading from other megillôt is not mentioned in the Talmud and would thus appear to be a custom peculiar to later centuries.39 According to b. Baba bathra 14b, the 39 Cf. I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Hildesheim 19624, pp. 131–132, 184–186.

the remaining literature (the writings)

447

sequence of the Writings followed the Babylonian tradition: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Qoheleth, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles. The Palestinian tradition, by contrast, employed a diﬀerent sequence: Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah. While the latter sequence thus groups the megillôt together they do not follow the chronological order employed in synagogal/liturgical usage (Ruth is placed prior to Song of Songs; in spite of the fact that the ninth of Ab occurs prior to the feast of Succoth, Lamentations nevertheless follows Qoheleth because Jeremiah wrote after Solomon!). As a matter of fact, the order followed by the manuscripts of the megillôt continued to diﬀer for several centuries. A liturgically determined sequence is only evident in medieval German manuscripts.

The fact that the megillôt are included among the Writings (Ketubîm) in the Hebrew Bible tends to suggest a late date with respect to their point of origin. This, however, need not necessarily be the case. There are good reasons to support the dating of the book of Ruth, for example, to pre-exilic times. The Song of Songs, in addition, contains elements that probably stem from the period prior to the Babylonian exile. The book of Lamentations was evidently composed shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The Septaugint, the Vulgate and modern translations do not group the megillôt together: Ruth follows Judges, Song of Songs follows Qoheleth, Qoheleth follows Proverbs, Lamentations follows Jeremiah and Esther follows Ezra-Nehemiah.40 It is thus evident that (presumed) historical and tradition-historical factors had a role to play in their location among the books of the Old Testament. The present volume will treat each of the megillôt separately according to the order found in the Hebrew Bible. 1. Ruth Das lieblichste kleine Ganze . . ., das uns episch und idyllisch überliefert worden ist (Goethe).

Commentaries: A. Bertholet (KHC) 1898; W. Nowack (HKAT) 1902; A. Schulz (HSAT) 1926; G. Smit (TU) 1932; C. J. Goslinga (KV) 1938, 19764; W. Rudolph 40 In modern editions of the Vulgate, Tobit and Judith are located between EzraNehemiah and Esther.

448

chapter ten

(KAT1) 1939; M. Haller (HAT) 19402; J. Fischer (EB) 1950, 19552; L. P. Smith and J. T. H. Cleland (IB) 1953; H. W. Hertzberg (ATD) 1954, 19735; J. de Fraine (BOT) 1955; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1962; G. Gerleman (BK) 1965, 19812; J. Gray (NCB) 1967, 19862; E. Würthwein (HAT) 19692; E. F. Campbell (AB) 1975; W. J. Fuerst (CNEB) 1975; J. M. Sasson, Ruth. A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation, Baltimore 1979, 19892; E. Zenger (ZBK) 1986, 19922; J. Gray (NCB) 19872; R. L. Jr. Hubbard (NICOT) 1988; J. A. Loader (TT) 1994; J. Scharbert (NEB) 1994; F. Bush (WBC) 1996; K. Nielsen (OTL) 1997.

Monographs and articles: H. Gunkel, Ruth, Reden und Aufsätze, Göttingen 1913, pp. 65–92; A. Rahlfs, “Studie über den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth”, Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1922, Göttingen 1922, pp. 47–164; P. Joüon, Ruth. Commentaire philologique et exégétique, Rome 1924, 19863; P. Humbert, “Art et leçon de l’histoire de Ruth”, RThP 26 (1938), 257–286; M. David, Het huwelijk van Ruth, Leiden 1941; id., “The Date of the Book of Ruth”, OTS 1 (1942), 55–63; H. H. Rowley, “The Marriage of Ruth”, HThR 40 (1947), 77–99 (= id., The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, Oxford 1952, 19652, pp. 171–194); H. A. Brongers, “Enkele opmerkingen over het verband van lossing en leviraat”, NTT 2 (1947–1948), 1–7; E. Robertson, “The Plot of the Book of Ruth”, BJRL 32 (1950), 207–228; J. M. Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth, Leiden 1955; G. S. Glanzman, The Origin and Date of the Book of Ruth, CBQ 21 (1959), 201–207; O. Loretz, “The Theme of the Ruth Story”, CBQ 22 (1960), 391–399; S. Bertman, “Symmetrical Design in the Book of Ruth”, JBL 84 (1965), 165–168; O. Eissfeldt, “Wahrheit und Dichtung in der RuthErzählung”, in: Sitzungsberichte der Sächischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Klasse 110/4 (1965), 23–28; J. L. Vesco, “La date du livre de Ruth”, RB 74 (1967), 235–247; T. and D. Thompson, “Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth”, VT 18 (1968), 79–99; R. M. Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth, Philadelphia 1969; D. F. Rauber, “Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth”, JBL 89 (1970), 27–37; D. R. G. Beattie, “The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice”, VT 24 (1974), 251–267; R. Gordis, “Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth”, in: H. N. Bream e.a. (eds.), A Light Unto my Path, Philadelphia 1974, pp. 241–264; D. A. Leggert, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth, Cherry Hill NJ 1974; H. H. Witzenrath, Das Buch Ruth. Eine literarwissenschaftliche Untersuchung, Munich 1975; A. Lacocque, “Date et milieu du livre de Ruth”, RHPhR 59 (1979), 583–593; W. S. Prinsloo, “The Theology of the Book of Ruth”, VT 30 (1980), 330–341; H. Fish, “Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History”, VT 22 (1982), 425–437; B. Green, “The Plot of the Biblical Story of Ruth”, JSOT 23 (1982), 55–68; A. Brenner, “Naomi and Ruth”, VT 33 (1983), 385–397; B. A. Levine, “In Praise of the Israelite Mispaha: Legal Themes

the remaining literature (the writings)

449

in the Book of Ruth”, in: H. B. Huﬀmon e.a., The Quest for the Kingdom of God, Winona Lake IN 1983, pp. 95–106; J. C. de Moor, The Poetry of the Book of Ruth, Orientalia 53 (1984), 262–283 en 55 (1986), 16–46; K. Nielsen, “Le choix contre le droit dans le livre de Ruth”, VT 35 (1985), 201–212; K. D. Sakenfeld, Faithfulness in Action, Philadelphia 1985; A. Philips, “The Book of Ruth—Deception and Shame”, JJS 37 (1986), 1–17; G. R. H. Wright, “The Mother-Maid at Bethlehem”, ZAW 98 (1986), 56–72; D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth, Louisville KY 1990; M. J. Bernstein, “The Multivalent Readings in the Ruth Narrative”, JSOT 50 (1991), 15–26; R. Bohlen, “Die Rutrolle. Ein aktuelles Beispiel narrativer Ethik des Alten Testaments”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 101 (1992), 1–19; M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose, Leicester 1992; R. Jost, Freundin in der Fremde: Rut und Noomi, Stuttgart 1992; Ellen van Wolde, Aan de hand van Ruth, Kampen 1993; J. Ebach, “Fremde in Moab—Fremde aus Moab. Das Buch Ruth als politische Literatur”, in: id. und R. Faber (eds.), Bibel und Literatur, Munich 1995, pp. 277–304; Katrina J. A. Larkin, Ruth and Esther (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1996.

The four chapters of the Book of Ruth occupy either the ﬁrst (cf. the Codex Leningradensis) or the second place among the megillôt in Hebrew manuscripts depending on whether one takes the presumed age of the document or the sequence of synagogal feasts as one’s point of departure. The Septuagint, the Vulgate and modern translations locate the book after Judges because the narrative takes place ‘in the days when the judges judged’ (1:1). The story is told of how Elimelech, a Bethlehemite, his wife Naomi and their two sons Mahlon and Chilion were forced to seek refuge in the land of Moab in order to escape a famine in ‘the land’. After an undetermined period in Moab both Elimelech and his two sons— both by this time married to Moabite women Ruth and Orpah (cf. also 4:10)—died. Accompanied by her daughters-in-law, Naomi returns after some time to her fatherland, insisting on the way that Ruth and Orpah go back to Moab and seek a new future there. After some persuasion Orpah ﬁnally listens to her mother-in-law but Ruth refuses to abandon Naomi (“Your people shall be my people and your God my God”, 1:16). Arriving back in Bethlehem, Ruth proceeds to seek work as a gleaner according to the rights of the poor in the ﬁelds of Boaz, a relative of her father-in-law Elimelech, and she is well received. Upon Naomi’s suggestion, Ruth visit’s Boaz by night at the threshing ﬂoor where she reminds him of his obligations as her next-of-kin. Boaz declares his readiness to marry her on

450

chapter ten

the condition that a kinsman more closely related to her pass on his obligation to him. After the fulﬁlment of juridical formalities (4:7–8) that had already been in disuse for a signiﬁcant period of time prior to the composition of the story, the transfer of obligation (right to redeem) takes place the following morning and Boaz marries Ruth. Their marriage is blessed with a son, Obed, who was to become the grandfather of King David. The book concludes with a genealogy of David (4:18–22; cf. 1 Chron. 2:5–15), composed in priestly style, which evidently constitutes a later interpolation.41 The book of Ruth is a gem of Hebrew narrative art. As a short novel, it exhibits sound literary associations with Genesis 24, the Joseph narrative and segments of the family history of David, although it diﬀers signiﬁcantly from the legendary and fairy-tale like narratives found in Esther, Tobit and Judith. The narrator is interested in the everyday ups and downs of ordinary people, their struggle to survive, their joys and sorrows. The book is edifying in the best sense of the word. It explicitly and implicitly reveals God’s providential guidance of history and shows how his blessing rests on those who have a sense of responsibility (cf. 2:12). The conclusion of the narrative (cf. 4:17b) consciously associates the family of David with the Moabite Ruth. While a great deal has been written concerning this segment of the text and a number of commentators continue to maintain its secondary character at the literary level,42 it is almost certain that their arguments are unfounded: it is diﬃcult to imagine how a later generation would have ascribed a Moabite great-grandmother to David if no ancient tradition had ever made mention of such a family history. Other scholars, therefore, are more inclined to see 4:17b as the very climax to the story,

41 The fact that we are dealing at this juncture with a later interpolation is conﬁrmed by a comparison of 4:18 and 4:12, in which the house of Boaz and that of Perez are clearly placed side by side. Boaz’ descent from Perez is thus not presupposed in 4:12, in contrast to the genealogical list in 4:18–23. The family tree is probably not borrowed from 1 Chron. 2:3–15 (see Würthwein, commentary 19692), but harks back rather to a collective, possibly pre-Deuteronomistic source (for the arguments see J. A. Loader’s commentary in Tekst & Toelichting (1994), p. 12). See also C. McCarthy, “The Davidic Genealogy in the Book of Ruth”, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 9 (1985), 53–62. 42 See, for example, O. Kaiser in his Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Gütersloh 19845, p. 196. While O. Eissfeldt initially considered v. 17 to be secondary (Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen 19643, pp. 648f.) he nevertheless revised his opinion on the matter at a later date (see op. cit., 1965).

the remaining literature (the writings)

451

protesting against later particularistic tendencies to exclude Moabites from the Jewish community,43 as was demanded by the stipulations of Deut. 23:3 and the ordinances of Ezra and Nehemiah against mixed marriages: if the great King David had Moabite ancestors then there is no good reason to adopt such an attitude towards foreigners! Such an interpretation, on the other hand, remains unsupported by the fact that the theme of particularism is not particularly evident in the book as a whole. The words of 4:17b would appear to represent a sort of ﬁnal exclamation mark on the part of the author rather than a polemic against Jewish particularism. Linguistic arguments (e.g. the use of Aramaisms)44 in favour of dating the book in the post-exilic period have turned out to be inconclusive. The classical style of the document, akin to early Israelite narrative, the description of the untroubled relationship between the Moabites and the Judeans (cf. 1 Sam. 22:3; but see also Deut. 23:3) and the later addition of the probably pre-exilic genealogy of 4:18–2245 strongly favour dating around 700 BCE (cf. the commentaries of Rudolph 1962 and Campbell 1975; an alternative date is proposed Gerleman 1965 and Loader 1994).46 Such a date is in agreement with the fact that Naomi had a right to the land belonging to her deceased husband (4:3), a state of aﬀairs in harmony with 2 Kgs 8:1–6 (alluding to the ninth century BCE) but running counter to the later stipulations of Num. 27:8–11. 2. Song of Songs Love is strong as death (8:6)

Commentaries: K. Budde (KHC) 1898; C. Siegfried (HKAT) 1898; A. Miller (HSAT) 1927; B. Gemser (TU) 1931; M. Haller (HAT) 1940; J. Fischer (EB) 1949; 43 Thus, for example, Th. C. Vriezen in the ninth edition of the present work (p. 284), a hypothesis that clearly presupposes a post-exilic dating for the book of Ruth. 44 The number of Aramaisms once identiﬁed in the book has been reduced in recent studies to a minimum; cf. the commentaries of Rudolph (1962) and Campbell (1975). 45 See J. A. Loader (commentary 1994, p. 12). 46 While the terminology employed in 4:7 argues against a too early dating of the book of Ruth, it need not necessarily imply a dating in the exilic or post-exilic period.

452

chapter ten

G. Ch. Aalders (COT) 1952; id., (KV) 19773; R. Gordis, The Song of Songs, New York 1954; T. J. Meek and H. T. Kerr (IB) 1956; H. Ringgren (ATD) 1958, 19813; M. A. van den Oudenrijn (BOT) 1962; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1962; A. Robert, R. Tournay et A. Feuillet, Le Cantique des Cantiques (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1963; G. Gerleman (BK) 1965, 19812; E. Würthwein (HAT) 19692; W. J. Fuerst (CNEB) 1975; M. H. Pope (AB) 1977, 19835; L. Krinetzki (NEB) 1980; M. A. Beek (POT) 1984; O. Keel (ZBK) 1986, 19922; R. E. Murphy (Hermeneia) 1990; M. J. Mulder (TT) 1991; H. P. Müller (ATD) 1992; J. G. Snaith (NCB) 1993.

Monographs and articles: P. Jouön, Le Cantique des Cantiques, Paris 1909; M. Thilo, Das Hohelied neu übersetzt und ästhetisch-sittlich beurteilt, Bonn 1921; Th. J. Meek, “Canticles and the Tammuz Cult”, AJSL 39 (1922/23), 1ﬀ.; W. Wittekindt, Das Hohe Lied und seine Beziehungen zum Istarkult, Hanover 1926; C. Kuhl, “Das Hohelied und seine Deutung”, ThR 9 (1937), 137–167; G. Pouget and J. Guitton, The Canticle of Canticles, New York 1948; L. Waterman, The Song of Songs Translated and Interpreted as a Dramatic Poem, Ann Arbor 1948; H. H. Rowley, “The Interpretation of the Song of Songs”, in: id., The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays, Oxford 1952, 19652, pp. 195–245; A. Feuillet, Le Cantique des Cantiques. Etude de théologie biblique et réﬂexions sur une méthode d’exégèse (Lectio Divina 10), Paris 1953; H. Schmökel, Heilige Hochzeit und Hoheslied, Wiesbaden 1956; D. Lerch, “Zur Geschichte der Auslegung des Hohenliedes”, ZThK 54 (1957), 257–277; M. H. Segal, “The Song of Songs”, VT 12 (1962), 470–490; J. Angénieux, “Structure du Cantique des Cantiques”, EThL 41 (1964), 96–112; L. Krinetzki, Das Hohe Lied (Kommentare und Beiträge zum Alten und Neuen Testament), Düsseldorf 1964; E. Würthwein, Zum Verständnis des Hohenliedes, ThR 32 (1967), 177–212 (Forschungsbericht); D. Lys, Le plus beau chant de la création, Paris 1968; S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite, Bloomington 1969; O. Loretz, Das althebräische Liebeslied. Untersuchungen zur Stichometrie und Redaktionsgeschichte des Hohenliedes und des 45. Psalms (AOAT 14/1), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971; J. C. Exum, “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs”, ZAW 85 (1973), 47–79; M. J. Mulder, De targum op het Hooglied, Amsterdam 1975; H. P. Müller, “Die lyrische Reproduktion des Mythischen im Hohenlied”, ZThK 73 (1976), 23–41; J. B. White, A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry (SBL Diss. Series 38), Missoula MT 1978; R. E. Murphy, “The Unity of the Song of Songs”, VT 29 (1979), 436–443; R. J. Tournay, Quand Dieu parle aux hommes le langage de l’amour. Etudes sur le Cantique des Cantiques (Cahiers de la RB 21), Paris 1982; F. Landy, Paradoxes of Paradise, Sheﬃeld 1983; O. Keel, Deine Blicke sind Tauben. Zur Metaphorik des Hohen Liedes (SBSt 114/115), Stuttgart 1984; H. P. Müller, Vergleich und Metapher im Hohenlied, Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1984; M. V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, Madison, Wisc. 1985; H. Haag, “Das heutige Verständnis des Hohenliedes in der katholischen Exegese”,

the remaining literature (the writings)

453

in: A. Caquot e.a., Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985, pp. 209–219; M. D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs, Sheﬃeld 1986; A. Brenner, The Song of Songs (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1989; T. Elliott, The Literary Unity of the Canticle (EHS 23/371), Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York-Paris 1989; D. A. Dorsey, “Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs”, JSOT 46 (1990), 81–96; M. Munro, Spikenard and Saﬀron. The Imagery of the Song of Songs (Suppl. JSOT 203), Sheﬃeld 1995.

The Hebrew title “îr ha““îrîm, “the song of songs”, implies that the song in question is the most beautiful, transcending all others (lxx: Aisma aismatoon; V: Canticum canticorum). The superscription, which constitutes a later addition, ascribes the work to Solomon (1:1),47 who is represented in 1 Kgs 4:32 (Hebr. 5:12) as having uttered three thousand proverbs and as having composed one thousand and ﬁve songs. While he is referred to by name in the Song of Songs itself on a number of occasions (3:7,9,11; 8:11–12), the allusions in question never identify him with the author of the song.48 It is possible that the book acquired canonical status on account of the fact that it was ascribed to Solomon. The scriptural character of the work was in fact the subject of lengthy dispute in early Judaism (together with Esther and Qoheleth). The allegorical explanation of the content—traceable to the ﬁrst century CE—as an image for the love between yhwh and Israel and as a reﬂection of salvation history, however, gradually came to settle doubts within Judaism as to the canonicity of the book.49 The Christian church followed this interpretation,50 reading Christ as the bridegroom and the church, the soul of the individual or the Virgin Mary as the bride. While Luther tended as a rule to reject an allegorical explanation of Scripture that sought to ﬁnd a higher, spiritual meaning behind the text, he accepted it nevertheless where the literal interpretation clearly led to 47 The Hebrew text of the superscription can also be understood, however, as “concerning Solomon” or “belonging to Solomon”. 48 The reference to “the king” in 1:4,12 (cf. also 7:5, Hebr. 7:6) is apparently an evocative allusion to the young man. 49 In the meantime, it is far from certain that the allegorical interpretation actually led to the inclusion of the Song of Songs in the canon. The renowned rabbi Aqiba (circa 50–135 CE) was disgusted by those who chanted the Song of Songs in wine houses (Tosefta Sanhedrin XII 10), a custom that was apparently in vogue at the time. 50 Cf. F. Ohly, Hohelied-Studien. Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Hohelied-Auslegung des Abendlandes bis um 1200, Wiesbaden 1958.

454

chapter ten

illogicality (evidens absurditas). In his opinion the latter was the case with respect to the Song of Songs. The allegorical interpretation has, in the meantime, more or less faded into disuse among Protestant exegetes, surviving only in orthodox Jewish and conservative Roman Catholic circles.51 Based on the interchange of scenes and speakers, some scholars have characterised the Song of Songs as a drama (cf. G. Pouget and J. Guitton 1948) in which three individuals have a role to play: Solomon, the Shulammite (6:13, Hebr. 7:1) as shepherdess and her beloved shepherd (cf. Ewald).52 It is suggested that the shepherdess was taken to the royal palace to form part of the king’s harem, but Solomon’s endeavours to win her love failed and he was obliged to let her return to marry her beloved shepherd. An unforced explanation of the Song of Songs, however, only allows us to speak of a single lover. In addition, any intentionally dramatic structure whereby the lovers ultimately “have one another”, is lacking: the intimate relationship between them both is already mentioned in 1:6,16.53 The so-called cultic-mythological explanation (cf. Meek 1922/1923, Wittekindt 1926, Haller commentary 1940, Waterman 1948, Schmökel 1956, Kramer 1969) oﬀers a completely diﬀerent perspective on the text, taking for granted that the songs (albeit in their present much mitigated form) originally enjoyed a place in a cultic festival celebrating the sacred wedding between Tammuz-Adonis and Ishtar. The explanation of the Song of Songs, however, nowhere demands any form of allusion to mythical origins. Even if one is inclined to insist that the liturgical language of the fertility cycle had an inﬂuence on the composition of love poems, one will also be obliged to admit that the opposite may also have been the case. It is hard to imagine that Ancient Israel borrowed liturgical songs from the pagan cult, transformed them into its own songs and then included them among its sacred literature. The Song of Songs is a collection of profane love songs. The oft-suggested hypothesis that their origins are rooted in the celebration of weddings, whereby the bridegroom is addressed as king (1:4.12; 3:11; 51 A detailed survey of the history of research into the Song of Songs can be found in M. H. Pope’s commentary (1977, pp. 89–229). 52 In his 18672 commentary. 53 The thesis that the Song of Songs should be interpreted as a theatre piece or play has been defended by A. Hazan, Le Cantique des Cantiques enﬁn expliqué, Paris 1936.

the remaining literature (the writings)

455

c.q. as Solomon [3:6–11]), ﬁnds little if any support in the songs themselves. The Song of Songs expresses the lovers’ profound desire for one another together with their unique physical attractiveness by way of a multiplicity of images and comparisons. The text speaks of the lovers’ surrender to and deep longing for one another. The songs are particularly akin to the love poetry of Ancient Egypt (cf. White 1978 and Fox 1985) and have been associated by Wetzstein54 with love songs employed up to the present day in Syria in honour of a bride and groom, celebrating them as queen and king respectively. While recognition of the profane character of the love songs is not misplaced, scholars are more and more convinced that the Song of Songs represents a well-considered literary composition. Signiﬁcant interest has thus been focused in more recent years on the structure of the book and arguments supporting its literary unity have been frequently proposed (see, for example, Murphy 1979). J. C. Exum (1973) maintains that the Song of Songs is the work of a single author and that parallel songs 2;7–3:5//5:2–6:3 and 3:6–5:1//6:4–8:3 are to be located within the framing texts 1:2–2:6 and 8:4–14, which summarise the book’s motif. Goulder (1986) proposes a sequence of fourteen scenes that describe the arrival of an Arabian princess at the court of Solomon up to and including her elevation to the status of most beloved wife. Convinced of the integral unity of the text in terms of both form and content, Landy (1983) has argued that love and death represent its dominant motifs: the Song of Songs does not so much eulogise the praise of marriage but rather that of sexuality and virginity. Rendtorﬀ 55 pictures the Song of Songs as the song of a woman who plays a dominant role and clearly enjoys the last word.

Striking features of the Song of Songs include: the ample space ascribed to nature and the landscape surrounding the love scenes, the wholesome and subdued yet simultaneously warm and sincere manner with which the love between two young people is portrayed (diﬀering considerably from much of what Ancient Near Eastern literature has to oﬀer in this regard), the equality of the man and the

54 J. G. Wetzstein, “Die syrische Dreschtafel”, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 5 (1873), 270–302. 55 R. Rendtorﬀ, Das Alte Testament. Eine Einführung, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1983, pp. 276–277.

456

chapter ten

woman and the emphasis placed on the fact that maturity and mutual aﬀection are essential elements of love: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles or the wild does: Do not stir up or awaken love, until it is ready (2:7; 3:5; 8:4).

The description of the Song of Songs as a set of popular songs or as an extremely articulate poetic composition stemming from educated (e.g. Wisdom; cf. Würthwein, commentary 1969) circles remains a question of some dispute. The highly polished literary form of the poems with their characteristic use of images and comparisons, copious allusions to ﬂora and fauna and numerous geographical allusions, tend to support the latter alternative. In many respects, the timeless character of the songs makes it enormously diﬃcult to date them with any degree of accuracy. Mention of the northern Israelite royal city of Tirzah (cf. 1 Kgs 15:33; 16:8,15) in addition to Jerusalem in 6:4 would imply an early date for the verse complex 6:4–7. It is possible that other individual songs should likewise be traced to an early date. The presence of Aramaisms and words borrowed from Persian56 and possibly Greek,57 however, would tend to favour a post-exilic date for the composition as a whole, probably around 400 BCE. It would appear that the individual songs underwent a long tradition history prior to their compilation in a single collection. The ﬁctitious ascription of the Song of Songs to Solomon together with the repeated allusions to the daughters of Jerusalem (1:5; 2:7: 3:5,10; 5:8,16; 8:4) point with a fair degree of certainty to Jerusalem as the place in which the work ﬁrst saw the light of day in its deﬁnitive form. Awkwardness and indeed embarrassment among Jewish and Christian circles with respect to the profane character of the love songs contained in the Song of Songs, and the fact that this has led to a misplaced allegorical interpretation thereof, ought to be set aside: the book represents a song in praise of erotic love, a love that deserves its proper and unquestioned place in the lives of believers.

56

Cf. pardes (“paradise, garden of delight”) in 4:13. The term 'appiryôn, “palanquin” (3:9), can probably be linked with the Greek phoreion. 57

the remaining literature (the writings)

457

3. Qoheleth What do people gain from all the toil at which they toil under the sun? (1:3).

Commentaries: C. Siegfried (HKAT) 1898; G. Wildeboer (KHC) 1898; V. Zapletal (Collectanea Friburgensia) 1905; G. A. Barton (ICC) 1908 (1959); E. Podechard (Etudes Bibliques) 1912; A. Allgeier (HSAT) 1925; B. Gemser (TU) 1931; H. W. Hertzberg (KAT1) 1932, 19632; K. Galling (HAT) 1940, 19692; G. Ch. Aalders (COT) 1948; J. P. M. van der Ploeg (BOT) 1953; F. Nötscher (EB) 19542; O. S. Rankin and G. G. Atkins (IB) 1956; W. Zimmerli (ATD) 1962, 19813; H. W. Hertzberg (KAT2) 1963; R. B. Y. Scott (AB) 1965; A. Barucq, Ecclésiaste (Verbum Salutis 3), Paris 1968; W. J. Fuerst (CNEB) 1975; A. Lauha (BK) 1978; N. Lohﬁnk (NEB) 1980; M. A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary, Leicester 1983; M. A. Beek (POT) 1984; J. A. Loader (TT) 1984; J. L. Crenshaw (OTL) 1988 (lit.!); R. Whybray (NCB) 1989; R. E. Murphy (WBC) 1992; C. L. Seow (AB) 1997; T. Longman III (NICOT) 1998 (lit.!).

Monographs and articles: M. Thilo, Der Prediger Salomo, Bonn 1923; G. Kuhn, Erklärung des Buches Koheleth (BZAW 43), Giessen 1926; K. Galling, “Kohelet-Studien”, ZAW 50 (1932), 276–299; id., “Stand und Aufgabe der Kohelet-Forschung”, ThR 6 (1934), 355–373; id., Die Krise der Aufklärung in Israel, Mainz 1952; A. M. Dubarle, “Qoheleth ou les déceptions de l’expérience”, in: id., Les sages d’Israël, Paris 1946, pp. 95–128; Th. C. Vriezen, “Prediker en de achtergrond van zijn wijsheid”, NTT 1 (1946/1947), 3–14, 65–84; id., “De overwinning van het tragische levensgevoel in Israël”, in: Kernmomenten der antieke beschaving en haar moderne beleving, Leiden 1947, pp. 33–48: H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Kohelet, New York 1950; id., “Supplementary Studies in Kohelet”, PAAJR 21 (1952), 35–62; id., “The Structure and Contents of the Book of Koheleth”, in: M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (FS H. H. Rowley; SVT 3), Leiden 1955, pp. 138–149; id., “The Quintessence of Koheleth”, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies, Cambridge Mass. 1963, pp. 47–59; R. Gordis, Koheleth—the Man and his World, New York 1951, 19682; id., “Was Koheleth a Phoenician?”, JBL 74 (1955), 103–114 (cf. Dahood 1952, 1966); id., “Qoheleth and Qumran— A Study of Style”, Biblica 41 (1960), 395–410; G. Bertram, “Hebräischer und griechischer Qohelet”, ZAW 64 (1952), 26–49; M. J. Dahood, “CanaanitePhoenician Inﬂuence in Qoheleth”, Biblica 33 (1952), 30–52, 191–221; id., “The Phoenician Background of Qoheleth”, Biblica 47 (1966), 264–282; W. Rudolph, Vom Buch Kohelet, Munster 1959; H. Gese, “Die Krisis der Weisheit bei Kohelet”, in: F. Wendel (ed.), Les sagesses du Proche-Orient ancien

458

chapter ten

(Colloque de Strasbourg, 1962), Paris 1963, pp. 139–151; O. Loretz, Qohelet und der Alte Orient, Freiburg im Breisgau 1964; id., “Altorientalische und kanaanäische Topoi im Buche Kohelet”, UF 12 (1980), 267–278; F. Ellermeier, Qohelet I, 1. Untersuchungen zum Buche Qohelet, Herzberg (Harz) 1967; id., Qohelet I, 2. Einzelfrage Nr. 7, Herzberg (Harz) 1970; G. Castellino, “Qohelet and his Wisdom”, CBQ 30 (1968), 15–28; M. V. Fox, “FrameNarrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet”, HUCA 48 (1968), 83–106; H. P. Müller, “Wie sprach Qohälät von Gott?”, VT 18 (1968), 507–521; id., “Wege der althebräischen ‘Weisheit’. Zum Denken Qohäläts”, ZAW 90 (1978), 238–264; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (WUNT 10), Tübingen 1969, 19732, pp. 210ﬀ.; M. A. Beek, “Prediker en de balans van het leven”, in: Schrift en uitleg (FS W. H. Gispen), Kampen 1970, pp. 21–30; L. Gorssen, “La cohérence de la conception de Dieu dans l’Ecclésiaste”, EThL 46 (1970), 282–324; P. W. Skehan, Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom (CBQ Monograph Series 1), Washington DC 1971; E. Horton, “Koheleth’s Concept of Opposites”, Numen 19 (1972), 1–21; M. A. Klopfenstein, “Die Skepsis des Qohelet”, TZ 28 (1972), 97–109; F. Zimmerman, The Inner World of Qoheleth, New York 1973; R. Braun, Kohelet und die frühhellenistische Popularphilosophie (BZAW 130), Berlin-New York 1973; W. Zimmerli, “Das Buch Kohelet—Traktat oder Sentenzensammlung?”, VT 24 (1974), 221–230; S. Holm-Nielsen, “On the Interpretation of Qoheleth in Early Christianity”, VT 24 (1974), 168–177; id., “The Book of Ecclesiastes and the Interpretation of it in Jewish and Christian Theology”, ASTI 10 (1975/76), 38–96; A. Stiglmaier, “Weisheit und Jahweglaube im Buche Kohelet”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 83 (1974), 257–283; R. K. Johnson, “Confessions of a Workaholic: A Reappraisal of Qoheleth”, CBQ 38 (1976), 14–28; D. Kidner, A Time to Mourn and a Time to Dance, Downers Grove IL 1976; M. V. Fox, “Frame-Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qoheleth”, HUCA 48 (1977), 83–106; D. Lys, L’Ecclésiaste ou que vaut la vie?, Paris 1977; J. G. Gammie e.a. (eds.), Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, Missoula MT 1978; M. Gilbert (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament, Gembloux 1979; C. F. Whitley, Koheleth. His Language and Thought (BZAW 148), Berlin-New York 1979; id., “Koheleth and Ugaritic Parallels”, UF 11 (1979), 811–824; J. A. Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet (BZAW 152), Berlin-New York 1979; F. Crüsemann, “Die unveränderbare Welt. Überlegungen zur Krisis der Weisheit beim Prediger (Kohelet)”, in: W. Schottroﬀ und W. Stegemann (eds.), Der Gott der kleinen Leute, Munich 1979, pp. 80–104; P. C. Beentjes, “Recente visies op Qohelet”, Bijdragen 41 (1980), 436–444; R. N. Whybray, Two Jewish Theologies: Job and Ecclesiastes, Hull 1980; id., Ecclesiastes (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1989 (lit.!); G. T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct (BZAW 151), Berlin-New York 1980; R. E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature (FOTL 13), Grand Rapids 1981; id., Qoheleth Interpreted: The Bearing of the Past on the Present, VT 32 (1982), 331–337; A. Schoors, La structure littéraire de Qoheleth, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 13 (1982), 91–116; J. L. Crenshaw (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament, Philadelphia and London 1983; id., Qohelet in Current Research, Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983), 41–56; B. Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth

the remaining literature (the writings)

459

(Studia Semitica Uppsaliensia 10), Uppsala 1987; G. S. Ogden, Qoheleth, Sheﬃeld 1987; D. Michel, Qohelet (EdF), Darmstadt 1988; id., Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet (BZAW 183), Berlin-New York 1989; D. C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date, Lewiston NY/Queenston, Ont. 1988; id., Coping with Transcience: Ecclesiastes on the Brevity of Life, Sheﬃeld 1993; M. V. Fox, Qoheleth and his Contradictions (Suppl. JSOT 71), Sheﬃeld 1989; A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qoheleth (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 41), Leuven 1992; C. Klein, Kohelet und die Weisheit Israels. Eine formgeschiuchtliche Studie (BWANT 132), Stuttgart 1994; H. Gese, “Zur Komposition des Koheletbuches”, in: H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger und P. Schäfer (eds.), Geschichte— Tradition—Reﬂexion (FS M. Hengel), deel I, Tübingen 1996, pp. 69–98; A. A. Fischer, Skepsis oder Furcht Gottes? Studien zur Komposition des Buches Kohelet (BZAW 247), Berlin-New York 1997.

Referred to by Luther as “Der Prediger”,58 recent scholarship has tended to employ an anglicised version of the Hebrew designation Qoheleth. The Greek and Latin versions use the term Ecclesiastes. The name given to the book suggests a title given to a functionary whose task it was to call the community to assembly and in certain instances to address them. Although added at a later date, the superscription refers to Qoheleth as “son of David, king of Jerusalem” (1:1; cf. 1:12). Such an allusion can only refer to Solomon, an identiﬁcation clearly supported by the content of 1:12–2:26 in which the I-form is employed to portray the wisdom and enormous wealth of the author. The writer’s ﬁctitious self-identiﬁcation as a king who teaches wisdom is akin to Egyptian examples (e.g. that of Amen-emhet [ANET, pp. 418–419] and Meri-ka-re [ANET, pp. 414–418]). When even a king with all his property and servants ﬁnally reaches the conclusion that everything is “vanity and chasing after the wind” (2:11), then the same must be true for other, materially less wellendowed individuals! The royal ﬁction, however, has no further role to play in the book. The fact that King Solomon is in reality not the speaker in the book of Qoheleth has been adequately demonstrated on the basis of the content (cf., for example, 8:2–4) and style of the work, and in particular the language in which it is written (Schoors 1992). The latter tends to follow a middle path between classical and post-biblical

58 The designation of the book as “Der Prediger” is inappropriate since it contains wise reﬂections, exhortations and proverbs but no preaching.

460

chapter ten

Hebrew and contains numerous Aramaisms59 as well as a few Parseeisms,60 which has inclined scholars to look for a date in the period of early Judaism. The author lived in the Hellenistic period and, given his use of language and allusions to the temple liturgy, resided most probably in Jerusalem (cf. 4:17; 9:2) and not in Egypt as some have argued. He would appear to have been a scribe and teacher of the young, a scholar well-versed in Israel’s wisdom tradition (11:9–12:7). While Qoheleth enjoys an exceptional place in the Old Testament on account of its contemplative character, it would be incorrect to refer to it as a philosophical work since it employs neither inductive nor deductive arguments. Instead of presenting his thoughts in a logically developed fashion the author simply advances his various theses. With the exception of 1:3–3:15 the texts does not exhibit a clear line of progression. In addition to a number of short statements (Aussageworte) and exhortations (Mahnworte), the book consists for the most part of the author’s personal reﬂections. With the experience of a learned scholar he enters into dialogue with the convictions of traditional wisdom and structures his deliberations in terms of polar opposites (Loader 1979). He frequently quotes traditional sayings and proverbs only to either reject their content, expose their limitations or use them to support his own opinions. The book thus constitutes a collection of aphorisms and maxims although it is built, nevertheless, upon a single idea. It clearly represents more than a randomly put together collection of sayings, a fact underlined by the author’s declaration of the meaninglessness of things repeated almost word for word in 1:2 and 12:8, which serve as an inclusion to the original textual whole. The ﬁrst poem (1:3–11) has the character of a prologue, followed signiﬁcantly by the passage portraying the “king’s” search for wisdom and foolishness (1:12–2:26). The statements contained in 3:1–4:16 are typical of the period in which the text was written and deal with the things that happen to men and women on occasion;

59 The numerous Aramaisms in the book have led some scholars, including Ginsberg (1955), to argue that it was originally written in Aramaic. The suggestion, however, has been justiﬁably rejected. Dahood’s insistence (1952; 1966) that orthography, grammar and vocabulary point in the direction of Canaanite-Phoenician has likewise lacked support. 60 Cf. pardes (“paradise, garden of delight”) and 2:5 and pitgam (“verdict”) in 8:11.

the remaining literature (the writings)

461

5:9–6:9 turns its attention to the vanity of riches and 6:10–8:1 addresses human ignorance and lack of experience, whereby compromise and the middle path are the subject of praise and recommendation. In 8:10–9:12 the author repeats once again that human persons cannot comprehend God’s ways and that everyone faces the same fate. The segment 11:9–12:7 speaks of youth and old age.61 The original document underwent a double redaction, traces of which can still be clearly detected in particular at the conclusion of the book. The textual segment 12:9–11 stems from a redactor who evidently held Qoheleth in the highest esteem (he “sought to ﬁnd pleasing words, and he wrote words of truth plainly”: 12:10). The superscription of 1:1aa together with 1:2 and 12:8 probably stem from the same individual. By contrast, however, 12:12–14 clearly stem from a second redactor who ascribed the book to Solomon (1:1ab) and focused on the fear of God and the maintenance of his commandments with a view to the judgement to come (he would also appear to be responsible for a number of interpolations, e.g. 3:17a; 8:5; 11:9b). Perhaps the most all-embracing notion represented by Qoheleth is his conviction that the human person can gain no permanent proﬁt from his toils ‘under the sun’: the ﬁnite character of human life and the disappearance from memory of all that human persons once were and did, place irrevocable limitations on all his/her endeavours. Since no one is certain of the future and no one has control thereof, we should simply be happy in life with the good fortune God has granted us. In contrast to traditional wisdom, Qoheleth was unable to see any signiﬁcance or meaning in world events and he doubted in practice the existence of an ethical world order. His words confront us with the Deus absconditus, the hidden God whose work on behalf of human persons remains mysterious and inscrutable. The Deus revelatus, the revealed God, disappears beyond the horizon in Qoheleth, his work lacking any allusion to Israel’s salvation history and God’s revelation of the Law. Qoheleth speaks for himself as an individual and engages in a personal search for practical understanding. In the last analysis, however, he sees human life as much 61 M. Gilbert, “La description de la vieillesse en Qohelet xii 1–7 est-elle allégorique?”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT 32), Leiden 1981, pp. 96–109; J. L. Crenshaw, “Youth and Old Age in Qoheleth”, Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986), 1–13.

chapter ten

462

more unfathomable than traditional wisdom has led us to believe. This does not mean that we should write him oﬀ as a sceptic and a pessimist: Qoheleth clings to God as the controller of world events and giver of every good gift and advocates the fear of God (3:14; 5:6). He does not underestimate the possibility of human happiness and should certainly not be portrayed as an agnostic. Whether and, if so, to what extent Qoheleth was inﬂuenced by Egyptian wisdom literature and popular Hellenistic philosophy (Braun 1973) remains a subject of dispute. It is certain, however, that he was unable to wrestle himself free from the Hellenistic spirit of his time. Nevertheless, he remains in terms of his faith a Jew, albeit a modern Jew. His book should be dated to the third century BCE.62 4. Lamentations The Lord has become like an enemy (2:5)

Commentaries: M. Löhr (HKAT) 1894, 19062; K. Budde (KHC) 1898; T. Paﬀrat (HSAT) 1932; G. Ch. Aalders (KV) 19392; W. Rudolph (KAT1) 1939; M. Haller (HAT) 1940; H.J. Kraus (BK) 1956, 19834; Th. J. Meek (IB) 1956; B. N. Wambacq (BOT) 1957; A. Weiser (ATD) 1958, 19672; W. Rudolph (KAT2) 1962; O. Plöger (HAT) 19692; D. R. Hillers (AB) 1972, 19793; A. van Selms (POT) 1974, 19842; W. J. Fuerst (CNEB) 1975; H. J. Boecker (ZBK) 1985; H. Gross und J. Schreiner (NEB) 1986; I. W. Provan (NCB) 1991; O. Kaiser (ATD) 19924; J. Renkema (COT) 1993; (HCOT) 1998.

Monographs and articles: W. Rudolph, “Der Text der Klagelieder”, ZAW 52 (1938), 101–122; N. K. Gottwald, Studies in the Book of Lamentations (Studies in Biblical Theology 14), London 1954, 19622; C. Westermann, “Struktur und Geschichte der Klage im Alten Testament”, ZAW 66 (1954), 44–80 (= id., Forschung am Alten Testament (ThB 24), Munich 1964, pp. 266–305); B. Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations with a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Text (Studia Theologica Lundensia 21), Lund 1963; G. Brunet, Les Lamentations contre Jérémie: Réinterpretation des quatre premières Lamentations (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Section des Sciences Réligieuses 75), 62

This dating is supported by fragments of a manuscript of Qoheleth discovered in Cave 4 at Qumran and stemming from the ﬁrst half of the second century BCE (4Q109 = 4QProva); cf. J. Muilemburg, BASOR 135 (1954), 20–28.

the remaining literature (the writings)

463

Paris 1968; id., “La cinquième Lamentation”, VT 33 (1983), 149–170; Th. McDaniel, “Philological Studies in Lamentations”, Biblica 49 (1968), 27–53, 199–220; Ch. Cohen, “The ‘Widowed’ City”, JANES 5 (1973), 75–81; H. Gottlieb, A Study on the Text of Lamentations (Acta Jutlandica 48. Theol. Series 12), Århus 1978; R. Brandscheidt, Gotteszorn und Menschenleid. Die Gerichtsklage des leidenden Gerechten in Klgl 3 (Trierer Theologische Studien 41), Trier 1983; J. Renkema, Misschien is er hoop . . . De theologische vooronderstellingen van het boek Klaagliederen, Franeker 1983; B. Johnson, “Form and Message in Lamentations”, ZAW 97 (1985), 58–73; M. S. Moore, “Human Suﬀering in Lamentations”, RB 83 (1990), 534–555; C. Westermann, Die Klagelieder. Forschungsgeschichte und Auslegung, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990; P. J. Ferris Jr., The Genre of Communal Lament in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (SBL Diss. Series 127), Atlanta GA 1992; F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Biblica et Orientalia 44), Rome 1993; R. B. Salters, Jonah and Lamentations (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1994; J. Hunter, Faces of a Lamenting City. The Development and Coherence of the Book of Lamentations (BEATAJ 39), Frankfurt a. M.-Bern-New York 1996.

The book of Lamentations contains ﬁve poems spread over ﬁve chapters and is referred to in the Hebrew Bible by the word with which it begins, namely "echa (“how!” 1:1; cf. also 2:1; 4:1).63 The Babylonian Talmud (Baba bathra 14b) and other early rabbinical documents, however, allude to the book as qînôt (“lamentations”). The name employed by the Septuagint (thrènoi ) and the Vulgate (Threni idest Lamentationes) are in line with the latter. Bearing in mind the preamble of lxx (“It happened that, after Israel was deported in chains and Jerusalem was destroyed, Jeremiah sat and wept and uttered this lament over Jerusalem and said . . .”), it would thus appear that the songs of Lamentations were ascribed at an already early date within Judaism to the prophet Jeremiah (cf. also b. Baba bathra 15a). The Christian tradition has generally tended to follow this standpoint. In addition to Jer. 9:1 (Hebr. 8:23), the said tradition may have its origins in 2 Chron. 35:25, which alludes to a lament of Jeremiah over King Josiah. Rabbinic tradition has (incorrectly) identiﬁed the anointed one of yhwh referred to in Lam. 4:20 with the latter king of Judah (cf. also Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 10, § 78. With the exception of chapter 5, the individual songs each follow the form of an alphabetic acrostic. Chapter 5, on the other hand, 63 The word “how!” (or "ech) is characteristic of the beginning of a woe-cry (cf. 2 Sam. 1:19; Isa. 1:21; Jer. 47:17).

464

chapter ten

has 22 verse lines in agreement with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.64 Chapters 1, 2 and 4 are written for the most part in the qînah meter (3 plus 2 beats), while chapter 3 is only written as such in a limited fashion. Chapter 5 does not employ the qînah pattern. In terms of literary genre, chapter 5 would appear to be a collective song of lament while chapters 1, 2 and 4 represent political dirge songs. Chapter 3, on the other hand, is clearly an individual lament interrupted by a Wisdom Psalm (vv. 25–39), a collective confession of faith and a song of complaint (vv. 40–47). Based on form and content, scholars have associated Lamentations with Sumerian laments over the downfall of a mother city. Agreements observed between the said texts and the content of the book of Lamentations would appear, however, to have been determined by similar experience of disaster and conventional Ancient Near Eastern literary style.65 The Jeremian authorship of the songs must be rejected. The text of Lamentations makes no allusion to the prophet as its author. While it is true that Jeremiah witnessed the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon’s temple in 587 BCE, he is known to have left the city shortly thereafter. A number of texts, in addition, tend to run counter to claims of Jeremian authorship. Lam. 4:17, for example, which speaks of the people watching in vain for help from another nation (Egypt), does not resonate with Jeremiah’s resistance to alliances with foreign nations and his appeal to the people to submit themselves to God’s will by acquiescing to the Babylonians (cf. Jer. 2:18; 37:5–10 and 27:12–15). The immense expectations placed according to 4:20 on the shoulders of King Zedekiah run counter to Jer. 37:17. Lam. 4:19 suggests that the poet was among those who accompanied the fugitive king (2 Kgs 25:4–6): he cannot thus be identiﬁed with Jeremiah who was being held in prison at that moment in time ( Jer. 38:28). Based on 5:7 we can conclude that the author belonged to the generation after the fall of Jerusalem. 64 S. Bergler, “Threni V—Nur ein alphabetisierendes Lied? Versuch einer Deutung”, VT 27 (1977), 304–320. 65 ANET, pp. 611–619. For literature on this topic and a critical discussion thereof see Th. F. McDaniel, “The Alleged Sumerian Inﬂuence upon Lamentations”, VT 18 (1968), 198–209. Cf. also W. Gwaltney, “The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Literature”, in: W. Hallo e.a. (eds.), Scripture in Context II, Winona Lake IN 1983, pp. 191–211 and M. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Mesopotamia I–II, Potomac MD 1988.

the remaining literature (the writings)

465

If Jeremiah was not the author of Lamentations then one is forced to ask if the songs should be ascribed to a single author or to several authors. The latter alternative deserves preference. Chapter 5 would appear to stem from a diﬀerent period to the remaining poems (cf. 5:7). In contrast to the acrostic in chapter 1, the acrostics in chapters 2–4 locate the pe-verse prior to the 'ayin-verse. The fact that chapter 1 does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem has led some commentators to suggest that it describes the circumstances in the city shortly after the Babylonian conquest in 597 BCE during the reign of King Jehoiakin. It is more or less certain that the songs were written in Jerusalem or at least in Judah: chapters 2 and 4 contain elements that can be deemed to be eyewitness recollections of the fall of the city. While the authorship of the songs is diﬃcult to determine with any degree of certainty, the suggestion proposed by Renkema (1983; commentary 1998) that they were written by levitical temple singers deserves serious consideration. The hypothesis that the songs functioned as part of the liturgy on the day of mourning over the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Zech. 7:5) is open to question. The suggestion that they were written as a sort of polemic against the prophet Jeremiah (Brunet 1968) is highly unlikely. Insuﬃcient arguments exist, however, to date Lamentations to the early years of the Babylonian exile (580 BCE). The songs bear witness to a profound crisis into which the fall of Jerusalem, the city of the temple of yhwh, had forced the faithful of Israel. While those who had remained behind in dismay recognise that God’s predicted judgement (2:17) was justiﬁed, they also explicitly claim to have been misled by their own spiritual leadership (2:14). In the midst of their misfortune, however, they upheld their conviction that God would not reject them forever (3:31–33), in spite of the fact that He appeared to have become their enemy (2:5). It is for this reason that albeit hesitant expressions of hoped for restoration (3:29) and an earnest prayer to yhwh appealing for his return (5:21) are not absent from Lamentations. J. D. Barthélemy (Les dévanciers d’Aquila (SVT 10), Leiden 1963, pp. 138–160) and F. M. Cross (HThR 57 (1964), 233) have ascribed the Greek version of Lamentations to the kaige recension. In the Roman Catholic Latin liturgy, Lamentations has been given a place during matins on the last three days of Holy Week. As such they give

chapter ten

466

expression to the misfortune of Jerusalem as a consequence of the cruciﬁxion of Christ.

5. Esther Ich bin dem Buch (= 2 Maccabees) und Esther so feind, daß ich wollte, sie wären gar nicht vorhanden; denn sie judenzen zu sehr und haben viel heidnische Unart (Luther)

Commentaries: G. Wildeboer (KHC) 1898; C. Siegfried (HKAT) 1901; L. B. Paton (ICC) 1908; G. Smit (TU) 1930; M. Haller (HAT) 1940; J. Schildenberger (HSAT) 1941; F. Stummer (EB) 1950; B. W. Anderson and A.C. Lichtenberger (IB) 1954; H. Ringgren (ATD) 1962; H. Bardtke (KAT2) 1963; L. H. Brockington (NCB) 1969; E. Würthwein (HAT) 1969; C. A. Moore (AB) 1971; N. Poulssen (BOT) 1971; G. Gerleman (BK) 1973; W. Dommershausen (NEB) 1980; J. A. Loader (POT) 1980, 19912; id. (ATD) 1992; A. Meinhold (ZBK) 1983; D. J. Clines (NCB) 1984; F. Bush (WBC) 1996; J. D. Levenson (OTL) 1997.

Monographs and articles: L. A. Rosenthal, “Die Josephsgeschichte mit den Büchern Ester und Daniel verglichen”, ZAW 15 (1895), 278–285; id., “Nochmals zum Vergleich Ester, Joseph, Daniel”, ZAW 17 (1897), 125–128; H. Gunkel, Esther, Tübingen 1916; J. Hoschander, The Book of Esther in the Light of History, Philadelphia 1923; B. W. Anderson, “The Place of the Book of Esther in the Christian Bible”, Journal of Religion 30 (1950), 32–43; T. H. Gaster, Purim and Hanukkah in Custom and Tradition, New York 1950; H. Ringgren, Esther and Purim, SEÅ 20 (1955), 5–24; H. Bardtke, Luther und das Buch Esther, Tübingen 1964; id., “Neuere Arbeiten zum Esterbuch. Eine kritische Würdigung”, Ex Oriente Lux 19 (1956–66), 519–549; S. Talmon, “Wisdom in the Book of Esther”, VT 13 (1963), 419–455; G. Gerleman, Studien zu Esther. Stoﬀ—Struktur—Sinn, Neukirchen 1966; W. Dommershausen, Die Estherrolle. Stil und Ziel einer alttestamentlichen Schrift (SBM 6), Stuttgart 1968; J. C. H. Lebram, “Purimfest und Estherbuch”, VT 22 (1972), 208–222; W. L. Humphreys, “A Life-Style for Diaspora. A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel”, JBL 92 (1973), 211–223; C. A. Moore, “Archaeology and the Book of Esther”, BiAr 38 (1975), 62–79; R. Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Narrative”, JBL 95 (1976), 43–58; id., “Religion, Wisdom and History in the Book of Esther—A New Solution to an Ancient Crux”, JBL 100 (1981), 359–388; A. Meinhold, “Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I & II”, ZAW 87 (1975), 306–324, 88 (1976), 72–93; id., “Theologische Erwägungen zum Buch Esther”, TZ 34 (1978), 321–333; id., “Zu Aufbau und Mitte des Estherbuches”, VT 33 (1983), 435–445; S. Niditch and

the remaining literature (the writings)

467

R. Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach”, JBL 96 (1977), 179–193; J. A. Loader, “Esther as a Novel with Diﬀerent Levels of Meaning”, ZAW 90 (1978), 417–421; S. B. Berg, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, Structures (SBL Dissertation Series 44), Missoula MT 1979; C. H. Miller, “Esther’s Levels of Meaning”, ZAW 92 (1980), 145–148; C. A. Moore (ed.), Studies in the Book of Esther, New York 1982; W. Hallo, “The First Purim”, BiAr 46 (1983), 19–29; J. Clines, The Esther Scroll. The Story of the Story, Sheﬃeld 1984; C. A. Moore, “Esther Revisited: An Examination of Some Esther Studies over the Past Decade”, in: A. Kort and S. Morschauser (eds.), Biblical Studies in Honor of Samuel Iwry, Winona Lake IN 1985, pp. 163–174; W. Herrmann, Esther im Streit der Meinungen (BEATAJ 4), Frankfurt am Main 1986; S. Goldman, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies in Esther”, JSOT 47 (1990),15–31; L. A. Snijders, “Ester, een wijze satire”, NTT 44 (1990), 109–120; M. V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther (SBL Monograph Series 40), Atlanta GA 1991; id., Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament, Columbia 1991; M. Heltzer, “The Book of Esther—Where Does Fiction Start and History End?”, BAR 8 (1992), 24–30,41; Linda Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther (Suppl. JSOT 186), Sheﬃeld 1995; Katrina J. A. Larkin, Ruth and Esther (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1996; C. V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity (Suppl. JSOT 187), Sheﬃeld 1997.

The book of Esther (lxx: Esthèr; Vulgate: Hester) represents a stirring tale, much celebrated on account of the author’s narrative skill, yet subject to considerable theological discussion. Scholars have characterised it as a short story, a historical novel (Gunkel, 1916) or a historicised wisdom narrative (Talmon, 1963). While the book of Esther in its present form functions as the legend behind the feast of Purim, explaining its origins and signiﬁcance, it nevertheless represents a great deal more. The meaning of the narrative, set in the Persian court, is to be located in the ﬁrst instance in the complementarity of God’s hidden presence and human actions. The origins of the feast of Purim are surrounded in mystery.66 Indeed, while scholars have defended Persian, Babylonian as well as Jewish roots for the feast (for a survey of the various theories see Loader’s 1991 commentary, pp. 139–143), our knowledge thereof is actually limited to the information that can be gleaned from the book of Esther: a Jewish feast upon which all Jews commemorate the deliverance of the people from the threat of

66 Cf., however, D. F. Polish, “Aspects of Esther: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Megillah of Esther and the Origins of Purim”, JSOT 85 (1999), 85–106.

468

chapter ten

complete annihilation on the fourteenth and ﬁfteenth of Adar (the last month of the year) with great joy, sumptuous banquets and the exchange of gifts. The two Greek translations of the book—the lxx (B-text) and the so-called Lucianic version (A-text)67—contain extensive additional segments when compared with the Hebrew text (see further chapter XII).

The story narrates how King Ahasuerus (= Xerxes I, 485–465 BCE) rejected Queen Vashti after she had refused to appear before him at the end of a banquet he had given for all the people present in the citadel of Susa (chapter 1). In search of a new queen, the king chooses Esther, the beautiful niece and stepdaughter of Mordecai, as his wife without knowledge of her Jewish origins (2:1–18). Mordecai hears of a plot against the king on the part of two of his courtiers and passes the information on to Ahasuerus via Esther, whereafter the guilty parties are hanged on the gallows (2:19–23). Mordecai comes into conﬂict with Haman, the king’s senior minister and conﬁdant, having refused the sovereign’s order to kneel down before him and prostrate himself to the ground. Haman, called the Agagite, plans to take his revenge for Mordecai’s refusal against the entire Jewish people living in the Persian Empire and is given permission by the king to kill all the Jews and seize their possessions on the 13th of Adar (chapter 3). When Mordecai hears of Haman’s plan he tries to motivate Esther to present herself to the king unrequested and use her inﬂuence in his favour. Esther acquiesces (“if I perish, I perish”, 4:16) to her stepfather’s request (chapter 4). She invites the king together with Haman to attend a banquet she will give on their behalf. At table she invites both men to dine with her the following day, promising to present her petition to the king which the latter in turn had promised to grant (“even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulﬁlled”, 5:6). Haman, highly honoured by Esther’s 67

See R. Hanhart, Esther (Göttinger Septuaginta VIII,3), Göttingen 1966, pp. 7ﬀ.; H. J. Cook, “The A-Text of the Greek Versions of the Book of Esther”, ZAW 81 (1969), 369–376; E. Tov, “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and the Apocryphal Sections of Esther. A Rewritten Biblical Book”, Textus 10 (1982), 1–25; Karen H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Characteristics and Relationship to the Masoretic Text (SBL Diss. Series 153), Atlanta GA 1996; Kristin de Troyer, Het einde van de Alpha-tekst van Ester. Vertaal- en verhaaltechniek van MT 8,1–17, LXX 8,1–17 en AT 7,14–41, diss. Leiden 1997 (English translation = The End of the Alpha Text of Esther: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1–17, LXX 8:1–17, and AT 7:14–41 (Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 48), Atlanta GA 2000; C. V. Dorothy, op. cit., 1997.

the remaining literature (the writings)

469

invitation, is nevertheless so infuriated at Mordecai’s refusal to show the prescribed deference to his person that he orders a gallows to be set up for him, spurred on by his wife and friends (chapter 5). Haman’s plans are doomed to failure, however. Unable to sleep that night, the king gives orders for the book of records (annals) to be read to him and comes to realise that Mordecai has never been rewarded for warning him against his courtiers’ plot and for thereby saving his life. The following morning he asks Haman what he, as king, should grant to someone he desired to honour in a special way. Haman, who thinks that he is the person the king has in mind, oﬀers a number of suggestions only to be ordered to carry them out to the full in favour of Mordecai (chapter 6)! The denouement follows in chapter 7. During the second banquet, Esther petitions the king to allow her people to live and to counter Haman’s threat. The king then realises what is going on and has Haman hanged on the very gallows he had set up for Mordecai. The ministry hitherto entrusted to Haman is then passed on to Mordecai and Esther asks the king to repeal Haman’s written edict. Instead, Mordecai is given liberty to enlist the oﬃcials of the empire to defend the Jews on the thirteenth of Adar, the latter being allowed to take revenge against their enemies (chapter 8). The reprisals lead to the death of thousands in Susa and in the entire Persian Empire, including the sons of Haman. The festival of liberation was celebrated in the countryside on the fourteenth of Adar and in Susa on the fourteenth and ﬁfteenth of Adar, days prescribed by Mordecai as festival days for all the Jews in Persia (chapters 9–10). The author of the book of Esther would appear to have been familiar with the boundaries of the Persian empire (1:1), the topography of the palace in the citadel of Susa (1:5–6), Persian civil administration (1:14) and postal service (3:13; 8:10), as well as the customs of the royal court.68 On the other hand, the book contains too many inaccuracies to consider it an historical chronicle. The Persian Empire did not consist of one hundred and twenty-seven satraps (provinces; 1:1), but twenty. If Mordecai is to be counted among the Jewish exiles of 597 BCE (2:6), he would have been far more than a hundred years old during the reign of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I) and his niece and stepdaughter Esther would no longer have been an 68 Cf. C. A. Moore, “Archaeology and the Book of Esther”, BiAr 38 (1975), 62–79.

470

chapter ten

attractive young woman. Furthermore, the allusion to the gathering of Persian oﬃcials for a feast that lasted six months (1:4) and the reference to the royal proclamation declaring that every man should be master in his own house (1:22) both seem far-fetched. While we know that the consort of Xerxes I was Amestris (Herodotus IX 109–112), there are no historical references at our disposal alluding to a Queen Vashti (1:9) or to Esther herself. One would be making a virtue out of a necessity if one were to consider both women to have been concubines of the king: they are both explicitly referred to as queens. Indeed, the very suggestion that the Persian king would have given his permission for a civil war in his own empire (8:8; 9:11ﬀ.) is virtually unthinkable. We are clearly dealing with a narrative stemming originally from the Persian Jewish diaspora that is based on reminiscences of an intended pogrom against the Jews. The presence of Parseeisms in the book point in the direction of a date in the last decades of the Persian Empire in the middle of the fourth century BCE. Several scholars date the book, nevertheless, in the third century. Based on reasons of content and style, the textual segment 9:20–10:3, which narrates the institution of the feast of Purim and contains a eulogy praising Mordecai, is frequently taken to be secondary (both the 14th and the 15th of Adar are prescribed as festival days, while 9:19 speaks of a celebration in the countryside on the 14th of the month without naming the feast in question). One might consider the fact, however, that the word pur (Babylonian puru = lot), from which Purim is derived (9:24,26), is already mentioned in the ﬁrst narrative (3:7)69 and that there is already mention of a feast in 9:17,19. The attribution of 9:20–10:3 (or parts thereof ) to a later author thus runs into serious problems, in spite of the fact that the textual segment raises questions in terms of its content and literary style. Gerleman has argued that the narrative of Esther is modelled on the narrative of Israel’s exodus from Egypt. His thesis is nevertheless problematic. His presupposition that the book was written to propagate the replacement of Pesach by Purim by Jews contentedly established in the Eastern diaspora, remains highly unlikely. In his The Esther Scroll. The Story of the Story Clines (1984) has endeavoured to reconstruct Esther’s prehistory by suggesting that an Esther and a Mordecai

69

One is obliged to admit that 3:7 is, to a degree at least, out of context.

the remaining literature (the writings)

471

source were combined in a pre-Masoretic narrative, which did not contain the “appendix” chapters 9–10, of which the Greek A-text represents a witness. In his opinion the original narrative ended in 8:17. The hypothesis that the A-text harks back to a Hebrew narrative older than the Masoretic Text remains a problem, however, since it would force us to accept that the religious references represented by the Additions to the Book of Esther (see chapter XII) and present in the A-text would have been eliminated in MT. It is striking that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain fragments of the book of Esther and that the Qumran community did not appear to have celebrated the feast of Purim. A ﬁrst potential reference to the latter may be represented by 2 Macc. 15:36(37), thus at the beginning of the ﬁrst century CE, where allusion is made to a “day of Mordecai”.70

The book of Esther belongs among the documents that represent the threatened situation of the Jews in diaspora and refer to individual Jews who had attained positions of importance and inﬂuence in royal courts and were able to use their positions to support their compatriots (cf. Daniel). The feast of Purim, which celebrates the evasion of a pogrom planned against the Jews, is a secular event, albeit with religious undertones. While the book of Esther makes no direct reference to God, allusion to guidance from above can nevertheless be read between the lines (4:14; 6:1ﬀ.). Scholars have rightly indicated parallels with the story of Joseph in this regard (Rosenthal 1895, 1897; Berg 1979; cf. Gen. 50:20). Although the book only achieved its place in the canon of the Hebrew Bible with some diﬃculty, initial objections ultimately made way for high praise in Jewish circles of later centuries. Early attempts were made to fortify the religious content of the document by the additions in the Greek versions. In the Christian world the book frequently ran into serious resistance, particularly among several of the Eastern Church Fathers. While Luther continued to include Esther among the canonical literature, his ambivalence towards the book is well known: “Ich bin dem Buch (= 2 Maccabees) und Esther so feind, daß ich wollte, sie wären gar nicht vorhanden; denn sie judenzen zu sehr und haben viel heidnische Unart”. Setting aside the antisemitic tone of Luther’s words, the intrigues and bloodthirsty reprisals 70 Cf., however, H. Bardtke, “Der Mardochäustag”, in: G. Jeremias e.a., Tradition und Glaube (FS K. G. Kuhn), Göttingen 1971, pp. 97–116, who oﬀers a number of critical observations with respect to the identiﬁcation of this day with the feast of Purim.

chapter ten

472

alluded to in the book of Esther (cf. esp. 8:11) would appear, nevertheless, to represent a serious obstacle to the full consideration thereof as canonical, i.e. a book normative for faith and life. It should be added, however, that the book represents an unequivocal appeal on the part of the Jewish people for recognition and the right to a digniﬁed existence in the face of misunderstanding and the threat of pogroms, an appeal that deserves our full endorsement. It bears witness, moreover, to the fact that God comes to the aid of his people in hidden yet remarkable ways in moments of dire need. In conclusion, the book also refers to the ancient struggle between yhwh and Amalek (cf. Exod. 17:14,16; Deut. 25:17–19), Israel’s primeval enemy, by portraying Haman as the descendant of Agag, the king of the Amalekites (3:1; cf. 1 Sam. 15:8–9), and by leading Mordecai’s family tree back to (the father of ) Saul (2:5). The work is thus more profoundly rooted in Israel’s faith and traditions than is often suggested.

e. Daniel The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High (7:27a)

Commentaries: G. Behrmann (HKAT) 1894; K. Marti (KHC) 1901; W. Baumgartner, Das Buch Daniel, Giessen 1926; J. A. Montgomery ( ICC) 1927 (1950); J. Goettsberger (HSAT) 1928; R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Oxford 1929; H. Obbink (TU) 1932; A. Bentzen (HAT) 1937, 19522; F. Nötscher (EB) 1948; J. T. Nelis (BOT) 1954; A. Jeﬀery (IB) 1956; G. Ch. Aalders (COT) 1962; N. W. Porteous (ATD) 1962, 19854; O. Plöger (KAT2) 1965; M. Delcor (Sources Bibliques) 1971; A. Lacocque (CAT) 1976; R. Hammer (CNEB) 1976; L. F. Hartman and A. A. di Lella (AB) 1978; J. C. Lebram (ZBK) 1984; K. Koch (BK) 1986ﬀ. (= Dan 1:1–2:49); J. E. Goldingay (WBC) 1989; J. J. Collins (Hermeneia) 1993 (lit.!); E. Haag (NEB) 1993; P. L. Redditt (NCB) 1999.

Monographs and articles: G. Hölscher, “Die Entstehung des Buches Daniel”, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 92 (1919), 113–138; A. C. Welch, Visions of the End: A Study of Daniel and Revelation, London 1922; M. Noth, “Zur Komposition des Buches Daniel”,

the remaining literature (the writings)

473

Theologische Studien und Kritiken 98/99 (1926), 143–163; W. Baumgartner, “Das Aramäische im Buche Daniel”, ZAW 45 (1927), 81–133; id., “Ein Vierteljahrhundert Danielforschung”, ThR 11 (1939), 59–83, 125–144, 201–208; H. Junker, Untersuchungen über literarische und exegetische Probleme des Buches Daniel, Bonn 1932; M. A. Beek, Das Danielbuch. Sein historischer Hintergrund und seine literarische Entwicklung, Leiden 1935; H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel, New York 1948; J. A. Emerton, “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery”, JThS 9 (1958), 225–248; H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic, London 19633; id., Darius the Mede and the Four Empires in the Book of Daniel, Cardiﬀ 1964; id., “The Unity of the Book of Daniel”, in: id., The Servant of the Lord and other Essays on the Old Testament, Oxford 19652, pp. 247–280; W. Dommershausen, Nabonid im Buche Daniel, Mainz 1964; F. Dexinger, Das Buch Daniel und seine Probleme (SBSt 36), Stuttgart 1969; H. P. Müller, “Magisch-mantische Weisheit und die Gestalt Daniels”, UF 1 (1969), 79–94; A. Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer (SBM 12), Würzburg 1971; A. Lenglet, “La structure littéraire de Daniel 2–7”, Biblica 53 (1972), 169–190; J. C. Lebram, “Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Danielforschung”, JSJ 5 (1974), 1–33; J. J. Collins, “The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel”, JBL 93 (1974), 50–66; id., “The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic”, JBL 94 (1975), 218–234: id., The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16), Missoula MT 1977; id., Daniel. With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (FOTL 20), Grand Rapids 1984; J. G. Gammie, The Classiﬁcation, Stages of Growth and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel, JBL 93 (1976), 356–385; B. Hasslberger, Hoﬀnung in der Bedrängnis: Eine formkritische Untersuchung zu Dan 8 und 10–12, St. Ottilien 1977; P. M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Inﬂuence of Daniel 7, London 1979; K. Koch, Das Buch Daniel (EdF 144), Darmstadt 1980; O. H. Steck, “Weltgeschehen und Gottesvolk im Buche Daniel”, in: id., Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament (ThB 70), Munich 1982; A. Lacocque, Daniel et son temps, Genève 1983; E. Haag, Die Errettung Daniels aus der Löwengrube. Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der biblischen Danieltradition (SBSt 110), Stuttgart 1983; R. A. Anderson, Signs and Wonders; A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Edinburgh/Grand Rapids 1984; G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John, Lanham MD 1984; P. R. Davies, Daniel (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1985; D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Schweich Lectures 1983), Oxford 1985; C. C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (WUNT 38), Tübingen 1986; D. N. Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1–6 (Suppl. JSOT 72), Sheﬃeld 1988; S. Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12 (CBQ Monograph Series 19), Washington DC 1988; R. Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel. Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4–6 in der Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches (SBSt 131), Stuttgart 1988; S. B. Reid, Enoch and Daniel: A Formcritical and Sociological Study of Historical Apocalypses, Berkeley CA 1989; R. G. Kratz, Translatio Imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (WMANT 63), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991; Z. Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light

474

chapter ten

of Old Aramaic (Suppl. JSOT 127), Sheﬃeld 1992; H. O. Thompson, The Book of Daniel. An Annotated Bibliography, New York-London 1993; A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BEThL 106), Leuven 1993; R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Weltüberwindung. Theologische Positionen im Danielbuch (CBET 4), Kampen 1994; K. Koch, Europa, Rom und der Kaiser vor dem Hintergrund von zwei Jahrtausenden Rezeption des Buches Daniel, Göttingen 1997.

In the Hebrew Bible the book of Daniel is included among the Writings (Ketubîm), while lxx, the Vulgate and modern translations locate it among the prophetic books (after Ezekiel). The latter is in line with an ancient tradition, evident already in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QFlorilegium II 3), the New Testament (Mt. 24:15) and Flavius Josephus ( Jewish Antiquities 10, § 266ﬀ.; cf. also Contra Apionem 1, 38–41), whereby Daniel is portrayed as a prophet.71 The location of the text among the Writings in the Masoretic tradition is due to the fact that it represents the youngest book of the Old Testament; during its ﬁnal redaction in the second century BCE the canon of the prophets had already been closed (see chapter IV). The Greek tradition of the Book of Daniel contains a number of signiﬁcant additions (see further chapter XII). It should be noted, moreover, that the ancient Greek version (lxx) came to be replaced by that of Theodotion at a relatively early date within the Christian church. The lxx is only available to us in a couple of manuscripts: in hexaplaric recension in the codex Chisianus (ms. 88),72 in Syriac translation in the Syro-Hexapla of Paul of Tella73 and in the Chester Beatty papyrus codex 967 (end of the second or beginning of the third century CE) with a pre-hexaplaric text discovered in 1931 in the Egyptian Aphroditopolis (the manuscript contains segments of Ezekiel, Esther and Daniel). Portions of this papyrus are currently being held in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, in Cologne and in Barcelona. The text is available in ﬁve publications.74 The manuscript locates 71 K. Koch (“Is Daniel Also Among the Prophets?”, in: J. L. Mays and P. J. Achtemeier [eds.], Interpreting the Prophets, Philadelphia 1987, pp. 237–248) has defended the thesis that rabbis relocated the book from the Prophets to the Writings prior to the ﬁfth century CE. 72 Cf. A. Bludau, Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältnis zum massoretischen Text (Biblische Studien 2), Freiburg im Breisgau 1897. 73 Cf. A. M. Ceriani, Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus (Monumenta sacra et profana 7), Milan 1874. 74 F. G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, London 1937 (fragments of Daniel 3–8); A. Geissen, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel 5–12 sowie Esther 1–2,15 (PTA 5), Bonn 1968; W. Hamm, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel Kap. 1–2 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyruas 967 (PTA 10), Bonn 1969; id., Der Septuaginta-Text des

the remaining literature (the writings)

475

chapters 7 and 8 prior to chapters 5 and 6 and places Susanna after Bel and the Dragon. Together with several others, Montgomery (commentary 1927) was inclined to consider the hypothesis that the Vorlage of the ancient Greek translation originated from an earlier period than the Masoretic Text unfounded, but his opinion has recently been called into question by Albertz75 and Wills.76 The substantial diﬀerences between lxx and the Masoretic Text of Daniel 4–6 are quite striking and in many respects remain a mystery (cf. R. Albertz, op. cit., 1988). For further details see the commentary of Collins in the Hermeneia series (1993, pp. 4ﬀ.).

Fragments of a number of manuscripts of Daniel, which tend as a rule to conﬁrm the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition, have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest of these manuscripts is no more than a half-century younger than the ﬁnal redaction of the book (165 BCE).77 This has led scholars to believe that the book as a whole already enjoyed canonical status at a relatively early stage, a hypothesis further supported by the fact that the oldest part of the book would appear to have had an authoritative character in the third century BCE or earlier. In addition, the book’s apocalyptic and martyrological features seems to have satisﬁed the spiritual needs of pious Jews in the crisis period during and after the Maccabean revolt (167–164 BCE). The work accentuates God’s leadership in world history and predicts the immediate establishment of the salviﬁc kingdom. The book of Daniel consists of a narrative segment (chapters 1–6) and a visionary segment (chapters 7–12). The former speaks in the third person of the wise, pious and single-minded conduct of Daniel at the Babylonian and Median-Persian court and of the uncompromising religious fervour of his three friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. The latter contains three (partly symbolic) visions granted to Daniel, whereby the visionary introduces himself in the ﬁrst person. In terms of content they span the period of the neo-Babylonian

Buches Daniel Kap. 3–4 (PTA 21), Bonn 1977; R. Roca-Puig, “Daniele: Due semifogli del codice 967”: P. Barc. “inv. nn. 42 e 43”, Aegyptus 56 (1976), 3–18 (a few verses from Daniel 7 and 8 and a portion of chapter 11). 75 R. Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel. Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4–6 in der Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches (SBSt 131), Stuttgart 1988. 76 L. M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 26), Minneapolis 1989. 77 E. Ulrich, “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran, Part I”, BASOR 268 (1987), 17–37; Part II, BASOR 274 (1989), 3–26.

476

chapter ten

empire up to and including the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE). In the ﬁrst main part of the book we are told how King Nebuchadnezzar II had young men of aristocratic blood, from among the Israelites who had been deported to Mesopotamia, trained in his own culture to serve in his palace as well-educated courtiers, changing their Hebrew names to Babylonian names: Daniel became Belteshazzar and his three friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah became Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Daniel is able to make sure that he and his friends are only served (cultically) pure food during their training, after which the four turn out to be physically and mentally superior to the other young courtiers (chapter 1). The wisdom with which Daniel in particular is gifted allows him to explain a dream of Nebuchadnezzar and to remind the king of the content thereof, which he had forgotten. The text plainly states that Daniel was only able to do this by divine revelation. In his dream the king saw a statue made of gold, silver, bronze, iron and iron mixed with clay representing the empire of Nebuchadnezzar and the empires to follow, of which the last was to be weak. The statue is struck by a stone, cut out from rest “without human intervention” (2:34), which grows into a great mountain and ﬁlls the whole world, symbolising the eternal kingdom God shall establish upon earth (chapter 2). Chapter 3, which makes no mention of Daniel, narrates how Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refuse to worship a golden statue set up by Nebuchadnezzar. As punishment for their refusal the three are cast into a ﬁery oven but, with the help of an angel, they remain unharmed. Having witnessed their escape the king recognises the power of the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and decrees that no one in his empire should utter blasphemy against him. Chapter 4 relates a second dream of Nebuchadnezzar: he sees how a magniﬁcent tree is cut down and its branches cut oﬀ until only the stump remains. Daniel explains the dream once again: the tree is Nebuchadnezzar who shall be driven away from human society and shall live with the wild animals of the ﬁeld. Although the king proclaims proudly: “Is this not magniﬁcent Babylon, which I have built as a royal capital by my mighty power and for my glorious majesty?” (4:30) Daniel’s prediction comes true. After a period of time, however, Nebuchadnezzar regains his reason, his majesty

the remaining literature (the writings)

477

is restored to him and he praises God, the Most High.78 Chapter 5 brings us to the ﬁnal days of the neo-Babylonian empire. During a feast, King Belshazzar has his guests drink from the vessels that had been taken as booty from the temple in Jerusalem. At this juncture the ﬁngers of a human hand are seen to write on the wall of the banqueting room in which the king and his guests are feasting. Daniel is then called upon to interpret the mysterious script, which he reads as mene, mene, tekel, and parsin. He explains that Belshazzar’s days “are numbered”, that the king has been “weighed in the scales” and found wanting, and that his kingdom is to be “divided” and given to the (Medes and the) “Persians”.79 That very night Belshazzar is killed. Just as chapters 4 and 5 serve as a counterpart to one another, the same can be said in a certain sense about chapters 3 and 6. The latter relates how Daniel is threatened by government oﬃcials, jealous of his position at the royal court, during the reign of King Darius the Mede.80 The oﬃcials are able to persuade the king to issue a decree stating that anyone who makes appeal to any god or human person other than the king within a period of thirty days is to be thrown into the lions’ den. In spite of the decree, Daniel continues to pray to God three times a day, as was his practice. Caught 78 M. Henze, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar. The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4 (Suppl. JSJ 61), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1999 (lit.!). 79 The repetition of the term mene in Dan. 5: 25 would appear to be based on a scribal error. The words mene tekel uparsîn designate weights (c.q. monetary units): a mine, a shekel and two half shekels ( parsîn is a dual form), which probably appeared on the wall in abbreviated form as mtpp. Daniel explains the latter with words that have the same consonants in Aramaic as those of the weights: mene as “numbered”, tekel as “weighed” and parsîn as “divided” and as “Persians”. For this explanation and a survey of earlier literature see J. P. Lettinga, “Mene Tekel Ufarsin”. For the rendition of ‘the writing on the wall’ in a bible translation see J. H. F. Schaeﬀer e.a. (red.), Nuchtere noodzaak. Ethiek tussen navolging en compromis (Afscheidsbundel J. Douma), Kampen 1997, pp. 209–216. 80 The identiﬁcation of this ﬁgure with an individual known to us from non-biblical tradition still awaits conﬁrmation. Several scholars have argued that Darius the Mede should be taken as an historical ﬁction. Other scholars propose a variety of identiﬁcations: Cyrus (Wiseman, in: D. J. Wiseman e.a., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, London 1965, pp. 9–16); the last Median king Astyages (B. Alfrink, Biblica 9 (1928), 316–340); Cyrus’ general Gobryas (Gubaru), who conquered Babylon and became its governor (K. Koch, “Dareios, der Meder”, in: C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (FS D. N. Freedman), Winona Lake 1983, pp. 287–299) etc.

478

chapter ten

doing so by the government oﬃcials, and much to the dissatisfaction of the king, Daniel must face the prescribed punishment. Once inside the lions’ den, however, Daniel remains unharmed and is set free thereafter by the king. His opponents are then cast into the den together with their families and eaten alive by the lions. Having witnessed these events Darius oﬀers praise to the God of Daniel. The visions segment of the book of Daniel begins with chapter 7. While allusion is made to the theme of chapter 2, the worldly empires are now symbolised by four great animals.81 After their destruction, “the Ancient of Days” (God) grants dominion to “someone like a son of man” (v. 13f.), later designated as “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (v. 27). Chapter 8 brings the history of the worldly empires closer to the time of the author. It relates how a male goat (the Greek empire) defeats a ram (the Persian Empire), the “great horn” of the victor later being broken and replaced by four little horns (the Diadochian empires). Another horn emerges from one of the latter, capable of great violence and determined to rise up against God and his service (the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes). Chapter 9 relates how Daniel, after reading from the prophecy of Jeremiah that Jerusalem shall be ruined for seventy years (cf. Jer. 25:11; 29:10), confesses the shame of his people and prays for clemency, whereafter the angel Gabriel explains to him that the seventy years stand for seventy weeks, of which seven plus sixty-seven and a half have already transpired. Chapters 10:1–12:3 describe a new revelation whereby the angels initiate Daniel in the struggle in which the patron saints of the world powers are engaged against one another, and into the content of “the book of truth” (10:21) that predicts the history of the Persian and Greek empires and, in particular, the conﬂict between the Ptolomies and the Seleucids up to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes: the Jewish community shall fall into religious apostasy, but “the peo81 The literature on Daniel 7 is extensive; cf., in particular, the commentaries of Goldingay and Collins. For the religio-historical background of Daniel 7 see J. J. Collins, “Stirring up the Great Sea: The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel 7”, in: A. S. van der Woude (ed.), op. cit., 1993, pp. 121–136; for the expression “son of man” alluded to therein see the article in the same volume by E. Haag, “Der Menschensohn und die Heiligen (des) Höchsten. Eine literar-, form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Daniel 7”, pp. 137–185.

the remaining literature (the writings)

479

ple who are loyal to their God” shall stand ﬁrm and take action (11:32). In a period of great distress, Israel’s guardian angel Michael shall rise up on behalf of the faithful and the righteous deceased shall rise from the dead (12:1–3). Chapter 12 ends with a dialogue between the angels about the end time and an appeal to Daniel to go to meet his death with the promise that he shall rise up at the end of time to receive his reward. The additional verses 11–12 of chapter 12 hark back to 8:14 and extend the period of distress from 1150 days to 1290 and 1335 days respectively. The narrative chapters 1–6 exhibit reciprocal tensions and contradictions. While chapter 1 is necessary for a clear understanding of the following chapters, the reference to the three year training period required before the young men are able to enter into the service of the king (1:5, 18) is in conﬂict with 2:1, which states that Daniel was already in service as a courtier in the second year of King Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The measures taken by the king as related in chapter 3 are somewhat out of place after his confession of 2:47. After it is stated in 2:48 that Daniel was appointed chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon, it is curious that the king does not consult him ﬁrst in chapter 4. In 2:48 we are told that Daniel was appointed as rule over the whole province of Babylon while it would appear that King Belshazzar does not yet know of his existence in chapter 5. In light of these tensions and contradictions it seems reasonable to argue that chapters 2–6 are based on originally independent traditions that were apparently combined as early as the third century BCE and provided with an introduction on the basis of chapter 1. While the pre-history of the narratives cannot be reconstructed with any degree of certainty, the fragments of “the prayer of Nabonidus” discovered in Cave 4 of Qumran (cf. further chapter XIV) represent a tradition-historical preliminary stage of the information in chapter 4: a tradition originally associated with Nabonidus was later applied to the better known Nebuchadnezzar II.82 Scholars oﬀer a variety of opinions as to the genesis and evolution of the book of Daniel. J. J. Collins (commentary 1993), for example, considers chapters 1–6 to be the oldest segment, to which chapters 7 and 8–12 were

82

Cf. A. S. van der Woude, “Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonid”, in: M. Delcor (ed.), Qumrân: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (BEThL 46), Leuven 1978, pp. 121–129.

480

chapter ten

added at a later date. In his opinion, chapters 1–6 have their origins in the eastern diaspora and the remaining material stems from Jerusalem. E. Haag (1983; commentary 1993) argues that the oldest layer consists of two narratives from the ﬁfth and fourth centuries BCE, which portray Daniel as a wise and righteous man (the core of 4:1–24,31–34; 6:1–29), and two descriptions of the disintegration of Babylon as a world power (the core of 4:25–30; 5:1–30). He maintains that the core of chapters 1–3 and 7–8 were added at a later date and argues that the book was reworked again after 167 BCE and chapters 9–12 were written. J. C. Lebram (commentary 1984) favours the idea of two redactions of an originally Aramaic book (chapters 2–7), the ﬁrst of which he associates with chapter 1 and parts of chapter 8 (which in his opinion originally referred to Antiochus III). In the second redaction, he argues, chapters 8 was reworked to relate to Antiochus IV and chapters 9–12 were added. R. G. Kratz (1991) supports a three layer hypothesis: the oldest to be dated after 539 BCE (the core of 1:1–2:4a and 2:4b–49 together with chapters 3–6), the second in the third century BCE (parts of chapter 2 and 7:1–28) and the third between 168 and 163 (parts of chapters 2 and 7; chapters 8–12). All these hypotheses take the gradual evolution of an original text (Aufstockungshypothese) as their point of departure, leaving behind the fragmentary hypothesis (the book consists of originally independent segments) and the unitary hypothesis (the book was written in its entirety by a Maccabean author).

In order to clearly understand chapters 7–12, it is important that we have some knowledge of the history of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires and in particular of the Maccabean revolt that broke out against the regime of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes.83 Certain additions to chapter 7 and much of the content of the following chapters will remain unclear if one does not have some grasp of the background of the Maccabean revolt that resulted from the desecration of the altar of burnt oﬀerings in the temple in Jerusalem. For those who had held ﬁrm in their faith in God, this event served to reinforce the sense of apocalyptic expectation that echoes throughout chapters 7–12. The book of Daniel has been passed down to us in two languages: 1:1–2:4a and chapters 8–12 are written in Hebrew while the remaining material is written in Aramaic. This means that the literary subdivision into narrative (chapters 1–6) and visionary (chapters 7–12) does not run parallel with the language employed therein (one would expect 1:1–2:4a to be in Aramaic and chapter 7 to be in Hebrew). The solution to this problem can be found in the origins and evo83

See L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, London 1994, pp. 171ﬀ.

the remaining literature (the writings)

481

lution of the book. One can accept that the narrative segments, to which chapter 7 was added at a later date, stem from an earlier period than the apocalyptic chapters 8–12, which have their roots in the period of the Maccabean revolt. It is more or less established that the narrative segments were written in Aramaic in Babylon in early Hellenistic, if not, at least in part, even earlier times, and that they were later reworked in Palestine in order to have already achieved canonical status at the end of the third century BCE. When the visions of chapters 8–12 were added at this juncture during the Maccabean revolt, Dan. 1:1–2:4a was translated from Aramaic into Hebrew84 in order to transfer the authority that the originally Aramaic book possessed to the newly rendered book we now have before us by employing the sacred Hebrew language. The actualising interpolations inserted in the originally Aramaic chapter 7 were thereby too limited in size to warrant translating the entire chapter into Hebrew. In addition, the text of 2:4a oﬀered a welcome occasion to maintain the Aramaic text of the main part of the narratives: the verse in question states that the servants of King Nebuchadnezzar responded in Aramaic!85 It is thus possible to consider the history of the origins of the book of Daniel as an example of the way in which Jewish authors frequently went about their work: they incorporated their own contributions into existing documents that already enjoyed some degree of authority and were able thereby to more readily gain canonical acceptance for their work. The genesis of the ﬁnal form of the book of Daniel in 165 BCE is more or less certain since the ﬁnal editor-collector appears to have had no knowledge of the re-consecration of the temple (desecrated during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BCE [cf. 8:14; 12:11–12]) under Judas Maccabeus. He would also appear not to have been informed of the death of Antiochus in 164 BCE (cf. Dan. 11:45). The origins and evolution of the book outlined above and the proposed dating thereof run counter to the hypothesis (stated in the

84 It is possible that this introductory segment was originally shorter and that it was later expanded to include, in particular, the theme of Daniel and his friends’ refusal to eat impure food when it was translated into Aramaic. 85 Cf. further A. S. van der Woude, “Die Doppelsprachigkeit des Buches Daniel”, in id. (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BEThL 106), Leuven 1993, pp. 3–12.

482

chapter ten

work itself ) that it was written during the ﬁnal days of the neoBabylonian empire and the initial years of the Persian empire. If the latter were true, however, it would be virtually impossible to explain why the document made use of both Hebrew and Aramaic. It would likewise be impossible to explain why the description of the history of the Persian, the Greco-Macedonian and, in particular, the Seleucid empires is based on historically accurate information while the sketch of the end of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (11:40–45) does not conform to historical reality. The author clearly made use of the style ﬁgure vaticinium ex eventu (“prophetic hindsight”).86 The ﬁgure of Daniel (“God has rendered justice”), who plays such an important role in the book that bears his name, is surrounded in mystery. He is not to be identiﬁed with the ﬁgure from the murky past referred to in Ezek. 14:14 and 28:3 who is synonymous with King Dan"el familiar to us from Ugaritic texts.87 There are good reasons to presuppose, therefore, that Daniel should indeed be considered an historical ﬁgure who had successfully acquired a position of inﬂuence at the royal court during the neo-Babylonian empire. The suggestion that the narratives surrounding Daniel and his three friends stem already from the early Persian period (see M. A. Beek 1935; cf. also Kratz 1993) remains a possibility, although the texts in question have clearly been reworked at a later date. Given the additions to the narratives in the Septuagint (see further chapter XII) and the pseudo-Daniel documents discovered at Qumran,88 it is clear that the Daniel traditions enjoyed enormous popularity in early Judaism. The book occasioned the so-called four kingdom doctrine (cf. chapters 2 and 7) and exercised a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on medieval historical perception whereby, in line with Jewish interpretation, the fourth kingdom was identiﬁed with the Roman empire and the empires that emerged therefrom.89 For problems associated with the style ﬁgure vaticinium ex eventu, which cannot be written oﬀ as mere humbug, see A. S. van der Woude, “Prophetic Prediction, Political Prognostication, and Firm Belief ”, in: C. A. Evans and S. Talmon (eds.), The Quest for Context and Meaning (FS J. A. Sanders), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997, pp. 63–73 and the literature referred to therein. 87 For this ﬁgure see H. P. Müller, “Magisch-mantische Weisheit und die Gestalt Daniels”, UF 1 (1969), 79–94. 88 See F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, Vol. 1, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1997, pp. 489–492. 89 For a survey of the reception history of Daniel within the Christian church see J. G. Gammie, “A Journey Through Danielic Spaces: The Book of Daniel in 86

the remaining literature (the writings)

483

The ﬁgure of the “son of man” (7:13) referred to in the collective sense in Daniel 7 as “the holy ones of the Most High” (the members of the heavenly council and the Jews faithful to yhwh) is interpreted in the New Testament, in the Parables of 1 Enoch and in 4 Ezra as an individual and identiﬁed with the Messiah.

f. The Chronistic history In light of the fact that the ﬁnal verses of 1–2 Chronicles (2 Chron. 36:22–23) and the initial verse of the book of Ezra (Ezra 1:1–3a), which forms a single document with the book of Nehemiah, sound much the same, that the content of Ezra-Nehemiah oﬀers a continuation of the historical narrative of Chronicles and that a variety of linguistic and stylistic agreements can be illustrated between the said books, scholars have broadly tended in the last two centuries to speak of 1–2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah as a single historical work referred to as the Chronistic history. A number of objections to this hypothesis have been raised in recent decades, in particular by Sara Japhet (1968) and Hugh G. M. Williamson (1977; see literature under Chronicles). Their linguistic and content based arguments objecting to the thesis that the books in question constitute a single historical work would appear, nevertheless, not to oﬀer a decisive solution to the issue. Their linguistic arguments in particular lose much of their power of conviction if one considers that the author(s) of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah made ample use of written sources (cf. Mosis 1973; see literature under Chronicles). In addition, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah share many words and expressions that are either characteristic of both documents or occur exclusively therein. Should such linguistic data already point in the direction of a singe historical work then the same can be said with respect to the content. The fact that David has a signiﬁcant role to play in Chronicles but appears to be aﬀorded little attention in Ezra-Nehemiah is determined by the character of the individual documents, both of which nevertheless represent the king in his role as founder of the cult. The extremely limited space

the Theology and Piety of the Christian Community”, in: J. L. Mays and P. J. Achtemeier (eds.), Interpreting the Prophets, Philadelphia 1987, pp. 261–272. See also K. Koch, op. cit., 1997.

484

chapter ten

aﬀorded in Chronicles to the traditions of exodus and entry into the land has to do with the history being treated in the document. The fact that the aforementioned traditions are to be found in EzraNehemiah has its roots in the interpretation of the return from exile as exodus and Landnahme. On the other hand, Chronicles and EzraNehemiah do indeed have a lot in common in terms of content, especially with respect to the temple and the temple cult. The literary unity of both documents is convincingly demonstrated by the virtually identical commentary oﬀered by each in relation to historically incisive cultic events (cf. 2 Chron. 30:26 and 35:18 with Neh. 8:18 [Hebr. 8:17]). Willi (1972) and Welten (1973) (see literature under Chronicles) adopt an intermediate position by arguing that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are two independent works written by one and the same author.

Surprisingly enough, Ezra-Nehemiah precedes Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible, in spite of the fact that it deals with an historical period that took place after that which is described in 1–2 Chronicles. Scholars presuppose, therefore, that Ezra-Nehemiah was granted canonical status prior to Chronicles, the latter containing a signiﬁcant amount of material that can already be found in Samuel and Kings. It is argued, therefore, that Chronicles received a place in the Scriptures at a later date as a sort of appendix. The latter hypothesis tends to be undermined by the fact that Chronicles is located prior to the Psalms in some manuscripts and that there are no convincing arguments to explain why Ezra-Nehemiah should have been aﬀorded canonical status prior to Chronicles. If one continues to insist on the redactional unity of Ezra-Nehemiah then certain compositorial problems become clear, including the possibility that Nehemiah 8, a segment that deals with Ezra, could have been incorporated in the text. The fact, nevertheless, that EzraNehemiah was later subject to interpretation as two books can be aﬀorded a simple explanation: the book of Nehemiah begins anew with the detailed memoirs of Nehemiah. The unity of both books is further underlined by the nomenclature employed by the Septuagint and the Vulgate, the former speaking of Esdras b (Esdras a represents the apocryphal book often referred to as 3 Ezra in line with the Vulgate [cf. chapter XII]), the latter of 1 Ezra (= Ezra) and 2 Ezra (= Nehemiah).

the remaining literature (the writings)

485

The Chronistic history oﬀers an entirely new attempt to approach Israel’s past when compared with the work that extends from Genesis to 2 Kings. The latter locates Moses and the Law in central position whereas the former places David and his cultic institutions at the core of historical consideration. In the later stages of the emergence of Israel’s historical masterpiece (Genesis-Kings), cult and Law tended to be given more and more priority. The contribution of the Priestly Codex (P) in particular, served to underline both elements throughout Genesis-Kings. The canonical establishment of the documents in question, however, made it impossible for the author of the Chronistic history to introduce his ideas into this great work. By writing his own history, moreover, he was at liberty to allocate suﬃcient space to the period after the Babylonian exile, a period in which he was particularly interested. His work had a political-religious ambition, namely the representation of the post-exilic Jewish community clustered around the temple in Jerusalem as the restored community of Ancient Israel (Nehemiah 8–9). Temple, cult and Law served for the author as the pledge of true communion with yhwh. While it was true that the temple had been founded by David, the great king of Israel is portrayed nevertheless as the initiator of the construction of the sanctuary buildings (1 Chronicles 13–17; 22–29; see esp. 28:19). The theocratic monarch, seated as chosen one on the throne of yhwh’s kingship over Israel (1 Chron. 28:5) and from whose generations the messiah was to be expected, served as the actual founder of the religious Jewish community gathered around the cult. 1. Ezra-Nehemiah These books aim to present the various phases of the restoration as parts of a single act of God, who had moved to re-establish the postexilic community as the legitimate heir and successor of pre-exilic Israel (H. G. M. Williamson)

Commentaries: D. C. Siegfried (HKAT) 1901; A. Bertholet (KHC) 1902; L. W. Batten (ICC) 1913 (1949); A. van Selms (TU) 1935; A. Noordtzij (KV) 1939; W. Rudolph (HAT) 1949; M. Rehm (EB) 1954; K. Galling (ATD) 1954 (1958); H. Schneider (HSAT) 19594; J. de Fraine (BOT) 1961; H. Grosheide (COT) 1963 (= Ezra); J. M. Myers (AB) 1965; F. Michaeli (CAT) 1967;

486

chapter ten

L. H. Brockington (NCB) 1969; R. J. Coggins (CNEB) 1976; F. C. Fensham (NICOT) 1982; D. J. A. Clines (NCB) 1984; A. H. J. Gunneweg (KAT2): Esra 1985, Nehemia 1987 (lit.!); H. G. M. Williamson (WBC) 1985; J. Blenkinsopp (OTL) 1989: J. Becker (NEB) 1990; A. Jobsen (TT) 1997.

Monographs and articles: A. van Hoonacker, “Néhémie et Esdras. Une nouvelle hypothèse sur la chronologie de l’époque de la restauration”, Le Muséon 9 (1890), 151–184, 317–351, 389–401; H. H. Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, Tübingen 1930; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943 (Darmstadt 1957); A. S. Kapelrud, The Question of Authorship in the Ezra-Narrative, Oslo 1944; H. H. Rowley, “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah”, in: S. Löwinger and J. Somogyi (eds.), Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume I, Budapest 1948, pp. 117–149 (= id., The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, Oxford 1952, 19652, pp. 135–168); id., “Nehemiah’s Mission and its Background”, in: id., Men of God, London 1963, pp. 211–245; S. Mowinckel, “Erwägungen zum chronistischen Geschichtswerk”, TLZ 85 (1960), 1–8; id., Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia I–III, Oslo 1964–1965; K. Galling, Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter, Tübingen 1964; G. von Rad, “Die Nehemia-Denkschrift”, ZAW 76 (1964), 176–187 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB 8), Munich 19714, pp. 297ﬀ.); U. Kellermann, Nehemia. Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102), Berlin 1967; id., “Erwägungen zum Problem der Esradatierung”, ZAW 80 (1968), 55–87; id., “Erwägungen zum Esragesetz, ibid., 373–385; W. Th. In der Smitten, Esra. Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (SSN 15), Assen 1973; id., “Erwägungen zu Nehemias Davidizität”, JSJ 5 (1974), 41–48; K. Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism”, JSS 19 (1974), 173–197; F. M. Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration”, JBL 94 (1975), 4–18; R. W. Klein, “Ezra and Nehemiah in Recent Studies”, in: F. M. Cross e.a. (eds.), The Mighty Acts of God, Garden City NY 1976, pp. 361–376; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Zur Interpretation der Bücher Esra-Nehemia”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT 32), Leiden 1981, pp. 146–161; C. Houtman, “Ezra and the Law. Observations on the Supposed Relation between Ezra and the Pentateuch”, OTS 21 (1981), 91–115; S. E. McEvenue, “The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah”, CBQ 43 (1981), 353–364; D. J. McCarthy, “Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah”, CBQ 43 (1982), 25–44; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Composition of Ezra I–VI”, JThS 34 (1983), 1–30; S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33), Atlanta GA 1984; R. Rendtorﬀ, “Ezra und das ‘Gesetz’”, ZAW 96 (1984), 165–184; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1987 (lit.!); T.C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBL MS, 36), Atlanta 1988; J. Blenkinsopp, “A Theological Reading of Ezra-Nehemiah”, PIBA 12 (1989), 26–36; P. R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies. I Persian Period (Suppl. JSOT 117), Sheﬃeld 1991; K. G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial

the remaining literature (the writings)

487

Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah (SBL Diss. Series 125), Atlanta GA 1992 (lit.!); D. Kraemer, “On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah”, JSOT 59 (1993), 73–92; P. Frei und K. Koch (Her.), Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (OBO 55), Freiburg Göttingen 21996; B. Becking, “Ezra’s Reenactment of the Exile”, in: L. L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: The ‘Exile’ as History and Tradition (ESHM 2 = JSOT Sup 278) Sheﬃeld 1998, pp. 40–61; L. L. Grabbe, EzraNehemiah (Old Testament Readings), London and New York 1998; B. Becking, “Ezra on the Move: Trends and Perspectives on the Character and his Book”, in: yhwh F. García Martínez, E. Noort (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (VT Sup 73) Leiden 1998, pp. 154–79; J. Becker, Der Ich-Bericht des Nehemiabuches als chronistische Gestaltung (FzB 87), Würzburg 1998; M. J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW 277), Berlin New York 1999.

The acknowledged literary unity of Ezra-Nehemiah justiﬁes the treatment of both books together. We can summarise the primary elements of content as follows: Ezra 1–6

7–10

Neh

1–7

8–10

11–13

Cyrus’ edict facilitates the return of the exiles. The temple is reconstructed in spite of opposition. The temple is rededicated and the Passover feast celebrated. Ezra is mandated by the Persian king Artaxerxes to take charge of the temple service in Jerusalem. We are told of his journey to Jerusalem and his measures against mixed marriages. Nehemiah’s mission to reconstruct the walls of Jerusalem. The restoration of the walls in spite of opposition and Nehemiah’s measures in favour of the poor. Ezra’s reads out the Law and the feast of Succoth is celebrated followed by a day of penance and prayer. Charter concerning agreed obligations. Repopulation of Jerusalem, register of priests and Levites, festal dedication of the city walls and Nehemiah’s passion for the Law.

As with the book of Daniel, Ezra also contains segments in Aramaic (4:8–6:18; 7:12–26). In this instance, however, the use of the latter can be aﬀorded a simple explanation: the text employs Kingdom Aramaic, the diplomatic language of the Persian Empire, quoting from written letters and providing connecting text. In his description of the return from exile in Babylon (538) and the opposition of

488

chapter ten

the neighbouring peoples to the reconstruction of the temple, the author of Ezra 1–6 was able to make use of a number of sources: the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2–4; cf. 6:3–5 and 5:13–15),90 an inventory of temple vessels transported by Nebuchadnezzar II from Jerusalem to Babylon (1:9–11), a list of “returnees” (2:1–67), which enjoys a parallel in Neh. 7:6–68, together with the aforementioned collection of oﬃcial letters written in Aramaic and lacking chronological order (4:9–16,17–22; 5:7–17; 6:3–12; 7:12–26). The narrative relating the Persian king Cyrus’ permission for the return of the Jews from exile, the return of the temple vessels and the list of “returnees” (1–2) together with the restoration of the altar of burnt oﬀerings and the laying of the temple foundations (3) is characterised by a telescoping of events that actually took place years apart. The list of “returnees” in chapter 2, for example, would appear not to have anything to do with the repatriation of exiles from Babylon,91 neither in 538 nor at some later date (cf. Zech. 6:9). Conditions in the promised land at that moment in time would not have been able to accommodate such a large ﬂood of returnees as the text purports (more than 40000, cf. 2:64f.). The reported number of exiles, moreover, is in conﬂict with the number of those deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar II and alluded to in Jer. 52:28–30 (4600). It is probable that the list is based on a register of the cultic community dating from the time of Nehemiah (around 450) consisting of diﬀerent groups of returnees and those who had remained in the land who considered themselves the legitimate successors of pre-exilic Israel. In the context of the present composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, the list in Ezra 2 serves to demonstrate that the exiles responded unanimously to the edict of Cyrus and that in Nehemiah 7 to illustrate how the said exiles took part as one group in the religious gathering referred to in Nehemiah 8 under Ezra’s leadership. By contrast, the return of the temple treasures probably already took place in 538 BCE or shortly thereafter. The laying of the sanctuary foundations in Jerusalem is ascribed in Hagg. 2:19 (Hebr. 2:18) and Zech. 4:9 to Zerubbabel during the reign of King Darius I (522–486) and is said to have taken place in 520 BCE.

The fact that allusion to a complaint from the time of Xerxes I (= Ahasuerus [486–465]) and an exchange of letters with Artaxerxes I (= Artachshasta [465–425]) have been added in 4:6 and 4:7–23 respectively to the segment dealing with external opposition to the 90 The suggestion that we are dealing at this juncture with a separate source is not without dispute (cf. Williamson, op. cit., 1987, pp. 34–35). 91 A typical example can be found in the fact that ﬁgure of Sheshbazzar mentioned in Ezra 1:11 is not included in the list of 2:1–2.

the remaining literature (the writings)

489

reconstruction of the temple (4:1–5) is particularly confusing. The exchange of letters refers to the reconstruction of the city walls and not that of the temple. The narrative in 4:1–5 is continued in 4:24–6:18 with the report of the restoration of the sanctuary in Jerusalem (520–515) and its dedication, followed in 6:19–22 by the description of the ﬁrst Passover feast celebrated after the return from exile. In line with Williamson (1987, pp. 44f.) it seems justiﬁable to accept that the segment 4:6–23, which interrupts the narrative of Ezra 4:1–5 and 4:24–6:18, constitutes an excursus. The latter serves in the present form of the text to show that the oﬀer of participation in the reconstruction process made by yhwh worshipping northern Israelites (cf. 4:1–3), was rightly rejected. Many consider the documents referred to in 4:7–6:12 to be essentially authentic (see, for example, Cross 1975), while others either call their authenticity into question (see Gunneweg in his 1985 commentary) or deny it altogether (see Kaiser).

More than half a century had transpired between the dedication of the restored temple (515 BCE) and Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem in 458 BCE (Ezra 7:8). After a general introduction Ezra 7–10 begins with an edict of King Artaxerxes I (7:12–26), which can be considered, at least for the most part, to be authentic. The edict gives Ezra “the scribe of the Law of God of heaven” (7:12,21)92 permission to bring the exiles back to Jerusalem, to transport treasures gifted by the king and others to the temple, to set up an inquiry into Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of God at Ezra’s disposal and at the same time to appoint magistrates and judges “to speak judgement over all the people in the province Beyond the River”,93 in other word over those “who know the laws of your God”.94 The chapters go on to provide a detailed description of the preparations for the journey from Mesopotamia and of the arrival of Ezra and the other exiles in Jerusalem, which is followed by a report of Ezra’s

92 Schaeder, op. cit., 1930, considers this description as an oﬃcial Persian title, thus implying that Ezra served as secretary of state for Jewish aﬀairs to the Persian court. The available sources, however, do not allow us to conclude more beyond the fact that Ezra played an important role in the Jewish community in Babylon. 93 The Persian satrapy to the west of the Euphrates to which Judah also belonged is intended here. 94 The signiﬁcance of the commission is disputed. It may refer to the teaching of the Law on behalf of Jews who lived far from Jerusalem.

490

chapter ten

measures against mixed marriages. Lists are incorporated into the text as a whole relating to the exiles who returned with him (8:1–14) and those in Jerusalem who had entered into a marriage with a foreign woman (10:18–43). The chapters in question are written in both the ﬁrst (7:27–9:15) and the third person (7:1–26; 10:1–44). The use of the ﬁrst person has justiﬁably led scholars to postulate the existence of a Memoirs of Ezra (also referred to as the Ezra source) that was reworked at a later date by the author of Ezra-Nehemiah.95 Nehemiah 8 is likewise presumed by several commentators to be part of the Ezra source. The chapters narrate Ezra’s recitation of the Law he had brought with him from Babylon and the adjoining feast of Succoth. Scholars endeavour to argue that Nehemiah 8 has been redactionally relocated from after Ezra 8 (or 10). It is diﬃcult indeed to understand why Ezra would have waited for the arrival of Nehemiah (445), twelve years in total, before reciting the Law.96 In addition, the chronology encountered in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah tends to conﬁrm the hypothesis that Nehemiah 8 originally belonged after Ezra 8: when Ezra 8:31 (cf. 7:9) remarks that Ezra and his companions left Babylon in the ﬁrst month of the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458; cf. 7:8) and Ezra 7:8 states that they arrived in Jerusalem in the ﬁfth month, the seventh month referred to in Neh. 8:1 would appear to allude to the same year; Ezra 10:9, furthermore, makes reference to the ninth month in connection with Ezra’s measures against mixed marriages (Ezra 9–10). Nehemiah 9, which tells of the day of penance following Ezra’s recitation of the Law (9:1–5) and contains an extended prayer (9:6–37), is similarly ascribed by a considerable number of scholars to the Memoirs of Ezra. While this is probably justiﬁable with respect to 9:1–5, the same cannot be said for 9:6–37. The latter text segment runs counter to the spirit of the Ezra source and stems, according to some, from among those who had remained in the land after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Boda has recently shown,

95 In spite of the I-style, Noth (1943) and In der Smitten (1973) argue that these segments are the work of the Chronicler. 96 Neh. 8:10a (Hebr. 8:9a) is consistently considered to be a later gloss. The simultaneous activity of Ezra and Nehemiah is also presupposed in Neh. 12:26,33,36. The data, however, are open to a redactional explanation and do not serve to support the simultaneous activity of Ezra and Nehemiah in the historical sense (see below).

the remaining literature (the writings)

491

however, that Neh. 9 has its origins in an early post-exilic community in Yehud.97 C. C. Torrey (Ezra Studies, Chicago 1910, reprint New York 1970) has concluded on the basis of the style of the material found in Ezra, which he considers to be the same as the author of Chronicles, that an independent Ezra source never existed. According to Noth (1943) there is nothing in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 that the author could not have borrowed from the documentary sources available to him. He argues that the description of Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem (Ezra 8) and his introduction of the Law (Nehemiah 8) could have been derived from the edict of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:12–26) and the list of Ezra 8:1–14. The measures against mixed marriages ascribed to Ezra (Ezra 9–10) may have been borrowed from the memoirs of Nehemiah (Neh. 13:23–25). Several elements in the text, however, tend to undermine the argument that the Ezra material is based exclusively on the aforementioned documents (cf., for example, Ezra 8:15, 17, 24–30, 32–34; 10:9, 13). If Nehemiah 8 did indeed originally stand after Ezra 8, this presupposes a redactor who relocated a segment of an existing document. The arguments based on style proposed by Torrey and others against the existence of an independent Ezra source thus remain diﬃcult to defend and the interchange from ﬁrst to third person and vice versa in Ezra 7–10 is easy to explain even if one accepts the proposed redaction of an original document authored by Ezra.98 The analyses of Torrey and Noth clearly place the historical reliability of Ezra 7–10 and, in particular, Nehemiah 8, under considerable pressure. We should not be surprised by the fact that in addition to both denials of an independent Ezra source some scholars are inclined to portray Nehemiah 8 as an “edifying church history” without historical value. Such an evaluation stands in sharp contrast to opinion that the reconstitution of the Jewish people was the moral accomplishment resulting from Ezra’s (“the founder of Judaism”) labours. According to Vriezen,99 Ezra “saved the diminutive Jewish people from the perils of syncretism and from intermingling with the Samaritans and others by the introduction of the Pentateuch and by the measures he upheld against foreign women and held them back from activistic messianism, moreover, by restoring the Torah to the centre of its spiritual life”. Commentators are at odds as to whether the Law recited by Ezra (Nehemiah 8) should be identiﬁed with the Pentateuch, the Holiness Code, Deuteronomy or the Priestly Codex. The document is referred to as “the book of the Law of Moses” (Neh. 8:2, Hebr. 8:1; cf. Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1) c.q. “the Law of God” (8:9, Hebr. 8:8; 10:29; cf. Ezra 7:10,11,14). Rendtorﬀ (1984) is inclined to reject the identiﬁcation of the “law” referred to in the edict of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7) with that of Nehemiah 8, arguing 97 M. J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW 277), Berlin-New York 1999. 98 See Williamson, op. cit., 1987, pp. 23–24. 99 See the ninth edition of the present work, p. 302.

492

chapter ten

that the former is an example of civil law and the latter of religious law. Ezra 7:26 (“the law of your God and the law of the king”), however, allows one to conclude that both possibilities were not mutually exclusive. Houtman (1981) has demonstrated that Ezra 6:18 exhibits no particular parallel with any of the prescriptions in the Pentateuch, that Neh. 10:30, 31b (Hebr. 10:31, 32b) exhibits no authentic parallel therewith and that Neh. 10:31a, 32 (Hebr. 10:32a, 33) similarly lacks any point of agreement. The same is true, he maintains, for the wood-oﬀering referred to in Neh. 10:34 (Hebr. 10:35). He is thus more inclined to relate the Law of Ezra to the comparable collection of prescriptions ascribed to Moses and contained in the Qumran Temple Scroll (see chapter XIV) rather than to the Pentateuch as such. Nehemiah 10, however, from which Houtman gathers most of his evidence, remains a problem in itself. The contract alluded to therein, signed by Nehemiah and other leading ﬁgures in Jerusalem, is related to matters referred to in Nehemiah 13 (mixed marriages, cf. 10:30, Hebr. 10:31, together with 13:23–30a; sanctiﬁcation of the sabbath, cf. 10:31a, Hebr. 10:32a, together with 13:15–22, the provision of wood for the altar, cf. 10:34, Hebr. 10; 35, together with 13:31; the presentation of the ﬁrstborn, cf. 10:36–37, Hebr. 10:37–38, together with 13:31; the tithes of the Levites, cf. 10:38–39, Hebr. 39–40, together with 13:10–14) and must therefore stem from 432 or a few years thereafter. Clines has demonstrated100 that the stipulations in Nehemiah 10 should be understood as actualisations of the traditional Mosaic Law in a new period and under new circumstances. It was necessary, for example, to ensure the provision of wood for the wood-oﬀering in line with Lev. 6:8–13 (the ﬁre on the altar had to be maintained) now that the Gibeonites were no longer available for that purpose (cf. Josh. 9:27). It was thus possible for the contract of Nehemiah 10, although it belonged historically after Nehemiah 13, to be ascribed a place in the ﬁnal redaction of Ezra-Nehemiah (together with Nehemiah 9) in which it could serve as an endorsement of the Law of Ezra referred to in Nehemiah 8. This implies, however, that the Law of Nehemiah 8 is to be identiﬁed with the Pentateuch.

The so-called memoirs of Nehemiah, written in the ﬁrst person and otherwise referred to as the Nehemiah source (Nehemiah 1–2 together with the added list found in chapter 3;101 4–6; 7:1–5[72];102 12:31–43; 13:4–31), constitutes a source document of enormous historical value. 100 D. J. A. Clines, “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis”, JSOT 21 (1981), 111–117. 101 The chapter clearly looks back to the reconstruction of the walls, including the gates: Neh. 6:1 leaves the gates without doors. Nehemiah must thus have added the list of chapter 3 to his memoirs at a later date (cf. “their lord” in 3:5). 102 Scholars lack agreement as to whether Neh. 7:6–72 belonged to the memoirs of Nehemiah. For a discussion of the issue and the genre of the work see Williamsom, op. cit., 1987, pp. 15–19.

the remaining literature (the writings)

493

According to the tradition, the ﬁrst part of the document alludes to the years 445–433 BCE (cf. 5:14; 13:6), while the second (13:4–31) describes events in 432 or shortly thereafter (cf. 13:6). The document does seem to have been passed on in its original form and exhibits traces of a possible later reworking by Nehemiah. The text relates how King Artaxerxes I gave permission to his wine carrier Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem for a determined period of time in order to repair the citadel adjacent to the temple and the walls of the city. After having inspected the damage by night, Nehemiah presents his plans to the people of Jerusalem who then set about the reconstruction of the walls and gates of the city (1–3). Opposition from neighbouring rulers and peoples, including the Samaritan Sanballat and the Ammonite Tobiah (Neh. 2:10; 4:1ﬀ.), is eﬀectively countered and the selﬂess Nehemiah is likewise able to ward oﬀ internal social tensions (4–5). In spite of every form of deception, intimidation and treachery, the work is ultimately brought to completion (6). The wall around Jerusalem is dedicated (12:31–43) and Nehemiah institutes a series of religious measures, especially during his second stay in the city (cf. Neh. 13:6). He thus puriﬁes the temple chambers of foreigners (13:6–9; cf. 13:28), promotes the donation of tithes (13:10–13) and the celebration of the sabbath (13:14–22), and forbids marriage with foreign women (13:23ﬀ.). Nehemiah gives account of his deeds and asks the Most High to remember him for the good that he had accomplished (Neh. 5:19; 13:14; cf. 13:22b, 31), although he confesses that it was all done “with the help of our God” (6:1619). It is evident from texts such as Neh. 4:4–5 (Hebr. 3:36–37), 6:14 and 13:29 that Nehemiah faced enormous opposition from both external and internal adversaries to the measures he had taken and that the extent of his achievements should not thus be underestimated. Nehemiah 11:1–2 does not belong to the memoirs of Nehemiah. Scholars are in the dark with respect to the origins of the interpolated list of new inhabitants of Jerusalem (11:3–20; cf. 1 Chronicles 9) as well as the lists that follow (including that of the priests and Levites [12:1–26]). Nehemiah’s own report of the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem in Neh. 12:31–43 has been supplemented by material written by a diﬀerent author (12:27–30; 12:44–13:3).

Since Van Hoonacker hypothesised (1890) that Ezra’s seven year visit to Jerusalem took place during the reign of Artachshasta II

494

chapter ten

(404–358), thus in 397, and not during that of Artachshasta I (= Artaxerxes I: 465–425), thus in 458, opinions have been divided as to whether one should date Ezra before or after Nehemiah. In the present author’s opinion, the problem is best solved by accepting the chronology proposed by the author of Ezra-Nehemiah whereby the arrival of Ezra (458 BCE) precedes that of Nehemiah (445 BCE). Grosheide (commentary 1963, pp. 35–47) and Kellermann (Erwägungen, 1968) oﬀer considerable support to our arguments concerning the relative dating of Ezra and Nehemiah. See also F. M. Cross, op. cit., 1975, Williamson, op. cit., 1987, pp. 55–68 and our own considerations in Bijbels Handboek 2a (Kampen 19902), pp. 155–156. 428 BCE has also been proposed as the year in which Ezra came to Jerusalem (cf. J. A. Emerton, “Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem in 428 BC?”, JThS 17 [1966], 1–19).

The extent to which the author of Ezra-Nehemiah has drawn up his own particular image of the history of the post-exilic community is apparent from the literary structure of the book and the concept that serves as its foundation. In the ﬁrst scene (Ezra 1–6) we are told how the temple was restored in spite of the opposition of adversaries and that the achievement was rounded oﬀ with a celebration of the feast of Passover. The second scene (Ezra 7–10) then goes on to describe Ezra’s steadfast solicitude for the puriﬁed community and its ﬁdelity to yhwh in the face of his antagonists. The third scene (Nehemiah 1–6) portrays the reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem in the face of serious external and internal resistance, a work that was necessary to preserve the mother city of Judaism from threats to its spiritual liberty by neighbouring peoples. The building of the city walls is rounded oﬀ in Nehemiah 8–13 with the recitation of the Law, the celebration of the feast of Succoth and the removal of everything foreign that might injure the community of yhwh. Based on historical sources, the books of Ezra-Nehemiah thus present us with a theological legitimation of the post-exilic community of Jerusalem/Judah and with the diaspora associated therewith as the rightful heirs to those who had maintained their faith in yhwh in pre-exilic Israel. The said theology underlines the fact that God himself “stirred up the spirit” of the Persian kings (Ezra 1:1; cf. 6:22, 7:6; Neh. 2:8) and that opposition was overcome with his help (Ezra 3:3; 4:1–6:13; Neh. 2:10, 19–20; 4:1–3 (Hebr. 3:33–35), 4–5 (Hebr. 3:36–37), 7–8

the remaining literature (the writings)

495

(Hebr. 4:1–2); 6:1–14, 17–19). While the preaching evident in both books is not per se inconsistent with the intentions of Ezra and Nehemiah, it has nevertheless telescoped the activities of both ﬁgures into one. Nehemiah would appear to have conﬁrmed the spiritual achievements of Ezra with political measures. Ezra and Nehemiah deserve praise as individuals who served both the Persian king and their own people in an unimpeachable fashion and for standing up for Israel’s ancient traditions. Nevertheless, while the measures they introduced were designed to protect Israel’s identity under foreign occupation and external intimidation and the isolation of the postexilic community in Jerusalem and Judah was perhaps its greatest asset at that time, it cannot be denied that the resulting side-eﬀects of religious particularism and legalism led ultimately and by degrees to a number of serious crises. The dating of Ezra-Nehemiah is the subject of dispute. Those who consider the books to be part of the Chronistic history are naturally inclined to date them alongside the book of Chronicles. Even if one is determined to distinguish Ezra-Nehemiah from Chronicles at the literary level, however, the combination of the memoirs of Ezra and those of Nehemiah together with their redactional reworking suggests a date between 400–350 BCE, which more or less coincides with the period in which Chronicles came into existence met. 2. Chronicles Chronicles is a comprehensive expression of the perpetual need to renew and revitalize the religion of Israel (Sara Japhet)

Commentaries: I. Benzinger (KHC) 1901; R. Kittel (HKAT) 1902; E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen (ICC) 1910 (1952, 1965); J. W. Rothstein und J. Hänel (KAT 1) 1927 (= 1 Chronicles); A. Noordtzij (KV) I 1937, II 1938; A. van Selms (TU) I 1939, II 1947; J. Goettsberger (HSAT) 1939; W. A. L. Emslie (IB) 1954; K. Galling (ATD) 1954 (1958); W. Rudolph (HAT) 1955; A. van den Born (BOT) 1960; J. M. Myers I–II (AB) 1965; F. Michaeli (CAT) 1967; K. Roubos (POT) I 1969, 19832, II 1972, 19852; R. G. Coggins (CNEB) 1976; H. G. M. Williamson (NCB) 1982; R. L. Braun (WBC) 1986 (= 1 Chronicles); J. Becker (NEB) I 1986 (= 1 Chronicles), II 1988 (= 2 Chronicles); R. B. Dillard (WBC) 1987 (= 2 Chronicles); Th. Willi (BK) 1991 (= 1 Chron. 1:1–4:43); S. Japhet (OTL) 1993; W. Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles I–II (Suppl. JSOT 253–254), Sheﬃeld 1997.

496

chapter ten

Monographs and articles: W. F. Albright, “The Date and Personality of the Chronicler”, JBL 40 (1921), 104–124; G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT IV/3), Stuttgart 1930; P. Vannutelli, Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti seu Librorum Regum et Chronicorum Loci Paralleli I–II, Rome 1931–1934; A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler. Its Purpose and Date, London 1939 (reprint Munich 1980); M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943 = Tübingen 19673, pp. 110–180; W. D. Crockett, A Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, Grand Rapids 1951; D. N. Freedman, “The Chronicler’s Purpose”, CBQ 23 (1961), 436–442; W. Lemke, “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History”, HThR 58 (1965), 349–363; P. R. Ackroyd, “History and Theology in the Writings of the Chronicler”, Concordia Theological Monthly 38 (1967), 501–515; id., “The Chronicler as Exegete”, JSOT 2 (1977), 2–32; id., The Chronicler in his Age (Suppl. JSOT 101), Sheﬃeld 1991; S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew”, VT 18 (1968), 330–371; id., “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles”, JBL 98 (1979), 205–218; id., The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9), Frankfurt am MainBern-New York-Paris 1989 (corrected reprint 1997); id., “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT 43), Leiden 1991, pp. 298–313; Th. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106), Göttingen 1972; R. L. Braun, “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles”, JBL 92 (1973), 502–514; id., “Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Signiﬁcance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28 and 29 for the Theology of the Chronicler”, JBL 95 (1976), 581–590; R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FThSt 92), Freiburg im Breisgau 1973; P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973; L. C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles I. The Translator’s Craft (SVT 25), Leiden 1974; id., The Greek Chronicles II. Textual Criticism (SVT 27), Leiden 1974; F. M. Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restauration”, JBL 94 (1975), 4–18; J. D. Newsome Jr., “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes”, JBL 94 (1975), 201–217; id., A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, Grand Rapids 1986; D. Mathias, Die Geschichte der Chronikforschung im 19. Jahrhundert unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der exegetischen Behandlung der Prophetennachrichten des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes I–III, Leipzig 1977; H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, Cambridge 1977; id., Eschatology in Chronicles, Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977), 115–154; R. Michel, Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferung in der Chronik (BET 18), Frankfurt am Main/Bern 1983; S. L. M. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33), Atlanta GA 1985; W. Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles”, in: J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (Suppl. JSOT 42), Sheﬃeld 1986, pp. 113–138; M. A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and

the remaining literature (the writings)

497

Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBL Diss. Series 93), Atlanta GA 1987; D. Talshir, A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, VT 38 (1988), 165–193: S. J. de Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL 11), Grand Rapids 1989; M. P. Graham, The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of the Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBL Dissertation Series 116), Atlanta GA 1990; R. A. Mason, Preaching the Tradition. Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile, Cambridge 1990; R. K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis (Suppl. JSOT 88), Sheﬃeld 1990; I. Kalimi, The Books of Chronicles. A Classiﬁed Bibliography, Jerusalem 1990; K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie (BZAW 201), Berlin 1991; J. P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community (Suppl. JSOT 151), Sheﬃeld 1992; G. H. Jones, 1 & 2 Chronicles (Old Testament Guides), Sheﬃeld 1993; W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles. Worship and the Reinterpretation of History (Suppl. JSOT 160), Sheﬃeld 1993; J. W. Kleinig, The Lord’s Song. The Basis, Function and Signiﬁcance of Choral Music in Chronicles (Suppl. JSOT 156), Sheﬃeld 1993; E. M. Dörrfuss, Mose in den Chronikbüchern: Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung (BZAW 219), Berlin-New York 1994; W. M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition. From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (Suppl. JSOT 197), Sheﬃeld 1995; I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten. Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (BZAW 226), Berlin-New York 1995; G. Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlußphänomen. Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik (BBB 93), Bodenheim 1995; B. E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (Suppl. JSOT 211), Sheﬃeld 1996; K. Peltonen, History Debated. The Historical Reliability of Chronicles in PreCritical and Critical Research (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 64) I–II, Helsinki-Göttingen 1996; J. P. Weinberg, Der Chronist in seiner Mitwelt (BZAW 239), Berlin-New York 1996; M. P. Graham e.a. (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian (Suppl. JSOT 238), Sheﬃeld 1997.

The name of the book represents a translation of its Hebrew title dibre hayyamîm, “events of the days”, with which Jerome’s designation “chronicon totius divinae historiae” (chronicle of the entire divine history) is clearly in line. The Septuagint makes use of the term Paraleipomena (“the omitted”),103 because it considers the content of the document to be a supplement to Samuel and Kings. In so doing, however, it clearly misunderstands the intention of the author who wanted to show that the community of Jerusalem and Judah in his days represented the legitimate continuation of the pre-exilic national and cultic community that had been elected by God.

103

The Vulgate designates the work as verba dierum seu Paralipomena.

498

chapter ten

According to the Jewish-Babylonian tradition the book of Chronicles is located at the end of the Hebrew Bible although some Spanish manuscripts place it prior to the Psalms: the emphasis on the liturgy found in Chronicles makes it an appropriate introduction to the book of Psalms. The Septuagint, the Vulgate and modern translations locate Chronicles after Kings. The books 1–2 Chronicles exhibit a consistent and clear structure: 1 Chron. 1–9 1 Chron. 10–29 2 Chron. 1–9 2 Chron. 10–36

The prehistory of Israel prior to David in the form of genealogical lists (“die genealogische Vorhalle”)104 The history of David105 The history of Solomon106 The history of Judah up to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE

After the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9, which frequently extend into the post-exilic period, the author begins his narrative with David, who for him represents the founder of Israel’s national community and its liturgy. Emphasis is placed in his portrayal of David on the latter’s cultic institutions and his preparations for the construction of the temple. Solomon is aﬀorded in depth attention as founder of the sanctuary. The weaknesses and failures of both kings are left unspoken, apparently because they did not ﬁt into the conceptual framework employed by the author of Chronicles. The division of the kingdom after Solomon is seen as northern Israel’s defection from the true religion of yhwh as it is practiced in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Chron. 11:13–17). In contrast to the books of Kings, Chronicles only deals in principle with the history of Judah and the deeds of its kings are measured against their ﬁdelity to Law of yhwh. The author of Chronicles, who was evidently well acquainted with the content of the Pentateuch and, in particular, Deuteronomy, used the books of Samuel and Kings as his source,107 deriving additional information from ancient archives. Scholars are virtually agreed that 104 M. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament 28), Lund 1989; M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel. Die “genealogische Vorhalle” 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990. 105 Tae-Soo Im, Das Davidbild in den Chronikbüchern: David als Idealbild des theokratischen Messianismus für den Chronisten, Frankfurt am Main 1985. 106 R. B. Dillard, “The Literary Structure of the Chronicler’s Solomon Narrative”, JSOT 30 (1984), 85–93. 107 Cf. P. Vannutelli, op. cit., 1931–1934 and J. Kegler & M. Augustin, Synopse zum Chronistischen Geschichtswerk, Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York 1984, 19912.

the remaining literature (the writings)

499

the ﬁrst edition of Chronicles was later supplemented but the nature and extent of the interpolations is still the subject of dispute. The material peculiar to Chronicles (not found in Samuel and Kings), which deals with construction works, armies and war scenarios, is often considered to be historically unreliable, although unjustiﬁably so. The material in question provides further information concerning the rulers of Judah in similar fashion to the books of Kings, information that deserves particular historical attention (cf. for example, 2 Chron. 11:5–12; 16:1–6; 32:30; 34:3–7). On the other hand, the exaggerated ﬁgures employed by the Chronist in the portrayal of armies (cf., for example, 1 Chron. 27:1–15; 2 Chron. 13:3) and sacriﬁcial oﬀerings (cf., for example, 2 Chron. 30:24) come across as highly implausible. It is clear that the Chronist left his own impression on the material he wrote by dealing with his sources (primarily Samuel and Kings) in a highly selective manner. His main purpose was not historical but rather theological, using ancient history to appeal to his contemporaries to remain faithful to yhwh and the liturgy dedicated to Him. His interest in cultic and, in particular, liturgical matters is hard to miss, especially his fascination for the Levitical temple singers. It is possible, therefore, that he may have belonged to the latter circles. Although scholars have often argued that the books of Chronicles exhibit identiﬁably anti-Samaritan tendencies, incontestable evidence in this regard tends to be lacking (cf. 2 Chron. 30:5ﬀ.,18; 34:33). While it is true that the temple in Jerusalem is represented as the only legitimate cultic location, it remains nevertheless open to all Israelites (cf. 2 Chron. 30:10–12). The author of Chronicles is preoccupied with the realisation of a theocracy in the Promised Land, rooted in God’s gracious election of Israel, the dynasty of David and Jerusalem. With all his emphasis on the priestly hierarchy, the question as to whether the author was also driven by messianic expectations (cf. 1 Chron. 17:1–15), which he was only able to express in cloaked terms on account of the Persian occupiers, remains uncertain. Whatever the case, he clearly places particular emphasis—in line with the Deuteronomists—on the notion of divine retribution (Kelly 1996), which he repeatedly demonstrates with respect to the fate of Judah’s kings: sin leads to disaster, piety to salvation and blessing (cf. Jer. 18:7–10; Ezekiel 18). In his view, the praise of yhwh is the most important task of the cultic community.

500

chapter ten

Given the fact that scholars are generally inclined to accept the existence of later editions of the Chronist’s work, determining the period in which he himself wrote is far from simple. If one identiﬁes him with the author of Ezra-Nehemiah then one might consider the period between 400 and 350 BCE as a possible date, all the more so in light of the fact that the book contains no evidence of GreekHellenistic inﬂuence. Information concerning the seven generations of the descendents of King Jehoiakin/Jeconiah (1 Chron. 3:17–24; cf. the ﬁve generations after the High Priest Jeshua up to and including Jaddua in Neh. 12:10–11) tends to point in the same direction if one counts every generation as roughly 30 years. The apparent inﬂuence of Aramaic on the language and style of the Chronist serves to conﬁrm the aforementioned dating of his work.

C. THE LITERATURE OF EARLY JUDAISM

CHAPTER ELEVEN

INTRODUCTION

Kautzsch; Charles; JSHRZ; Sparks; see further (with the exception of note 1) under Apocrypha (chapter XII), Pseudepigrapha (chapter XIII) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (chapter XIV). M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. (WUNT 10), Tübingen 1969, 19883 (lit.!); R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia/Atlanta GA 1986 (lit.!); L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, Minneapolis 1992, London 1994 (lit.!); W. Horbury e.a. (eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism III. The Early Roman Period, Cambridge 1999 (an imposing series of contributions on various subjects written by a variety authors) An impressive and virtually exhaustive bibliography relating to Jewish literature from the Hellenistic-Roman period can be found in A. Lehnardt, Bibliographie zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Supplementa JSHRZ VI/2), Gütersloh 1999 (xvi and 502 pp.!).

The blank page to be found in most bible translations between Malachi and Matthew serves as a symbol for the lack of knowledge that most readers of the bible suﬀer with respect to the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings of early Judaism. The arrangement of the books of the Old Testament often makes it diﬃcult to comprehend that many of the documents contained therein were either written or cast in their ﬁnal form after Malachi (ﬁrst half of the ﬁfth century BCE; see, for example, the Isaiah Apocalypse [Isaiah 24–27], Jonah, Deutero-Zechariah, Qoheleth, Esther, Daniel). Few people are well informed, furthermore, concerning the broad range of Jewish literature dating from the centuries prior to and shortly after the beginning of the Common Era. The apocryphal books, which were included in the oldest editions of the Dutch Authorised Version and served as a source of inspiration for many artists in the ﬁrst centuries of the Reformation, were later removed from Protestant bibles and passed thereby into obscurity. The pseudepigraphal writings, which were ﬁttingly omitted from biblical translations for canonical reasons, tend for the most part to be unknown territory, even for theologians.

504

chapter eleven

While introductory studies of the literature of Ancient Israel have generally made much of the historical-critical approach in terms of methodology, they have consistently restricted themselves in terms of content to the study of the canonical books of the Old Testament. In so doing they have not only neglected to draw the necessary conclusions from the historical-critical option, but they have also created a situation in which the non-canonical literature of early Judaism has tended for the most part to be treated as theologically irrelevant. As a result, the Jewish background of the New Testament has been aﬀorded little exposure for a considerable period of time. The momentous discoveries made on the shores of the Dead Sea (since 1947) have served as a particular stimulus with respect to the study of the literature of early Judaism (after a brief period of interest around the beginning of the twentieth century).1 Responsible research into the manuscripts of the Dead Sea, however, would be virtually impossible without a thorough knowledge of the Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigraphal literature. The ecumenical movement together with increasing co-operation between denominational biblical societies has also contributed to the fact that recent bible translations have included the apocryphal (referred to in Roman Catholic circles as deutero-canonical) books of the Old Testament. Interest in these documents, at least with regards to their content, has thus enjoyed something of a renewal.2 The literature of early Judaism still tends to play only a minimal role in Jewish-Christian dialogue: the documents in question were already rejected by the rabbinate in ancient times and Christians, as a rule, know little about them.

1 The large collections published under the redaction of E. Kautzsch stem from this period (Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, Tübingen 1900) see also R. H. Charles (Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Oxford 1913), together with the masterpiece published by E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi I–III (ﬁrst edition and several reprints Leipzig 1885–1924; recent revised version: G. Vermes e.a., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ I–III, Edinburgh 1973–1987). See also W. Bousset – H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, Tübingen 19263 and P. Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel, Heidelberg 1928, Darmstadt 19662. 2 Cf. the New English Bible (The Apocrypha, Oxford-Cambridge 1970), the Apokryphen nach der deutschen Übersetzung Martin Luthers. Revidierter Text 1970 (published in 1971 under the auspices of the Duitse Evangelische Kirche), the Nije Fryske Bibeloersetting, the edition Tussen Oud en Nieuw. Deuterokanonieke of apokriefe boeken (NBG, Amsterdam 1975).

introduction

505

The fact that the various documents to be treated in the present section diﬀer from one another extensively in terms of date of origin, genre and content makes it diﬃcult to provide them with a ﬁtting collective designative term. Scholars have endeavoured to speak of inter-testamentary, early or late Jewish literature, albeit with reference to documents from the period of the second temple. Under closer inspection, however, none of the latter can be considered as satisfactory. Strictly speaking, inter-testamentary literature should be restricted to those documents that came into existence between the ﬁnal redaction of the youngest book of the Old Testament (Daniel) and the earliest book of the New Testament (1 Thes.), in other words between 165 BCE and 50 CE. A not insigniﬁcant portion of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature, however, stems from the period either before or after these dates. It goes without saying, in addition, that the term “intertestamentary literature” oﬀers little with regard to the Jewish reader/scholar. The expression “literature of early Judaism” (Frühjudentum) suﬀers from the disadvantage that it should in fact include certain canonical books of the Old Testament since they stem from the same period as a number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal documents. The expression “literature of late(r) Judaism” (Spätjudentum, bas-Judaïsme) is somewhat awkward because we refer to modern Jewish religion and culture as Judaism. “Literature of the second temple period” does not only set the limit at 70 CE, it also implies a signiﬁcant portion of the canonical documents of the Old Testament (from 515 BCE). In spite of its deﬁciencies, the designation “literature of early Judaism” remains the most attractive. Earlier editions of the present volume employed the expression “late ﬂowerers” in order to show that while the material in question may have come into existence at a later date it is not thus, by deﬁnition, of a lesser literary value, and “oﬀshoots” in order to show that the authors of the literature in question were—generally speaking—inspired by the Old Testament or certain portions thereof. Disqualiﬁcation of the content of the books remains, as a rule, unjustiﬁable. While it is possible that they include works that are unlikely to tempt the modern reader in terms of content and style, their literary and religious-historical signiﬁcance remains unaﬀected and indeed deserves our fullest attention. In addition, many of the said documents bear witness to a profound religious piety and an earnest endeavour to harmonise traditional knowledge of the divine with contemporary experience. The artistic

506

chapter eleven

form in which the content of many of these documents has been cast makes their reading all the more stimulating, even to the present day. Whatever the case, an examination and exploration of the literature in question is necessary for those who would like to familiarise themselves with early Judaism and the background(s) of the New Testament.3 Prior to the further discussion of the literature to be treated in the coming pages (apocrypha; pseudepigrapha; Dead Sea Scrolls) we will turn our attention, albeit in brief, in the following three paragraphs to a number of important papyrus discoveries that provide us with more detailed information concerning Jewish religion and history in the Persian and early Hellenistic period.

a. The Elephantine papyri Text editions: A. H. Sayce – A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan, London 1906; E. Sachau, Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen MilitärKolonie zu Elephantine, Leipzig 1911; A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford 1923 (reprint Osnabrück 1967); E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century BC from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine, New Haven 1953; G. R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford 1954 (abbreviated and revised edition 1957; third edition 1965); E. Bresciani and M. Kamil, “Le lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli”, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Series 8, vol. 12 (1965–1966), 358–428 (papyri from family archives of people living in Egypt but originating from Syria or Mesopotamia); B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt I–III, Jerusalem 1986–1993. An introduction to the majority of the texts referred to above (including those published by Bresciani and Kamil) together with a translation and commentary can be found in P. Grelot, Documents araméens d’Égypte (Littératures anciennes du Proche Orient 5), Paris 1972.

3 The works of Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus together with the earliest rabbinical literature are not treated in the present volume since they are not included among the pseudepigrapha. A survey of the literature in question can be found in J. T. Nelis, Bijbels Handboek 2b, Kampen 19972, pp. 167–191.

introduction

507

Monographs and articles: C. G. Wagenaar, De joodse kolonie van Jeb-Syene in de 5e eeuw voor Christus, Groningen/Den Haag 1928; A. Vincent, La religion des Judéo-Araméens d’Éléphantine, Paris 1937; R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, Oxford 1961; B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1968 (lit!); id., Jews of Elephantine and Arameans of Syene, Jerusalem 1974; id., “The Jews in Egypt”, in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism I, Cambridge 1984, pp. 372–400; Y. Muﬀs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, Leiden 1969, New York 1973; K. van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities and the Jews of Elephantine”, Numen 39 (1992), 80–101; B. Porten e.a., The Elephantine Papyri in English, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996.

Discoveries at Elephantine (Aramaic: Jeb), an island located in the Nile adjacent to Asswan (ancient Syene), include Egyptian, Greek and several Aramaic manuscripts that provide us with a picture of the religious and day to day life of a Jewish military colony stationed there. The colony must have been established by an Egyptian pharaoh prior to the Persian period with a view to defending Egypt’s southern border. In any event, it continued to exist up to the end of Persian supremacy over Egypt or shortly thereafter. It had its own temple in which sacriﬁces were oﬀered in honour of Jahu (yhwh). The local authorities maintained occasional contact with the High Priest in Jerusalem and other leading ﬁgures in Jerusalem and Samaria. The Aramaic papyri consist for the most part of letters, marriage contracts, purchase and rental agreements, petitions, oﬃcial Persian state documents and lists of names (for a detailed description of the manuscript discoveries see B. Porten in The Anchor Bible Dictionary II, pp. 447–454). The documents not only provide us with a degree of insight into the administrative activities of the Persian rulers and the particular law of the Jewish colonists, they also reveal the syncretistic character of the religion practised at Elephantine whereby other divinities were worshipped in addition to Jahu.4 Although the socalled Passover Papyrus (Cowley, nr. 21)5 is often considered an

4

Cf. the works of Wagenaar 1928, Vincent 1937 and Van der Toorn 1992. Cf. the studies of P. Grelot: “Etudes sur le “papyrus pascal” d’Eléphantine”, VT 4 (1954), 349–384; “Le papyrus pascal d’Eléphantine et le problème du Pentateuch”, VT 5 (1955), 250–265; “Le papyrus pascal de Eléphantine. Nouvelle examen”, VT 17 (1967), 114–117; “Le papyrus pascal d’ Eléphantine: Essai de restauration”, ibid., 201–207; “Le papyrus pascal d’Eléphantine et les lettres 5

508

chapter eleven

example of Persian interference in local liturgical practice, the document is perhaps better interpreted as a petition on the part of the Jewish community requesting oﬃcial permission from the Persian authorities to (continue to) celebrate the feast of unleavened bread in Elephantine.6 The discovered papyri are also important for our knowledge of Kingdom Aramaic, the international language of the Persian empire at the time, and for the information they provide with respect to the relative chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah’s activities in Jerusalem based on references they contain concerning senior oﬃcials in Palestine. In addition to the aforementioned texts, which stem from the period between 494 and 399 BCE, two further documents, likewise discovered at Elephantine, deserve particular mention: the Bisitun inscription,7 an Aramaic copy of a text etched on a cliﬀ face by the Persian king Darius the Great around 510 BCE, glorifying his military successes during the earliest part of his reign, and the Story of Ahikar,8 which is probably based on a Mesopotamian source. The latter relates how Ahikar, the wise chancellor of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, fell into disfavour on account of the intrigues of his adopted son Nadin and was condemned to death only to be saved and his honour restored on the intervention of an oﬃcial. The narrative functions as an introduction to a collection of wisdom sayings. The fact that versions of the Story of Ahikar circulated in diﬀerent languages leads one to presume that it must have been extremely popular in the Ancient Near Eastern world. The author of the Book of Tobit (see below under Apocrypha) was famil-

d’Hermopolis”, ibid., 481–483; “Sur le “papyrus pascal” d’ Eléphantine”, in: A. Caquot et M. Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 163–172. 6 Studies of the text are best based on the reconstruction of B. Porten, “Aramaic Papyri and Parchments: A New Look”, BiAr 42 (1979), 74–104, cf. Porten-Yardeni, op. cit., pp. 54–55. 7 Text, translation and commentary in A. E. Cowley, op. cit., 1923, pp. 248–271. See also J. C. Greenﬁeld and B. Porten, The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great (Corpus Inscriptiorum Iranicarum, Part I, Vol. V), London 1982. 8 Cf. A. E. Cowley, op. cit., 1923, pp. 204–248; P. Grelot, op. cit., 1972, pp. 427–452; ANET, pp. 427–430 (H. L. Ginsberg; lit.!); F. Nau, Histoire et sagesse d’Ahikar l’Assyrien, Paris 1909; F. C. Conybeare – J. Rendel Harris – A. Smith Lewis, The Story of Ahikar, Cambridge 19132; J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar ( John Hopkins Near Eastern Studies), Baltimore 1983; I. Kottsieper, Die Sprache der Ahikarsprüche (BZAW 194), Berlin-New York 1990.

introduction

509

iar with the document (Tob. 1:21–22) and the ﬁgure of Achior serves as Ahikar’s counterpart in the book of Judith. The Hermopolis papyri published by Bresciani and Kamil (1965–1966) and supplemented by Porten and Greenﬁeld9 would appear to stem from nonJewish sources and represent a family archive consisting of a number of letters.

b. The Samaritan papyri F. M. Cross, “The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri”, BiAr 26 (1963), 110–121; id., “Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times”, HThR 59 (1966), 201–211; id., “Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Dâliyeh”, in: D. N. Freedman and J. Greenﬁeld (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, New York 1969, pp. 41–62; id., “Samaria Papyrus 1: An Aramaic Slave Conveyance of 335 BCE Found in the Wâdi ed-Dâliyeh”, Eretz Israel 18 (1985), 7*–17*; id., “A Report on the Samaria Papyri”, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT 40), Leiden etc. 1988, pp. 17–26. See also P. W. Lapp, RB 72 (1965), 405–409 and P. W. Lapp and Nancy L. Lapp (eds.), “Discoveries in the Wâdi edDâliyeh”, AASOR 41 (1974), 1ﬀ.; Mary Leith, Wadi ed-Daliyeh I. The Wady ed-Daliyeh Seal Impressions (DJD XXIV), Oxford 1997.

Less extensive than the Elephantine documents, but nevertheless of suﬃcient importance to warrant serious attention, the so-called Samaritan papyri were discovered by a group of Bedouins about 15 km north of Jericho in 1962. Written in Aramaic, the documents can be dated roughly to between 375 and 335 BCE, the period directly prior to the conquest of Alexander the Great and the fall of the Persian empire. The discoveries are named after the place in which they were found—the Wadi ed-Dâliyeh papyri—as well as according to the place in which they came into existence—the Samaritan papyri. Half of the original documents have only been preserved in one or two fragments and none of the papyri is complete. The content of the material is either juridical or administrative in character and alludes in particular to the sale of slaves.

9 B. Porten and J. C. Geenﬁeld, Hermopolis Letter 6, Israel Oriental Society 4 (1974), 14–30.

510

chapter eleven

The papyri would appear to have been smuggled out of the city of Samaria by refugees ﬂeeing the unsuccessful Samaritan revolt against the Greek-Macedonian authorities in 331 BCE. Having hidden themselves in a cave in Wadi ed-Dâliyeh, they were later trapped by Alexander’s troops and choked to death from the smoke of a ﬁre kindled by the latter at the entrance to their hiding place. The majority of the individuals referred to in the papyri bear Yahwistic names. The material is important, moreover, for the information it provides concerning the governors who resided in Samaria in the fourth century BCE. A complete edition of the papyri is being prepared by F. M. Cross (DJD XXVIII) and D. M. Gropp (DJD XXXII).

c. The Zenon papyri V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum I, Cambridge MA 1957, pp. 115–130; V. A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, New York 1959; P. W. Pestman, A Guide to the Zenon Archive I–II (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 21), Leiden 1981; C. Orrieux, Les papyrus de Zénon, Paris 1983 (translation of the main texts); id., Zénon de Caunos, parépidèmos, et le destin grec (Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 64), Paris 1985; id., “Les papyrus de Zénon et la préhistoire du mouvement maccabéen”, in: A. Caquot e.a. (eds.), Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Leuven-Paris 1986, pp. 321–333.

Archaeological discoveries tend to be the main source of our knowledge relating to the socio-economic and administrative circumstances governing Palestine during Ptolemaic rule in the third century BCE. The so-called Zenon papyri, discovered at the Egyptian oasis of Fayyum in 1915, represent an important example thereof. Apollonius, Ptolemy II’s “minister of ﬁnance”, held a substantial country estate in the region that had been given to him in loan by pharaoh. Prior to his appointment as administrator of the estate, Zenon had been commissioned by Apollonius to carry out an expedition (260–258 BCE) in the Ptolemaic province of “Syria and Phoenicia”, which brought him, among other places, to the citadel of Tobias, a possible descendant of the similarly named adversary of Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 2:10,19; 3:35; 4:1 etc.), in Trans-Jordania. The purpose of his

introduction

511

journey was to undertake an administrative inspection of the said province and to establish trade relationships. Several of the papyri relate to his journey and oﬀer us an, albeit indirect, picture of the civil, economic and social circumstances in Palestine at the time.

CHAPTER TWELVE

APOCRYPHA

Text editions: Greek: Swete, Rahlfs and (incomplete) Brook-McLean-Thackeray (3 Ezra, Judith, Tobit, Additions to the Book of Esther) and the Göttinger Septuagint (3 Ezra, Tobit, Judith, 1–3 Maccabees, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus Sirach); Latin: Weber; Syriac: Vetus Testamentum Syriace, Leiden 1966 and the following years (still incomplete: II/2: the Wisdom of Solomon; III/4: Additions to the Book of Daniel, Bel and the Dragon; IV/3: Apocalypse of Baruch and 4 Ezra; IV/6: Prayer of Manasseh, Psalms of Solomon, Tobit, 3 Ezra). See further in relation to the individual books.

Concordance: E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) I–II, Oxford 1897, reprint Graz 1954.

Translations: Kautzsch; Charles; Riessler; JSHRZ. See, in addition, Roman Catholic bible translations (e.g. RSV/NRSV) and ecumenical bible translations (e.g. Good News Bible).

Introductions to the apocrypha, c.q. apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (cf. also Kautzsch; Charles; JSHRZ): W. O. E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha, New York 1935, 19534; C. C. Torrey, The Apocryphal Literature: A Brief Introduction, New Haven 1945; A. Lods, Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive depuis les origines jusqu’à la ruine de l’état juif (135 après J.-C.), Paris 1957; B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, New York 1957; D. S. Russell, Between the Testaments, London-New York-Toronto 1960, 19642 (Dutch translation: Tussen Maleachi en Mattheüs, Den Haag 1962); L. H. Brockington, A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha, London 1961; L. Rost, Einleitung in die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen einschließlich der großen Qumrânschriften, Heidelberg 1971;

apocrypha

513

G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, London 1981; M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, Section Two II), Assen-Philadelphia 1984; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, volume III/1, Edinburgh 1986, pp. 177–341 and pp. 470ﬀ.; R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (SBL Centennial Publications: The Bible and its Modern Interpreters, 2), Atlanta GA 1986. See, in addition, the introductions to the Old Testament by Bentzen, Eissfeldt, Weiser and Soggin as well as the bibliographical information provided below in relation to the discussion of the individual books.

Bibliographies: G. Delling, Bibliographie zur jüdisch-hellenistischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur (TU 106), Berlin 19752; A. Lehnardt, Bibliographie zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit ( JSHRZ Supplementa VI/2), Gütersloh 1999.

The concept “apocryphal” enjoyed a variety of meanings in the course of the early history of the church. It was originally used in a polemical context against heretical teachers, among whom esoteric documents tended to circulate that enjoyed enormous respect and were referred to as “apocryphal”, i.e. “hidden” (Greek apokryphon). The Church Fathers consistently appraise the concept in negative terms: “hidden” on account of heretical content or unknown origin, accordingly counterfeit and thus excluded from the canon. The Fathers in question, however, were not referring to the components that are now to be found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. According to the rabbis and the early church, the latter were neither heretical nor sectarian in origin. In spite of the fact that they enjoyed, at least in part, high esteem, early Palestinian Judaism, with its Pharisaic attributes, excluded the texts from the canon because they were post-prophetic in origin. Jerome (348–420) and later Luther employed the expression “apocryphal books” in the neutral sense as a reference to the components of the Septuagint (and the Vulgate) that were not present in the Hebrew canon. The issue of the canonical status of these books preoccupied the Christian church for considerable period of time and gave rise to a variety of diﬀerent responses. The Council of Trent (1546) recognised Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus Sirach, 1 Baruch (together with the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees together with the Additions to the books of Esther and Daniel as canonical.

514

chapter twelve

In order to make a distinction with the books that appear in the Hebrew Bible, Roman Catholic circles designate the books in question as deutero-canonical (the Vulgate had already placed 3 and 4 Ezra, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and the Letter to the Laodiceans in an appendix). At the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, the Greek Orthodox church only accepted Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus Sirach as having authority in addition to the books of the Hebrew canon. While Luther’s 1534 edition of the bible included the apocryphal books, the superscription he supplied to introduce them makes it clear that he did not consider them canonical in the full sense of the term: “Apokrypha, das sind Bücher, so der Hl. Schrift nicht gleichgehalten, und doch nützlich und gut zu lesen sind”. A similar distinction between canonical and apocryphal books can be found in article 6 of the Dutch Confession of Faith (Confessio belgica) drafted by Guido de Brès: apocryphal books are documents “that the Church is at liberty to read and to use as a source of teaching in so far as they agree with the canonical books; they do not, however, enjoy such a weight or capacity that their witness is able to conﬁrm any part of the faith or the Christian religion. Far from it! Otherwise they would be in a position to undermine the authority of the other sacred books”. The employment of segments of the apocryphal books in the liturgy in certain Protestant circles led to their inclusion, in spite of resistance from a number of theologians, in the Dutch Authorised Version, albeit after the New Testament and with an introductory “caution” addressed to the reader. They were not considered canonical because “none of them was written by a prophet”, “they were written in Greek”,1 “they have never been included among the divine books registered in the Israelite Church” and “most of the said books contain a variety of untrue, absurd, fabulous and contradictory matters that do not agree with the truth of the canonical books”. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that eighteenth century editions of the Dutch Authorised Version left out the apocryphal books in order to reduce printing costs and that the material in question was thus relegated to obscurity. The historical developments outlined above led Protestant circles

1 In reality, a signiﬁcant number of the apocryphal books were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic; cf., for example, Jesus Sirach and Tobit. This fact, however, was not known at the time.

apocrypha

515

(in line with Jerome and Luther) to designate the material that did not belong to the Hebrew canon, but was included (or in some instances continued to hold its place) nevertheless in editions of the bible next to the New Testament, as apocryphal. In light of the fact that the Roman Catholic church identiﬁed the said books as (deutero-) canonical, Roman Catholic circles continued to refer to those documents that fell outside the scope of the Septuagint and the Vulgate as apocryphal, documents referred to in turn by Protestants as pseudepigraphal. The result is a confusing mix of terminology (R.C. deuterocanonical = Prot. apocryphal; R.C. apocryphal = Prot. Pseudepigraphal). In recent years, however, Roman Catholic scholars have been tending more and more to favour the terminology employed in Protestant circles. Variation in the inclusion of apocryphal material in the Septuagint manuscripts together with the historical developments outlined above have given rise to the fact that neither a limitation in terms of quantity nor an established sequence has been generally accepted as the norm with respect to the material in question. The present author takes his point of departure from the Dutch Authorised Version. 4 Ezra, however, which scholarly introductions endeavour to list among the pseudepigrapha, will not be treated. In the Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam one can ﬁnd Tobias (Tobit) and Iudith ( Judith) after Esdras (Ezra-Nehemiah), Sapientia (the Wisdom of Solomon) and Ecclesiasticus ( Jesus Sirach) after the Song of Songs, Baruch (together with the Letter of Jeremiah) after Lamentations, 1 and 2 Maccabees after Malachi and the Prayer of Manasseh as well as 3 and 4 Ezra in the appendix following the New Testament. The Additions to Esther and Daniel have been included with the respective books. Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint locates 1 Esdras (= 3 Ezra) prior to 2 Esdras (= Ezra-Nehemiah), Judith, Tobit and 1–4 (!) Maccabees after Esther, the Odes (including the Prayer of Manasseh) after the Psalms, the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus Sirach and the Psalms of Solomon (!) after Job, 1 Baruch before Lamentations and the Letter of Jeremiah thereafter, Susanna before Daniel (which includes the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews) and Bel and the Dragon thereafter, and the Additions to Esther in the book of Esther. Luther’s edition of the bible integrated the following sequence: Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Jesus Sirach, 1 Baruch (together with the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees, Additions to Esther and Daniel as well as the Prayer of Manasseh. The Dutch Authorised Version oﬀers the following sequence: 3 and 4 (!) Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus Sirach, 1 Baruch (together with the Letter of Jeremiah), Additions to Esther and Daniel, the Prayer of Manasseh and 1–3 (!) Maccabees.

chapter twelve

516

The apocryphal books were originally written in Greek (e.g. 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon) or in Hebrew, c.q. Aramaic (e.g. 1 Maccabees, Tobit). They bear witness to a variety of literary genres: historical writing (1 Maccabees), legend (2 and 3 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, 1 Baruch, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), poetry (the Prayer of Manasseh, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews) and wisdom literature ( Jesus Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon). From the literary-historical perspective it would be best to present the apocryphal books together with the pseudepigraphal writings and several of the Dead Sea Scrolls, subdivided according to literary genre (e.g. historical and legendary narratives; teachings in narrative form, teachings in didactic form, poetic writings and apocalypses).2 An attractive alternative would be to treat all the said documents according to their religious-cultural and social Sitz im Leben, but such a subdivision is virtually impossible since the origins of several of the books is unknown or the subject of dispute. At the risk of losing sight of the literary-historical associations between the apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha, the present chapters will adopt the tradition that endeavours to treat both series of documents independently.

a. III Ezra Magna est veritas et praevalet

Text editions: Greek: S. S. Tedesche, A Critical Edition of 1 Esdras, Diss. Yale University 1928; Swete II, pp. 129–161; Rahlfs, pp. 903–950; Brooke-McLean-Thackeray II, Part IV, pp. 557–603; R. Hanhart, Esdrae liber I (Göttinger Septuagint VIII, 1), Göttingen 1974, 19912 (best edition!); Latin: Biblia sacra, rec. Weber, pp. 1910–1930; Syriac: Vetus Testamentum Syriace IV/6 (BaarsLebram).

Translations with introduction and notes, commentary: Charles I, pp. 1–58 (Cook); Kautzsch I, pp. 1–23 (Guthe); Riessler, pp. 247–254,1281–1282 (chapters 3 and 4); Metzger, pp. 1–22 (Harrelson); JSHRZ I/5 (K. F. Pohlmann), pp. 375–425; J. M. Myers, I & II Esdras 2

See JSHRZ.

apocrypha

517

(AB 42), Garden City NY 1974; R. J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras (CNEB), Cambridge 1979.

Monographs and articles: C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago 1910; E. Bayer, Das dritte Buch Esdrae und sein Verhältnis zu den Büchern Esra-Nehemia, Freiburg im Breisgau 1911; C. C. Torrey, “A Revised View of First Esdras”, in: Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume I, New York 1945, pp. 395–410; P. Th. Denter, Die Stellung der Bücher Esdras im Kanon des Alten Testaments, Marienstatt 1962; R. W. Klein, “Old Readings in 1 Esdras. The List of Returnees from Babylon”, HThR 62 (1969), 99–107; K. F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluß des chronistischen Geschichtswerks (FRLANT 104), Göttingen 1970; R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des I. Esrabuches (MSU 12), Göttingen 1974; id., “Zu Text und Textgeschichte des ersten Esrabuches”, PWCJS 1 (1977), Jerusalem 1978, pp. 201–212; A. E. Gardner, “The Purpose and Date of I Esdras”, JJS 37 (1986), 18–27; Tamara C. Eskenazi, “The Chronicle and the Composition of 1 Esdras”, CBQ 48 (1986), 39–61; M. Carrez, “1. Esdras Septante”, RHPhR 74 (1994), 13–42; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Problem with First Esdras”, in: J. Barton e.a. (eds.), After the Exile (FS R. Mason), Macon GA 1996, pp. 201–216. Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 802–813.

In addition to the Greek and Latin versions3 3 Ezra has been passed down to us in Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic and Armenian,4 taking its name from the Vulgate 5 in which the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah are designated as 1 and 2 Ezra respectively. The designation 1 Esdras (or Esdras A) commonly used in Anglo-Saxon literature is based on the fact that the document precedes Ezra and Nehemiah in manuscripts of the Septuagint, which refer to the combined books of Ezra and Nehemiah as 2 Esdras. In order to distinguish the work from the other books of Ezra the designation “the Greek Ezra” is also employed. No single apocryphal book of the Old Testament exhibits such a high degree of kinship with the canonical literature of the Hebrew Bible as 3 Ezra. The document consists for the most part of a translation of 2 Chronicles 35–36 (although diﬀering from time to time 3 Cf. H. C. York, “The Latin Versions of First Esdras”, AJSL 26 (1911), 161–206; R. Hanhart, Esdrae liber I, pp. 15–17. 4 Cf. Charles I, p. 4 (Cook); R. Hanhart, Esdrae liber I, pp. 17–20. 5 The book is included in an appendix to the Vulgate and is not considered canonical in Roman Catholic circles. Luther’s translation of the apocrypha does not include it.

518

chapter twelve

in terms of content from the Masoretic Text and not in harmony with lxx), the entire book of Ezra (with the exception of Ezra 4:6) and Neh. 7:72–8:14a (Hebr. 7:72–8:13a).6 The striking absence of the so-called memoirs of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1–7) in 3 Ezra has helped conﬁrm the hypothesis that Nehemiah 8 originally followed the book of Ezra and served as the conclusion of a history of the Jewish community after the Babylonian exile ﬁrst conceived by the Chronist. In contrast to the absence of Nehemiah 1–7, however, the work contains two interpolations additional to the biblical text that forms its basis: 3 Ezra 1:21–22 and 3:1–5:6. The latter text segment contains the narrative of the three pages (bodyguards) at the court of King Darius (probably Darius I the Great) and a Weisheitsdichtung drafted within the framework of court history.7 When asked what they considered to be the strongest thing in the world, the ﬁrst answered ‘wine’, the second ‘the king’ and the third ‘women’, but above all things ‘the truth’ is strongest.8 The third courtier, identiﬁed in the present text as Zerubbabel (4:13), emerges as winner and is allowed to determine his own prize. He asks permission to allow the Jewish exiles to return, to reconstruct Jerusalem and the temple and to send back the temple treasures and the king grants his request. Some scholars maintain that this interpolated narrative, which has been adapted along Jewish lines, may hark back to a Persian original while others argue that it is based on a Greek story. Commentators disagree as to whether one should understand 3 Ezra as a supplemented fragment of a larger whole, which once con6 3 Ezra 1:1–20 = 2 Chron. 35:1–19; 3 Ezra 1:21–22 without parallel; 3 Ezra 1:23–55 = 2 Chron. 35:20–36:21; 3 Ezra 2:1–5a = 2 Chron. 36:22–23 = Ezra 1:1–3a; 3 Ezra 2:5b–14 = Ezra 1:3b–11; 3 Ezra 2:15–25 = Ezra 4:7–24; 3 Ezra 3:1–5:6 without parallel; 3 Ezra 5:7–70 = Ezra 2:1–4:5; 3 Ezra 6:1–9:36 = Ezra 5:1–10:44; 3 Ezra 9:37–55 = Neh. 7:72–8:13a (text Hanhart). 7 Cf. W. Rudolph, “Der Wettstreit der Leibwächter des Darius 3 Esr. 3,1–5,6”, ZAW 61 (1945/48), 176–190; A. Shalit, “The Date and Place of the Story about the Three Bodyguards of the King in the Apocryphal Book of Ezra”, Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 13 (1947), 119–128; F. Zimmerman, “The Story of the Three Guardsmen”, JQR 54 (1963/64), 179–200; W. Th. in der Smitten, “Zur Pagenerzählung im 3. Esra (3. Esr. III 1–V 6)”, VT 22 (1972), 492–495; J. Crenshaw, “The Contest of Darius’ Guards”, in: B. Long (ed.), Images of Man and God, Sheﬃeld 1981, pp. 74–88; A. Hilhorst, “The Speech on Truth in 1 Esdras 4,34–41”, in: F. García Martínez e.a. (eds.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls (SVT 49; FS A. S. van der Woude), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1992, pp. 135–151. 8 The allusion to the truth with its cosmic and ethical characteristics as the strongest would appear to have been added to the narrative at a later date.

apocrypha

519

sisted of an original version of the Chronistic history, or as a compilation of narratives from the said historical opus.9 The ﬁrst hypothesis is supported by the book’s abrupt beginning and the fact that it ends in the middle of a sentence. Others object, however, that the ﬁnal words of the document, which allude to the continuation of the narrative in Nehemiah, can be taken as a gloss. The fact that the author of 3 Ezra evidently intended to write a history of the temple in Jerusalem in which Josiah, Zerubbabel and Ezra were given a prominent role (cf. the postscript of the Latin translation in the codex Colbertianus: de templi restitutione) serves as an important argument against the fragment hypothesis. The narrative begins with a reference to King Josiah’s celebration of the Passover, relates the period of religious decline after his death, alludes to the return of the exiles and the new beginning under Zerubbabel and culminates in a description of the ultimate restoration of the temple and Ezra’s proclamation of the Law. The author’s particular reverence for King Josiah is apparent from the interpolation of 3 Ezra 1:21–22 and for Zerubbabel from the adoption and adaptation of the tale of the three pages. Signiﬁcant alterations to the canonical Vorlage serve to place special emphasis on the temple and its liturgy (cf. the tendentious reworking of Ezra 4:7–24 in 3 Ezra 2:16–30). It is highly unlikely, therefore, that 3 Ezra (with its interpolations) represents a fragment of a tradition older than the canonical version of the Chronistic history.10 Josephus’ use of 3 Ezra in his Jewish Antiquities as the basis for his representation of the history of Ezra11 is rooted in his preference for the quality of the Greek it contains when compared with the translation of the Septuagint. The nature of the Greek employed in the document and its apparent allusions to the book of Daniel12 serve in all probability to locate it in the second half of the second century BCE. It reached its height of popularity, however, during the ﬁrst centuries of the Common Era. The people’s exclamation in response to Zerubbabel’s proclamation that the truth is the strongest ultimately acquired an elevated 9

Cf. further K. F. Pohlmann, op. cit., 1970, pp. 15–26. This conclusion is conﬁrmed by an analysis of 3 Ezra 1:21f., cf. A. van der Kooij, “Zur Frage des Anfangs des 1. Esrabuches”, ZAW 103 (1991), 239–252. 11 Cf. Jewish Antiquities XI, § 1–158 and K. Pohlmann, op. cit., 1970, pp. 74–126. 12 Compare 4:40a with Dan. 2:37 and 4:59–60 with Dan. 2:20,23. A survey of places can be found in E. Bayer, op. cit., 1911, pp. 110ﬀ. 10

chapter twelve

520

status: Magna est veritas et praevalet (Great is truth, and strongest of all: 4:41). Augustine was even inspired to ascribe the latter text a Christological interpretation (De civitate Dei 18,36).

b. Tobit He lived in prosperity, giving alms and continually blessing God and acknowledging God’s majesty (14:2b)

Text editions: Greek: Swete II, pp. 815–848; Rahlfs I, pp. 1002–1038; Brooke-McLeanThackeray III, Part I, pp. 85–110 (cod. B), pp. 111–122 (cod. Sin.), pp. 123–144 (Latin version); R. Hanhart, Tobit (Göttinger Septuaginta VIII/5), Göttingen 1983 (best edition!); Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 676–690; Syriac: Vetus Testamentum Syriace IV/6, Leiden 1972 (Lebram); Aramaic and Hebrew: J. A. Fitzmyer, in: J. VanderKam (ed.), Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts Part 2 (DJD XIX), Oxford 1995, pp. 1–76; K. Berger, Ergänzungsband, pp. 134–147.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 174–241 (Simpson); Kautzsch I, pp. 135–147 (Löhr); Metzger, pp. 63–75 (Dentan); M. M. Schumpp, Das Buch Tobias, übersetzt und erklärt (EH 11), Munster 1933; A. Miller, Das Buch Tobias, übersetzt und erklärt (HSAT 4/3), Bonn 1940; F. Zimmerman, The Book of Tobit ( JAL), New York 1958; N. Poulssen, Tobit (BOT VI/2), Roermond 1968 (lit.!); J. C. Dancy, The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha (CNEB), Cambridge 1972, pp. 1–66; H. Groß, Tobit-Judit (NEB), Würzburg 1987; C. A. Moore (AB) 1996.

Monographs and articles: D. C. Simpson, “The Chief Recensions of the Book of Tobit”, JThS 14 (1913), 516–530; T. F. Glasson, “The Main Source of Tobit”, ZAW 71 (1959), 275–277; J. T. Milik, “La patrie de Tobie”, RB 73 (1966), 522–530; J. Gamberoni, Die Auslegung des Buches Tobias in der griechisch-lateinischen Kirche der Antike und der Christenheit des Westens bis um 1600 (SANT 21), Munich 1969; id., “Das ‘Gesetz des Mose’ im Buch Tobias”, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch, Vienna and Freiburg 1977, pp. 227–242; F. Vattioni, “Studi e note sul libro di Tobia”, Aug 10 (1970), 241–284; L. Ruppert, “Das Buch Tobias—ein Modellfall nachgestaltender Erzählung”, in: J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch (FB 1), Würzburg 1972, pp. 109–119; id., “Zur Funktion der Achikar-Notizen im Buch Tobias”, BZ 20 (1976), 232–

apocrypha

521

237; J. D. Thomas, “The Greek Text of Tobit”, JBL 91 (1972), 463–471; P. Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit: Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie (OBO 43), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1982; I. Nowell, The Book of Tobit. Narrative Technique and Theology, Ann Arbor 1983; R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (MSU 17), Göttingen 1984; P. J. Griﬃn, The Theology and Function of Prayer in the Book of Tobit, Ann Arbor 1985; W. Soll, “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology”, CBQ 51 (1989), 209–231; C. A. Moore, “Scholarly Issues in the Book of Tobit before Qumran and after: An Assessment”, JSP 5 (1989), 65–81; B. Bow and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Patriarchy with a Twist. Man and Woman in Tobit”, in: A. J. Levine (ed.), “Women like this” (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 1), Atlanta GA 1991, pp. 127–143; H. Engel, “Auf zuverlässigen Wegen und in der Gerechtigkeit. Religiöses Ethos in der Diaspora nach dem Buch Tobit”, in: G. Braulik e.a. (eds.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel (Für N. Lohﬁnk), Freiburg im Breisgau 1993, pp. 83–100; M. Rabenau, Studien zum Buch Tobit (BZAW 220), Berlin-New York 1994; B. Kollmann, “Göttliche Oﬀenbarung magischpharmakologischer Heilkunst im Buch Tobit”, ZAW 106 (1994), 289–299; D. McCracken, “Narration and Comedy in the Book of Tobit”, JBL 114 (1995), 401–418. See, in addition, the literature referred to in the footnotes of the present paragraph.

In light of the discoveries at Qumran, the book of Tobit, referred to in the Vulgate and in Luther’s translation as Tobias, would appear to have circulated in a Hebrew and Aramaic version shortly after it came into existence. The multiplicity of Greek recensions13 together with the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic and Armenian translations (all dependent on a Greek text)14 clearly bear witness to the book’s popularity. Indeed, Jerome was even able to make use of an Aramaic manuscript in preparating his Vulgate translation. The book consists of a framing narrative (1–4; 13–14) and a journey narrative (5–12), relating how a pious individual form the tribe of Naphtali named Tobit (Hebr. Tobî) was deported to Nineveh together with his wife Anna and their son Tobias during the reign of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V. While in exile Tobit strictly

13 Three Greek recensions exist of the book of Tobit: Vaticanus (B); Sinaiticus (S), which oﬀers a longer text and is apparently the best; the minuscules 44, 106, 107, 610 and pap. Oxyrhynchus, cf. N. Poulssen, op. cit. (commentary 1968), pp. 7–8 and J. D. Thomas, The Greek Text of Tobit, op. cit., 1972. 14 For this translation see, for example, Charles I, pp. 176–180, in which attention is also given to later Hebrew and Aramaic reworkings.

522

chapter twelve

upheld the Law of God and displayed kindness towards his neighbours, especially by burying kinsfolk who had been executed by King Sennacherib and thereby putting his own life in danger. Although the conﬁscation of his possessions reduced him to poverty and in spite of being ill-fatedly struck blind, his faith in God continued unscathed. The life of the pious Jewess Sarah, the daughter of Raguel who lived in Ecabatana in Media, is equally unfortunate. Married seven times, she lost each of her husbands on their wedding night to the demon Asmodeus. In spite of the fact that she was accused of murder, she continued to praise God and beg him to save her. With a view to saving both Tobit and Sarah from their suﬀering, God sends the angel Raphael15 to earth. When Tobit commissions his son to undertake a journey to Media in order to recover a sum of money deposited with a certain Gabael, Tobias ﬁrst addresses a farewell speech to his father, asking him thereafter if he might seek someone to accompany him on his journey. Presenting himself as Azariah, a clansman of Tobit, the angel Raphael agrees to travel to Media with Tobias. The journey narrative relates how Tobias, together with his dog, arrives at the river Tigris and catches hold of a large ﬁsh. Following Raphael’s instructions he preserves the ﬁsh’s gall, heart and liver. After they arrive in Ecbatana, Raguel oﬀers Tobias his daughter Sarah in matrimony. In the bridal chambers Tobias burns the liver and heart of the ﬁsh, the smoke of which so repels the demon that he ﬂees to distant parts. During the fourteen days of the marriage feast16 Raphael collects the money deposited with Gabael and returns with Tobias and Sarah to Tobit and Anna. Tobit then uses the gall of the ﬁsh to cure his father’s blindness,17 celebrating thereafter with a great feast. When father and son express their desire to reward Azariah for his services, the latter makes himself known as the angel Raphael, sent by God to reward Tobit’s steadfast piety in the midst of suﬀering as an answer to his prayer. Once the angel had departed, Tobit is moved to sing a song of praise,18 after which he prophesies to his son that Jerusalem and the 15 R. Pautrel – M. Lefèbre, “Trois textes de Tobie sur Rafaël”, RScR 39 (1951), 115–124. 16 H. L. Jansen, “Die Hochzeitsriten im Tobitbuche”, Temenos I (1965), 142–149. 17 W. von Soden, “Fischgalle als Heilmittel für Augen”, Archiv für Orientforschung 21 (1966), 81–82 (= id., Bibel und alter Orient [BZAW 162], Berlin 1985, 76–77). 18 P. Artz und A. Hampel, “Tobits Lobgesang. Sprachlicher Schlüssel zu Tob 13,1–14,1”, Protokolle zur Bibel 4 (1995), 59–72; S. Weizmann, “Allusion, Artiﬁce, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit”, JBL 115 (1996), 49–61.

apocrypha

523

temple are to be destroyed, but God in his mercy will rebuild them. He appeals to Tobias to leave Nineveh because Jonah had predicted the fall of the city. After the death of his parents, Tobias sets oﬀ with his wife and children to his parents-in-law in Ecbatana where he himself dies at a great age. Any claim to historical reliability is already undermined by the book’s geographical and historical inaccuracies: the author would appear to have been ignorant of the fact that Nineveh is located on the banks of the Tigris (Tob. 6:1); members of the tribe of Naphtali were deported into exile by Tiglath-Pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29) and not during the reign of Shalmaneser V (Tob. 1:2); Sargon II was the successor of Shalmaneser V and not Sennacherib (Tob. 1:15). The book of Tobit can be understood as an edifying and paradigmatic novella, breathing a spirit of extraordinary godliness and tender domesticity yet revealing how Jewish piety and Ancient Near Eastern superstition had come to be intermingled. According to Ruppert (1972), the book represents a “Modellfall nachgestaltender Erzählung”. In terms of form and, in part, in terms of content, the framing narrative is dependent on the story of Ahikar (see our treatment of the Elephantine papyri above and cf. 1:21–22, in which Ahikar, Tobit’s kinsman [!], is referred to as chancellor to King Esarhaddon; see also 2:10; 11:19; 14:10 and the wisdom sayings contained in Tobit’s farewell address [chapter 4] that are likewise reminiscent of the story of Ahikar).19 The journey report exhibits folkloristic elements and parallels with the popular tale of the “grateful dead”.20 The Armenian version of the latter relates how a prosperous merchant takes pity on the body of a man who had been mistreated and killed by his debtors, giving it a proper burial. The merchant thereafter encounters personal misfortune and is reduced to poverty. On the advice of an anonymous servant he marries the 19

F. Altheim-R. Stiehl, Die aramäische Sprache unter den Achaimeniden II, Frankfurt/ M. s.d. pp. 182–195 (Ahikar und Tobit); L. Ruppert, “Zur Funktion der AchikarNotizen im Buch Tobias”, BZ 20 (1976), 232–237; J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar, Baltimore-London 1983. 20 G. H. Gerould, The Grateful Dead (Publications of the Folklore Society 60), London 1908, reprint Folcroft PA 1973; G. Huët, “Le conte du ‘mort reconnaissant’ et le livre de Tobie”, RHR 71 (1915), 1–29; S. Liljeblad, Die Tobiasgeschichte und andere Märchen vom toten Helfer, Lund 1927; O. Eissfeldt, pp. 791–792; L. Ruppert, op. cit., 1972. The explanation is rejected by M. A. Beek, “Het boek Tobit en de ‘Met Miswah’”, in: W. J. Kooiman e.a. (eds.), Pro regno—pro sanctuario (FS G. van der Leeuw), Nijkerk 1950, pp. 19–29 and T. F. Glasson, “The Main Source of Tobit”, ZAW 71 (1959), 275–277.

524

chapter twelve

only daughter of a rich man from the city who had already lost ﬁve husbands on their wedding night. On their own wedding night a snake emerges from the woman’s mouth and tries to kill the merchant, at which point the servant reappears, catches the snake and reveals himself to be the dead man he had buried. The Tobit narrative not only divides the hero into two individuals (father and son) and transforms the dead man into an angel, it also represents a monotheistic reworking of the story upon which it is based. The narrative’s typically Jewish character is fortiﬁed by the tradition-historical framework, with its echoes of Old Testament motifs, which provides us with a picture of life in the diaspora in the century prior to the beginning of the Common Era. While the book may have come into existence in the eastern diaspora, the emphasis on the temple prevents us from excluding the possibility of Palestinian origin. A number of scholars argue in favour of Egyptian derivation,21 while Milik (1966) proposes that its source should be sought in Samaritan circles. Whatever the truth may be, the work was probably ﬁrst written in Aramaic and must have emerged before the middle of the second century BCE since it was familiar to the author of the book of Jubilees (see below under Pseudepigrapha; compare Tob. 5:17–21 with Jub. 27:13–18) and is represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls (in the remains of one Hebrew and four Aramaic manuscripts from the ﬁrst century BCE). A date for the genesis of the document in the ﬁnal decades of the third or the beginning of the second century BCE would thus appear to be acceptable. The book exercised a profound inﬂuence on Christian marriage customs and ceremonies deep into the middle ages. Countless artists, including Rembrandt, have been able to claim it as a source of inspiration.

c. Judith No one spoke ill of her, for she feared God with great devotion (8:8)

21 Cf. P. Deselaers, op. cit., 1982, pp. 333–343 and J. Schwartz, “Remarques littéraires sur le roman de Tobit”, RHPhR 67 (1987), 293–297. Given the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of Tobit found at Qumran, an Egyptian origin is unlikely. The geographical and historical errors found in the book more or less exclude Assyrian origin.

apocrypha

525

Text editions: Greek: Swete II, pp. 781–814; Rahlfs I, pp. 973–1002; Brooke-McLeanThackeray III, Part I, pp. 43–84; J. Schwartz, “Un fragment grec du Livre de Judith”, RB 53 (1946), 534–537; R. Hanhart, Judith (Göttinger Septuaginta VIII/4), Göttingen 1979 (best edition!); Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 691–711; Syriac: P. A. Lagarde, Libri Veteris Testamenti apocryphi syriace, Leipzig 1861.

Translations with introductions and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 242–267 (Cowley); Kautzsch I, pp. 147–164 (Löhr); Metzger, pp. 76–95 (Dentan); JSHRZ I/6 (Zenger), pp. 427–534; A. Miller, Das Buch Judith, übersetzt und erklärt (HSAT 4/3), Bonn 1940; L. Soubigou, Le livre de Judith, Paris 1949; F. Stummer (EB), Würzburg 1950, 19672; N. Poulssen, Judith (BOT VI/3), Roermond 1969 (lit.!); M. S. Enslin and S. Zeitlin, The Book of Judith ( JAL), Leiden-Philadelphia 1972 (including Greek text); J. C. Dancy, The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha (CNEB), Cambridge 1972, pp. 67–131; C. A. Moore (AB) 1985; H. Groß, see under Tobit.

Monographs and articles: J. Steinmann, Lecture de Judith, Paris 1953; E. Haag, “Die besondere literarische Art des Buches Judith und seine theologische Bedeutung”, TTZ 71 (1962), 288–301; id., Studien zum Buche Judith (TTS 16), Trier 1963; A. Deprez, “Le livre de Judith”, Evangile 47 (1962), 5–67; P. W. Skehan, “The Hand of Judith”, CBQ 15 (1963), 94–109; A. M. Dubarle, Judith. Formes et sens des diverses traditions I–II (AnBibl 24), Rome 1966 (lit.!); id., “L’authenticité des textes hébreux de Judith”, Biblica 50 (1969), 187–221; id., “Les textes hébreux de Judith et les étappes de la formation du livre”, Biblica 70 (1989), 255–266; M. Delcor, “Le livre de Judith et l’époque grecque”, Klio 49 (1967), 151–179; H. Y. Priebatsch, “Das Buch Judith und seine hellenistischen Quellen”, ZDPV 90 (1974), 50–60; E. Zenger, “Der Juditroman als Traditionsmodell des Jahweglaubens”, TTZ 83 (1974), 65–80; R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Judith, Göttingen 1978; R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Judith (MSU 14), Göttingen 1979; M. Heltzer, “Eine neue Quelle zur Bestimmung der Abfassungszeit des Judithbuches”, ZAW 92 (1980), 437; J. Craghan, “Judith Revisited”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 12 (1982), 50–53; T. Craven, Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith (SBL Diss. Series 70), Chico CA 1983; P. M. Bogaert, “Le calendrier du livre de Judith et la fête de Hanukka”, Revue théologique de Louvain 15 (1984), 67–72; H. Engel, “Der Herr ist ein Gott, der Kriege zerschlägt. Zur Frage der griechischen Originalsprache und der Struktur des Buches Judit”, in: K. D. Schunck und M. Augustin (eds.), Goldene Äpfel in silbernen Schalen (BEATAJ 20), Frankfurt am Main 1992, pp. 155–168; J. C. VanderKam (ed.), “No One Spoke Ill of Her”. Essays on Judith (SBL Early Judaism and its

526

chapter twelve

Literature 2), Atlanta GA 1992; M. Hellmann, Judit—eine Frau im Spannungsfeld von Autonomie und göttlicher Führung (EHS Series 23, Theologie, Band 444), Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York 1992; W. Herrmann, “Jüdische Selbstbehauptung—Anmerkungen zum Buche Judit”, in: id., Jüdische Glaubensfundamente (BEATAJ 36), Frankfurt am Main-Berlin-New York-Paris-Vienna 1993, pp. 9–68; J. W. van Henten, “Judith as a Female Moses. Judith 7–13 in the Light of Exodus 17, Numbers 20 and Deuteronomy 33,8–11”, in: F. van Dijk-Hemmes e.a. (eds.), Reﬂections on Theology and Gender, Kampen 1994, pp. 33–48.

While the 16 chapters of the Book of Judith may have been originally composed in Aramaic,22 it remains more likely that they were ﬁrst written in Hebrew.23 The history of textual transmission of the versions is extremely complicated and far from clear.24 Given its style and use of language, the Greek translation, which has survived to the present day in a number of recensions, is evidently based on a Hebrew Vorlage although it serves as the foundation of the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Old Latin versions. The Vulgate version of Judith represents more of a paraphrase than a translation and is shorter than the text found in the lxx. It nevertheless contains a number of additional verses not found in the lxx and the Old Latin version.25 In spite of arguments to the contrary (Dubarle 1966, 1969, 1975), the Hebrew manuscripts written in the middleages were probably not based on an ancient tradition. The fact that virtually nothing is known with respect to the Aramaic tradition makes it diﬃcult to determine whether the latter manuscripts approximate to any degree to the Aramaic version of the book, which Jerome was able to use in his translation of the Vulgate. The book relates how Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Assyria (!),26 sent his chief general Holophernes on an expedition to exact revenge against the people of the west because they had refused to enter into a coalition with him against the Medes. Once Holophernes had arrived at his destination, however, the Jews refused to submit to 22

See E. J. Bruns, “Judith or Jael?”, CBQ 16 (1954), 12–14. See F. Zimmermann, “Aids for the Recovery of the Hebrew Original of Judith”, JBL 57 (1938), 67–74. 24 Cf. A. M. Dubarle, “Les textes divers du livre de Judith”, VT 8 (1958), 344–374 and the publications of the same author referred to in the bibliography. 25 Cf. E. E. Voigt, The Latin Versions of Judith, Leipzig 1925. 26 Cf. G. Brunner, Der Nabuchodonosor des Buches Judith, Berlin 19592. “Assyria” probably stands for “Syria” at this juncture, whereby Nebuchadnezzar may represent Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 23

apocrypha

527

him and his advance was arrested by the population of Bethulia,27 a strategically located city on the way to Jerusalem. Surprised by such unexpected resistance, Holophernes turns to the leaders of the Moabites and the Ammonites for information concerning this people of whom he has no knowledge. The Ammonite leader Achior28 recounts to him the history of Israel, emphasising that the people remain invincible as long as they trust in God. Holophernes, for whom there is no other god than Nebuchadnezzar (6:2), completely ignores Achior’s warning and plots to hand him over to the Israelites in Bethulia with the intention of including him in the destruction of the city. The people of the city are nevertheless able to hold back Holophernes’ attack with slings and stones and to force his slaves to leave Achior behind. After their retreat, the Israelites free Achior and bring him into Bethulia. Holophernes then proceeds to set a siege around the city. Exhausted by the blockade and facing drought, the people of the city begin to lose conﬁdence and are prepared to capitulate. Under the leadership of Uzziah, however, the city council are able to obtain a ﬁve day postponement. Judith, a charming, rich and pious widow, reproaches the people of the city for their lack of faith in God’s ultimate power to save. After uttering an impassioned prayer, Judith sets oﬀ with her maid towards the Assyrian camp where she remains for a number of days while strictly upholding the Jewish dietary laws. Having gained favour with Holophernes she seizes her opportunity while the general is drunk and beheads him (cf. the deeds of Jael alluded to in Judg. 4:21). She takes Holophernes’ head back to Bethulia where it is hung out for display on the city wall. Achior converts to Judaism and the enthusiastic citizens of Bethulia set out to battle against their besiegers. The Assyrians suﬀer defeat and are hounded out of the land while Judith, who sings a song of thanksgiving to God in gratitude for the people’s military success,29 is highly honoured by the High Priest and the council of Israel’s elders. In spite of a number of marriage proposals

27 C. Steuernagel, “Bethulia”, ZDPV 66 (1943), 232–245; F. Stummer, Geographie des Buches Judith (Bibelwissenschaftliche Reihe 3), Stuttgart 1947. 28 Achior is modelled on Achikar, cf. Poulssen, op. cit., p. 35, H. Cazelles, “Le personnage d’Achior dans le Livre de Judith”, RSR 39 (1951), 125–137,324–327 and A. D. Roitman, “Achior in the Book of Judith. His Role and Signiﬁcance”, in: J. C. VanderKam, op. cit., 1992, pp. 31–45. 29 F. Zorell, “Canticum Judith”, Verbum Domini 5 (1925), 329–332; H. Jansen, La composition du chant de Judith, Acta Orientalia (Leiden) 15 (1937), 63–71.

528

chapter twelve

she remains alone. Her death at the ripe age of 105 is deeply mourned by all of Israel. Although the book is written in a realistic and exhilarating narrative style, it is better understood as a quasi-historical novel than an allegorical tale.30 From the latter perspective, however, it remains possible to interpret Judith as Israel, Bethulia (as Bet-"èlôach, house of God) as the temple, Nineveh as pride and haughtiness, Nebuchadnezzar as the devil and Holofernes as his accomplice. The present author is more inclined, nevertheless, to envisage Nebuchadnezzar as representing Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Holophernes as the general Nicanor (cf. 1 Macc. 7:43–50) and Nineveh as the city of Antioch. The document contains too many chronological, geographical and historical inaccuracies to be considered a reliable historical source. While Grintz is inclined to date the book to the Persian period,31 it is more likely that it was written in Jerusalem by a Pharisee impressed by the Maccabean victory over their Syrian oppressors in the second half of the second century BCE. The exhortatory and reassuring character of the book seems quite appropriate at a time in which the Jewish people were facing great distress and were much in need of support in order to maintain their faith in God’s ﬁnal victory and uphold the commandments to the last detail, especially the dietary and purity laws. Allusion to Greek customs (3:7; 15:12–13), the council of elders (gerousia: 4:8; 11:14), the “Assyrians” (= Syrians), the cult of the king (3:8; 6:2) and the striking agreements between Judith and 1 Macc. 7:43–50 serve to further corroborate the proposed dating of the text. The book’s edifying content engendered enormous respect among Christians and Jews in the early Christian period and in the middle ages.32 It has likewise served as a source of inspiration for a host of poets, painters and playwrights. 30

E. Haag, Studien 1963 (“eine freie parabolische Geschichtsdarstellung”). J. M. Grintz points out in his Sefer Yehudith, Jerusalem 1957 (Hebrew with English summary) that the Holophernes and Bagoas, his servant alluded to in the book represent Orophernes and Bagoas, who participated in the punitive expedition mounted by Artaxerxes III Ochus (359–338 BCE) against Egypt. While this may be true, the remainder of the book does not square to any signiﬁcant extent with the Persian period. While the command to eliminate all “indigenous gods” (3:8) is diﬃcult to ascribe (even in tradition-historical terms) to Persian kings, it ﬁts in well with the tradition concerning Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 32 Several midrashim on Judith were written in the middle ages (cf. Dubarle 1966). A. Jellinek, Beth Ha-Midrasch I–II, Jerusalem 1853–1854, pp. 130–131 and pp. 12–22, provides such a midrash. For a translation see A. Wünsche, Aus Israels Lehrhallen II, Leipzig 1908, pp. 164–185. 31

apocrypha

529

d. The Wisdom of Solomon Righteousness is immortal (1:15)

Text editions: Greek: Swete II, pp. 604–643; Rahlfs II, pp. 345–376; J. Ziegler, Sapientia Salomonis (Göttinger Septuaginta XII/1), Göttingen 1962, 19812 (best edition!); Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 1003–1028; W. Thiele (ed.), Sapientia Salomonis (Vetus Latina 11.1), Freiburg im Breisgau 1977–1986 (critical edition of the text of the Vetus Latina); Syriac: Vetus Testamentum Syriace II/5, Leiden 1979 ( J. A. Emerton and D. J. Lane).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 518–568 (Holmes); Kautzsch I, pp. 476–507 (Siegfried); Metzger, pp. 102–127 (Filson); JSHRZ III/4 (D. Georgi), pp. 389–478; P. Heinisch, Das Buch der Weisheit (EH 24), Munster 1912; F. Feldmann, Das Buch der Weisheit (HSAT VI/4), Bonn 1926; J. Fichtner, Die Weisheit Salomos (HAT II/6), Tübingen 1938; J. Reider, The Book of Wisdom ( JAL), New York 1957; A. Drubbel, Wijsheid (BOT VIII/4), Roermond 1957; J. Drouet, Le Livre de la Sagesse. Traduction nouvelle et commentaire (Paroles de Vie), Paris 1966; E. G. Clarke, The Wisdom of Solomon (CNEB), Cambridge 1973; D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43), Garden City NY 1979, 19812; Ch. Lacher (Etudes Bibliques) I–III, 1983–1985; A. Schmitt, Das Buch der Weisheit. Ein Kommentar, Würzburg 1986; id., Weisheit (NEB), Würzburg 1989; H. Engel, Das Buch der Weisheit (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar AT 16), Stuttgart 1998.

Monographs and articles: J. Fichtner, Der AT-Text der Sapientia Salomonis (FRLANT 5), Göttingen 1913; id, “Der AT-Text der Sapientia Salomonis”, ZAW 57 (1939), 155–192; F. Focke, Die Entstehung der Weisheit Salomos. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des jüdischen Hellenismus (FRLANT 5/5), Göttingen 1913; G. Ziener, Die theologische Begriﬀssprache im Buche der Weisheit (BBB 11), Bonn 1956; R. Zimmermann, “The Book of Wisdom: Its Language and Character”, JQR 57 (1966), 1–27, 101–135; A. G. Wright, “The Structure of the Book of Wisdom”, Biblica 48 (1967), 165–184; C. Larcher, Etudes sur le Livre de la Sagesse (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1969; J. M. Reese, Hellenistic Inﬂuence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences (AnBibl 41), Rome 1970; M. Gilbert, La critique des dieux dans le Livre de la Sagesse (Sg 13–15) (AnBibl 53), Rome 1973; B. L. Mack, Logos und Sophia. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum (StUNT 10), Göttingen 1973; Y. Amir, “The Figure of Death in the ‘Book of Wisdom’”, JJS 30 (1979), 154–178; J. S. Kloppenborg, “Isis and Sophia in the Book of Wisdom”, HThR 75 (1982), 57–84; Jane Schaberg, “Major

530

chapter twelve

Midrashic Traditions in Wisdom 1,1–6,25”, JSJ 13 (1982), 75–101; J. M. Reese, Hellenistic Inﬂuence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences, Rome 1983; D. Georgi, “Das Wesen der Weisheit nach der ‘Weisheit Salomos’, in: J. Taubes (ed.), Religionspolitik und politische Theologie 2: Gnosis und Politik, Munich 1984, pp. 66–81; B. Lang, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess Redeﬁned, New York 1986; P. T. van Rooden, “Die antike Elementarlehre und der Aufbau von Sapientia Salomonis 11–19”, in: J. W. van Henten e.a. (eds.), Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Essays in Honour of J.C. H. Lebram (Studia post-Biblica 36), Leiden 1986, pp. 81–96; K. G. Sandelin, Wisdom as Nourisher (Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A, Vol. 64/3), Turku 1986; G. Hentschel e.a. (eds.), Lehrerin der Gerechtigkiet. Studien zum Buch der Weisheit, Leipzig 1991; M. Kolarcik, The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1–6. A Study of Literary Structure and Interpretation (AnBibl 127), Rome 1991; id., “Creation and Salvation in the Book of Wisdom”, in: R. J. Cliﬀord e.a. (eds.), Creation in the Biblical Traditions (CBQ Monograph Series 24), Washington DC 1992, pp. 97–107; U. SchwenkBressler, Sapientia Salomonis als ein Beispiel frühjüdischer Textauslegung. Die Auslegung des Buches Genesis, Exodus 1–15 und Teile der Wüstentradition in Sap. 10 –19 (BEATAJ 32), Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York 1993; H. Hübner (ed.), Die Weisheit Salomos im Horizont biblischer Theologie (BThS 22), NeukirchenVluyn 1993; A. Schmitt, “Zur dramatischen Form von Weisheit 1,1–6,21”, BZ 37 (1993), 236–258; S. Schroer, “Die personiﬁzierte Sophia im Buch der Weisheit”, in: W. Dietrich und M. A. Klopfenstein (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139), Freiburg CH/Göttingen 1994, pp. 543–558; W. Horbury, “The Christian Use and the Jewish Origins of the Wisdom of Solomon”, in: J. Day e.a. (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel (FS J. A. Emerton), Cambridge 1995, pp. 182–196; G. J. Boiten, Wijsheid in context. Een onderzoek naar de retorische opbouw van het Boek Wijsheid van Salomo en naar de betekenis van Vrouwe Wijsheid, diss. Groningen 1996 (lit.!); S. Cheon, The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon: A Study in Biblical Interpretation (Suppl. JSP 23), Sheﬃeld 1996; A. Schmitt, “Weisheit 1,1–6,21”, in id., Wende des Lebens. Untersuchungen zu einem Situationsmotiv der Bibel (BZAW 237), BerlinNew York 1996, pp. 12–48; L. L. Grabbe, Wisdom of Solomon (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheﬃeld 1997 (lit.!); N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in the Book of Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon (BEThL 143; FS M. Gilbert), Leuven 1999.

Originally written in Greek, the Wisdom of Solomon is strongly reminiscent of the Greek-Hellenistic conceptual world. The Latin translation, which bears the title Sapientia Salomonis or Liber sapientia, as well as the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, and Ethiopic translations are all dependent on the Greek primary text.33 33 For a detailed discussion of this text edition see the text edition of J. Ziegler, Sapientia Salomonis, pp. 7–35. See also W. Baars, “Ein neugefundenes Bruchstück aus

apocrypha

531

The work can be divided into three parts.34 Following an exhortation to love righteousness addressed to “the rulers of the earth” (1:1–15), the ﬁrst segment (1:1–6:21) makes much of the contrast between the righteous and the godless (2:21–4:19) and is framed by allusions to the unsound reasoning of the godless in 1:16–2:20 and 4:20–5:23. Only the righteous have access to wisdom. In spite of the taunts and derision of the godless, they can expect a glorious future because God will grant them immortality. In the second segment (6:22–10:2) the author, who identiﬁes himself with Solomon without making direct reference to his name, promises to reveal the true nature and origin of wisdom and relates how the latter was granted him as his companion for life in response to his petition.35 The segment concludes with a sketch of the saving power of wisdom in history beginning with Adam and ending with Moses (10:1–21). The third segment (chapters 11–19) portrays wisdom’s undertakings in the contrast between Israel and Egypt and contains an excursus on divine clemency (11:15–12:22) and an excursus on idolatry (chapters 13–15). Scholars are at odds as to whether one should ascribe the Wisdom of Solomon to a single author or to a collective (see Georgi, JSHRZ 1980). The present author is inclined to follow the single author hypothesis since the repetitions, contradictions and linguistic variations evident in the book do not necessarily prove the contrary. While unusual Greek words and expressions are scattered throughout the book, personal names are completely lacking. The range of ideas represented in the work is fundamentally uniform and the spontaneous style, which would tend to indicate the musings of an ardent preacher rather than those of a systematic thinker, is evident throughout. The anonymous author of the work, who was familiar with Greek rhetoric and Hellenistic philosophical systems, probably lived among the Jewish diaspora in Egypt, most likely in Alexandria. Georgi ( JSHRZ 1980, pp. 395–397) is inclined to reject the latter, however, preferring to locate the author in Syria (cf. also Zimmermann 1966). der syrischen Bibelrevision des Jakob von Edessa”, VT 18 (1968), 548–554 (= Sap. 2:12–24); id., “A Little-known Latin Fragment of the Wisdom of Solomon”, VT 20 (1970), 230–233 (= Sap. 3:1–6); I. A. Sparks, “A Fragment of Sapientia Salomonis from Oxyrhynchus”, JSJ 3 (1972), 149–152 (= Sap. 4:17–5:1). 34 The subdivision of the book is disputed. 35 Cf. M. Gilbert, “La structure de la prière de Salomon (Sag 9)”, Biblica 51 (1970), 301–331.

532

chapter twelve

As a teacher closely linked with the religious traditions of his people, the author would appear to have written his work in the ﬁrst instance for his fellow Jews in a period of increasing acculturation, exhorting them to remain faithful to Israel’s religious inheritance. According to his mind, a wise and virtuous life is only possible in such a cosmopolitan environment when it is based on the wisdom revealed in God’s Law. Rooted in this conviction, the author endeavours to establish a synthesis between biblical wisdom and Hellenistic philosophical systems with the help of Greek philosophical terminology and pagan stylistic forms. The key Greek virtues (self-control, prudence, righteousness and courage: 8:7) and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul36 play a signiﬁcant role therein. The author’s portrayal of Lady Wisdom (Sophia; cf. Prov. 8:22–31) harks back to the cosmic powers and characteristics of the goddess Isis (Reese 1970, pp. 36–50; Mack 1973, pp. 63–107). The literary form of the tractate, which exhibits the features of the logos protreptikos or exhortatory discourse, intended to urge the listener/reader to speak and act in a particular way, is entirely diﬀerent from classical biblical wisdom literature. Short wisdom sayings, such as those found in abundance in the book of Proverbs, are rare in the Wisdom of Solomon. While the book may have come into existence in the ﬁnal decades prior to the beginning of the Common Era (Larcher), a date during the reign of emperor Caligula (37–41 CE) is nevertheless more likely. Scholars continue to dispute the possibility that Paul was familiar with the work.

e. Jesus Sirach The Law overﬂows, like the Pishon, with Wisdom, and like the Tigris at the time of the ﬁrst fruits (Sir. 24:25).

36 Cf. H. Bückers, Die Unsterblichkeitslehre des Weisheitsbuches, ihr Ursprung und ihre Bedeutung (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 13/4), Munster 1938; M. Delcor, “L’immortalité de l’âme dans le Livre de Sagesse et dans les documents de Qumrân”, Nouvelle Revue Théologique 77 (1955), 614–630; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Harvard Theological Studies 26), Cambridge MA 1972.

apocrypha

533

Text editions: Greek: Swete II, pp. 644–754; Rahlfs II, pp. 377–471; J. Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu ﬁlii Sirach (Göttinger Septuaginta XII/2), Göttingen 1965, 19812 (best edition!); Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 1029–1095; Hebrew: I. Lévi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, Edited with Brief Notes and a Selected Glossary (Semitic Study Series 3), Leiden 1904, reprint 1951 and 1969; J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPs a) (DJD IV), Oxford 1965, pp. 79–85 (= Sir. 51:13–20,30); Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, Jerusalem 1965 (= Sir. 39:27–44:17); Z. Ben-Hayyim, The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Jerusalem 1973; A. A. di Lella, “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza”, Biblica 69 (1988), 226–238; P. C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (SVT 68), Leiden 1997 (contains the fragments from the Cairo Geniza, material from Qumran and the Masada fragments published by Y. Yadin in 1965); Syriac: F. Vattioni, Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca, Naples 1968.

Indexes and concordances: R. Smend, Griechisch-syrisch-hebräischer Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1907; O. Rickenbacher, Nachträge zum “Griechisch-Syrisch-Hebräischen Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach von Rudolf Smend”, Werthenstein 1970; D. Barthélemy und O. Rickenbacher, Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach. Mit syrisch-hebräischem Index, Göttingen 1973; M. M. Winter, A Concordance to the Peshitta Version of Ben Sira (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden II), Leiden 1976.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 268–517 (Box and Oesterley); Kautzsch I, pp. 230–457 (Ryssel); JSHRZ III/5 (G. Sauer), pp. 481–644 (lit.!); R. Smend (sr.), Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906; N. Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus übersetzt und erklärt (EH 25), Munster 1913; A. Eberharter, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus übersetzt und erklärt (HSAT VI/5), Bonn 1925; B. Alfrink, Het boek Ecclesiasticus, Bruges 1935; V. Hamp (EB) 19622; A. van den Born, Wijsheid van Jesus Sirach (BOT), Roermond 1968; J. G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach (CNEB), Cambridge 1974; P. W. Skehan and A. A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987 (lit.!).

Monographs and articles: W. Baumgartner, “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach”, ZAW 34 (1914), 161–198; A. A. di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach.

534

chapter twelve

A Textcritical and Historical Study (Studies in Classical Literature 1), Den Haag 1966; id., “Conservative and Progressive Theology: Sirach and Wisdom”, CBQ 28 (1966), 139–154; A. Caquot, “Ben Sira et le messianisme”, Semitica 16 (1966), 43–68; J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBibl 30), Rome 1967 (lit.!); G. von Rad, “Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach”, Evangelische Theologie 29 (1969), 113–133; J. Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira, Brussels 1970; H. P. Rüger, Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza (BZAW 112), Berlin 1970; J. Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BBB 37), Bonn 1971 (lit.!); id., “Sirachliteratur seit 1966. Ein Überblick”, Theologische Revue 71 (1975), 177–184; id., “Gesetz und Weisheit: Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes bei Ben Sira”, BZ 20 (1976), 1–21; id., “Henoch—Adam—der Thronwagen”, BZ 25 (1981), 103–111; G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (WUNT 12), Tübingen 1971; T. Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden 1973; O. Rickenbacher, Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1973; J. L. Crenshaw, “The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage”, JBL 94 (1975), 47–64; M. Löhr, Bildung aus dem Glauben: Beiträge zum Verständnis der Lehrreden des Buches Jesus Sirach, Bonn 1975; G. L. Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (AnBibl 65), Rome 1975; J. T. Sanders, “Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution”, HUCA 50 (1979), 73–106; id., Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (SBL Masoretic Studies 28), Chico CA 1983; H. Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter (WUNT 2. Reihe, 6), Tübingen 1980; P. C. Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach, diss. Utrecht 1981; id., “Recent Publications on the Wisdom of Jesus Sira (Ecclesiasticus)”, Bijdragen 43 (1982), 188–198; M. Gilbert, Introduction au livre de Ben Sira ou Siracide ou Ecclésiastique, Rome 1985; E. J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom and Ethics (WUNT, 2. Reihe, 16), Tübingen 1985; J. D. Martin, “Ben Sira— A Child of his Time”, in: J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season (Suppl. JSOT 42; FS W. McKane), Sheﬃeld 1986, pp. 141–161; M. Gilbert, “L’Ecclésiastique: Quelle texte? Quelle autorité?”, RB 94 (1987), 233–250; S. M. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood”, HThR 80 (1987), 261–286; M. D. Nelson, The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira Compared to the Greek and Hebrew Materials (SBL Dissertation Series 107), Atlanta GA 1988; B. G. Wright, No Small Diﬀerence. Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Texts (SBL Suppl. Series 26), Atlanta CA 1989; J. Gammie, “The Sage in Sirach”, in: J. Gammie and L. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990, pp. 355–372; R. Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltern bei Ben Sira (Trierer Theologische Studien 51), Trier 1991; R. Hayward, “The New Jerusalem in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 6 (1992), 123–138; H. V. Kieweler, Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (BEATAJ 30), Frankfurt am MainBern-New York 1992; J. D. Harvey, “Towards a Degree of Order in Ben Sira’s Book”, ZAW 105 (1993), 52–62; D. J. Harrington, “Sirach Research

apocrypha

535

since 1965: Progress and Questions”, in: J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text (Suppl. JSOT 184; FS B. Z. Wacholder), Sheﬃeld 1994, pp. 164–176; L. Schrader, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit. Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 27), Frankfurt am Main etc. 1994; Oda Wischmeyer, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach (BZNW 77), Berlin-New York 1995; D. A. deSilva, “The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Honor, Shame, and the Maintenance of the Values of a Minority Culture”, CBQ 58 (1996), 433–455; F. Reiterer (ed.), Freundschaft bei Ben Sira. Beiträge des Symposions zu Ben Sira, Salzburg 1995 (BZAW 244), Berlin-New York 1996; P. C. Beentjes (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996 (BZAW 255), Berlin-New York 1997; H. W. Jüngling, “Der Bauplan des Buches Jesus Sirach”, in: J. Hainz e.a., Den Armen eine frohe Botschaft (FS F. Kamphaus), Frankfurt am Main 1997, pp. 89–105; R. J. Coggins, Sirach (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheﬃeld 1998 (lit.!); N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom (BEThL 143), Leuven 1999; J. Liesen, Full of Praise. An Exegetical Study of Sir 39,12–35 (Suppl. JSJ 64), LeidenBoston-Cologne 2000 (lit.!); O. Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. An Exegetical Study of the Signiﬁcance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel (Suppl. JSJ 78), LeidenBoston 2003 (lit!).

Bibliography: F. V. Reiterer e.a., Bibliographie zu Ben Sira (BZAW 186), Berlin-New York 1998; F. García Martínez, Ben-Sira: A Bibliography of Studies, 1965–1997, in: S. Talmon e.a., Masada VI. Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports, Jerusalem 1999, pp. 233–252.

Originally written in Hebrew, the book of the Wisdom of Jesus Sirach,37 also referred to as (liber) Ecclesiasticus, constitutes one of the most splendid and, indeed, one of the oldest documents of the apocryphal literature. It is, in fact, the only apocryphal book in which the author is identiﬁed: he is referred to in 50:27 as Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirach.38 He lived in Jerusalem (50:27), where he was active in his house of instruction as a scribe and teacher of wisdom (51:23; cf. 24:30–34). According to 31(34):9–12 and 39:4 he was a welltravelled individual, familiar with “what is good and evil in the human lot” (39:4). 37 Anglo-Saxon circles tend to speak of “The Wisdom of Ben-Sira” or simply “Ben-Sira” or “Sirach”. 38 Sirach is probably a family name.

536

chapter twelve

The author’s grandson translated the book into Greek after travelling to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of Ptolemy VII Euergetes II (132 BCE; see prologue to the Greek translation 27ﬀ.),39 and he probably published his work shortly after the death of Ptolemy in 117 BCE. One can conclude from this information, therefore, that the work of Jesus Sirach ﬁrst saw the light of day around 180 BCE. The hymn (chapter 50) in praise of the High Priest Simon II (219–196 BCE),40 the father of the High Priest Onias III deposed during the reign of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, serves to conﬁrm this dating. More than 60% of the Hebrew text of the book has now become available to us after the discoveries in the geniza (refuse-room) of the Ezra synagogue in Cairo (since 1896), the fragments discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (since 1947) and the excavations at Masada (1963/64).41 The Hebrew manuscripts found in the Cairo Geniza represent two distinct text recensions (HT I and HT II). The older of the two exhibits close kinship with the Greek translation of Sirach’s grandson (Gr I) and the younger, longer version would appear to have served in part as the foundation of the so-called second Greek translation (Gr II) that came into existence around the beginning of the common era and is based in essence on Gr I.42 The Old Latin text, which Jerome incorporated in the Vulgate, is based in principle on Gr II. The Syriac translation43 was made on the basis of a Hebrew Vorlage that had combined the aforementioned recensions HT I and HT II although it also exhibits inﬂuence from Gr II together with its own variants. The document is also known to us from the Syro-Hexapla and from Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Old-Slavonic and Arabic versions.44

39 Cf. H. J. Cadbury, “The Grandson of Ben Sira”, HThR 48 (1955), 219–225; A. Minissale, La versione greca del Siracide confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’ attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBibl 133), Rome 1995. 40 Jesus Sirach leaves the impression that Simon the High Priest was already dead when he put together his book. 41 For a list of the text editions see P. C. Beentjes, op. cit., 1997, pp. 13–19. See also T. Penar, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira (Biblica et Orientalia 28), Rome 1975. 42 The translator of G II did not fashion a new translation but made use rather of manuscripts with the text of G I. Where he considered it necessary he translated on the basis of HT II. G II has 300 verse lines more than G I, provided in smaller print in the text edition of Ziegler. 43 M. Nelson, The Syriac Version of Ben Sira Compared to the Greek and Hebrew Materials (SBL Diss. Series 107), Atlanta GA 1988. 44 Cf. J. Ziegler, op. cit., 1965, pp. 7–37.

apocrypha

537

Chapters 1–42 of the book contain a colourful collection of wisdom sayings, related to all sorts of individuals and a variety of experiential contexts, interspersed with a number of wisdom teachings (1:1–20; 4:11–19; 14:20–15:8) songs of praise (chapter 24),45 hymns, prayers and songs of thanksgiving. The segment running from 42:15 to 49:16 contains a hymn to God’s wisdom revealed in creation (42:15–43:33) and a song of praise of the fathers (44–49: laus patrum).46 The latter is of some signiﬁcance for our understanding of the history of the canon of the Old Testament.47 Chapter 50 contains the aforementioned hymn in praise of the High Priest Simon II (50:1–24)48 as an appendix to the praise of the fathers and a short concluding text. The ﬁnal chapter represents an appendix to the work as a whole and contains a thanksgiving psalm (51:1–12),49 a hymn (51:12 i–xvi), an autobiographical acrostic concerning Jesus Sirach’s pursuit of wisdom and appeal to live according to its precepts (51:13–30).50 Although the work of Jesus Sirach exhibits kinship with the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the former contains longer segments, consistently 10 to 22/23 lines in length, as opposed to the latter’s primarily one-line aphorisms.

45 J. C. H. Lebram, Jerusalem, “Wohnsitz der Weisheit [Sirach 24]”, in: M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religions, Leiden 1979, pp. 103–128; P. W. Skehan, “Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24”, CBQ 41 (1979), 365–379; J. Marböck, “Gottes Weisheit unter uns. Sir 24 als Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie”, in: id., op. cit., 1995, pp. 73–87; J. F. Rodgers, “Wisdom and Creation in Sirach 24”, JNSL 22 (1996), 141–156. 46 Cf. Th. Maertens, L’éloge des Pères, Ecclésiastique xliv–l, Bruges 1956; J. D. Martin, “Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers. Messianic Perspective”, OTS 24 (1986), 107–123; T. R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50 (SBL Diss. Series 75), Atlanta GA 1986; B. L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic. Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers, Chicago and London 1985. 47 Cf. J. L. Koole, “Die Bibel des Ben Sira”, OTS 14 (1965), 374–396. 48 Cf. F. Ó Fearghail, “Sir. 50, 5–21: Yom Kippur or The Daily Whole-Oﬀering?”, Biblica 59 (1978), 301–316. 49 A. A. di Lella, “Sirach 51:1–12: Poetic Structure and Analysis of Ben Sira’s Psalm”, CBQ 48 (1986), 395–407; M. Gilbert, “L’action de grâce de Ben Sira (Si 51,1–12)”, in: R. Kuntzmann (ed.), Ce Dieu qui vient (Lectio Divina 159; FS B. Renaud), Paris 1995, pp. 231–243. 50 A segment of this song has been recovered in the ﬁrst Psalm Scroll from Cave 11 of Qumran, cf. J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD IV), Oxford 1965, pp. 79–95 (= Sir. 51:13–20 and 30). Cf. M. Delcor, “Le texte hébreu du cantique de Siracide li,13 et ss. et les anciennes version”s, Textus 6 (1968), 27–47; P. W. Skehan, “The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13–30”, HThR 64 (1971), 387–400; C. Deutsch, “The Sirach 51 Acrostic: Confession and Exhortation”, ZAW 94 (1982), 400–409.

chapter twelve

538

In spite of the fact that the author lived in an environment characterised by Hellenistic inﬂuence, the book of Jesus Sirach remains typically and classically Jewish, although the author occasionally employs Hellenistic and particularly Stoic terminology. In contrast to the author of the Wisdom of Solomon’s reference to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the author of Jesus Sirach makes no allusion to such a doctrine. Jesus Sirach’s intention was not only to urge his readers to devoutness and piety, the foundation of wisdom, and to illustrate the blessings that would result therefrom, he also had ambitious designs: eternal wisdom was sent to earth at a particular moment in history and embodied itself in the Law (chapter 24).51 His work thus represents “the story of grace told from the perspective of eternity” (Nickelsburg) and expresses God’s covenant with Israel and the election of his people in a unique fashion. As a scribe he endeavoured to bring experience and worldly wisdom into line with the concept of God’s universal wisdom in creation and history.52 While the book did not ﬁnd its way into the Hebrew Bible, rabbinic sources reveal nevertheless that it enjoyed enormous respect in Jewish circles for a considerable period of time. The familiar hymn “Now thank we all our God” is based on Jesus Sirach (50:22–24).53

f. I Baruch We followed the intent of our own wicked hearts by serving other gods and doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord our God (1:22)

Text editions: Greek: Swete III, pp. 351–359; Rahlfs II, pp. 748–756; J. Ziegler, Ieremias— Baruch—Threni—Epistula Ieremiae (Göttinger Septuaginta XV), Göttingen 1957, 19762, pp. 450–467 (best edition!); E. Tov, The Book of Baruch Also Called I Baruch (Greek and Hebrew): Edited, Reconstructed and Translated (SBL Texts and

51 J. Marböck, “Gesetz und Weisheit. Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes bei Jesus Sirach”, BZ 20 (1976), 1–21. 52 J. L. Crenshaw, “The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage”, JBL 94 (1975), 47–64. 53 Cf. A. S. van der Woude, “‘Nun danket alle Gott’: de voorgeschiedenis van een beroemd kerklied”, in: Gratias agimus. Opstellen over Danken en Loven, aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. W. F. Dankbaar (Studies van het Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap nr. 2), Groningen 1975, pp. 141–148.

apocrypha

539

Translations 8), Missoula MT 1975; Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 1255–1265.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 569–595 (Whitehouse); Kautzsch I, pp. 213–225 (Rothstein); Metzger, pp. 198–204 (May); JSHRZ III/2 (Gunneweg), pp. 165–181; E. Kalt, Das Buch Baruch (HSAT VII/4), Bonn 1932; V. Hamp (EB) 1950; B. N. Wambacq, Jeremias, Klaagliederen, Baruch, Brief van Jeremias (BOT), Roermond 1957, pp. 357–384; J. C. Dancy (ed.), The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha (CNEB), Cambridge 1972, pp. 169–196; C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah. The Additions (AB 44), Garden City NY 1977, pp. 255–316; J. Schreiner, Baruch (NEB), Würzburg 1986: O. H. Steck, ATD Apokryphen 5, pp. 11–70.

Monographs and articles: R. R. Harwell, The Principal Versions of Baruch, Yale 1915; H. St. J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, Oxford 19232; P. Heinisch, “Zur Entstehung des Buches Baruch”, Theologie und Glaube 20 (1928), 696–710; E. Haenchen, “Das Buch Baruch, in: id. (ed.), Gott und Mensch, Tübingen 1965, pp. 299–324; B. N. Wambacq, “L’unité de livre de Baruch”, Biblica 47 (1966), 574–576; E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch (Harvard Semitic Monographs 8), Missoula MT 1973; id., The Book of Baruch Also Called I Baruch, Missoula MT 1975; C. A. Moore, “Towards the Dating of the Book of Baruch”, CBQ 36 (1974), 312–320 (in the fourth–second centuries BCE!); J. Goldstein, “The Apocryphal Book of Baruch”, in: S. W. Baron and I. E. Barzilay (eds.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 46–47 (1979), 179–199; P. M. Bogaert, “Le personnage de Baruch et l’histoire du Livre de Jérémie. Aux origines du Livre deuterocanonique de Baruch”, Studia Evangelica 7 (TU 126), Berlin 1982, pp. 73–81; D. G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9 (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 11), Chico CA 1982; J. J. Schmitt, “The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother”, RB 92 (1985), 557–569; J. R. Lundblom, “Baruch, Seraiah and the Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jeremiah”, JSOT 36 (1986), 89–114; O. H. Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160), Göttingen 1993; id., “Israels Gott statt anderer Götter—Israels Gesetz statt fremder Weisheit. Beobachtungen zur Rezeption von Hi 28 in Bar 3,9–4,4”, in: I. Kottsieper e.a., “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” (FS O. Kaiser), Göttingen 1994, pp. 457–471; J. E. Wright, “Baruch, the Ideal Sage”, in: J. E. Coleson (ed.), “Go to the Land I Will Show you” (FS D. S. Young), Winona Lake, Ind. 1996, pp. 193–210; R. Feuerstein, Das Buch Baruch. Studien zur Textgestalt und Auslegungsgeschichte (EHS Theologie— 23. Reihe 164), Frankfurt am Main etc. 1997; A. Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch (Etudes bibliques NS 38), Paris 1998.

540

chapter twelve

Several documents have been ascribed to Baruch, the friend and secretary of the prophet Jeremiah (see also below under Pseudepigrapha). The work being treated in the present paragraph represents an example thereof, an apocryphal book that would appear to be much indebted to the Old Testament. The work is referred to as Propheta Baruch or as 1 Baruch and is located in the Septuagint between Jeremiah and Lamentations; the Vulgate, however, locates it after the latter. The oldest text edition that we have at our disposal is the Greek version of the Septuagint.54 A number of other ancient translations have survived to the present, all of them dependent on lxx: Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Arabic.55 It is more or less certain that the book was originally written in its entirety in Hebrew. Some scholars argue, nevertheless, that 1:1–14 and 3:9–5:9 (c.q. 4:5–5:9) were originally written in Greek. Setting the introduction (1:1–14) to one side, the content of the document can be divided into three parts: 1:15–3:8; 3:9–4:4 and 4:5–5:9. In spite of the fact that the said segments diﬀer considerably from one another in terms of form and content, they nevertheless share some common themes: conversion, obedience to the Law and return from exile to the promised land. The ﬁrst segment is written in prose, the remaining two in poetry. The introduction to the book (1:1–14) tells us that Baruch composed his work in Babylon ﬁve years after the destruction of Jerusalem and read it aloud to King Jeconiah and to the exiles who lived in Babylon “on the banks of the river Sud”. Deeply shocked by the content of what they hear, the assembly send the book to Jerusalem, together with money and silver vessels, for it to be read by the High Priest “when you make your confession in the house of the Lord on the days of the festivals and at the appointed seasons”. The scroll also exhorts its readers/listeners not only to pray for the exiles but also for King Nebuchadnezzar and his son (!) Belshazzar.56 1:15–3:8 follows with a prayer of atonement57 in the style of a collective

54 The work is represented in the Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Vaticanus, but not in the Codex Sinaiticus. 55 For a detailed discussion of the text editions of Jeremiah, Lamentations, 1 Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah cf. J. Ziegler, op. cit., 1957, pp. 7–108. 56 In reality, Belshazzar was the son of Nabunaid. The same mistake is made in Dan. 5:11. 57 The prayer may hark back to a variety of diﬀerent prayers (1:15–2:5; 2:6–30; [2:31–35] 3:1–8).

apocrypha

541

lament; 1:15–2:19 exhibits remarkable agreements with Dan. 9:4–19.58 A distinct caesura follows after 3:8 with the transition from prose to poetry and a change in the name employed for God. Written in the style of the wisdom literature, 3:9–4:4 consists of an exhortation addressed to Israel counselling the people to change their ways and to live in obedience to the Law given them by God. It contains elements reminiscent of Proverbs, Job 28, Deutero-Isaiah and Jesus Sirach 24. The third segment (4:5–5:9), in which Jerusalem is portrayed as a widow robbed of her children, oﬀers a positive perspective on the return of the exiles. The ﬁnal portion of the third segment (4:36–5:9) exhibits striking points of association with the Psalms of Solomon 11:2–7 (see below under Pseudepigrapha). While many scholars have argued that the distinct segments of the book should be ascribed to diﬀerent authors from diﬀerent periods of time, Steck (op. cit., 1993, pp. 253–265) has demonstrated with conviction that the document represents a literary unity. The dating of 1 Baruch is the subject of much debate. Although some commentators favour the period after 70 CE, the fact that only a ﬂeeting allusion is made to the destruction of the (Solomonic) temple (2:26) and the absence of any witness to a belief in resurrection, serve to make a much earlier date a reasonable possibility. Other scholars have thus opted for the period of Pompeii (middle ﬁrst century BCE). Clear associations between the conclusion of 1 Baruch and the Psalms of Solomon 11 (written after 67 BCE), whereby the latter would appear to be dependent on 1 Baruch rather than the other way round,59 together with strong similarities between 1 Bar. 1:15–2:19 and Dan. 9:4–19 support a date for the book in the period of the Maccabees around 163–162 (Goldstein, op. cit., 1979–1980; Steck, op. cit., 1993, pp. 285–303). While evidence exists that the work once had a role to play in the liturgy on the occasion of the remembrance of the destruction of the temple on the ninth day of the month of Ab, the work later came to enjoy greater respect among Christians than among Jews. During the Arian controversy,

58 B. N. Wambacq, “Les prières de Baruch (1,15–2,19) et de Daniel (9,5–19)”, Biblica 40 (1959), 463–475. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that 1 Bar. 1:15–2:19 and Dan. 9:5–19 hark back to the same source. 59 W. Pesch, “Die Abhängigkeit des 11. salomonischen Psalms vom letzten Kapitel des Buches Baruch”, ZAW 67 (1955), 251–263; B. N. Wambacq, Baruch (commentary 1957), pp. 382–283.

chapter twelve

542

3:37–38 was considered by a number of Church Fathers to be of considerable importance because they saw in it a prediction of the incarnation of uncreated Wisdom (Logos): He (God) found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to his servant Jacob, and to Israel, whom he loved. Afterward she appeared on earth and lived with humankind.60

g. The Letter of Jeremiah It is you, O Lord, whom we must worship (5b)

Text editions: Greek: Swete III, pp. 379–384; Rahlfs II, pp. 766–770; J. Ziegler, Ieremias— Baruch—Threni—Epistula Ieremiae (Göttinger Septuaginta XV), Göttingen 1957, 19762, pp. 494–504 (best edition!); Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 1262–1265; Syriac: W. Baars, “Two Palestinian Syriac Texts Identiﬁed as Parts of the Epistle of Jeremy”, VT 11 (1961), 77–81 (= Ep. Jer. 33–39 and 50–54).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 596–611 (Ball); Kautzsch I, pp. 226–229 (Rothstein); JSHRZ III/2 (Gunneweg), pp. 183–192; E. Kalt (HSAT) 1932, pp. 7–8, 23–29; B. M. Wambacq, Jeremias, Klaagliederen, Baruch, Brief van Jeremias (BOT), Roermond 1957, pp. 385–394; J. C. Dancy (ed.), The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha (CNEB), Cambridge 1972, pp. 197–209; C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah. The Additions (AB 44), Garden City NY 1977, pp. 317–358; R. G. Kratz, ATD Apokryphen 5, pp. 71–110.

Monographs and articles: W. Naumann, Untersuchungen über den apokryphen Jeremiasbrief (BZAW 25), Giessen 1913, pp. 1–53; E. S. Artom, “L’origine, la data e gli scopi dell’ Epistola di Geremia”, Annuario di Studi Ebraici 1 (1935), 49–74; G. M. Lee, “Apocryphal Cats: Baruch 6:21”, VT 18 (1968), 488–493; D. Kellermann, “Apokryphes Obst. Bemerkungen zur Epistola Jeremiae (Baruch Kap. 6), insbesondere zu Vers 42”, ZDMG 129 (1979), 23–42; R. G. Kratz, “Die

60

Vs. 38 is an early Christian gloss, cf. Steck, op. cit., 1993, pp. 153–154.

apocrypha

543

Rezeption von Jeremia 10 und 29 im pseudepigraphen Brief des Jeremia”, JSJ 26 (1995), 2–31.

The Letter of Jeremiah, in Latin Epistula Ieremiae, is located in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus after the book of Lamentations. Other Greek manuscripts, the Vulgate and Luther’s translation append the letter to 1 Baruch as a sixth chapter. The 72 verse work (excluding the superscription), however, represents an independent textual unit. While it was most likely ﬁrst written in Hebrew,61 it has also survived to the present day in Greek, Latin, Syriac and a number of other languages.62 A small Greek fragment from the letter dating from around 100 BCE was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 7 of Qumran (7Q2).63 The document, which would appear to be more of an exhortatory sermon than a letter, is intended to urge the people of Israel to maintain the faithful observance of their religion. It purports to have been written by Jeremiah and is addressed to the exiles deported by King Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (cf. Jeremiah 29). Rooted in the thematic content of Jer. 10:1–16 (cf. also Isa. 44:9–20), it contains a warning against the worship of pagan gods (especially those of Babylon) written in a bitingly satirical, verbose and rather unoriginal style. The author employs a selection of arguments to portray the powerlessness and uselessness of such gods and to illustrate the licentious behaviour associated with their cult (42–43). Based on the allusion to a warning against idolatry issued by Jeremiah in 2 Macc. 2:1–2, scholars generally accept that the document was at least in circulation around 100 BCE. The suggestion that 2 Maccabees makes reference to the letter as such, however, is far from established. The aforementioned Qumran fragment provides evidence nevertheless that the work already existed at the beginning of the ﬁrst century BCE. The exact date and place of writing can no longer be determined with any certainty. The remark contained in v. 2 of the Letter, stating that the exile was to endure for seven generations, may suggest (if “seven” is not intended as a round

61 C. C. Torrey, The Apocryphal Literature, New Haven 1945, pp. 64–65 has argued in favour of an Aramaic Vorlage. 62 For these text editions cf. Ziegler, op. cit., 1957, pp. 7ﬀ. For the Syriac tradition see also W. Baars, op. cit., 1961 (= Ep. Ier. 33–39, 50–54). 63 Cf. DJD III, Oxford 1962, p. 143 (= Ep. Ier. 43–44).

chapter twelve

544

ﬁgure) the last decennia of the fourth century BCE as the period in which the text came into existence. The anonymous author of the document probably lived in Palestine.

h. Additions to the Book of Esther The wicked one has us by the throat, Haman and his soldiers (W. Barnard)

Text editions: Greek: Swete II, pp. 755–756, 762–763, 765–766, 767–768, 773–775, 779–780; Rahlfs I, pp. 951–952, 957–958, 960–961, 962, 967–969, 973; Brooke-McLean-Thackeray III, Part I, pp. 1ﬀ.; R. Hanhart, Esther (Göttinger Septuaginta VIII/3), Göttingen 1966, 19832, pp. 131ﬀ. (best edition!); Latin: Biblia Sacra I, rec. R. Weber, pp. 724–730.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 665–684 (Gregg); Kautzsch I, pp. 193–212 (Ryssel); Metzger, pp. 96–101 (Filson); JSHRZ I/1 (Bardtke), pp. 15–62; J. B. Schildenberger (HSAT) 1941; F. Stummer (EB) 1950; W. J. Fuerst, “The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther”, in: J. C. Dancy (ed.), The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha (CNEB), Cambridge 1972, pp. 132–168; C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah. The Additions (AB 44), Garden City NY 1977, pp. 151–252; I. Kottsieper, ATD Apokryphen 5, pp. 111–210.

Monographs and articles: W. H. Brownlee, “Le Livre grec d’Esther et la royauté divine. Corrections orthodoxes au Livre d’Esther”, RB 73 (1966), 161–185; H. Bardtke, “Der Mardochäustag”, in: G. Jeremias e.a., Tradition und Glaube (Festgabe für K. G. Kuhn), Göttingen 1971, pp. 97–116; C. A. Moore, “On the Origin of the lxx Additions to the Book of Esther”, JBL 92 (1973), 382–393; R. A. Martin, “Syntax Criticism of the lxx Additions to the Book of Esther”, JBL 94 (1975), 65–72; E. Tov, “The ‘Lucianic Text’ of the Canonical and the Apocryphal Section of Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book”, Textus 10 (1982), 1–25; D. J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (Suppl. JSOT 30), Sheﬃeld 1984; A. E. Gardner, “The Relationship of the Additions to the Book of Esther to the Maccabean Crisis”, JSJ 15 (1984), 1–8; M. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther. Our Reading Composite Texts (SBL Monograph Series 40), Atlanta GA 1991.

apocrypha

545

The Greek version of the book of Esther contains nine additions, numbering 107 verses in total and exhibiting a variety of diﬀerent features that do not have a counterpart in the Hebrew text. The said additions are incorporated into the Greek text and are likewise to be found in the Old Latin, Ethiopic and Armenian translations, which are based on a Greek Vorlage. Jerome’s Vulgate, which was ﬁrst based on the Hebrew text, places them one after the other at the end of the book of Esther (10:4–16:24).64 Most printed editions of the Septuagint distinguish the respective segments from the parallel chapters of the Masoretic Text with a capital letter (A, B, C etc.) as well as their own verse divisions. 1. The dream of Mordecai (A 1–11; Vulgate 11:2–12; at the beginning of the book); 2. Mordecai’s discovery of the plot against Artaxerxes (A 12–17; Vulgate 12:1–6a; after A 1–11 and before Esther 1); 3. Artaxerxes’ edict dictating the destruction of the Jews (B 1–7; Vulgate 12:6b-13:7; after Esther 3:13); 4. Mordecai’s prayer to the Lord to save the Jews from destruction (C 1–11; Vulgate 13:8–18; after Esther 4:17); 5. The prayer of Esther (C 12–30; Vulgate 14:1–19; after C 1–11); 6. Esther presents herself before the king (D 1–16; Vulgate 15:4–19; after C 12–30); 7. Artaxerxes’ edict dictating the protection of the Jews (E 1–24; Vulgate 16:1–24; after Esther 8:12); 8. Mordecai’s explanation of the dream (F 1–10; Vulgate 10:4–13; after Esther 10:3); 9. Colophon to the Greek translation (F 11; Vulgate 11:1; after F 1–10). As we know, the Hebrew version of the book of Esther lacks any mention to the divine name and contains no explicitly formulated religious references. The Additions clearly endeavour either to ﬁll up these “lacunae” or to restate that which was considered to have been stated implicitly in more explicit terms. Viewed as a whole, therefore, one can see that the Additions consist of prayers intended to

64

For the text editions mentioned see R. Hanhart, op. cit., 1966, pp. 7–36.

546

chapter twelve

deepen the religious intensity of the book, edicts intended to reinforce the plausibility of the narrative, and anecdotes rooted in pious fantasy intended to satisfy the inquisitiveness of the reader. Traces are also evident of an increasing gloriﬁcation of Mordecai and a growing hostility towards the heathen. The fact that the material does not belong to the original text of Esther is amply substantiated by the number of discrepancies in detail between the Hebrew text and the Additions (variety of dating, the designation of Haman as the Agagite [= Amalekite] in Esther 3:1 and as the Macedonian in E 10, etc.). The Additions were probably inserted into the Book of Esther in two stages. A, C, D and F would appear to have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic before being translated into Greek, while B and E were clearly written in Greek and added after the conclusion of the Greek translation (cf. Martin [1975], who maintains nevertheless that F was either written in Greek or represents a free Greek translation of a Semitic Vorlage).

In light of the fact that the colophon (F)65 alludes to the transferral of a Greek translation of the entire book to Egypt “in the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra”, it seems reasonable to accept a date prior to 77 BCE with respect to the origin of the Additions, certainly if the Ptolemy intended was Ptolemy XII (80–51 BCE). It is likewise reasonable to locate the Additions’ point of origin in Palestine (with the possible exception of B and E, which may stem from Alexandria). The song of Esther (C 12–30) can be found in rhyming form in the hymn “O Lord God our King”.

i. Additions to the Book of Daniel Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever (3:57)

65 E. J. Bickerman, “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther”, JBL 63 (1944), 339–362; R. Marcus, “Dositheus, Priest and Levite”, ibid. 64 (1945), 269–271.

apocrypha

547

Text editions: Greek; Swete III, pp. 576–593, 518–532; Rahlfs II, pp. 864–870, 885–894, 936–941; J. Ziegler, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Göttinger Septuaginta XVI/2), Göttingen 1954, pp. 80–91, 119–132, 215–223; W. Baars, An Ancient Greek Fragment of Daniel 3,51b–52, Textus 6 (1968), 132–133; A. Geissen, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel Kap. 5–12 zusammwen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco sowie Esther Kap. 1,1–2,15 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967 (PTA 5), Bonn 1968; W. Hamm, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967, Kap. 3–4 (PTA 21), Bonn 1977; Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, II, pp. 1368–1373, 1348–1351; Syriac: Vetus Testamentum Syriace IV/6, Odae viii and ix (the prayer of Azariah and the song of the three men in the ﬁery furnace), Leiden 1972 (H. Schneider) and III/4 (Bel and the Dragon), Leiden 1980.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 625–664 (Bennett-Kay-Davies); Kautzsch I, pp. 172–193 (Rothstein); Metzger, pp. 209–218 (Metzger); JSHRZ I/1 (Plöger), pp. 63–87; J. Goettsberger (HSAT) 1928; J. T. Nelis (BOT) 1954, pp. 48–54, 126–133; M. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel (Sources Bibliques), Paris 1971, pp. 94–106, 260–292; R. J. Hammer in: J. C. Dancy (ed.), The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha (CNEB), Cambridge 1972, pp. 210–241; C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah. The Additions (AB 44), Garden City NY 1977, pp. 21–149; E. Haag (NEB), pp. 84–96; I. Kottsieper, ATD Apokryphen 5, pp. 211–328.

Monographs and articles: W. H. Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel, Cambridge 1906; J. Schüpphaus, “Das Verhältnis von lxx- und Theodotion-Text in den apokryphen Zusätzen zum Danielbuch”, ZAW 83 (1971), 49–72; K. Koch, Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch. Entstehung und Textgeschichte. I: Forschungsstand, Programm, Polyglottensynopse; II: Exegetische Erläuterungen (AOAT 38/1–2), Kevelaer/NeukirchenVluyn 1987.

Song of the Three Men: C. Kuhl, Die drei Männer im Feuer (BZAW 55), Giessen 1930; M. Forderer, “Der Schild des Achilleus und der Lobgesang im Feuerofen”, Studium Generale 8 (1955), 294–301; L. Frizzell, “A Hymn of Creation in Daniel”, in: A. Finkel and L. Frizzell (eds.), Standing Before God (FS J. M. Oesterreicher), New York 1981, pp. 41–52; P. M. Bogaert, “Daniel 3 lxx et son supplément grec”, in: A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings

548

chapter twelve

(BEThL 106), Leuven 1993, pp. 13–37; M. J. Steussy, Gardens in Babylon. Narrative and Faith in Greek Legends of Daniel (SBL Diss. Series 141), Atlanta GA 1993.

Susanna: G. Huet, “Daniel et Susanne”, RHR 65 (1912), 277–284; 76 (1917), 129–130; W. Baumgartner, “Susanna. Die Geschichte einer Legende”, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 24 (1926), 259–280 (= id., Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt, Leiden 1959, pp. 42–66); id., “Der weise Knabe und die des Ehebruchs beschuldigte Frau”, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 27 (1929), 187–188 (= Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt, Leiden 1959, pp. 66–67); I. Lévi, “L’histoire de Susanne et les deux veillards dans la littérature juive”, REJ 95 (1933), 157–171; B. Heller, “Die Susanna-Erzählung: ein Märchen”, ZAW 54 (1936), 281–287; R. A. F. McKenzie, “The Meaning of the Susanna Story”, Canadian Journal of Theology 3 (1957), 211–218; F. Zimmermann, “The Story of Susanna and its Original Language”, JQR 48 (1957/1958), 236–241; M. Heltzer, “The Story of Susanna and the Self-Government of the Jewish Community in Archaemenid Babylonia”, Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 41 (1981), 35–39; H. Engel, Die Susanna-Erzählung (OBO 61), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1985; J. W. van Henten, “Het verhaal van Susanna als een pre-rabbijnse midrasj bij Dan. 1:1–2”, NTT 43 (1989), 278–293; J. W. Wesselius, “The Literary Genre of the Story of Susanna and its Original Language”, in: A. Kuyt e.a. (eds.), Variety of Forms. Dutch Studies in Midrash (Publications of the Juda Palache Institute 5), Amsterdam 1990, pp. 15–25; G. J. Brooke, “Susanna and Paradise Regained”, in: id. (ed.), Women in Biblical Tradition, Leuven 1992, pp. 92–111; M. Bal, “The Elders and Susanna”, Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993), 1–19; J. Glancy, “The Accused. Susanna and her Readers”, JSOT 58 (1993), 103–116; Ellen Spolsky (ed.), The Judgment of Susanna: Authority and Witness (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 11), Atlanta GA 1996.

Bel and the Dragon: S. Landesdorfer, “Der Drache von Babylon”, BZ 11 (1913), 1–4; F. Zimmermann, “Bel and the Dragon”, VT 8 (1958), 438–440; A. K. Fenz, “Ein Drache in Babel. Exegetische Skizze über Daniel 14:23–42”, SEÅ 35 (1970), 5–16; J. J. Collins, “‘The King has Become a Jew”. The Perspective on the Gentile World in Bel and the Snake”, in: Diaspora Jews and Judaism (FS A. T. Kraabel), Atlanta GA 1992, pp. 335–346 (= id., Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism [Suppl. JSJ 54], Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1997, pp. 167–180); A. Wysny, Die Erzählungen von Bel und dem Drachen: Untersuchung zu Dan 14 (SBB 33), Stuttgart 1996.

As with the book of Esther, the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel (together with Theodotion) contains segments that are not to

apocrypha

549

be found in the Masoretic tradition. The Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic and Armenian translations66 are dependent on Theodotion. The Additions are four in number: 1) the Prayer of Azariah (lxx Dan. 3:25–45) following a link text (lxx Dan. 3:24) 2) the Song of the Three Men in the Fiery Furnace (lxx Dan. 3:52–90) following a link text (lxx 3:46–51) 3) the Story of Susanna and the Two Elders; 4) the Story of Bel and the Dragon. In the text of Theodotion the Story of Susanna is located before Daniel 1 and that of Bel and the Dragon is added to Daniel 12. In the Vulgate, however, Susanna is taken up as Daniel 13 and Bel and the Dragon as Daniel 14. The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Men in the Fiery Furnace are incorporated into Daniel 3 (between Dan. 3:23 and 24). The Prayer of Azariah (i.e. Abednego, one of the three men who refused to worship the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar [cf. Daniel 3 and 1:7] and was thus cast into the ﬁery furnace)67 represents— with the exception of lxx 3:41–45—a collective lament that does not ﬁt within the context. The poem was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic (see Koch 1987, pp. 67–68) and would appear to stem from the period of persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, i.e. the ﬁnal decade of the ﬁrst half of the second century BCE (cf. 3:32,38). After a short transitional prose text relating how an angel of the Lord made the inside of the furnace “as though a moist wind were whistling through it”, the poem continues with the Song of the Three Men in the Fiery Furnace (lxx 3:52–90). The latter contains an ode addressed to God (lxx 3:52–56: the “Benedictus es”) together with a hymn reminiscent in terms of content of Psalm 148 and in terms of form of Psalm 136 (lxx 3:57–90: the “Benedicite”). The latter employs a refrain (“sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever”) to exhort all creation to praise the Lord. Verse 88, in which the names of the three men are mentioned explicitly for the ﬁrst time, would appear to be secondary. As a matter of fact, the Song of the Three Men would appear to have been an already existing 66 Only the Syro-Hexapla and the oldest edition of the Vetus Latina are dependent on lxx. 67 M. Gilbert, “La prière d’Azarias. Dn 3,26–45 Theodotion”, Nouvelle Revue Théologique 96 (1974), 561–582.

550

chapter twelve

song that was added to Daniel 3. Scholars are virtually certain that the ode and the hymn were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, although a date of origin is impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy (second century BCE?). The Story of Susanna and the Two Elders (chapter 13 in the Vulgate), a shorter version of which is to be found in the Septuagint and a longer version in Theodotion, relates how an extraordinarily beautiful and pious Jewess Susanna, the wife of the prosperous Joakim who lived in Babylon, was spied upon by two men while she was taking her bath. After Susanna refused to capitulate to their indecent suggestions the two men accused her of adultery. Maintaining her innocence throughout, the two men drag her before the courts and she is found guilty. The young and wise Daniel is able to save Susanna at the last minute from the death penalty after cross examining the two men individually and determining that their statements were not the same. The ﬁctitious narrative serves to combine the motif of the innocent and chaste woman accused of adultery and that of the wise judge in a folkloristic fashion. Some commentators maintain that the narrative is in line with the Pharisaic interpretation of Deut. 17:6, which insists that witnesses should be heard individually. They thus date the story in the period of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE). The tenor of the narrative, however, is closer to the idea that God does not abandon innocent individuals who remain faithful to his commandments. An exact date of origin is thus impossible to determine (the Hasmonean period?, see Engel, op. cit., 1985, p. 179). Scholars are likewise very much in the dark with respect to the documents place of origin (probably Palestine). In spite of evident word-play in the Greek text (vv. 54 and 58)68 it remains reasonable to presume that the text of lxx and Theodotion are based on a Semitic Vorlage. The folk tale as such has nothing to do with the story of Daniel. The Story of Bel and the Dragon in Babylon (chapter 14 in the Vulgate), which is likewise to be found in a shorter version in the Septuagint and a longer version in Theodotion, is evidently based on a Semitic Vorlage. It relates how Daniel was able to convince the Persian king Cyrus that the priests of Bel were the ones who con-

68

They probably stem from the Greek translator.

apocrypha

551

sumed the food set before the deity, removing it via a secret entrance to the temple, and not Bel himself. Having conﬁrmed Daniel’s story, the king proceeds to have the priests executed and the image of Bel and the temple of the deity destroyed. The king, however, is not yet completely convinced, insisting that Daniel worship the great dragon (better: snake) revered by the inhabitants of Babylon “you cannot deny that this is a living god”! After receiving the king’s permission to kill the dragon, Daniel proceeds to feed the beast with pitch, fat and hair boiled together to make cakes whereupon the dragon bursts open. The enraged Babylonians demand that the king hand over Daniel to them and they cast him into the lions’ den. Without being harmed by any of the lions, Daniel remains in the den for six full days and is provided with food by the prophet Habakkuk, transported to Babylon by an angel who bore him up by the crown of his head69 (cf. Ezek. 8:3). When the king discovers his conﬁdant still alive on the seventh day, he recognises that there is no God other than the God of Daniel, has his servants remove him from the den and casts those who had sought his demise to the lions who ate them alive (cf. Daniel 6). This double narrative, replete with the motifs of sagas and folk tales, is intended to show that the religion of the pagans is worthless and to proclaim that the God of Israel is the only true God. A possible date of origin might be the second century BCE.70 Scholars are at odds, however, as to the narratives’ place of origin (possibly Palestine). The Church Fathers were rightly unimpressed with the literary and religious signiﬁcance of Bel and the Dragon.

j. The Prayer of Manasseh I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions (12)

69 The same tradition is found in a more extensive form in the Lives of the Prophets 8 (see further below). 70 The motif of Daniel in the lions’ den does not provide further assistance in dating the text, since the narrative of Daniel 6 may have already been known in the third century BCE and it is far from certain that the chapter in question is younger than Daniel 14 (Cf. Koch op. cit., 1987, Band II, pp. 194–200).

552

chapter twelve

Text editions: Greek: Swete III, pp. 802–804; Rahlfs II, pp. 180–181; A. Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis (Göttinger Septuaginta X), Göttingen 19793, pp. 361–363 (best edition; Denis, Fragm., pp. 115–117; Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, p. 1909; Syriac: Vetus Testamentum Syriace IV/6 (W. Baars and H. Schneider).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 612–624 (Ryle); Kautzsch I, pp. 165–171 (Ryssel); Riessler, pp. 348–349, 1291; JSHRZ IV/1, pp. 15–26 (Eva Osswald); OTP II, pp. 625–637 (Charlesworth); J. C. Dancy, The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha (CNEB), Cambridge 1972, pp. 242–248.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 177–181; F. Nau, “Un extrait de la Didascalie: la prière de Manassé”, Revue de l’Orient chrétien 13 (1908), 134–141; G. Wilkins, “The Prayer of Manasshe”, Hermathena 16 (1911), 167–178; H. Volz, “Zur Überlieferung des Gebetes Manasses”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 70 (1959), 293–307; H. Schneider, “Der Vulgata-Text der Oratio Manasse”, BZ 4 (1960), 277–282; M. Ehrmann, Das Klagephänomen in zwischentestamentlicher Literatur (BEATAJ 41), Frankfurt am Main etc. 1996, pp. 152–174; W. M. Schniedewind, “A Qumran Fragment of the Ancient ‘Prayer of Manasseh’?”, ZAW 108 (1996), 105–107; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 659–679

The individual lament psalm known as the Prayer of Manasseh (Latin: Oratio Manassis) is lacking in the Septuagint71 and does not enjoy an established place in the tradition. The Greek version includes the psalm among the Odes (Odae), an appendix of songs borrowed for the most part from Old and New Testament sources and employed in the liturgy of the Greek church, attached in the Septuagint (and the Peshitta) to the end of the Book of Psalms. Codex Alexandrinus lists the Prayer of Manasseh as number eight of the Odes, Ralhfs’ edition as number twelve. Some late medieval Vulgate manuscripts present the psalm as an addition to 2 Chronicles 33. Since the

71 It is for this reason that J. H. Charlesworth favours the inclusion of the Prayer of Manasseh among the Pseudepigrapha (cf. OTP II, p. 629). The fact that it is generally treated as part of the Apocrypha is probably due to Luther’s inclusion of the text in his Weimarer Ausgabe.

apocrypha

553

Council of Trent, however, editions of the Vulgate tend to include the prayer in an appendix following the New Testament. The earliest version of the Prayer of Manasseh can be found in the Didascalia,72 a Syriac translation of an originally Greek text employed in the early church and dating from around the third century CE. In its Greek form it is to be found in the Constitutiones Apostolicae (II, 22, 12–14), which stem from the fourth or ﬁfth centuries CE. All other Greek texts, as well as the Coptic and Latin translations, are based on the Constitutiones Apostolicae or a Vorlage thereof. An example of late psalm composition, the lament begins with a hymnic appeal to God (vv. 1–7) followed by a description of the poet’s situation of need (vv. 8–10) and a confession of guilt (vv. 11–12). The song ends with a prayer for forgiveness (v. 13), a confession of trust (v. 14), a vow and a doxology (v. 15). The psalm is clearly inspired by 2 Chron. 33:12–13, 18–19, in which reference is made to a prayer of King Mannasseh uttered during his imprisonment, and is highly reminiscent of Psalm 51. While the psalm is of Jewish origin, it should not however be identiﬁed with the song that was apparently familiar to the author of Chronicles (cf. 2 Chron. 33:19) from the Records of the Seers. Scholars remain at odds as to whether the psalm was originally written in Greek or whether it harks back to a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original. The song may stem from the second or ﬁrst centuries BCE and probably comes from Judea. The Prayer of Mannasseh, “the little classic of penitential devotion” (Metzger),73 stands in line with the observable tendency to supplement the canonical tradition with prayers and songs of praise exempliﬁed by the Additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. It is clearly intended as an appeal to its listeners/readers to do penance and to trust in God as one who desires to be gracious and close to those who confess their guilt.

72

Cf. H. Achelis and J. Flemming, Die ältesten Quellen des orientalischen Kirchenrechts, zweites Buch: Die syrischen Didaskalia (TU NF X/2), Leipzig 1904, 36–38. 73 B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, New York 1957, p. 122.

chapter twelve

554

k. I Maccabees . . . the family of those men through whom deliverance was given to Israel (5:62)

Text editions: Greek: Swete III, pp. 594–661; Rahlfs I, pp. 1039–1099; W. Kappler, Maccabaeorum liber I (Göttinger Septuaginta IX/1), Göttingen 19903 (best edition); Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 1433–1480.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 59–124 (Oesterley); Kautzsch I, pp. 24–81 (Kautzsch); Metzger, pp. 221–262 ( Johnson); JSHRZ I/4, pp. 287–373 (Schunck); H. Bévenot (HSAT) 1931; D. P. Schötz (EB) 1948; H. A. Fischel, The First Book of the Maccabees, New York 1948; F. M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (Etudes Bibliques 30), Paris 1949, 19613; S. Tedesche-S. Zeitlin, The First Book of Maccabees ( JAL), Philadelphia 1950; J. C. Dancy, A Commentary on First Maccabees, Oxford 1954; J. T. Nelis, I Makkabeeën (BOT), Roermond 1972; J. R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees (CNEB), Cambridge 1973, pp. 1–214; J. A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41), Garden City NY 1976; W. Dommershausen, 1 Makkabäer. 2 Makkabäer (NEB), Würzburg 1985.

Monographs and articles: E. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabäer, Berlin 1937 (= id., The God of the Maccabees, Leiden 1978); H. L. Jansen, Die Politik Antiochos’ des IV., Oslo 1943; W. Mölleken, “Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch (Wann wurde Alkimos Hoherpriester?)”, ZAW 65 (1953), 205–228; K. D. Schunck, Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches, Halle/Saale 1954; I. Lévy, “Les deux Livres des Maccabées et le Livre hébraïque des Hasmonéens”, Semitica 5 (1955), 15–36; J. Schaumberger, “Die neue Seleukidenliste BM 35603 und die makkabäische Chronologie”, Biblica 36 (1955), 423–435; W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus, New York 1956; O. Plöger, “Die Feldzüge der Seleukiden gegen den Makkabäer Judas”, ZDPV 74 (1958), 158–188; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1961; B. Renaud, “La loi et les lois dans les livres des Maccabées”, RB 68 (1961), 39–67; D. Arenhoevel, “Die Eschatologie der Makkabäerbücher”, Trierer Theol. Zeitschrift 72 (1963), 257–269; id., Die Theokratie nach dem 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch, Mainz 1967; R. Hanhart, Zur Zeitrechnung des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches (BZAW 88), Berlin 1964; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “1 and 2 Maccabees—Same Story, Diﬀerent Meanings”, Concordia Theological Monthly

apocrypha

555

24 (1971), 515–526; G. O. Neuhaus, Studien zu den poetischen Stücken im 1. Makkabäerbuch (FzB 12), Würzburg 1974; id., “Quellen im 1. Makkabäerbuch? Eine Entgegnung auf die Analyse von K. D. Schunck”, JSJ 5 (1974), 162–175; J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Untergangs der Oniaden und des Aufstiegs der Hasmonäer”, JSJ 6 (1975), 1–46; K. Toki, “The Dates of the First and Second Books of Maccabees”, The Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 3 (1977), 69–83; Th. Fischer, Seleukiden und Makkabäer, Bochum 1980; K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa, Göttingen 1983; N. Martola, Capture and Liberation. A Study in the Composition of the First Book of Maccabees (Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A, Humaniora, Vol. 63,1), Aabo Akademi 1984; A. Enermalm-Ogawa, Un langage de prière juif en grec: Le témoinage des deux premiers livres des Maccabées (Coniectanea Biblica NT 17), Stockholm 1987; J. Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period, Leiden 1987; J. R. Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism. A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Atlanta GA 1988; B. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus. The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids, Cambridge 1989 (lit.!); J. A. Goldstein, “The Hasmonean Revolt and the Hasmonean Dynasty”, in: W. D. Davies (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, Cambridge 1989, pp. 292–351; N. Hyldahl, “The Maccabean Rebellion and the Question of ‘Hellenization’”, in: P. Bilde e.a. (eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 1), Aarhus 1990, pp. 188–203; J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters. From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I (Studies in the History of Judaism 6), Atlanta GA 1990; A.I. Baumgarten, “Invented Traditions of the Maccabean Era”, in: P. Schäfer e.a. (eds.), Geschichte—Tradition—Reﬂexion, deel I: Judentum (FS M. Hengel), Tübingen 1996, pp. 197–210; J. R. Bartlett, 1 Maccabees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheﬃeld 1998.

Originally written in Hebrew, the 16 chapters of the First Book of Maccabees have survived to the present day74 in Greek,75 Latin,76 Syriac,77 Arabic and Armenian versions.78 Flavius Josephus, Origen

74

For these text editions see W. Kappler, op. cit., 19672, pp. 7ﬀ. D. de Bruyne, “Le texte grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées”, RB 31 (1922), 31–54. The oldest and most valuable codex for 1 and 4 Maccabees is the Codex Sinaiticus. 76 D. de Bruyne and B. Sodar, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées (Anecdota Maredsolana IV), Maredsous 1932. 77 G. Schmidt, “Die beiden syrischen Übersetzungen des I. Maccabäerbuches”, ZAW 17 (1897), 1–47, 233–262; A. Penna, “I libri dei Maccabei nei manoscritti siriaci della Bibliotheca Vaticana”, Mélanges E. Tisserant I, Civitas Vaticana 1964, pp. 325–343. 78 H. Bévenot, “The Armenian Text of Maccabees”, Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 14 (1934), 268–283. 75

556

chapter twelve

and Jerome were all familiar with the Hebrew version. The document owes its present title79 to “Maccabeus” (hammerer?), the name once given to Judas, the son of Mattathias (1 Macc. 2:4), the plural form of which later being used to designate his entire family. The greater part of the work represents a description of the struggle between the Maccabeans and the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE) and his successors. After an introduction, which alludes to Alexander the Great’s campaign against the Persians, his death, the emergence of the Diadochen kingdoms (1:1–10) and the measures taken by Antiochus IV Epiphanes against the religion of the Jews (1:11–64), the author continues in chapter 2 with a description of the revolt set in motion by the priest Mattathias from Modein against the violation of traditional Jewish religion. The following chapters portray the successes and failures of the conﬂict with the Seleucid oppressors under the leadership of Mattathias’ sons Judas (3:1–9:22), Jonathan (9:23–12:53) and Simon (13:1–16:17), each in succession leading to the rededication (in 164) of the temple in Jerusalem desecrated in 167 BCE (4:36–61), complete religious freedom (6:55–63) and ultimately political independence. A brief reference is made at the end of the book to Simon’s son John Hyrcanus I (16:18–24). Chapter 8 plays a prominent role in the work as a whole, describing an alliance between Judas and the Romans (highly praised by the author).80 Oﬀering a detailed description of the political fate of the Jews between 167 BCE and the murder of Simon in 134 BCE, and employed by Flavius Josephus as a source for his historical writings, the book is clearly intended to glorify “the men through whom deliverance was given to Israel” (5:62). The document has unequivocally polemic designs aimed at the defence of the Hasmonean dynasty against internal opposition. It places enormous emphasis on individual heroism. In contrast to the Second Book of Maccabees, which in part covers the same period, I Maccabees stands out as a sober and practical historical document, reminiscent of the history David and parts of the books of Kings. Interpolated documents (probably without exception authentic), prayers, songs of lament, songs of victory and speeches serve to enliven the narratives. While the latter

79 According to Origen they bore a diﬀerent title. For details see J. T. Nelis, commentary 1972, pp. 13–14. 80 M. Delcor, “L’éloge des Romains d’après I Mac 8”, Henoch 13 (1991), 19–28.

apocrypha

557

make no mention of supernatural intervention, it should be noted nevertheless that the author was completely convinced that God (to whom the book refers indirectly as “the heavens” or by way of the personal pronoun) was in control of history (“as his will in heaven may be, so shall he do”: 3:60). The value of the book as an historical source for the history of the Jewish people in the second century BCE is enormous, although the reliability of some of the information it contains requires a critical eye in light of II Maccabees. The author, who was well acquainted with the geography of Palestine and the history of the Seleucid empire, more than likely enjoyed a close relationship with the Hasmonean court and must have been a highly cultured and educated Jew who wrote his work around 100 BCE. While the book later came to attract the attention of Christians more than Jews, the popular feast of the rededication of the temple (Chanukah) continues to keep the memory of the heroic deeds of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers alive in Jewish circles (cf. 1 Macc. 4:36–61 and Joh. 10:22: “the festival of Dedication”). Handel’s oratorio Judas Maccabeus serves as an example of the inﬂuence the book and the stories contained therein exercised in the ﬁrst centuries of Protestantism.

l. II Maccabees Text editions: Greek: Swete III. pp. 662–708; Rahlfs I, pp. 1099–1139; W. KapplerR. Hanhart, Maccabaeorum liber II (Göttinger Septuaginta IX/2), Göttingen 1959, 19762 (best text edition); Latin: Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 1480–1512.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 125–154 (Moﬀatt); Kautzsch I, pp. 81–119 (Kamphausen); Metzger, pp. 263–293 ( Johnson); JSHRZ I/3, pp. 165–285 (Habicht); H. Bévenot (HSAT) 1931; D. P. Schötz (EB) 1948; F.-M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (Etudes Bibliques 30), Paris 1949; S. Tedesche and S. Zeitlin, The Second Book of Maccabees ( JAL), Philadelphia 1954; J. R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees (CNEB), Cambridge 1973, pp. 215–344; J. T. Nelis, II Makkabeeën (BOT), Roermond 1975; J. A. Goldstein, II Maccabees (AB), Garden City NY 1983; D. Barsotti, Le Second Livre des Maccabées

558

chapter twelve

(trad. E. de Solms), Paris 1984. See also the bibliographical details related to I Maccabees.

Monographs and articles: W. H. Kosters, “De polemiek van het tweede boek der Makkabeën”, Theologisch Tijdschrift 12 (1878), 491–558; R. Laqueur, Kritische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch, Strasburg 1904; H. W. Surkau, Martyrien in jüdischer und frühchristlicher Zeit (FRLANT 54), Göttingen 1938, pp. 9–29; E. Bickermann, “Héliodore au temple de Jérusalem”, Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 1939–1944 (Brussels), pp. 7–40; E. Cavaignac, “Remarques sur le deuxième livre des Macchabées”, RHR 80 (1945), 42–58; M. B. Dagut, “II Maccabees and the Death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes”, JBL 72 (1953), 149–157; K. D. Schunck, Die Quellen des ersten und zweiten Makkabäerbuches, Halle 1954; P. Katz, “The Text of 2 Maccabees Reconsidered”, ZNW 51 (1960), 10–30; id., “Eleazar’s Martyrdom in 2 Maccabees: The Latin Evidence for a Point of the Story”, Studia Patristica IV (TU 79), Berlin 1961, 118–124; R. Hanhart. “Zum Text des 2. und 3. Makkabäerbuches. Probleme der Überlieferung, der Auslegung und der Ausgabe”, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Göttingen 1961, pp. 427–487; G. Stemberger, Der Leib der Auferstehung, Rome 1972; C. Habicht, “Royal Documents in Maccabees II”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 80 (1976), 1–18; U. Kellermann, Auferstanden in den Himmel (SBS 95), Stuttgart 1979; R. Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (CBQ Monograph Series 12), Washington DC 1981; J. C. VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6,7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem”, JSJ 12 (1981), 52–74; E. Will et C. Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellènismos, Nancy 1986; A. Enermalm-Ogawa, Un langage de prière juif en grec, 1987: see under I Maccabees; H. J. L. Jensen, “Die Pervertierung der Küche und die Dialektik der Aufklärung. Eine strukturell-exegetische Meditation über das Martyrium der Juden im 2. und 4. Makkabäerbuch”, Hermes 24 (1988), 39–54; J. W. van Henten e.a. (eds.), Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie (Studia Post-Biblica 38), Leiden 1989; id., The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (Suppl. JSJ 57), Leiden-New YorkCologne 1997; L. Dequeker, “Jason’s ‘Gymnasium’ in Jerusalem (2 Mac. 4,7–14). The Failure of a Cultural Experiment”, Bijdragen 54 (1993), 371–392; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 547–559.

Passed down to us in Greek,81 Latin, Syriac, Armenian82 and Coptic, the Second Book of Maccabees83 does not constitute a continuation 81 D. de Bruyne, “Le texte grec du deuxième livre des Macchabées”, RB 31 (1922), 31–54; 39 (1930), 503–519; P. Katz, “The Text of 2 Maccabees Reconsidered”, ZNW 51 (1960), 10–30. The most reliable text edition for 2 and 3 Maccabees is the Codex Alexandrinus. 82 S. Kogian, The Armenian Version of 2 Maccabees, Vienna 1923. 83 For these text editions see W. Kappler – R. Hanhart, op. cit., 1959, pp. 7–11.

apocrypha

559

of I Maccabees but deals rather with a speciﬁc segment of the period treated in the latter. It begins with a quotation from two letters alleged to have been addressed by the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea to their fellow Jews in Egypt inviting them to join in the celebration of Succoth and the feast of the puriﬁcation of the temple (1:1–10a and 1:10b-2:18 resp.).84 The introduction to the book as such follows in which the author states that he wishes to oﬀer a condensed version (epitomè, 2:28) of the (no longer extant) ﬁve volume history of Jason of Cyrene (2:19–32). In the context of the period characterised by priestly intrigue prior to the Maccabean revolt of 167–164 BCE, the author describes the divine punishment of Heliodorus, who was sent to Jerusalem by King Seleucus IV (187–175 BCE) to conﬁscate the temple treasures (chapter 3),85 the Hellenising policies of the High Priest Jason, the latter’s elimination by Menelaus and the murder of the former High Priest Onias III (chapter 4). From chapter 5 onwards the narrative runs chronologically parallel with I Maccabees 1–7, thus relating the persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus. The book ends with an allusion to the victory won by the latter against the Seleucid general Nicanor and a concluding segment (chapters 5–15). The climax of Antiochus IV’s persecution is illustrated in particular with narratives concerning the death under torture of the elderly scribe Eleazar (6:18–31) and that of the seven brothers with their mother (chapter 7).86 The book was originally written in Greek around 100 BCE by a Jewish author probably living in Alexandria, who composed his edifying opus in colourful literary prose under the inﬂuence of the Greek “tragic school”.87 The work contains two “tragedies”, corresponding 84 E. Bickermann, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr. (II Macc. 1,1–9)”, ZNW 32 (1933), 233–254; C. C. Torrey, “The Letters Preﬁxed to Second Maccabees”, JAOS 60 (1940), 119–150; F. M. Abel, “Les lettres préliminaires du Second Livre des Maccabées”, RB 53 (1946), 513–533. 85 Cf. E. Bickerman, “Héliodore au temple de Jérusalem”, Annuaire de l’institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 7 (1939–1944), 5–40; T. Fischer, “Heliodor im Tempel zu Jerusalem—ein ‘hellenistischer’ Aspekt der ‘frommen Legende’”, in: R. Liwak und S. Wagner (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel (FS S. Herrmann), Stuttgart etc. 1991, pp. 122–133. 86 Cf. T. W. Manson, “Martyrs and Martyrdom”, BJRL 39 (1956/57), 463–484 and the works of Surkau (1938), Katz (1961), Kellermann (1979) and Van Henten (ed., 1989; 1997). Cf. also M. de Jonge, “Jesus’ Death for Others and the Death of the Maccabean Martyrs”, in: T. Baarda (ed.), Text and Testimony (FS A. F. J. Klijn), Kampen 1988, pp. 142–151. 87 R. Doran, “2 Maccabees and ‘Tragic History’,” HUCA 50 (1979), 107–114.

560

chapter twelve

with one another in terms of structure and content (3:1–10:9 and 10:10–15:37), whereby the temple in Jerusalem takes centre stage: a failed attempt on the part of the enemy to gain control of the sanctuary (the action of Heliodorus; the expeditions of the Seleucid general Lysias); the conquest of the city (Antiochus; Nicanor), which is liberated by Judas the Maccabean (dedication of the temple; defeat of Nicanor). Reference is made at the end of each segment to the institution of a feast day (the feast of the dedication of the temple: 10:1–9; the day of Nicanor: 15:36). While the book is full of exaggerations, incredible miracle stories and edifying-moralising remarks, its value as an historical source should not be written oﬀ completely. Indeed, in some instances the author would appear to have been better informed than that of I Maccabees. The document places great emphasis on the maintenance of the Law, God’s providential actions and miraculous interventions in history, human suﬀering as retribution (cf., for example, 5:10; 9:6,28; 13:8), as expiatory punishment (cf. 7:18,23), as disciplinary measures (cf. 6:12; 7:33) and as a sign of God’s kindness (6:12–16), underlining hope in the resurrection of the dead, at least for the righteous (7:9,14,23,29). It is worthy of note, moreover, that the book contains the ﬁrst reference to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (7:28), prayer and sacriﬁce for the dead (12:43–45) and the intercession of the departed saints on behalf of the living (15:12–16). The reason for the people’s distress is more ﬁrmly and more explicitly attributed to their own guilt than is the case in I Maccabees. The martyrdoms described in chapters 6–7 left a signiﬁcant impression in later centuries. The death by torture of Eleazar and that of the seven brothers and their mother do not only play an important role in IV Maccabees, they were also held up by many a Christian author in the early Christian period as an example for their fellow Christians. Indeed, from the third century onwards, an annual liturgy of remembrance was dedicated to these “ﬁrst Christian martyrs”.88

88

Cf. B. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, New York 1957, pp. 147–150.

apocrypha

561

m. III Maccabees Text editions: Greek; Swete II, pp. 709–728; Rahlfs I, pp. 1139–1156; R. Hanhart, Maccabaeorum liber III (Göttinger Septuaginta IX/3), Göttingen 1960, 19802.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles I, pp. 155–173 (Emmet); Kautzsch I, pp. 119–135 (Kautzsch); Metzger, pp. 294–308 (Constantelos); Riessler, pp. 682–699, 1312–1313; OTP II, pp. 509–529 (Anderson); C. W. Emmet, The Third and Fourth Book of Maccabees (TED 2), London 1918; M. Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees ( JAL), Philadelphia 1953 (reprint 1976).

Monographs and articles: H. Willrich, “Der historische Kern des III. Makkabäerbuches”, Hermes 39 (1904), 244–258; M. Hadas, “Third Maccabees and Greek Romance”, Review of Religion 13 (1948/49), 155–162; id., “Third Maccabees and the Tradition of Patriotic Romance”, Chronique d’Egypte 47 (1949), 97–104; id., “Aristeas and III Maccabees”, HThR 42 (1949), 175–184; I. Lévi, “Ptolémée Lathyre et les Juifs”, HUCA 23 (1950–1951), 127–136; R. Hanhart, “Zum Text des 2. und 3. Makkabäerbuches. Probleme der Überlieferung, der Auslegung und der Ausgabe”, Nachrichten der Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse 13, Göttingen 1961, pp. 427–487; V. A. Tcherikover, “The Third Book of Maccabees as a Historical Source of Augustus’ Time”, Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961), 1–26; W. Baars, “Eine neue griechische Handschrift des 3. Makkabäerbuches/Sinai, Cod. gr. 1342, pp. 179–185”, VT 13 (1963), 82–87; W. W. Tarn, “The Struggle of Egypt against Syria and Macedonia”, The Cambridge Ancient History VII, Cambridge 1964, pp. 699–731; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, New York 1983, pp. 104–111; H. Anderson, “Third and Fourth Maccabees and Jewish Apologetics”, in: A. Caquot e.a. (eds.), La littérature intertestamentaire. Colloque de Strasbourg (17–19 octobre 1983), Paris 1985, pp. 173–179; A. Paul, “Le troisième Livre des Macchabées”, in: id., Le judaïsme ancien et la Bible, Paris 1987, pp. 105–148; F. Parente, “The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological Document and Historical Source”, Henoch 10 (1988), 143–182; J. Tromp, “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees”, Henoch 17 (1995), 311–328; D. S. Williams, “3 Maccabees. A Defence of Diaspora Judaism?”, JSP 13 (1995), 17–29; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 547–559.

562

chapter twelve

Included in the Dutch Authorised Version among the apocrypha, but not in Luther’s translation, and completely lacking in the Vulgate, the seven chapters of the Third Book of Maccabees is something of a misnomer. While it does not in fact have anything to do with the history of the Maccabees, its style and historical and theological motifs are nevertheless reminiscent of II Maccabees. The book has been passed down to us in Greek, Syriac and Armenian versions89 and oﬀers a romanticised and legendary narrative concerning Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–204 BCE). After his victory over Antiochus III the Great at the battle of Raphia (217 BCE), he made an attempt to enter the holy of holies of the temple in Jerusalem but fell paralysed to the ﬂoor, struck by God’s punishment in response to a prayer by the High Priest (1:1–2:24). When he arrived back in Egypt he endeavoured to take his revenge by forcing the Jews there to worship the pagan god Dionysus. The majority of the Jews refused to obey him and in his fury he ordered them to be taken in chains together with their women and children to Alexandria where he planned to put them to death (2:25–3:30). He then had them locked up in a hippodrome where he set ﬁve hundred drugged and enraged elephants after them to trample them to death. The Jews, however, were saved from their fate in a miraculous way on three occasions (4:1–6:21). With renewed insight the king then became a friend and benefactor of the Jews and served them a sumptuous feast at his own expense lasting seven days. He also gave permission for the Jews to put their apostate kin to death (6:22–7:23). A festival was established thereafter in remembrance of the seven-day feast. Written in Greek, the work was probably composed in the ﬁrst century BCE by a Jew living in Alexandria since it exhibits similarities with the language and vocabulary of II Maccabees and the Letter of Aristeas (see below under Pseudepigrapha) and apparent familiarity with the Additions to the book of Daniel (6:6). A highly apologetic work, in which the punishment of Ptolemy IV is located in the temple, it is particularly reminiscent of the story concerning Heliodorus found in II Maccabees and serves to reinforce our knowledge of the threatened existence of the Jews living in the GreekEgyptian diaspora. Orthodox and faithful to the Law, the author’s

89

Cf. R. Hanhart, op. cit., 1960, pp. 7–11.

apocrypha

563

evidently twofold aim was to encourage his fellow Jews in their faith, on the one hand, and to justify their religion and way of life to outsiders as that of a unique nation loyal, nevertheless, to pharaoh on the other.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Text editions: A. M. Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 3), Leiden 1970, pp. 45–244. See further below under Concordances and in the bibliography associated with the individual documents.

Introductions: A. M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (SVTP 1), Leiden 1970; R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia/Atlanta GA 1986. A. M. Denis e.a. avec le concours de J. C. Haelewyck, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéohellénistique, Turnhout 2000. See further under the literature referred to in chapter XII (Apocrypha).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles; Kautzsch; JSHRZ; J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I–II, London 1983, 1985 (best and most thorough modern edition); H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford 1984; A. R. C. Leaney, The Jewish and Christian World: 200 BC to AD 200, Cambridge 1984; M. de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament, Cambridge 1985; La Bible. Ecrits intertestamentaires, édition publiée sous la direction d’André DupontSommer et Marc Philonenko (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade), Paris 1987, pp. 461–1824. See further under the literature referred to in the introduction to the preceding chapter.

Concordances: A. M. Denis avec la collaboration d’Yvonne Janssens et le concours du Cetedoc, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament. Concordance, Corpus des textes, Indices, Louvain-la-Neuve 1987; A. M. Denis et le Cetedoc, Concordance latine des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament. Concordance, Corpus des textes, Indices (Corpus Christianorum. Thesaurus Patrum Latinorum, Supple-

pseudepigrapha

565

mentum), Turnhout 1993: J. C. Haelewyck (ed.), Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout 1998.

Monographs and articles: M. Philonenko e.a., Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament et manuscrits de la Mer Morte (Cahiers de Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 41), Paris 1967; J. J. Collins, “Cosmos and Salvation: Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Age”, History of Religion 17 (1977), 121–142; D. Harrington, “Research on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha During the 1970’s”, CBQ 42 (1980), 147–159; M. E. Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Proﬁle of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolt, Philadelphia 1980; A. M. Denis, “Les genres littéraires dans les pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament”, JSJ 13 (1982), 1–5; J. H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7), Missoula MT 1976 (lit.); id., “A History of Pseudepigrapha Research: The Re-emerging Importance of the Pseudepigrapha”, in: W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Teil II Principat, Band 19,1: Religion ( Judentum: Allgemeines; Palästinisches Judentum), Berlin-New York 1979, pp. 54–88; id., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 54), Cambridge 1985, reprint 1987; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, Philadelphia 1981; M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2/2), Assen and Philadelphia 1984; La littérature intertestamentaire. Colloque de Strasbourg (17–19 octobre 1983), Paris 1985; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ III, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986; D. S. Russell, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Patriarchs and Prophets in Early Judaism, London 1987; J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans (eds.), The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation ( JSP Supplement Series 14; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 2), Sheﬃeld 1993; Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, New York-Oxford 1993; J. C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing the Threads. Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 6), Atlanta GA 1994. See further under the literature listed at the beginning of the preceding chapter.

Bibliography: G. Delling, Bibliographie zur jüdisch-hellenistischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur (TU 106), Berlin 19752; Liliana Rosso Ubigli, “Gli apocriﬁ (o pseudepigraﬁ) dell’ Antico Testamento. Bibliograﬁa 1979–1989”, Henoch 12 (1990), 259–312; A. Lehnhardt, Bibliographie zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Supplementa JSHRZ VI/2), Gütersloh 1999.

566

chapter thirteen a. Introduction

In the literal sense, a pseudepigraphal work (Greek: pseudepigraphon) is a document published under a false name. A variety of reasons must have existed to motivate the assignation of a particular book to a well-known ﬁgure from the (mostly far distant) past. It should be borne in mind with respect to the literature to be treated in the present chapter that the Judaism of the ﬁnal century prior to the beginning of the Common Era took its norms from the past, i.e. from the teaching and preaching codiﬁed in the Sacred Scriptures. New “revelation”, therefore, stood little chance of ﬁnding its way to a wider audience, unless it was ascribed to ﬁgures from the past.1 It is for this reason that we ﬁnd pseudepigraphal books ascribed to Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezra etc. On a few occasions, however,—and especially when they were written with apologetic-missionary ends in mind—certain books were ascribed to persons who enjoyed particular authority in the Graeco-Roman world (cf. the Sibylline books). In the context of the literature of early Judaism, the term pseudepigraphal enjoys both a narrow and a broad signiﬁcance. On the one hand, we are already familiar with a number of books in the Hebrew Bible (Proverbs of Solomon, Song of Solomon, Daniel) as well as a few apocryphal books (1 Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom of Solomon) that have been written under a false name. Tradition, nevertheless, does not include such works among the pseudepigrapha. On the other hand, a number of books are included under the latter designation that do not belong there in the literal sense (e.g. the Martyrium of Isaiah, the Life of Adam and Eve, the Lives of the Prophets). In practice, however, the documents of early Judaism that are not included in the Hebrew Bible, the apocryphal books, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the early rabbinic literature, are thus referred to as pseudepigraphal. While the establishment of such boundaries may be necessary for a variety of reasons, it remains completely arbi-

1 Cf. M. Hengel, “Anonymität, Pseudepigraphie und “literarische Fälschung” in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur”, Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique XVIII (Pseudepigrapha I, viii) 1972, pp. 231–308 (lit.!); B. M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha”, JBL 91 (1972), 3–14; N. Brox (ed.), Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch-christlichen Antike (Wege der Forschung 484), Darmstadt 1977; D. O. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon (WUNT 39), Tübingen 1986.

pseudepigrapha

567

trary from the literary-historical perspective. It is based in part on Christian canonical classiﬁcation and in part on coincidence (the Scrolls of the Dead Sea, many of which warrant a place among pseudepigrapha, were only discovered in 1947). Diﬀerences of opinion with respect to the established boundary between apocryphal and pseudepigraphal are not uncommon (e.g. in the case of 3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh and 4 Ezra) and some scholars have been inclined to argue that a number of the documents of Qumran should be included under the pseudepigrapha. While options in this regard tend to be made from case to case,2 exhibiting a degree of subjectivity,3 the same is true with respect to the aforementioned boundary, which some scholars would like to tear down altogether.4 A number of pseudepigraphal writings are only known to us in their Christian form, leaving it diﬃcult on occasion to determine whether the document in question was originally Christian and made use of Jewish traditions or whether it was originally Jewish and later reworked by (a) Christian author(s). Examples include the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra and the Lives of the Prophets. Linguistic criteria do not always oﬀer much in the way of support when we are engaged in the process of choosing between the two possibilities since Christian authors are not unknown for their use of the semitising Greek of the Septuagint. The division of the pseudepigrapha into a Hebrew-AramaicPalestinian sub-group and a Greek-Hellenistic sub-group has likewise encountered scholarly resistance. In the ﬁrst instance, contacts between Palestine and the diaspora were considerably more frequent and more intensive than initially thought. In the second instance, it should be borne in mind that many Palestinian Jews were able to speak the common language of the day (koinè Greek) and to use it in their written works. The pseudepigrapha bear witness to a considerable variety of literary genres. In addition to popular-devotional or haggadic material

2 Part II of Charles’ edition thus includes the Pirke ’Aboth, which is to be classiﬁed among the rabbinic literature, and the text of the Fragments of a Zadokite Work (= Damascus Document) discovered in 1896 in the geniza of the Ezra synagogue in Cairo, which would be better classiﬁed among the Dead Sea Scrolls. 3 Cf. M. E. Stone, “Categorization and Classiﬁcation of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, Abr-Naharain 24 (1986), 167–177. 4 Cf. J. H. Charlesworth, “The Renaissance of Pseudepigrapha Studies”, JSJ 2 (1971), 107–114.

568

chapter thirteen

and the rewriting and expansion of biblical narratives, prayers, wisdom and poetic literature as well as Jewish-Hellenistic historiography, particular attention should be paid to testaments and apocalypses. According to common oriental custom, those who were on the point of dying frequently had access to supernatural gifts that allowed them to predict the future. In the testaments that have survived to the present day under the name of one or other Old Testament ﬁgure, such predictions consistently tend to be interwoven with biographical and exhortatory material. Biographical information thus takes on an exemplary function and the predictions serve to underline the exhortatory material by way of warning (cf., for example, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs). While emphasis on these elements varies from testament to testament, the exhortatory segments tend as a rule to occupy a central position in terms of content: if the children of the patriarch and their descendants are obedient to God they can expect a future of contentment and happiness. For further information on the testament genre see Anita B. Kolenkow, “The Genre Testament and Forecasts of the Future in the Hellenistic Jewish Milieu”, JSJ 6 (1975), 57–71; E. Cortès, Los discursos de adíos, Barcelona 1976; E. von Nordheim, Die Lehre der Alten I. Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit (ALGHJ 13), Leiden 1980; id., Die Lehre der Alten II. Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Alten Testament und im Alten Vorderen Orient (ALGHJ 18), Leiden 1985.

We will only be able to oﬀer a brief introduction to apocalyptic at the present juncture. The term is derived from the Revelation (Greek: apokalypsis) of John in the New Testament and is employed in scholarly circles to designate a speciﬁc type of literature together with the intellectual movement that gave rise thereto. As a literary genre, apocalyptic is revelatory literature with a narrative framework in which other-worldly or eschatological secrets are disclosed in the context of visions and dreams and in particular through journeys to heaven and hell accompanied by an interpreting angel (angelus interpres). The apocalyptic visionary takes no personal responsibility for the present state of the world, which he considers to be doomed to destruction, but determinedly waits (in the knowledge that the end of time is at hand) for the transformation of the present that God will bring about, with salvation for the righteous and destruction for the wicked. While apocalyptic literature is closer to Old Testament prophetic eschatology than to wisdom literature, it need not neces-

pseudepigrapha

569

sarily be identiﬁed as the continuation of the former: the prophets looked forward to a new era in history, the apocalyptic visionaries to the hereafter (albeit conceptualised at times in worldly terms); the prophets called for conversion, the apocalyptic visionaries for perseverance to the end. Striking characteristics of apocalyptic include determinism, whereby the course of history is established in advance; theodicy, which God justiﬁes in the hereafter; Naherwartung, the expectation that fervently hoped for salvation will be swiftly realised; dualism between the righteous and the wicked and between God’s armies and the angels of Satan; an emphasis on sin and retribution, both collective and individual, in the ﬁnal judgement; the notion of vaticinia ex eventu, predictions based on that which has already taken place in history (which ought not to be dismissed as mere deceit but properly appreciated as part of a “revelation” of history as a whole); pseudepigraphy, which reveals that determined historical events were already predicted in ancient times by a particular person. The following bibliographical list contains a selection of the most important works on apocalyptic published in the last ﬁfty years: H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic, London and Redhill 19472; M. A. Beek, Inleiding tot de joodse apocalyptiek van het oud- en nieuwtestamentische tijdvak (Theologia VI), Haarlem 1950; O. Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2), Neukirchen 1959; D. Rössler, Gesetz und Geschichte (WMANT 3), Neukirchen 1960; G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments II, Munich 19654, 315ﬀ.; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (OT Library), London 1964; W. R. Murdock, “History and Revelation in Jewish Apocalypticism”, Interpretation 21 (1967), 167–187; J. M. Schmidt, Die jüdische Apokalyptik. Die Geschichte ihrer Erforschung von den Anfängen bis zu den Textfunden von Qumran, Neukirchen 1969; P. von der Osten-Sacken, Die Apokalyptik in ihrem Verhältnis zu Prophetie und Weisheit (Theologische Existenz heute 157), Munich 1969; J. Schreiner, Alttestamentlich-jüdische Apokalyptik (Biblische Handbibliothek 6), Munich 1969; F. M. Cross, “New Directions in the Study of Apocalyptic”, Journal for Theology and the Church 6 (1969), 157–165; R. Hamerton-Kelly, “The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic”, VT 20 (1970), 1–15; K. Koch, Ratlos vor der Apokalyptik, Gütersloh 1970; P. D. Hanson, “Old Testament Apocalyptic Reexamined”, Interpretation 25 (1971), 459–479; W. Schmithals, Die Apokalyptik. Einführung und Deutung (Sammlung Vandenhoeck), Göttingen 1973; J. Barr, “Jewish Apocalyptic in Recent Scholarly Study”, BJRL 58 (1975), 9–35; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, Philadelphia 1975; W. Lambert, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic, London 1978; J. J. Collins (ed.), Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14, 1979; id., “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers”, CBQ 44 (1982), 91–111; id., The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity, New York 1984; I. Gruenwald, “Jewish Apocalyptic

570

chapter thirteen

Literature”, in: W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Teil II Principat, Band 19, 1: Religion ( Judentum: Allgemeines; Palästinisches Judentum), Berlin-New York 1979, pp. 89–118; Ch. Münchow, Ethik und Eschatologie. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik, Göttingen 1981; T. F. Glasson, “What is Apocalyptic?”, New Testament Studies 27 (1981), 98–105; C. Rowland, The Open Heaven. A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Christianity, New York 1982; K. Koch-J. M. Schmidt, Apokalyptik (Wege der Forschung 365), Darmstadt 1982; Martha Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature, Philadelphia 1983 (1985); D. Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979, Tübingen 1983, 19892 (lit.!); F. García Martínez, “Encore l’Apocalyptique”, JSJ 17 (1986), 224–232; P. D. Hanson, Old Testament Apocalyptic, Nashville 1987; H. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1987; C. Kappler e.a., Apocalypses et voyages dans l’au-delà, Paris 1987; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “More on Apocalyptic and Apocalypses”, JSJ 18 (1987), 137–144; id., Prophets of Old and the Day of the End. Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS 35), Leiden 1996; J. J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies Since the Uppsala Colloquium, Sheﬃeld 1991; K. Müller, Studien zur frühjüdischen Apokalyptik (SBAB NT 11), Stuttgart 1991; Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, Oxford 1993; P. Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History (Suppl. JSP 20), Sheﬃeld 1996; J. C. VanderKam and W. Adler (eds.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (CRINT III/4), Assen/Minneapolis 1996 (lit.!); Adela Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Suppl. JSJ 50), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996; J. J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1), London and New York 1997; J. W. van Henten and O. Mellink (eds.), Visioenen aangaande het einde. Apocalyptische geschriften en bewegingen door de eeuwen heen, Zoetermeer 1998.

After 70 CE, rabbinic Judaism clearly distanced itself from apocalyptic piety (maintained primarily in sectarian circles), rejecting at the same time the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature of early Judaism in its entirety. The fact that this material has survived to a signiﬁcant degree in spite of such blanket rejection is due to its preservation in speciﬁc circles of the early Christian church in which it continued to enjoy temporary and, on occasion, permanent popularity. Although the mainstream church was later to reject the pseudepigrapha, they were preserved nevertheless, especially in the outlying regions of the Christian world. The value of the pseudepigraphal literature is to be found in the information it provides (together with the apocrypha) with respect to the religiosity of Judaism around the beginning of the Common Era.

pseudepigrapha

571

It has become apparent that Judaism prior to 70 CE (the year in which Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the Romans) was an extremely pluriform phenomenon in contrast to later rabbinic Judaism, which was based to a large extent on Pharisaism and enjoyed a considerable degree of uniformity. The sequence with which we will examine the pseudepigrapha is based on that employed by other introductions and includes an additional paragraph on less-known material.

b. The Letter of Aristeas Text editions: P. Wendland, Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula cum ceteris de origine versionis LXX interpretum testimoniis, Leipzig 1900 (with index verborum); H. St. J. Thackeray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, in: H. B. Swete (ed.), An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1902, 19142 (reprint 1968), pp. 551–606 (with introduction, pp. 533–550); R. Tramontano, La lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, Naples 1931 (detailed introduction!); A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate (Sources Chrétiennes 89), Paris 1962 (with detailed introduction, translation, notes and index verborum).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 83–122 (Andrews); Kautzsch II, pp. 1–31 (Wendland); Riessler, pp. 193–233, 1277–1279; JSHRZ II/1, pp. 35–87 (Meisner); OTP II, pp. 7–34 (Shutt); H. S. J. Thackeray, The Letter of Aristeas (TED 2/3), London 1917; M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates. Letter of Aristeas ( JAL), New York 1951 (reprint 1974); T. M. de Wit-Tak, De oorsprong van de Griekse bijbel. De brief van Aristeas over het ontstaan van de Septuagint, Kampen 1995.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 105–110; J. G. Février, La date, la composition et les sources de la Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, Paris 1925; E. Bickermann, “Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas”, ZNW 29 (1930), 280–298; H. G. Meecham, The Oldest Version of the Bible: “Aristeas” on its Traditional Origin, London 1932; id., The Letter of Aristeas. A Linguistic Study with Special Reference to the Greek Bible, Manchester 1935; M. Hadas, “Aristeas and III Maccabees”, HThR 42 (1949), 175–183; B. H. Stricker, De brief van Aristeas, Amsterdam 1956; V. A. Tscherikover, “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas”, HThR 51 (1958), 59–85; G. Zuntz, “Zum Aristeas-Text”, Philologus 102 (1958), 240–246; id.

572

chapter thirteen

“Aristeas Studies I: The Seven Banquets”, JSS 4 (1959), 21–36; id., “Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah”, ibid., 109–126; P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 19592, pp. 209–214; S. Jellicoe, “Aristeas, Philo and the Septuagint Vorlage”, JThS 12 (1961), 261–271; R. Hanhart, “Fragen um die Entstehung der lxx”, VT 12 (1962), 139–163; D. Gooding, “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies”, VT 13 (1963), 357–379; A. F. J. Klijn, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in Egypt”, NTS 11 (1964–1965), 154–158; S. Jellicoe, “The Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A Re-examination”, NTS 12 (1965–1966), 144–150; id., The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford 1968, pp. 29–58; O. Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship”, JThS 18 (1967), 337–371; id., “Aristeas and his Sources”, Studia Patristica XII (TU 115), Berlin 1975, pp. 123–128; E. van ‘t Dack, “La date de la lettre d’Aristée”, Studia Hellenistica 16 (1968), 263–278; L. Rost, “Vermutungen über den Anlaß zur griechischen Übersetzung der Tora”, in: Wort-GebotGlaube (FS W. Eichrodt), Zurich 1970, pp. 39–44; G. E. Howard, “The Letter of Aristeas and Diaspora Judaism”, JThS 22 (1971), 337–348; F. Parente, “La Lettera di Aristea come fonte per la storia del Giudaismo alessandrino durante la prima metà del I secolo A.C.”, Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa (Classe di Lettere e Filosoﬁa III/II), Pisa 1972, pp. 117–237, 517–567; G. Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies 1: The ‘Seven Banquets’”, in: id., Opuscula Selecta, Manchester 1972, pp. 110–125; id., “Aristeas Studies 2: Aristeas and the Translation of the Torah”, ibid., pp. 126–143; S. P. Brock,” The Phenomenon of the Septuagint”, OTS 17 (1972), 11–36; R. J. H. Shutt, “Notes on the Letter of Aristeas”, BIOSCS 10 (1977), 22–30; N. G. Cohen, “The Names of the Translators in the Letter of Aristeas: A Study in the Dynamics of Cultural Transition”, JSJ 15 (1984), 32–64; M. A. L. Beavis, “Anti-Egyptian Polemic in the Letter of Aristeas 130–165 (The High Priest’s Discourse)”, JSJ 18 (1987), 145–151; O. Murray, “The Letter of Aristeas”, in: Studi Ellenistici II a cura di B. Virgilio (Biblioteca di studi antichi 51), Pisa 1987, pp. 15–29; J. A. Goldstein, “The Message of ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’, Obey the Torah, Venerate the Temple of Jerusalem, but Speak Greek, and Put your Hopes in the Ptolemaic Dynasty”, in: M. Mor (ed.), Eretz Israel. Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. Mutual Relations, Lanham 1991, pp. 1–23; R. Feldmeier, “Weise hinter ‘eisernen Mauern’. Tora und jüdisches Selbstverständnis zwischen Akkulturation und Absonderung im Aristeasbrief ”, in: M. Hengel und A. M. Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT 72), Tübingen 1994, pp. 20–37; M. Tilly, “Geographie und Weltordnung im Aristeasbrief ”, JSJ 38 (1997), 131–153; DenisHaeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 911–946.

The Letter of Aristeas written to his brother Philocrates has only survived to the present day in Greek. The document enjoyed such popularity in Christian circles, however, that the text thereof has been preserved in whole or in part in more than twenty manuscripts. In terms of both form and content the work is more of an account

pseudepigrapha

573

(diègèsis) than a letter. The author assumed the name Aristeas, who would appear to have been an important courtier to the Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus (282–246 BCE). Often long-winded and, for the contemporary reader at least, rather boring, the book oﬀers a decidedly ﬁctitious account of the circumstances surrounding the translation of the Mosaic Law into Greek. We are told how Ptolemy II, upon the instigation of his librarian Demetrius of Phaleron, who wanted to have a translation of the Torah in the library at Alexandria,5 sent representatives to the High Priest Eleazar in Jerusalem. Torah scroll in hand, the company, which included Aristeas, returned to Alexandria with seventy-two translators recruited from the twelve tribes of Israel who completed their Greek translation of the text of the Law in seventy-two days. The Jewish community at Alexandria welcomed and endorsed the work, resolutely rejecting any future emendations thereof. The translation was then read to the king who declared himself profoundly impressed with Moses’ wisdom and sent the translators home laden with gifts. The actual theme of the narrative (the preparation and completion of the translation of the Torah into Greek) occupies a relatively minor portion of the 322 verse document, which contains a number of (frequently long) excursuses: a narrative concerning the release of Jewish slaves upon the intervention of Aristeas (12–27);6 an exchange of letters between Ptolemy and Eleazar (33–51a); a detailed description of the gifts oﬀered by the king to the High Priest in Jerusalem (51b–82); a comprehensive portrayal of the city of Jerusalem, the temple and the land of Palestine (83–120);7 Eleazar’s assertions concerning the foolishness of idolatry and his allegorical/apologetic defence of the food laws (121–171);8 table discussions between the king and the Judean translators written in Greek deipnosophistic style (187–300).9 5

E. A. Parsons, The Alexandrian Library, Glory of the Hellenistic World, London 1952. Cf. W. L. Westermann, “Enslaved Persons Who Are Free. Rainer Papyrus (REP), Inv. 24,552”, American Journal of Philology 59 (1938), 1–30; A. Wilhelm, “Zu dem Judenerlasse des Ptolemaios Philadelphos”, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 14 (1941), 30–35. 7 H. Vincent, “Jérusalem d’après la Lettre d’Aristée”, RB 5 (1908), 520–532; 6 (1909), 555–575. 8 M. A. L. Beavis, “Anti-Egyptian Polemic in the Letter of Aristeas 130–165 (The High Priest’s Discourse)”, JSJ 18 (1987), 145–151. 9 G. Zuntz, op. cit., 1959, 21–36; J. J. Lewis, “The Table-Talk Section in the Letter of Aristeas”, NTS 13 (1966–1967), 53–56. 6

574

chapter thirteen

The Letter of Aristeas has attracted continuous attention throughout the centuries on account of the fact that it appears to provide historical information concerning the origins of the Septuagint. Flavius Josephus10 and Eusebius employed the story of the seventy-two translators in their works and the account of the latter’s labours on the island of Pharos took on legendary proportions in the early church in an eﬀort to underline the idea that the Septuagint represented a divinely inspired translation.11 The information provided by the Letter of Aristeas fails in many respects to withstand the test of historical criticism. The writer, who represents himself as a gentile, is clearly a Jew. The language in which the document is written exhibits features that would make its composition in the third century BCE impossible. Demetrius of Phaleron, who was an advisor to Ptolemy I, was sent into exile by Ptolemy II and was already dead by the time the Letter maintains that the Torah was translated (around 270 BCE; v. 41 presupposes the marriage of Ptolemy II with Arsinoë [274 BCE]). None of the above, however, serves to contradict the hypothesis that a translation of the Torah into Greek was made during the reign of Ptolemy II. The Letter is not intended, as Paul Kahle12 suspected, as a recommendation favouring a revision of the Greek Torah, but rather as a defence of an existing translation, which it explicitly represents as closed to any form of change or emendation (v. 310). The author thus clearly opposes himself to the growing tendency to bring the Greek translation of the Torah more into line with the gradually crystallising (proto-Masoretic) text of the Hebrew Bible13 by insisting that the former had enjoyed the full support of the clergy in Jerusalem, had been based on the best bible manuscript (cf. v. 30), had been sanctioned by the community at Alexandria and, given the abundant material support provided by the pharaoh, was not to be written oﬀ as the product of hasty workmanship. The function of the extended excursuses contained in the Letter remains diﬃcult to determine with any degree of certainty. The signiﬁcant role ascribed to the High Priest, the temple and Jerusalem

10

A. Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe, adapteur de la Lettre d’Aristée, Paris 1962. Cf. A. Pelletier, op. cit., 1962, pp. 78–98. 12 P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 19592, pp. 209–214. 13 Cf. S. P. Brock, op. cit., 1972. See also G. E. Howard, “The Letter of Aristeas and Diaspora Judaism”, JThS 22 (1971), 337–348. 11

pseudepigrapha

575

might be interpreted as a form of opposition to the aspirations of the priesthood associated with the temple at Leontopolis founded by Onias IV.14 In such an instance, the author would have had a primarily Jewish readership in mind. On the other hand, his endeavour to reduce the diﬀerences between Jews and gentiles to a minimum, Eleazar’s allegorical/apologetic explanation of the food laws, the table discussions between the king and the translators together with the admiration exhibited by the king and his courtiers with respect to Jewish customs and traditions would appear to favour a non-Jewish public as addressees, making the Letter a document of Jewish propaganda intended as a defence of Judaism and the Law aimed at those who knew little thereof. While it is diﬃcult to attach a precise date to the Letter of Aristeas, language, goal and content would tend to favour the end of the second century BCE. The Letter was almost certainly written in Alexandria.

c. Jubilees Text editions: Ethiopic: A. Dillmann, Liber Jubilaeorum . . . aethiopice, Kiel and London 1859; R. H. Charles, Mashafa Kufale or the Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Anecdota Oxoniensia), Oxford 1895; J. C. VanderKam, A Critical Text and English Translation of the Ethiopic Book of Jubilees. New Edition (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 510–511; Scriptores Aethiopici 88–89), Leuven 1989; Greek fragments: A. M. Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 70–102; Latin fragments: A. M. Ceriani, Parva Genesis, Monumenta sacra et profana, Tom. I, 1, Milan 1861, pp. 9–54, 63–64; H. Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die Kleine Genesis, Leipzig 1874, reprint Amsterdam 1970; see also A. M. Denis, Concordance latine du Liber Jubilaeorum sive Parva Genesis, Louvain 1973; Syriac fragments: R. H. Charles, op. cit., 1895, Appendix III, p. 183; E. Tisserant, “Fragments syriaques du Livre des Jubilés”, RB 30 (1921), 55–86, 206–232; Hebrew fragments: J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, in: H. Attridge e.a. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part I (DJD XIII), Oxford 1994, pp. 1ﬀ.

14

Cf. A. F. J. Klijn, op. cit., 1964–1965.

576

chapter thirteen

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 1–82 (Charles); Kautzsch II, pp. 31–119 (Littmann); Riessler, pp. 539–666, 1304–1311; JSHRZ II/3, pp. 273–575 (Berger); Sparks, pp. 1–139 (Rabin); OTP II, pp. 35–142 (Wintermute); R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited with Introduction, Notes, and Indices, London 1902, reprint Jerusalem 1972; id., The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (TED 1), London-New York 1917; H. Rönsch, op. cit.; J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees. New Edition [translation] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 510–511. Scriptores Aethiopici 88–89), Leuven 1989.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 150–162; F. Bohn, “Die Bedeutung des Buches der Jubiläen”, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 73 (1900), 167–184; F. Martin, “Le Livre des Jubilés. But et procédés de l’auteur. Ses doctrines”, RB 8 (1911), 321–344, 502–533; C. Albeck, Das Buch der Jubiläen und die Halacha (Berichte der Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin 47), Berlin 1930; A. Büchler, “Traces des idées et des coutumes hellénistiques dans le Livre des Jubilés”, REJ 89 (1930), 321–348; S. Zeitlin, “The Book of Jubilees, its Character and its Signiﬁcance”, JQR 30 (1939–1940), 1–31; id., “The Book of “Jubilees” and the Pentateuch”, JQR 48 (1957), 218–235; H. H. Rowley, “Criteria for the Dating of Jubilees”, JQR 36 (1945–1946), 183–187; A. Jaubert, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et la secte de Qumrân. Ses origines bibliques”, VT 3 (1953), 250–264; id., “Le calendrier des Jubilés et les jours liturgiques de la semaine”, VT 7 (1957), 35–61; R. North, Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee (AnBibl 4), Rome 1954, pp. 70ﬀ.; B. Noack, “Qumran and the Book of Jubilees”, SEÅ 22–23 (1957–1958), 191–207; M. Testuz, Les idées religieuses du Livre des Jubilés, Geneva-Paris 1960 (lit.!); E. Kutsch, “Der Kalender des Jubilænbuches und das Alte und Neue Testament”, VT 11 (1961), 31–41; H. Cazelles – E. Vogt, “Sur les origines du calendrier des Jubilés”, Biblica 43 (1962), 202–216; W. Baars and R. Zuurmond, “The Project for a New Edition of the Ethiopic Book of Jubilees”, JSS 9 (1964), 67–74; G. L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (Studia Postbiblica 20), Leiden 1971; P. Skehan, “Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter”, CBQ 37 (1975), 343–347; J. C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (Harvard Semitic Monographs 14), Missoula MT 1977; id., “The Putative Author of the Book of Jubilees”, JSS 26 (1981), 209–217; S. P. Brock, “Abraham and the Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart to Jubilees 11–12 and its Implications”, JSJ 9 (1978), 135–152; J. M. Baumgarten, “Some Problems of the Jubilees Calendar in Current Research”, VT 32 (1982), 485–489; J. Goldstein, “The Date of the Book of Jubilees”, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 50 (1983), 63–86; J. C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQ Monograph Series 18), Washington DC 1987; R. Doran, “The Non-Dating of Jubilees: Jub 34–38;

pseudepigrapha

577

23:14–32 in Narrative Context”, JSJ 20 (1989), 1–11; M. A. Knibb, Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community. An Inaugural Lecture, London 1989; J. C. VanderKam, “The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4”, in: J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress I–II (STDJ XI/2), Leiden-New York-Cologne/Madrid 1992, pp. 635–648; id., “Das chronologische Konzept des Jubiläenbuches”, ZAW 107 (1995), 80–100; O. H. Steck, “Die getötenen ‘Zeugen’ und die verfolgten ‘ToraSucher’ in Jub. 1,12. Ein Beitrag zur Zeugnis-Terminologie des Jubiläenbuches”, ZAW 107 (1995), 445–465, 108 (1996), 70–86; M. Albani e.a. (eds.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ 65), Tübingen 1997; Betsy HalpernAmaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (Suppl. JSJ 60), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1999; J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Primeval History Interpreted. The Rewriting of Genesis 1–11 in the Book of Jubilees (Suppl. JSJ 66), Leiden 2000; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 349–403.

The book of Jubilees derives its name from the division of history as narrated in the document into periods of 49 years (periods of a jubilee year, cf. Leviticus 25), which in their turn are divided into 7 weeks of years of 7 years of 364 days.15 The events related in the document are also dated according to this division. The designation Leptogenesis (Little Genesis) was common in the early church since the document runs parallel to a signiﬁcant degree with the canonical biblical book of Genesis. A third, less common designation, the Apocalypse of Moses, is based on the author’s claim that the content of the book was revealed to Moses by an angel on Mount Sinai upon God’s command (cf. chapter 1). The original title of the work must have been “Book of the Divisions of the Ages According to their Jubilees and Weeks (of years)”, a designation found in the Damascus Document (XVI 3–4; see further under the Dead Sea Scrolls, chapter XIV), which dates from the second half of the second century BCE. The work, which some scholars maintain has undergone a number of redactions (Davenport 1971; VanderKam 1977; alternatively Berger, JSHRZ), has only survived in its complete form in an Ethiopic translation that was based on a Greek version, fragments of which have been encountered in early Christian literature (Denis, Fragmenta).

15 E. Weisenberg, “The Jubilee of Jubilees”, Revue de Qumrân 3 (1961–1962), 3–40; J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, Leiden 1959; J. M. Baumgarten, “The Calendar of the Book of Jubilees”, in: id., Studies in Qumran Law (SJLA 24), Leiden 1977, pp. 101–114; id., “Some Problems of the Jubilees Calendar in Current Research”, VT 32 (1982), 485–489; J. C. VanderKam, op. cit., 1995.

578

chapter thirteen

Discovered remains of a Latin version, likewise based on the Greek (cf., for example, Rönsch 1874), contain roughly one fourth of the text. Substantial segments of the Hebrew basic text have come to light in twelve fragmentary manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in ﬁve of the caves at Qumran (cf. VanderKam-Milik, text edition 1994). The latter not only serve as evidence that the work was originally written in Hebrew, they also reveal that the Ethiopic translation can be considered to oﬀer a more or less faithful rendition of the basic text. A few fragments are all that remain of a Syriac translation of the work (cf. Denis, Introd., pp. 158–159).16 The events described after the introduction stretch from the creation to the institution of the Passover (cf. Exodus 12). The sequence of the narrated events is more or less equivalent to that of the biblical text, although the author occasionally introduces changes (e.g. the segment corresponding with Genesis 38 is located between those corresponding with Genesis 41 and 42). At the same time, and in several instances, the material found in Jubilees follows that of the biblical Vorlage, although we also encounter many remarkable interpolations (e.g. the struggle between Esau and Jacob: Jub. 37:1–38:14) and deviations (the author did not incorporate the biblical text in its entirety). In addition to geographical, onomastic and other information, the document also frequently employs popular-devotional (haggadic) traditions aimed at highlighting the piety and wisdom of Israel’s forefathers. The interpolation of normative (halachic) material serves to prescribe the strict maintenance of the laws and festival times revealed to the latter in the course of the ages. The patriarchs function as luminous examples of ﬁdelity to the Law, thus explaining why those narratives found in the canonical Scriptures that might be considered compromising in their regard are either left out altogether or altered to their advantage. The ﬁrst chapter serves as a general introduction to the entire work, in which Moses is oﬀered a glimpse of the course of history extending far beyond his death: the people’s apostasy, its punishment, its remorse and its ultimate restoration thanks to God’s grace. Chapters 2–4 deal with the creation and the history of Adam, whereby

16

Cf, E. Tisserant, “Fragments syriaquea du Livre des Jubilés”, RB 30 (1921), 55–86,206–232 (= Recueil Cardinal Eug. Tisserant “Ab Oriente et Occidente” I, Louvain 1955, pp. 25–87).

pseudepigrapha

579

the author devotes considerable attention to the various classes of angels, underlines the signiﬁcance of the Sabbath, and makes allusion to the purity laws applicable to a woman who has borne a child. Chapters 5–10 turn around the ﬁgure of Noah, whereby the punishment of the Watchers (angels), the institution of the Feast of Weeks celebrated by Noah and his sons, the obligatory solar calendar of 364 days, the testament of Noah, the laws concerning the ﬁrst-born and Canaan’s occupation of territory ascribed to Shem serve as the subjects of the author’s attention. 11:1–23:9 oﬀers an elaborate description of the journeys of Abraham, including copious additional material on his youth, discussions and benedictions, detailed legal provisions concerning circumcision and the portrayal of Abraham’s celebration of the Feast of the First-Born and the Feast of Tabernacles (Succoth). Reference to the death of the patriarch provided the author with the opportunity to oﬀer a minor apocalypse in chapter 23 in which the history of the people of Israel from Abraham to the Maccabean period is treated, a period that, according to the author, is to be followed by the eschatological kingdom of peace in which evil shall no longer be found. Chapters 24–46 deal with the history of Jacob (who constitutes one of the book’s most central ﬁgures) together with that of his family, whereby particular attention is devoted to Joseph and Ruben, the latter’s aﬀair with Bilhah providing the opportunity to make reference to the laws forbidding incest. The greater part of the said chapters, however, is devoted to Judah and Levi—who are blessed in an extraordinary way—oﬀering a representation of the future functions of their descendants. The narratives concerning Jacob and his sons serve to foreshadow and justify the future conﬂicts with the Philistines, Canaanites, Amorites and Edomites. The history of Moses is limited to his birth and childhood years, the ten plagues and the exodus from Egypt (chapters 47–48). The book ends with a description of the Passover and the stipulations associated therewith together with the laws prescribed for the maintenance of the jubilee years and the sabbath (chapters 49–50). The author broaches a number of matters in his work that motivate him highly, his interest in chronology being perhaps the most evident: the determination of dates upon which the most important events that are related in the context of the jubilees took place together with his fervent defence of the 364 day solar calendar (whereby festival days always fall on the same day of the week and

580

chapter thirteen

never on the sabbath).17 Of equal importance, however, is the emphasis he places on the precise maintenance of the festival times, which he represents as already having been known to the patriarchs (with the exception of Passover). An additional matter close to his heart is related to the correct observation of the prescriptions of the Law, which he endeavours to provide with theological foundation while employing a variety of means to underline their continuing authoritative and obligatory character. In terms of content, the prescriptions of the Law diﬀer in several ways from the traditions adhered to by the Pharisees and tend to exhibit a more stringent character than the latter.18 A further characteristic of the work is the author’s concern for the hierarchical world of angels who are represented as being involved in human aﬀairs and characterised by a dualistic understanding of good spirits and evil demons. This dualism is reﬂected in the world of human beings in which the children of Israel, set aside by circumcision, are represented as the elect from among the nations, are protected by the good angels and can look forward to heavenly glory. The other nations are far from God, are led by demons and can only look forward to downfall and destruction. In the author’s mind, the contrast between good angels and demons together with that between Israel and the other nations is unbridgeable. The aforementioned information oﬀers us a number of clues as to the spiritual environment in which the author must have lived. Dualism, the importance attached to the world of angels, particular legal prescriptions and the emphasis placed on the 364 day solar calendar all feature in the sectarian documents found at Qumran. For this reason it seems reasonable to suggest that the work came into existence in Essene circles, which were later to give rise to the Qumran community, especially if one accounts for the fact that several manuscripts thereof were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Indeed, the explicit mention of the work in the Damascus Document 17 Cf. the above mentioned studies of A. Jaubert (1953; 1957) together with E. Kutsch, “Der Kalender des Jubiläenbuches und das Alte und Neue Testament”, VT 11 (1961), 31–41; id., “Die Solstitien im Kalender des Jubiläenbuches und im äthiopischen Henoch 72”, VT 12 (1962), 203–207; J. B. Segal, “The Hebrew Festivals and the Calenda”r, JSS 6 (1961), 74–99; H. Cazelles et E. Vogt, S”ur les origines du calendrier des Jubilés”, Biblica 43 (1962), 202–216; J. VanderKam, op. cit., 1995. 18 Cf. L. Finkelstein, “The Book of Jubilees and the Rabbinic Halaka”, HThR 16 (1933), 39–61.

pseudepigrapha

581

further supports the conclusion that Jubilees was held in high esteem in the community of Qumran. While it is possible that the work was written shortly before the Maccabean revolt of 167–164 BCE, it is nevertheless to be dated no later than 140 BCE. The priestly author of the book of Jubilees, who clearly did not cherish messianic expectations and made no reference to the resurrection of the dead, but spoke rather of the preservation of the souls of the faithful (1:24; 23:31), certainly did not write a history for its own sake and was equally disinclined to enrich the biblical narratives with other traditions for historical reasons. He relates history, rather, for pedagogical and exhortatory reasons. He encourages his readers to be just as stringent in their maintenance of the Law of God as their blessed forefathers, for the descendants of the people that dwelt by Mount Sinai shall one day “forget my (= God’s) entire Law, all my commandments and all my judgements, and shall stray with respect to the new moon, the sabbaths, the feasts, the jubilees and the ordinances” (1:14; cf. also 6:34–38).

d. The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah Text editions: Ethiopic: R. Laurence, Ascensio Isaiae Vatis, Oxford 1819 (ms. A); A. Dillmann, Ascensio Isaiae aethiopice et latine, Leipzig 1877 (mss. A-C); Greek fragments: Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 105–114; Latin fragments: Dillmann, op. cit., pp. 76–85; R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah. Translated from the Ethiopic Version, which, together with the New Greek Fragment, the Latin Versions and the Latin Translation from the Slavonic, is here Published in Full, London 1900, pp. 87–91; Cl. Leonardi e.a., Ascensio Isaiae. Textus (Series Apocryphorum 7), Turnhout 1995.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 155–162 (Charles); Kautzsch II, pp. 119–127 (Beer); Riessler, pp. 481–484, 1300–1301; JSHRZ II/1 (Hammershaimb), pp. 15–34; OTP, pp. 143–176 (Knibb); Sparks, pp. 775–812 (Barton); R. H. Charles, op. cit., 1900; E. Tisserant, Ascension d’Isaïe. Traduction de la version éthiopienne avec les principales variantes des versions grecques, latines et slaves avec introduction et notes (Documents pour l’étude de la Bible 1,3), Paris 1909; G. H. Box and R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (TED), London 1919; J. Flemming und H. Duensing, “Die Himmelfahrt des Jesaja”, in: W. Schneemelcher (ed.), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen II, Tübingen 19643, pp. 454–468; A. Caquot,

582

chapter thirteen

“Bref commentaire du ‘Martyre d’Isaïe’”, Semitica 23 (1973), 65–93; M. de Goeij, Psalmen van Salomo. IV Ezra. Martyrium van Jesaja (De Pseudepigrafen), Kampen z.j. [1980]; E. Norelli (ed.), Ascensio Isaiae. Commentarius (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum 8), Turnhout 1995; J. M. Knight, The Ascension of Isaiah, Sheﬃeld 1995.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 170–176; V. Burch, “The Literary Unity of the Ascensio Isaiae”, JThS 20 (1919), 17–23; id., “Material for the Interpretation of the Ascensio Isaiae”, JThS 21 (1920), 249–265; H. Fischel, “Martyr and Prophet”, JQR 37 (1946–1947), 265–280,363–386; D. Flusser, “The Apocryphal Book of Ascensio Isaiae and the Dead Sea Sect”, IEJ 3 (1953), 34–47; K. Heussi, “Die Ascensio Isaiae und ihr vermeintliches Zeugnis für ein römisches Martyrium des Apostels Petrus”, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Jena 12 (1963), 269–274; A. Vaillant, “Un Apocryphe pseudo-bogomile: La Vision d’Isaïe”, Revue des Etudes Slaves 42 (1963), 109–121; M. Philonenko, “Le Martyre d’Esaïe et l’histoire de la secte de Qoumrân”, in: Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancient Testament et manuscrits de la Mer Morte I, Paris 1967, pp. 1–10; A. K. Helmbold, “Gnostic Elements in the Ascension of Isaiah”, NTS 18 (1972), 222–227; E. Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament (SVTP 5), Leiden 1981, pp. 1–74, 145–172; R. G. Hall, “The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity”, JBL 109 (1990), 289–306; id., “Isaiah’s Ascent to See the Beloved. An Ancient Jewish Source for the Ascension of Isaiah”, JBL 113 (1994), 463–484; E. Norelli, Interprétations nouvelles de l’Ascension d’Isaïe, Revue des études augustiennes 37 (1991), 11–22; J. Knight, Disciples of the Beloved One. The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah (Suppl. JSP 18), Sheﬃeld 1995; id., The Ascension of Isaiah (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 2), Sheﬃeld 1995; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 634–657.

As with Jubilees and 1 Enoch, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, referred to in Latin as Martyrium et ascensio Isaiae, has only survived in its entirety in an Ethiopic translation. This translation is based on the Greek version, a segment of which (2:4–4:4 with lacunae in a papyrus from the Amherst collection dating from the ﬁfth/sixth centuries CE) is known to us.19 In addition, Latin20 and Slavonic translations of chapters 6–11 have been preserved together with a number of Coptic fragments.

19

For further details see Denis, Introd., pp. 170ﬀ. and id., Fragmenta, pp. 108ﬀ. The Latin tradition exhibits two divergent recensions; see further OTP II, pp. 144–146 (Knibb). 20

pseudepigrapha

583

The martyrium, the legend of Isaiah’s martyrdom, constitutes the core of the work (1:1–3:12; 5:1–16) and represents a narrative that must have circulated independently and have been based on a Hebrew original. We are told how the prophet, in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of King Hezekiah, foretold the apostasy and godlessness of the latter’s son Manasseh (cf. 2 Kgs 21:1–17) and predicted his own martyrdom. After Hezekiah’s death, Manasseh did indeed give himself over to the worship of Satan and his angels. Together with other prophets and those faithful to God, Isaiah withdrew to Bethlehem and thereafter to the wilderness, only to be discovered by the Samaritan Belchira, branded as a false prophet, and accused of insurrection. After having him arrested, Manasseh gave the order that he should be cut in two with a saw. Belchira’s attempt to convince Isaiah to withdraw his prophecies of doom immediately prior to his execution failed with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Given the fact that the author of the letter to the Hebrews would appear to have been familiar with the legend (cf. Hebr. 11:37) and that it exhibits points of agreement with the martyrdoms of Eleazar and the seven brothers with their mother (as narrated in 2 Maccabees 6–7), it is possible that the legend came into existence at the time of the religious persecutions that led to the Maccabean revolt of 167–164 BCE and was written down shortly thereafter. While it is tempting to associate the narrative with the Qumran community’s withdrawal into the wilderness under the leadership of the Teacher of Righteousness (cf. Flusser 1953, Philonenko 1967), the latter clearly makes allusion to neither Samaritans nor death by torture. Any suggested Essene origin for the document thus remains to be demonstrated.

3:13–4:22 (the so-called “Testament of Hezekiah”) was added in Greek to the legend at a later date and by a Christian author, whereby Belchira’s accusations are represented as inspired by the devil and rooted in Satan’s fury at Isaiah’s prophecies concerning the life and death of Jesus, the foundation and later apostasy of the church, the advent of Belial (the devil) and the return of Christ. Allusion is made in 4:2b–4a to the expectation that emperor Nero would return as the anti-Christ. The reference to the apostasy of the Christian church serves, in addition, to support a dating of this segment of the work at the end of the ﬁrst century or the ﬁrst decades of the second century CE. The place in which the “Testament of Hezekiah” came into existence remains unknown.

chapter thirteen

584

The second part of the book (chapters 6–11), the ascensio or visio Isaiae (ascension or vision of Isaiah), is likewise of Christian origin and was ﬁrst written in Greek.21 It relates how the prophet ascended in the spirit to the seventh heaven, under the guidance of an interpreting angel, where he is witness to God’s command to Christ to return to earth incognito. Isaiah then sees God’s Son descending through the heavens to the earth, rising from the dead and ascending to the heavens once again to take his place at God’s right hand. While the segment exhibits striking parallels with 3:13–4:22, it clearly stems from a diﬀerent author who presumably composed his work in the ﬁrst half of the second century CE. The place in which the vision of Isaiah was written likewise remains unknown. Although some scholars have argued that the vision of Isaiah exhibits Gnostic inﬂuence (Helmbold 1972), a relationship between the vision and Gnosticism remains diﬃcult to establish in a variety of respects. Worthy of particular note are the emphasis placed on the miraculous birth of Jesus and the interest exhibited by the author in the divine trinity. 11:14 of the vision is quoted in Acta Petri 24 (around 190 CE). Parallels with the proto-Evangelium of James (around 150 CE) serve to conﬁrm the above mentioned dating of the vision of Isaiah.

The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah provide as in turn with information concerning an ancient Jewish legend and a heterodox form of Christianity from the ﬁrst centuries of the Common Era. They were brought together (possibly in the course of the third or fourth centuries CE) by a Christian who submitted the material to further reworking, adding, among other things, vv. 2b–6a,7,13 to chapter 1.

e. The Psalms of Solomon Text editions: Greek: Swete III, pp. 765–787; Rahlfs II, pp. 471–489; H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, Psalmoi Salomoontos. Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon, Cambridge 1891; O. Gebhardt, Psalmoi Salomoontos. Die

21

Cf. R. G. Hall, op. cit., 1990. Certain manuscripts only contain this segment.

pseudepigrapha

585

Psalmen Salomo’s, Leipzig 1895; J. Viteau and F. Martin, Les Psaumes de Salomon. Introduction, texte grec et traduction . . . avec les principales variantes de la version syriaque (Documents pour l’étude de la Bible I,4), Paris 1911; W. Baars, “A New Fragment of the Greek Version of the Psalms of Solomon”, VT 11 (1961), 441–444 (= Ps. Sal. 17:2–18:14); R. B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon. A Provisional Collated Greek Text, Philadelphia Penn. 1976; Syriac: J. R. Harris and A. Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon I (The Text), Manchester 1916, II (The Translation), Manchester 1920; W. Baars, “An Additional Fragment of the Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon”, VT 11 (1961), 222–223 (= Ps. Sal. 16:6–13); Vetus Testamentum Syriace IV/6 (Baars). Cf. also J. F. Trafton, The Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon. A Critical Evaluation (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 11), Atlanta GA 1985.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 625–652 (Gray); Kautzsch II, pp. 127–148 (Kittel); Riessler, pp. 881–902, 1322–1323; Sparks, pp. 649–682 (Brock); JSHRZ IV/2, pp. 49–112 (Holm-Nielsen); OTP II, pp. 639–670 (Wright); cf. likewise H. Ryle and M. R. James, op. cit., 1891; J. Viteau, op. cit., 1911; R. Harris and A. Mingana, op. cit., 1920; M. de Goeij, Psalmen van Salomo. IV Ezra. Martyrium van Jesaja (De Pseudepigrafen), Kampen s.d. [1980].

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 60–69; K.G. Kuhn, Die älteste Textgestalt der Psalmen Salomos, insbesondere auf Grund der syrischen Übersetzung neu untersucht, mit einer Bearbeitung und Übersetzung der Psalmen 13–17 (BWANT 4/21), Stuttgart 1937; J. Begrich, “Der Text der Psalmen Salomos”, ZNW 38 (1939), 131–164; M. Aberbach, “The Historical Allusions of Chapters IV, XI and XIII of the Psalms of Solomon”, JQR 41 (1950–1951), 379–396; H. Braun, “Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten. Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos”, ZNW 43 (1950–1951), 1–54 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Tübingen 1962, pp. 8–69); J. O’Dell, “The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon”, Revue de Qumrân 3 (1961–1962), 241–257; M. de Jonge, De toekomstverwachting in de Psalmen van Salomo (inaugural address), Leiden 1965; id., “The Expectation of the Future in the Psalms of Solomon”, Neotestamentica 23 (1989), 93–117; R. B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon, the Pharisees, and the Essenes”, in: R. A. Kraft (ed.), 1972 Proceedings International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Seminar, Missoula MT 1972, pp. 136–147; J. Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (ALGHJ 7), Leiden 1977; S. Holm-Nielsen, Religiöse Poesie des Spätjudentums, in: H. Temporini und W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Teil II Principat, Band 19,1: Religion

586

chapter thirteen

( Judentum: Allgemeines; Palästinisches Judentum), Berlin-New York 1979, pp. 152–186, spec. pp. 172–180; R. R. Hann, The Manuscript History of the Psalms of Solomon (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 13), Chico CA 1982; id., “The Community of the Pious: The Social Setting of the Psalms of Solomon”, Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 17 (1988), 169–189; W. L. Lane, “Paul’s Legacy from Pharisaism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon”, Concordia Journal 8 (1982), 130–138; J. L. Trafton, “The Psalms of Solomon: New Light from the Syriac Version?”, JBL 105 (1986), 227–237; id., “The ‘Psalms of Solomon’ in Recent Research”, JSP 12 (1994), 3–19; P. N. Franklyn, “The Cultic and Pious Climax of Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon”, JSJ 18 (1987), 1–17; J. Tromp, “The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17”, NovTest 35 (1993), 344–361; J. Schröter, “Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit: Das GottesBild der Psalmen Solomons in seinen Verhältnis zu Qumran und Paulus”, NTS 44 (1998), 557–577; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 507–546.

Preserved in Greek and (with the exception of the missing conclusion to the ﬁnal song) in Syriac, the 18 Psalms of Solomon were originally written in Hebrew.22 The title of the collection is remarkable when one considers the fact that the content of the songs makes it clear in every respect that they do not stem from King Solomon. While the most important literary genres known to us from the book of Psalms are also to be found here in the Psalms of Solomon, the latter tend to represent a mixture of forms in line with the characteristics of early Jewish psalmody and less typical of Old Testament psalms. In addition, the Psalms of Solomon tend as a rule to be less personal in nature, exhibiting greater evidence of the inﬂuence of later wisdom literature, and are more reﬂective in character than the psalms of the Old Testament. Parallels between the songs and the apocryphal psalms found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are worthy of interest and investigation. Several scholars have argued that the poems stem from Pharisaic circles (cf. Schüpphaus 1977; Lane 1982), although evidence in support of such a hypothesis remains thin (O’Dell 1961; Wright 1972). The majority of the Psalms of Solomon, in which the themes of God’s righteousness and the relationship between the righteous and the godless are most prominent, exhibit a type of piety that is too universal and timeless to be used as an element in ascribing an accurate date to the songs. The work nevertheless provides a number of clear allusions of a diﬀerent nature that relate to the period in which 22

The Syriac translation is almost certainly based on a Hebrew original.

pseudepigrapha

587

they came into existence. Psalm 8:14ﬀ., for example, contains reminiscences of the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompeii (63 BCE), an event which the author clearly considers to be an act of God’s righteous judgement. In its endorsement of God’s righteous deeds, Psalm 2 likewise expresses criticism of the Roman occupiers and makes allusion to the death of Pompeii (48 BCE; cf. 2:26–27). The expression “the foreigner, not of our descent” in 17:7 would also appear to refer to Pompeii (and not to Herod the Great as is sometimes suggested). Satisfaction at the fall of the Hasmoneans, who are represented as the godless par excellence, echoes throughout the Psalms. If one accepts the possibility that the songs were written by a single author then it would be reasonable to suggest that they were composed in the second half of the ﬁrst century CE. Psalms 17 and 18 are of particular interest on account of the fact that they give expression to messianic expectations and appeal to God to liberate Jerusalem from its pagan occupiers (= the Romans; Ps. 17:22ﬀ.). Psalm 2 already insists that the latter were not driven by their zeal for the things of God but by greed and self-indulgence and that their punishment would thus be unavoidable. The author places his hope, therefore, in “the king, the son of David”, to be awakened by God at “the time He has chosen” (17:12). As the anointed of the Lord “in the fear of God, and in wisdom, justice and strength inspired by the Spirit” (18:7) this ruler will lead the people to salvation.23

f. IV Maccabees Text editions Greek: Swete III, pp. 729–762; Rahlfs I, pp. 1157–1184; Syriac: R. L. Bensly and W. E. Barnes, The Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac, Cambridge 1895. 23 Cf. M. de Jonge, op. cit., 1965; G. L. Davenport, “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in the Psalms of Solomon 17”, in: J. J. Collins e.a. (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Proﬁles and Paradigms (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12), Ann Arbor Mich. 1980, pp. 67–92; R. R. Hann, “Christos Kurios in PsSol 17:32: The Lord’s Anointed Reconsidered”, NTS 31 (1985), 620–627; A. Caquot, “Les Hasmonéens, les Romains et Hérod”e, in: id. e.a. (eds.), Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage à V. Nikiprowetzky, Paris 1986, pp. 213–218; E. M. Laperrousaz, “Le milieu d’origine du 17e des psaumes (apocryphes) de Salomon”, REJ 150 (1991), 557–564.

588

chapter thirteen

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 653–685 (Townshend); Kautzsch II, pp. 149–177 (Deissmann); Riessler, pp. 700–728, 1313–1314; OTP, pp. 531–564 (Anderson); Metzger, pp. 309–329 ( Johnson); JSHRZ III/6, pp. 645–763 (Klauck); C. W. Emmet, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees, London 1918; A. Dupont-Sommer, La quatrième livre des Machabées. Introduction, traduction et notes, Paris 1939; M. Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees ( JAL), New York 1953.

Monographs and articles: H. Dörrie, Passio SS. Machabaeorum. Die antike lateinische Uebersetzung des IV. Makkabäerbuches, Göttingen 1938; H. W. Surkau, Martyrien in jüdischer und frühchristlicher Zeit (FRLANT 54), Göttingen 1938, pp. 14–29; E. Bickermann, “The Date of IV Maccabees”, Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, New York 1945, pp. 105–112 (= id., Studies in Jewish and Christian History I (AGJU 9/1), Leiden 1976, pp. 275–281); O. Perler, “Das vierte Makkabäerbuch, Ignatius von Antiochien und die ältesten Märtyrerberichte”, Rivista di archaeologia cristiana 25 (1949), 47–72; E. Bammel, “Zum jüdischen Märtyrerkult”, TLZ 78 (1953), 119–126; S. Lauer, “Eusebes Logismos in IV Macc.”, JJS 6 (1955), 521–549; E. Günther, “Zeuge und Märtyrer”, ZNW 47 (1956), 145–161; R. Renehan, “The Greek Philosophic Background of Fourth Maccabees”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 115 (1972), 223–238; J. C. H. Lebram, “Die literarische Form des vierten Makkabäerbuches”, Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974), 81–96; A. O’Hagan, “The Martyr in the Fourth Book of Maccabees”, Liber Annuus. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 24 (1974), 94–120; M. Schatkin, “The Maccabean Martyrs”, ibid., pp. 97–113; U. Breitenstein, Beobachtungen zu Sprache, Stil und Gedankengut des vierten Makkabäerbuches, Basel-Stuttgart 1976, 19782; P. L. Redditt, “The Concept of Nomos in Fourth Maccabees”, CBQ 45 (1983), 249–270; J. W. van Henten, “Datierung und Herkunft des Vierten Makkabäerbuches”, in: J. W. van Henten e.a. (eds.), Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Essays in Honour of J. C. H. Lebram (Studia Post-Biblica 36), Leiden 1986, pp. 136–149; B. Heininger, “Der böse Antiochus. Eine Studie zur Erzähltechnik des 4. Makkabäerbuches”, BZ 33 (1989), 43–59; B. Schaller, “Das 4. Makkabäerbuch als Textzeuge der Septuaginta”, in: D. Fraenkel e.a. (eds.), Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (MSU 20), Göttingen 1990, pp. 323–331; R. Weber, “Eusebeia und Logismos. Zum philosophischen Hintergrund von 4. Makkabäer”, JSJ 22 (1991), 212–234; J. W. van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People. A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (Suppl. JSJ 57), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997 (lit.!); D. A deSilva, 4 Maccabees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheﬃeld 1998; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 561–573.

Consisting of 18 chapters in total, the Fourth Book of Maccabees was written in Greek and has been preserved in several manuscripts

pseudepigrapha

589

of the Septuagint. The fact that the book was ascribed in ancient times, and for reasons that remain a mystery, to Flavius Josephus explains why the work has also been preserved in a number of Josephus’ manuscripts. In the present author’s opinion, the title frequently employed in the latter “On the supremacy of reason” does most justice to the nature and content of the document. While one might characterise the text as a philosophical-theological tractate (diatribè), 3:19–18:24 also exhibit formal and content based similarities with Greek eulogies (epitaphios logos; Lebram 1974). In the Peshitta the work is to be found under the title “The Fourth Book of the Maccabeans and their Mother”. It is lacking in the Vulgate. The designation IV Maccabees has its roots in the book’s evident kinship with II Maccabees. The prologue of the document (1:1–12) introduces the theme of the supremacy of reason over human passions and then proceeds to elaborate on the activities of Jacob, Moses and David with the help, among other things, of Old Testament examples (1:13–3:18). After an historical introduction on the intrigues of Simon, who thwarted the High Priest Onias III, Apollonius’ attack on the temple in Jerusalem (3:19–4:14; a parallel in fact of Heliodorus’ attempt to plunder the temple, cf. 2 Macc. 3:7–34) and the cruel treatment of the Jews by the tyrannical Antiochus IV Epiphanes (4:15–26), the author returns to the theme of the supremacy of reason, which he illustrates on the basis of the martyrdom of Eleazar (5:1–7:24) and that of the seven brothers and their mother (8:1–17:6; cf. 2 Macc. 6:18–7:42). The work ends with a reﬂection on the consequences of martyrdom (17:7–18:5) and a song of praise leading into the mother’s ﬁnal address to her children (18:6–23). In spite of his knowledge of Greek rhetoric and (Platonic and Stoic) philosophy, the author of the document was clearly a Jew whose theological concerns evidently took pride of place. He endeavours to defend obedience to God and the Law as the highest wisdom and the greatest virtue, employing examples from history in an attempt to show that the Law of God granted to Israel made it possible for the human spirit to exercise the Greek virtues of level-headedness, righteousness, bravery and goodness. In an apologetic-missionary fashion, the author integrates the Jewish Torah as Law with Hellenistic, ethically determined Bildungswissen. In addition, the author’s opinions on the surrogate suﬀering of the martyrs on behalf of their land and people (1:11; 6:28–29; 17:21–22) and the immortality of the soul (9:22; 14:5–6; 16:13; 17:12; 18:23) are worthy of note.

590

chapter thirteen

The work was written in the diaspora (possibly in Asia Minor, cf. Van Henten 1997, pp. 78–81). Given its dependence on II Maccabees, it cannot have been composed prior to the second half of the ﬁrst century BCE. It should probably be dated to around 100 CE (Van Henten 1997, pp. 73–78). IV Maccabees was held in high esteem by a signiﬁcant number of Church Fathers (including John Chrysostom, Ambrose and Augustine), as if it were a Christian document in which those who had persevered in the Maccabean period were considered the “ﬁrst Christian martyrs”.

g. The Sibylline Oracles Text editions: Greek: Ch. Alexandre, Oracula Sibyllina I/1, Paris 1841, I/2, Paris 1853; J. Geﬀcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina (GCS 8), Leipzig 1902 (reprint 1967; standard edition); A. Kurfess, Sibyllinische Weissagungen. Urtext und Übersetzung, Munich 1951; V. Nikiprowetzky, La Troisième Sibylle (Etudes Juives 9), Paris 1970 (text and translation).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 386–406 (Lanchester); Kautzsch II, pp. 177–217 (Blass); Riessler, pp. 1014–1045, 1326–1328; JSHRZ V/8 (Merkel; = book III–V together with three fragments from the apologetic work Ad Autolychum written by Bishop Theophilus of Antioch shortly after 180 CE); OTP I, pp. 317–472 (Collins); Hennecke-Schneemelcher, pp. 498–528 (Kurfess); Ch. Alexandre, op. cit., I (1841; 1853), II: Excursus ad Sibyllina, Paris 1856; H. N. Bate, The Sibylline Oracles, Books III–V (TED), London 1918.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 111–122; J. Geﬀcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina (TU 23, NF 8.1), Leipzig 1902, reprint 1967; A. Kurfess, “Horaz und Vergil und die jüdische Sibylle”, Pastor Bonus 45 (1934), 414–423; id., “Oracula Sibyllina I–II”, ZNW 40 (1941), 151–165; id., “Wie sind die Fragmente der Oracula Sibyllina einzuordnen?”, Aevum 26 (1952), 228–235; id., “Juvenal und die Sibylle”, Judaica 10 (1954), 60–63; id., “Vergils vierte Ekloge und die Oracula Sibyllina”, Historisches Jahrbuch 73 (1954), 120–127; id., “Oracula Sibyllina XI (IX)–XIV (XII) nicht christlich, sondern jüdisch”,

pseudepigrapha

591

Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 7 (1955), 270–272; id., “Zum V. Buch der Oracula Sibyllina”, Rheinisches Museum 99 (1956), 225–241; id., “Horaz und die Sibyllinen”, Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 8 (1956), 253–256; id., “Homer und Hesiod im 1. Buch der Oracula Sibyllina”, Philologus 100 (1956), 147–153; id., “Dies irae (zum sog. II. Buch der Oracula Sibyllina)”, Historisches Jahrbuch 77 (1958), 328–338; H. Jeanmaire, La Sibylle et le retour de l’âge d’or, Paris 1939; E. Kocsis, “Ost-West Gegensatz in den jüdischen Sibyllinen”, Novum Testamentum 5 (1962), 105–110; B. Noack, “Are the Essenes Referred to in the Sibylline Oracles?”, Studia Theologica 17 (1963), 90–102; E. Sackur, Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen, Halle 1963; V. Nikiprowetzky, “La Sibylle juive et le ‘Troisième Livre’ des ‘Pseudo-Oracles Sibyllins’ depuis Charles Alexandre”, ANRW 2/20/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 460–542; J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBL Dissertation Series 13), Missoula MT 1974 (on Or. Sib. 3–5); id., “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition”, in: ANRW 2/20/1, Berlin 1987, pp. 421–459; H. Kippenberg, “Dann wird der Orient herrschen und der Okzident dienen”, in: N. W. Bolz und W. Hübener (eds.), Spiegel und Gleichnis (FS J. Taubes), Würzburg 1983, pp. 40–48; L. Kreitzer, “Hadrian and the Nero Redivivus Myth”, ZNW 79 (1988), 92–115; A. Chester, “The Sibyl and the Temple”, in: W. Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae (Suppl. JSNT 48; FS E. Bammel), Sheﬃeld 1991, pp. 37–69; A. Wolters, “Halley’s Comet at a Turning Point in Jewish History”, CBQ 55 (1993), 687–697; J. J. Collins, Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Suppl. JSJ 54), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997, pp. 181–235; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 947–992.

In classical antiquity, the sibyls included charismatically gifted elderly women among their ranks who, after working themselves into a state of ecstatic rapture, provided oracles, the majority of which tended to predict doom and disaster. While allusion was originally made to a single sibyl, later gentile, Jewish and Christian Sibylline books bear witness to the fact that they were evidently numerous. Indeed, many cities and regions boasted about the fact that they had their own sibyl. Written in hexametric style, the oracles tended to be highly revered throughout the Graeco-Roman world, thus explaining in part why the Jews employed the genre as a vehicle for their own insights. In the text under consideration, the sibyl is elevated to the status of Noah’s daughter (-in-law; cf. 3:827). She sings Israel’s praises, warns against idolatry, threatens Israel’s enemies with judgement and predicts the course of history that is to end with the coming of the messiah. Christian circles also created sibylline oracles and reworked already existing material. The texts that we now have at our disposal were probably not collected together prior to the ﬁfth century CE. The 12 remaining books consist of two collections (1–8 and

592

chapter thirteen

11–14), given the fact that books 9 and 10 repeat material from the ﬁrst collection. The books that have been preserved stem from a variety of places (3, 5 and 11–14 from Egypt, 4, 6 and 7 possibly from Syria, 1 and 2 from Phrygia and 8 from an otherwise unknown territory in the Near East) and times (from the middle of the twelfth century BCE to the seventh century CE). Books 3–5 of this “disorderly chaos of transmitted works” (Beek) can be identiﬁed as particularly Jewish. Book 3, which almost certainly stems from Egypt (cf. vv. 155–161, 191–193), clearly came into existence in stages, the core consisting of vv. 97–349 and 489–829, which would appear to stem from the second century BCE or shortly thereafter. Other segments are to be dated later. Vv. 350–488 can be divided into four oracles: one directed against Rome (350–380) and written immediately before the battle of Actium (31 BCE); two directed against the Macedonians (381–387; 388–400); prophecies relating to a variety of disasters (401–488). The composite character of vv. 1–96 presupposes the period after the battle of Actium up to the time of Emperor Nero. Book 4 alludes to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (79 CE) and can be dated in its ﬁnal redaction to the ﬁrst century of the Common Era. In its ﬁnal form book 5 stems from the end of the ﬁrst or the beginning of the second century CE.24 The Sibylline oracles continued to attract attention in the Christian tradition into the late Middle Ages. The ﬁrst strophe of the Dies irae, ascribed to Thomas of Celano (died around 1255), represents a good example thereof: Dies irae, dies illa solvet saeclum in favilla teste David et Sibylla.

h. I Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) The Jewish prototype of the Christian Dante

24 For an extended analysis of books 3–5 cf. J. J. Collins, OTP I, pp. 354–361; 381–383; 390–392, and H. Merkel, JSHRZ V, pp. 1059–1070.

pseudepigrapha

593

Text editions: Ethiopic: A. Dillmann, Liber Henoch aethiopice, Leipzig 1851; J. Flemming, Das Buch Henoch. Äthiopischer Text (TU VII, 1), Leipzig 1902; R. H. Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11), Oxford 1906; M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, Volume I: Text and Apparatus; Volume II: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford 1978 (best edition!); Greek fragments: Swete III, pp. 789–808; J. Flemming and L. Rademacher, Das Buch Henoch (GCS 5), Leipzig 1901; C. Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (Studies and Documents 8), London 1937 (reprint Darmstadt 1968); M. Black, Apocalypsis Henochi graece (PVTG 3), Leiden 1970, pp. 1–44; J. T. Milik, “Fragments grecs du Livre d’Hénoch (P. Oxy. xvii 2069)”, Chronique d’Egypte 46 (1971), 321–343; Aramaic fragments: J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, Oxford 1976; Syriac fragment: S.P. Brock, “A Fragment of Enoch in Syriac”, JThS 19 (1968), 626–631 (= 1 En. 6:1–6); Coptic fragment: S. Donadini, “Un fragmento della versione copta del “Libro di Enoch””, Acta Orientalia 25 (1960), 197–202 (= 1 En. 93:3–8); Latin fragment: M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota (Texts and Studies II,3), Cambridge 1893, pp. 146–150 (= 1 En. 106:1–18 in abbreviated form, probably stemming from the Book of Noah).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 161–281 (Charles); Kautzsch II, pp. 217–310 (Beer); Riessler, pp. 355–451, 1291–1297; JSHRZ V/6, pp. 461–780 (Uhlig); OTP I, pp. 5–89 (Isaac); Sparks, pp. 169–319 (Knibb); F. Martin, Le Livre d’Hénoch (Documents pour l’étude de la Bible 1), Paris 1906; R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, Oxford 19122; M. Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch. A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes (SVTP 7), Leiden 1985; M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book II (see above).

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 15–30; E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch, Lund 1946; C. P. van Andel, De structuur van de Henoch-traditie en het Nieuwe Testament (Studia Theologica Rheno-Traiectina 2), Utrecht 1955; P. Grelot, “La légende d’Hénoch dans les Apocryphes et dans la Bible, origine et signiﬁcance”, RSR 46 (1958), 5–26, 181–210; id., “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales”, RB 65 (1958), 33–69; id., “L’eschatologie des Esséniens et le livre d’Hénoch”, Revue de Qumrân 1 (1958–1959), 113–131; E. Ullendorﬀ, “An Aramaic “Vorlage” of the Ethiopic Text of Enoch?”, Atti del convegno internazionale di studi etiopici (Academia Nazionale dei Lincei. Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura 48), Rome 1960, pp. 259–267; J. C.

594

chapter thirteen

Hindley, “Toward a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch. An Historical Approach”, NTS 14 (1968), 551–565. Literature dealing with 1 Enoch has increased to such an extent in the last 25 years that it would be impossible to provide a complete survey in the present volume. Cf. A. Lehnardt, Bibliographie zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-jüdischer Zeit (Supplementa JSHRZ VI/2), Gütersloh 1999, pp. 423–447 and for 1970–1988 F. García Martínez & E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “1 Enoch and the Figure of Enoch. A Bibliography of Studies 1970–1988”, Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989–1990), 149–174. J. T. Milik, “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumrân”, HThR 64 (1971), 333–378; P. Grelot, “Hénoch et ses écritures”, RB 82 (1971), 481–500; J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter. Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12), Göttingen 1975; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch 97–104, a Study of the Greek and Ethiopic Texts”, in: M. E. Stone (ed.), Armenian and Biblical Studies, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 90–156; id., “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11”, HThR 70 (1977), 383–405; id., “The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Enoch 92–105”, CBQ 39 (1977), 309–328; J. C. Greenﬁeld and M. Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes”, HThR 70 (1977), 51–65; P. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in I Enoch 6–11”, JBL 96 (1977), 195–233; M. E. Stone, “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century BCE”, CBQ 40 (1978), 479–492; id., “Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins”, JSJ 19 (1987), 159–170; J. H. Charlesworth, “The SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminars at Tübingen and Paris on the Books of Enoch”, NTS 25 (1979), 315–323; M. A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review”, NTS 25 (1979), 345–359; J. C. Greenﬁeld & M. E. Stone, “The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch”, Numen 26 (1979), 89–103; D. W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (SBL Dissertation Series 47), Missoula, MT 1979; id., “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16”, HUCA 50 (1979), 115–135; Ch. L. Mears, “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch”, NTS 25 (1979), 360–369; M. Delcor, “Le livre des Paraboles d’Hénoch éthiopien. Le problème de son origine à la lumière des découvertes récentes”, Estudios Bíblicos 38 (1979–1980), 5–33; M. Barker, “Some Reﬂections upon the Enoch Myth”, JSOT 15 (1980), 7–29; C. Colpe, “Neue Untersuchungen zum Menschensohn-Problem”, Theologische Revue 77 (1981), 353–371; M. Black, “The Composition, Character and Date of the ‘Second Vision of Enoch’”, in: Text, Wort, Glaube (FS Kurt Aland), Berlin 1980, pp. 19–30; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “noch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee”, JBL 100 (1981), 575–600; id., “The Books of Enoch in Recent Research”, Religious Studies Review 7 (1981), 210–217; D. W. Suter, “Weighed in the Balance: The Similitudes of Enoch in Recent Discussion”, ibid., 217–221; R. A. Coughenour, “The Wisdom Stance of Enoch’s Redactor”, JSJ 13 (1982), 47–55; J. C. VanderKam, “Some Major Issues in the Contemporary Study of 1 Enoch: Reﬂections on J. T. Milik’s The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4”, Maarav 3 (1982), 85–97; J. J. Collins, “The Apocalyptic

pseudepigrapha

595

Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers”, CBQ 44 (1982), 91–111; Devorah Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch”, VT 33 (1983), 14–29; G. Bampfylde, “The Similitudes of Enoch: Historical Allusions”, JSJ 15 (1984), 9–31; Corrie Molenberg, “A Study of the Roles of Shemihaza and Asael in Enoch 6–11”, JJS 25 (1984), 136–146; J. C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQ Monograph Series 16), Washington DC 1984; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “1 Enoch and Qumran Origins: The State of the Question and Some Prospects for Answers”, SBL Abstracts and Seminar Papers 1986, pp. 341–360; M. Barker, The Lost Prophet. The Book of Enoch and its Inﬂuence on Christianity, London 1988; M. E. Stone, “Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins”, JSJ 19 (1988), 159–170; M. Black, “A Bibliography of 1 Enoch in the Eighties”, JSP 5 (1989), 3–16; F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Books of Enoch (1 Enoch) and the Aramaic Fragments from Qumran”, Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989–1990), 131–146; F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts of Qumran (STDJ 9), Leiden 1992, pp. 1–115; J. C. VanderKam, Enoch. A Man for All Generations (Studies in the Personalities of the Old Testament), Columbia 1995; R. A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgement (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 8), Atlanta GA 1995; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End. Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS 35), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996, pp. 134–213; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 59–144.

The ﬁgure of Enoch “the seventh after Adam” enjoys a prominent place among those whose name is associated with revelations concerning the future and extraterrestrial realities. Gen. 5:24 relates how he walked with ha-"èlohîm, a Hebrew term later used by way of preference for “the angels”, whereby he had direct access to their knowledge and to the heavenly registers of destiny. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a cycle of apocalyptic writings developed around him, including the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (1 Enoch), which represents a library in itself, and the Second or Slavonic Book of Enoch (2 Enoch), which we will discuss in the following paragraph. Reference should be made in addition to the Third or Hebrew Book of Enoch (3 Enoch),25 a rabbinic compendium of traditions associated with the patriarch stemming from the third or fourth century CE and as such far beyond the remit of the present study. The customary designations “Ethiopic”, “Slavonic” and “Hebrew” serve to indicate that the documents have only survived in complete form in the respective languages. 25 Cf. H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or The Hebrew Book of Enoch. Reprinted with Prolegomena by J. C. Greenﬁeld, New York 1973.

596

chapter thirteen

The Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch consists of ﬁve diﬀerent works stemming from diﬀerent periods that originally circulated independently. The translation was probably based on a Greek original,26 of which three substantial fragments are known to us (Black 1970). The Greek version is based in its turn on an originally Aramaic text, the remains of numerous copies of which have been found in Cave 4 of Qumran (Milik 1976). The latter shed new light on the genesis and evolution of four of the ﬁve constituent parts of 1 Enoch. The Hebrew fragments found in Cave 1 of Qumran, which would appear to belong to 1 Enoch (1Q19, see DJD I, pp. 84–86 and 1Q19bis, see DJD I, p. 154), stem in essence from the Book of Noah.27 After a general introduction (1–5), the Book of Watchers or the Book of Angelology (1–36)28 consists of a narrative describing the fall of the angels (following on Gen. 6:1–4), who had violated the daughters of humankind, and the fate that they and the giants that were born as the oﬀspring of their union ultimately encountered (6–11). The once independent segment encompassing chapters 12–16 relates how Enoch’s intercession on behalf of the fallen angels was rejected and

26

Although E. Ullendorﬀ, op. cit., 1960, considers it possible that the Ethiopic text represents a direct translation from the Aramaic, M. A. Knibb, op. cit., II 1978, p. 22,38–39, maintains that the Ethiopic translators employed an Aramaic text in addition to a Greek version. 27 Cf. F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1992, pp. 24–44 and F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition Vol. I, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1997, pp. 24–25 for this and the remaining fragments of the Book of Noah. 28 G. E. Ladd, “The Kingdom of God in I Enoch: The First Book 1–36”, Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (1953), 32–49; L. Hartman, Asking for a Meaning. A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5, Lund, 1979; M. Delcor, “Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants comme explication du mal dans le monde dans l’apocalyptique juive: Histoire des traditions”, RHR 190 (1976), 3–53; P.D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11”, JBL 96 (1977), 195–233; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11”, JBL 96 (1977), 383–405; D. Dimant, “1 Enoch 6–11. A Methodological Perspective”, SBL Seminar Papers I (1978), pp. 323–339; R. Rubinkiewicz, Die Eschatologie von Henoch 9–11 und das Neue Testament, Lublin, 1980; C. A. Newsom, “The Development of 1 Enoch 6–19: Cosmology and Judgement”, CBQ 42 (1980), 310–329; J. J. Collins, “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers”, CBQ 44 (1982), 91–111; J. C. Thom, “Aspects of the Form, Meaning and Function of the Book of Watchers”, Neotestamentica 17 (1983), 40–49; H. S. Kvanvig, “Henoch und der Menschensohn. Das Verhältnis von Hen 14 zu Dan 7”, Studia Theologica 38 (1984), 101–133; C. Molenberg, “A Study of the Roles of Shemihaza and Asael in Enoch 6–11”, JJS 35 (1984), 136–146; M. Himmelfarb, “From Prophecy to Apocalypse: The Book of Watchers and Tours of Heaven”, in: A. Green (ed.), Jewish Spirituality I, New York 1986, pp. 145–165; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., 1996.

pseudepigrapha

597

how he was obliged instead to serve notice of judgement to them and to the giants. Together with chapters 12–16, chapters 17–36 represent an “‘I’ narrative” with Enoch himself as subject, in which he provides a report of two journeys during which all sorts of secrets were disclosed to him together with every place from the underworld to paradise. The Book of Similitudes (37–71),29 also referred to as the Bilderreden, exhibits dependence on the Astronomical Book (see below) and the Book of Watchers. With the exception of a short introduction (37), the book can be subdivided into three parts. The ﬁrst part (38–44) describes how Enoch was taken up into heaven where he beheld the dwelling place of the righteous, the angels and the messiah and where all the mysteries of the heavens were revealed to him. The second part (45–57) is dedicated to a description of the messiah, the messianic era and the judgement that the messiah will bring to bear on the entire world. The third part (58–71) contains a number of revelations associated with astronomical phenomena, the blessedness of the righteous and the judgement that the “Son of humankind” will deliver, together with other material, including a description of the ascension of Enoch and his appointment as “Son of humankind” (71), that would appear to have been added at a later date. The status ascribed in the Similitudes to the pre-existent, heavenly “Son of humankind” (46:3ﬀ.; 48:2; 62:7,9 etc.), who is designated as the “chosen one” (45:3ﬀ.; 52:6; 62:1) and as the “anointed” (messiah) (48:10; 52:4), is worthy of particular note. He represents the elected and was chosen by God before the creation of the world (46:3; 48:6). When this righteous ﬁgure “who reveals all hidden treasures” (46:3; cf. Col. 2:3) appears on earth he shall be “a staﬀ for the righteous and the saints” and a “light for the nations” (48:4), and he shall adjudge the fallen angels and sinful humanity (55:4; 69:29). He thus

29 In addition to the above mentioned studies on the Similitudes and the Son of Man problem see M. Black, “The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch”, JThS 3 (1952), 1–10; Th. W. Manson, “The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels”, BJRL 32 (1949–1950), 171–193 (= id., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, Manchester-Philadelphia 1962, pp. 123–145); J. Muilenburg, “The Son of Man in Daniel and the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch”, JBL 79 (1960), 197–209; A. Caquot et P. Geoltrain, “Notes sur le texte éthiopien des “Paraboles” d’Hénoch”, Semitica 13 (1963), 39–54; D. W. Suter, “The Measure of Redemption: The Similitudes of Enoch. Nonviolence and National Integrity”, SBL Seminar Papers 1983, pp. 167–176; G. Bampfylde, “The Similitudes of Enoch. Historical Allusions”, JSJ 15 (1984), 9–31.

598

chapter thirteen

embodies the characteristics associated with the Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah, the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and the royal messiah. Based in part on this observation, some scholars have argued that the Similitudes should be considered as the work of a Christian author or at least as having been reworked by a Christian hand. The fact that the manuscripts of 1 Enoch discovered at Qumran do not contain a single fragment of the Similitudes has served to support recent and renewed defence of the hypothesis.30 The work, however, contains nothing that one might regard as typically Christian (there are no allusions to incarnation or resurrection). It is perhaps best understood as representing a tradition-historical stage between Daniel 7, in which the “one like a son of man” appears after the judgement of the world, and the New Testament gospels, according to which the “Son of Man” shall appear as judge.31 A Christian author would not have identiﬁed this ﬁgure with Enoch (chapter 71). It is probable, therefore, that the Similitudes were written towards the end of the ﬁrst century BCE32 or in the ﬁrst quarter of the ﬁrst century CE.33 It is not surprising that the Similitudes are not represented among the manuscripts of the library of the community at Qumran since the latter did not incorporate a single document into its library that had come to light elsewhere after it had established itself in its desert retreat (around 130 BCE). The Astronomical Book (72–82)34 consists of a number of instructions given by Enoch concerning the course of the stars, the path of the winds and the solar calendar of 364 days, the latter taken from a revelation granted him by the archangel Uriel. Already familiar to the author of Jubilees ( Jub. 4:17f.), it is evident from the Qumran manuscripts that the book exhibits a summarising and confused char-

30 According to J. T. Milik, the Book of Giants (see below) in 1 Enoch was replaced by the Similitudes around 400 CE, thus constituting the latter as a relatively late Christian work. 31 Cf. M. Casey, “The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch”, JSJ 7 (1976), 11–29. 32 Based on this date some scholars have endeavoured to argue that 1 Enoch 56:6 represents an allusion to the invasion of Palestine by the Persians in 40 BCE. 33 In support of this date scholars appeal to agreements between the Similitudes and the Jewish apocalypses of the last decennia of the ﬁrst century CE together with the Apocalypse of John (cf. Knibb 1978). 34 O. Neugebauer, The “Astronomical” Chapters of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (72–82): Translation and Commentary, Copenhagen 1981; U. Glessmer, “Das astronomische Henoch-Buch als Studienobjekt”, BN 36 (1987), 62–129.

pseudepigrapha

599

acter in the Ethiopic tradition in relation to the original Aramaic text. The Book of Dream Visions (83–90) consists of two revelations granted to Enoch. In the ﬁrst (83–84) he describes the (impending) devastation of humanity by the ﬂood to his son Methuselah together with his prayer for the deliverance of the righteous. With the help of animal symbolism, the second (85–90)35 describes the history of the world, and in particular the history of Israel, from the time of the white calf (Adam) to the appearance of the white calf with great horns (the messiah). The dating of this segment depends on one’s identiﬁcation of the ram with the great horn alluded in advance of the portrayal of the ﬁnal judgement and the advent of the messiah (90:9). Given the probability that the allusion refers to Judas the Maccabean, the work must therefore have emerged prior to the latter’s death in 161 BCE. The Epistle of Enoch (91–105),36 otherwise known as the Book of Exhortations, c.q. the Book of Paranesis, contains the so-called “Ten Week Apocalypse” (93 and 91:12–17),37 which oﬀers a description of world history from the creation to the ﬁnal judgement presented in the form of a ten “week” schema of which seven “weeks” have already passed. While the seventh week was characterised by apostasy, the theme of the eighth week shall be justice, that of the ninth judgement and that of the tenth the great judgement to be followed by eternal salvation. The book also contains a number of warnings addressed by Enoch to his sons, lamenting the fate of the godless and praising the perseverance of the righteous.

35 P. A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 4), Atlanta GA 1993. 36 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Enoch 91–105”, CBQ 39 (1977), 309–328; id., “Riches, the Rich, and God’s Judgement in 1 Enoch 92–105 and the Gospel According to Luke”, NTS 25 (1979), 324–344; id., “The Epistle of Enoch and the Qumran Literature”, JSS 33 (1982), 333–348. 37 J. W. Doeve, “Parousieverzögerung”, NTT 17 (1962–1963), 32–38: id., “De tien-weken-apokalyps (I Henoch 93:1–10; 91:12–17): een Qumrandocument”, in: Vruchten van de Uithof (FS H. A. Brongers), Utrecht 1974, pp. 7–27; F. Dexinger, Henochs Zehnwochenapokalypse und oﬀene Fragen der Apokalyptikforschung, Leiden 1977; K. Koch, “Sabbatstruktur der Geschichte. Die sogenannte Zehn-Wochen-Apokalypse und das Ringen um die alttestamentlichen Chronologien im späten Israelitentum”, ZAW 95 (1983), 403–430; J. C. VanderKam, “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–17)”, CBQ 46 (1984), 511–523; S. B. Reid, “The Structure of the Ten Week Apocalypse and the Book of Dream Visions”, JSJ 16 (1985), 189–201.

600

chapter thirteen

The ﬁve constituent parts of 1 Enoch are concluded by two appendices: one taken from the Book of Noah (106–107), in which mention is made of the latter’s miraculous birth (cf. the Genesis Apocryphon from Cave 1 of Qumran, column II, and 4QMess ar = 4Q534),38 and a second (108), borrowed from “another book written by Enoch” that serves to round oﬀ the entire collection. Thanks to the (albeit fragmentary) copies of 1 Enoch39 (with the exception of the Similitudes) it has become possible to trace the genesis and evolution of the collection with some degree of accuracy. Two manuscripts of the Book of Watchers have survived in the library of Qumran (4QEna and 4QEnb) that would appear to have contained nothing else, thus serving as evidence that the work in question was once in circulation as an independent document. One of these documents stems from the beginning of the second century BCE, thereby suggesting that the original work must have come into existence in the third century BCE. This fact not only sets the Book of Watchers aside as the oldest known apocalypse, to be dated long before the ﬁnal redaction of the Book of Daniel (165 BCE), it also serves to separate the origins of apocalyptic from the crisis that led to the Maccabean revolt (167–164 BCE). The manuscripts reveal, in addition, that the redactional process whereby the introduction, the two versions of the fall of the angels and later theological reﬁnements were woven together, must have achieved written form prior to the second century BCE. In light of 4QEnd and 4QEne, the Book of Watchers and the Book of Dream Visions were already associated with one another before the beginning of the ﬁrst century BCE. 4QEnc, which stems from the end of the ﬁrst century BCE, is familiar with the connection between the Book of Watchers and the Book of Dream Visions, the Epistle of Enoch and an additional work related to Enoch (the Book of Giants, see below). While the Astronomical Book is likewise to be found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, albeit in a more extended and more complete form than that of the Ethiopic text, the Qumran version does not constitute part of a collection of Enoch documents. Although a manuscript (4QEnf ) dating from the middle of the second century BCE may oﬀer evidence in support of the hypothesis that the Book of Dream Visions was in circulation at that time in an independent form, deﬁnitive conclusions have not yet been established. Three other manuscripts from a later period contain segments of the Dream Visions, when the latter was already associated with other Enoch documents.

38

See F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, pp. 1–44. Cf. J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch, and F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, pp. 45–96. 39

pseudepigrapha

601

The beginning of the Epistle of Enoch has become somewhat confused in the Ethiopic tradition. Fortunately, however, one of the better preserved Enoch manuscripts from Qumran (4QEng ) provides us with the opportunity to re-establish the original sequence of the sub-division of the “Ten Week Apocalypse” (93 and 91:12–17). The characteristics of the manuscript serve as evidence that it contained nothing more than the Epistle of Enoch, thus suggesting that the latter was likewise once in circulation as an independent work. The manuscript conﬁrms, moreover, that the “Ten Week Apocalypse” constituted an integral part of the Epistle and was not added at a later date. A further copy dating from the ﬁrst century BCE, in which the Epistle is already associated with other books (4QEnc), contains a segment of chapters 106–107, which are borrowed from the Book of Noah. This supports the hypothesis that the conclusion of the collection had already been added to the whole at that time. Given the fact that chapters 106–107 of the said manuscript are separated from chapter 105 by two unwritten lines, one can conclude that the material in question serves to round oﬀ the material collected in 1 Enoch as a whole and not simply the Epistle of Enoch. Since the latter document would appear to be presupposed in the Book of Jubilees (4:17–19), it must have already existed in the ﬁrst half of the second century BCE (for the dating of Jubilees see above under c).

The traditions associated with the ﬁgure of Enoch, “this Jewish prototype of the Christian Dante”, which have found their way into 1 Enoch, exhibit striking parallels with the data found in Daniel, Jubilees and a variety of documents discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it remains diﬃcult to determine the religious-historical context in which the autonomous books ﬁrst saw the light of day, the discovery of the Aramaic manuscripts at Qumran undermines the possibility that the Book of Watchers, the Astronomical Book, the Dream Visions and the Epistle of Enoch emerged from Pharisaic circles or from the community of Qumran on account of the period in which they came into existence. The Enoch manuscripts discovered at Qumran also include fragments of the Book of Giants40 (cf. Gen. 6:4), which was later to serve as a source of inspiration for Mani (216–276), the founder of the Manichean sect. Scholars were already aware of the fact that a Book of Giants had once existed in classical antiquity because the title thereof is mentioned by Georgius Syncellus (died 806 CE) and it is 40 Cf. F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, pp. 97–115; L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran. Text, Translation, and Commentary (TSAJ 63), Tübingen 1997.

602

chapter thirteen

alluded to among the apocryphal books in the Decretum Gelasianum from the sixth century CE. The contents of the document, however, had remained unknown until the discovery of fragments of translations and summaries of Mani’s work at Turfan (Iran)41 and the discovery of the remnants of about ten Aramaic manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls.42 Based on the information provided by these manuscripts, the Book of Giants consisted of a summary of the Book of Watchers, made detailed reference to the names and deeds of the giants, distinguished between the punishment meted out to the fallen angel Azazel and the imprisonment of Shemihaza, elaborated on the discussions between the latter and the incarcerated giants, related the dreams of Ohya and Hahya, which led to a double mission on the part of Mahaway to Enoch to ask for his explanation thereof, and Enoch’s response in which the giants are rebuked and God is praised. Other material preserved in the Manichean work yet lacking in the Aramaic text alludes, among other things, to the battle between the giant Ohya and Leviathan (see, for example, Isa. 27:1) and Mahaway, together with the ultimate extermination of the giants at the hands of the angels. In short, the original Book of Giants evidently consisted of four segments: a summary of the Book of Watchers, a segment relating the deeds of the giants prior to their incarceration, a segment relating the dreams of the incarcerated giants and the missions to Enoch, and the prayer of Enoch with which the book apparently ended. In like fashion to the already mention sub-divisions of 1 Enoch, the Book of Giants, which must have come into existence in the course of the second century BCE, was originally in circulation as an independent work. From the middle of the ﬁrst century BCE, however, it is found in association with other documents from the Enoch cycle.

41 J. T. Milik, Turfan et Qumrân. “Livre des Géants juif et manichéen”, in G. Jeremias e.a., Tradition und Glaube (FS Kuhn), Göttingen 1971, pp. 117–127; H. J. Klimkeit, “Der Buddha Henoch: Qumran und Turfan”, ZRGG 32 (1980), 367–377. 42 J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch, pp. 298–339.

pseudepigrapha

603

i. II Enoch (Slavonic Enoch) Text editions: Slavonic: A. Vaillant, Le livre des secrets d’Hénoch. Texte slave et traduction française, Paris 1952 (reprint 1976); Latin fragment: M. Förster, “Adams Erschaﬀung und Namengebung. Ein lateinisches Fragment des s.g. slavischen Henoch”, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11 (1908), 477–529.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 425–469 (Forbes-Charles); Riessler, pp. 452–473, 1297–1298; OTP I, pp. 91–221 (Andersen); JSHRZ V/7, pp. 781–1040 (Böttrich; lit.!); Sparks, pp. 321–362 (Pennington); R. H. Charles and W. R. Morﬁll, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Dublin/Oxford 1896; G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Bücher der Geheimnisse Henochs: Das sogenannte slavische Henochbuch (TU 44/2), Leipzig 1922; A. Vaillant, op. cit., 1952.

Monographs and articles: A. S. D. Maunder, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch, The Observatory 41 (1918), 309–316; J. K. Fotheringham, “The Date and the Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch”, JThS 20 (1919), 252; id., “The Easter Calendar and the Slavonic Enoch”, JThS 23 (1922), 49–56; N. Schmidt, “The Two Recensions of Slavonic Enoch”, JAOS 41 (1921), 307–312; R. H. Charles, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch”, JThS 22 (1921), 161–163; L. Gry, “Quelques noms d’anges et d’êtres mystérieux en II Hénoch”, RB 49 (1940), 195–204; A. Rubinstein, “Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch”, JJS 13 (1962), 1–21; F. Repp, “Textkritische Untersuchungen zum Henoch-Apokryph des cod. slav. 125 der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek”, Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 10 (1963), 58–68; M. Philonenko, “La cosmogonie du ‘Livre des Secrets d’Hénoch’”, in: Religions en Egypte hellénistique et romaine, Colloque de Strasbourg 16–18 mai 1967, Paris 1969, pp. 109–116; Sh. Pines, “Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch”, in: J. J. Z. Werblowsky and C. J. Bleeker (eds.), Types of Redemption (Suppl. Numen 18), Leiden 1970, pp. 72–87; R. van den Broek, The Myth of the Phoenix According to Classical and Early Christian Traditions, Leiden 1972; C. Böttrich, “Recent Studies in the Slavonic Book of Enoch”, JSP 9 (1991), 35–42; id., WeltweisheitMenschheitsethik-Urkult. Studien zum slavischen Henochbuch (WUNT 2/50), Tübingen 1992; id., Adam als Mikrokosmos. Eine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch ( Judentum und Umwelt 59), Frankfurt am Main 1995; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 145–171.

604

chapter thirteen

2 Enoch has only survived in its complete form to the present day in a Slavonic translation, hence the designation Slavonic Enoch. An alternative designation, namely the Book of the Secrets of Enoch is sometimes employed together with a large variety of other titles. Two Slavonic recensions exist of the work, one short and one long (more detailed: short and very short, long and very long).43 The frequently proposed thesis that the former better represents the original text than the latter (see Vaillant 1952) is diﬃcult to prove on account of the complex textual history of the work (Andersen, OTP I). Indeed, according to some scholars the reverse is more probable (Böttrich, JSHRZ V, pp. 788–790). The introduction (1–2) relates the appearance of two angels to Enoch who announce his heavenly journey and command him to give his children instructions for the time of his absence. The book goes on to describe the patriarch’s heavenly journey (3–21) during which the two angels introduce him in some detail to the secrets of the ten heavens (probably originally seven). He is then granted a revelation by God concerning the creation and history of the world up to the ﬂood (22–35). After his return to earth (36–38), the revelations he received and committed to writing in the form a countless books serve as the basis for a variety of exhortations and disclosures concerning heavenly and eschatological matters which he addresses to his children and (the elders of ) the people (39–66). Chapter 67 relates Enoch’s ultimate ascension into heaven. The conclusion of the book (chapters 68–73), which is often, and probably without justiﬁcation, taken to be an appendix, describes how Enoch’s charge as teacher and reconciler is taken over by his son Methuselah, thereafter by Nir, the youngest brother of Noah, and ﬁnally by Melchizedek, whose birth is described as miraculous.44 The original language in which the document ﬁrst saw the light of day together with the period and religious environment in which it emerged are the subjects of scholarly dispute. The Hebraisms found in the text do not necessarily point to a Hebrew original but suggest rather that the author was probably inﬂuenced by the Septuagint and by his Jewish origins. Suﬃcient reasons exist to accept a date 43 Cf. N. Schmidt, op. cit., 1921 and the detailed study of C. Böttrich, JSHRZ V/7, pp. 788–799. 44 M. Delcor, “La naissance merveilleuse de Melchisédeq d’après l’Hénoch slave”, in: C. Augustin e.a., Mélanges R. Laurentin, Paris 1990, pp. 217–229.

pseudepigrapha

605

of origin at the beginning of the ﬁrst century CE, among them the fact that the temple (51:3) and the sacriﬁcial cult (59:1–3; cf. 61:4; 62:1) are presupposed. The work may originally have been written in Greek by Jewish circles in diaspora in Alexandria (cf. Böttrich, JSHRZ V, pp. 808–812). The longer form of the text, however, contains Jewish mysticism, early Christian and Byzantine chronographic interpolations (Böttrich, JSHRZ V, pp. 802–805). With the exception of the Similitudes, the author of 2 Enoch harks back continually to the content of 1 Enoch (and also to Jesus Sirach). This does not serve to undermine the fact that 2 Enoch represents a diﬀerent mindset to that of 1 Enoch, namely that of the universalistically oriented Hellenistic Judaism of the diaspora in contrast to the early Jewish apocalyptic inﬂuence so characteristic of the Ethiopic book of Enoch.

j. The Assumption of Moses Tunc felix eris, tu Istrahel (10:8a)45

Text editions: Latin: A. M. Ceriani, “Fragmenta Assumptionis Mosis”, in: id., Monumenta sacra et profana I,1, Milan 1861, pp. 9–13, 55–64; C. Clemen, Die Himmelfahrt des Mose (Kleine Texte 10), Bonn 1904; E. M. Laperrousaz, Le Testament de Moïse, Paris 1970 (= Semitica 19); J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses (SVTP 10), Leiden 1993, pp. 6–24 (best edition!); Greek fragments: Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 63–67.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 407–424 (Charles); Kautzsch II, pp. 311–331 (Clemen); Riessler, pp. 485–495, 1301–1303; OTP I, pp. 919–934 (Priest); JSHRZ V/2, pp. 57–84 (Brandenburger); Sparks, pp. 600–616 (Sweet); R. H. Charles, The Assumption of Moses, London 1897; W. J. Ferrar, The Assumption of Moses Translated, New York-London 1917, 19182; J. J. Collins, “The Testament (Assumption) of Moses”, in: M. de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200, 4), Cambridge 1985, pp. 145–158; E. M. Laperrousaz, op. cit., 1970; J. Tromp, op. cit., 1993. 45

Then you shall be happy, O Israel.

606

chapter thirteen

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 128–141; G. Hölscher, “Über die Entstehungszeit der ‘Himmelfahrt Moses’”, ZNW 17 (1916), 108–127, 149–158; G. Kuhn, “Zur Assumptio Mosis”, ZAW 43 (1925), 124–129; C. C. Lattey, “The Messianic Expectation in ‘The Assumption of Moses’”, CBQ 4 (1942), 9–21; S. Zeitlin, “The Assumption of Moses and the Revolt of Bar Kokba. Studies in the Apocalyptic Literature”, JQR 38 (1947–1948), 1–45; D. H. Wallace, “The Semitic Origin of the Assumption of Moses”, ThZ 11 (1955), 321–328; J. Licht, “Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance”, JJS 12 (1961), 95–103; K. Haacker, “Assumptio Mosis—eine samaritanische Schrift?”, ThZ 25 (1969), 385–405; G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Moses. Seminar Papers (SCS 4), Cambridge MA 1973; A. B. Kolenkow, “The Genre Testament and Forecasts of the Future in the Hellenistic Jewish Milieu”, JSJ 6 (1975), 57–71; A. Y. Collins, “Composition and Redaction of the Testament of Moses 10”, HThR 69 (1976), 179–186; J. F. Priest, “Some Reﬂections on the Assumption of Moses”, Perspectives in Religious Studies 4 (1977), 92–111; D. C. Carlson, “Vengeance and Angelic Mediation in Testament of Moses 9 and 10”, JBL 101 (1982), 85–95; J. W. van Henten, “Traditie en interpretatie in TestMos 9:1–10:10”, Summa. Blad van de Theologische Faculteit van de Universiteit van Amsterdam 19 (1987), 18–29; A. Schalit, Untersuchungen zur Assumptio Mosis (ALGHJ 17), Leiden 1989; S. J. Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. A Survey”, JSP 7 (1990), 79–104; B. Halpern-Amaru, “Redesigning Redemption. Covenant in the Testament of Moses”, in: E. Spolsky (ed.), Summoning. Ideas of the Covenant and Interpretative Theory, Albany NY 1993, pp. 131–152; J. Tromp, op. cit., 1993; N. J. Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis. Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überliefering 5Suppl. JSJ 67), Leiden, 2000; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 431–475.

The content of the Assumption of Moses (in Latin: Assumptio Mosis or Ascensio Mosis), also referred to as the Testament of Moses, is only known to us on the basis of an incomplete and in places virtually illegible palimpsest from the sixth century CE46 together with a number of Greek quotations from ancient Christian literature (Denis, Fragmenta, 63–67). The manuscript was discovered by Ceriani in the nineteenth century in the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana in Milan and published in 1861. The Latin text is based on a Greek Vorlage, which in its turn may have been based on a Hebrew original.47

46 For the Latin version of the Ascension of Moses see in particular J. Tromp, op. cit., 1993, pp. 27–77. 47 Although E. Brandenburger, op. cit. ( JSHRZ V/2), argues in favour of a Hebrew basic text, J. Tromp, op. cit., 1993 exhibits a degree of reservation on the matter.

pseudepigrapha

607

The only manuscript available to us not only lacks the opening lines but also signiﬁcant portions of the conclusion of the work. The surviving segment of the book relates how Moses, in a farewell speech and with a view to his approaching death, instructed Joshua to take his place (1), foretelling thereafter the history of the people of Israel to the end time (2–10). In a state of trepidation at Moses’ predictions, Joshua declares himself unﬁt to take his place (11). Moses, however, provides welcome encouragement (12). The text abruptly stops at this juncture, oﬀering no explicit reference to the assumption of Moses yet making a number of allusions to his natural death (1:15; 3:13; 10:14). A description of the dispute between Michael and Satan concerning the body of Moses referred to in the New Testament Letter of Jude (v. 9) is likewise lacking. For the segment of the document that has been preserved, therefore, the designation Assumption of Moses is rather unfortunate. If the book ever made any allusion to the assumption of Moses it must have been contained in the lost conclusion. Since the text we have at our disposal makes no allusion to an assumption on the part of Moses, the fact that it does exhibit the characteristics of a testament has frequently led scholars to associate the work with the Testament of Moses mentioned in early Christian literature. Gelasius Cyzicenus (ﬁfth century CE), however, who alludes to the text of 1:6,14 in his Historia Ecclesiastica II 17,17 and 21,7, only speaks of “the Assumption of Moses”. Given the fact that the Testament of Abraham (see below) is nevertheless clearly not a testament, one should be on one’s guard against any rash identiﬁcation of the document under consideration with the testament genre. Furthermore, there is good reason to support the identiﬁcation of the Testament of Moses with Jubilees. Any proposed relationship between the Assumption of Moses and the Testament of Moses referred to in early Christian literature would thus be best ignored.

In the present instance, a signiﬁcant number of Moses’ predictions, which are addressed to Joshua in the form of an apocalypse, bear the features of a “prophecy after the event” (vaticinium ex eventu). 6:2, for example, speaks of a malicious king who is to reign for 34 years (6:6), a ﬁgure who can only be identiﬁed with Herod the Great (37–4 BCE). It is stated of his children, in addition, that they were to exercise royal authority for shorter periods of time than their father (6:7), a prediction conﬁrmed by the reign of Archelaus (4 BCE–6 CE) but not by that of Antipas (4 BCE–39 CE) or Philip (4 BCE–34 CE). There is virtually no doubt, therefore, that the period in which the

608

chapter thirteen

document came into existence must be conﬁned to the ﬁrst quarter of the ﬁrst century CE (Charles, edition 1897; alternatively Zeitlin 1947–1948 and Haacker 1969: second century CE). Introduced by the words “from this point on the ages shall come to an end”, the predictions of chapter 7 and thereafter thus tend to be less concrete than those of the preceding segment: godless hypocrites shall arise (7) and the faithful shall be subject to terrible persecutions (8). Thereafter, a man shall arise named Taxo of the tribe of Levi who will prefer to die rather than violate the commandments of God and he shall exhort his seven sons to take the same position (9). With the dawning of God’s kingdom, the power of the devil shall be put to an end. God will punish the nations and destroy their idols, but Israel shall be raised to the heavens where it shall dwell among the stars and give praise to God (10).48 In spite of the many hypotheses that have been proposed with respect to the man Taxo referred to in 9:1, the identity of the ﬁgure and the signiﬁcance of his name remains unclear.49 Based on the fact that chapter 6 clearly refers to the governance of Herod the Great (37–4 BCE) while chapter 8 thereafter would appear to allude to the persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), Charles (1897) has argued that chapters 6–7 must have been introduced by accident between chapters 5 and 8. Licht (1961) and Nickelsburg (1973), on the other hand, are of the opinion that chapters 6 and 7 are an interpolation from the Herodian era and that the book originally stems from the early Maccabean period. The hypothesis defended by Eissfeldt (p. 846) and Tromp (1993), namely that the description found in chapter 8 was modelled along the lines of the persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is more convincing.

The book was almost certainly written in Palestine and perhaps even in Jerusalem (cf. also 1:4, in which Amman is located “on the other side of the Jordan”). The author was clearly a Jew who considered the Hasmonean priesthood to be illegitimate (6:1) and rejected the temple cult as it was observed by the priests that functioned in his day. While this has led some scholars to argue that the document

48 T. W. Manson, “Miscellanea Apocalyptica II. Ass. Mosis X, 1–10”, JThS 46 (1945), 42–45; A. Y. Collins, op. cit., 1976. 49 See J. Tromp, “Taxo, the Messenger of the Lord”, JSJ 21 (1990), 200–209 and id., op. cit., 1993, pp. 124–128 (lit.!).

pseudepigrapha

609

has its roots in Essene circles, the segments of the text that have survived to the present day provide insuﬃcient support for such a hypothesis. It is evident that the author did not belong to the upper classes whose lifestyle he deplored. His aim was to exhort his readers during the “end of days” to remain faithful to God and his commandments and to encourage them in the midst of religious and political uncertainty with the promise that God will (swiftly) intervene on behalf of those who persevere to the end. The vast majority of Greek quotations of the document found among the writings of early Christian authors (cf. Denis, Introd., pp. 129–133 and id., Fragmenta, pp. 63–67), relate to the no longer extant conclusion of the book.

k. IV Ezra vacua vacuis et plena plenis (7:25)50

Text editions: Latin: R. L. Bensly, The Fourth Book of Ezra. The Latin Version Edited from the Mss. with an Introduction by M. R. James (Texts and Studies III/2), Cambridge 1895; B. Violet, Die Ezra-Apokalypse (IV. Ezra) I: Die Überlieferung (GCS 18), Leipzig 1910 (with a translation of the other versions); L. Gry, Les dires prophétiques d’Esdras (IV Esdras) I–II, Paris 1938; Biblia Sacra, rec. R. Weber, pp. 1931–1974; A. F. J. Klijn, Der lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra mit einem Index grammaticus von G. Mussies (TU 131), Berlin 1983; Greek fragments: Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 130–132; Ethiopic: A. Dillmann, Biblia Veteris Testamenti Aethiopica, Tomus V: Libri Apocryphi, Berlin 1894, pp. 153–193; Syriac: Vetus Testamentum Syriace IV/3 (Bidawid); Arabic: I. Gildemeister, Esdrae Liber Quartus Arabice e codice Vaticano nunc primum editus, Bonn 1877; A. Drint, The Mount Sinai Arabic Version of IV Ezra I–II. Text and Translation (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 563 and 564), Leuven 1996; Armenian: M. E. Stone, The Armenian Version of IV Ezra (Armenian Texts and Studies 1), Missoula MT 1979; Georgian: R. P. Blake, “The Georgian Version of Fourth Esdras from the Jerusalem Manuscript”, HThR 19 (1926), 299–376; id., “The Georgian Text of Fourth Esdras from the Athos Manuscript”, HThR 22 (1929), 57–105.

50

“Empty things are for the empty and full things are for the full” (NRSV).

610

chapter thirteen

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 542–624 (Box); Kautzsch II, pp. 331–401 (Gunkel); Riessler, pp. 255–309, 1282–1285; Metzger, pp. 23–63 (Metzger); JSHRZ V/4 (Schreiner), pp. 289–412; OTP I, pp. 517–559 (Metzger); G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse, London 1912; id., The Apocalypse of Ezra (II Esdras III–XIV). Translated from the Syriac Text, with Brief Annotations (TED 1/8), London 1917; B. Violet und H. Gressmann, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS 32), Leipzig 1924; W. O. E. Oesterley, II Esdras (The Ezra Apocalypse), London 1933; J. M. Myers, I and II Esdras: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB 42), Garden City NY 1974; (R. J. Coggins and) M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras (CNEB), Cambridge 1979, pp. 76–307, 310–314; M. de Goeij, Psalmen van Salomo. IV Ezra. Martyrium van Jesaja (De Pseudepigrafen), Kampen z.j.; M. E. Stone, A Textual Commentary on the Armenian Version of IV Ezra (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 34), Atlanta GA 1990; id., Fourth Ezra. A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1990 (best modern commentary!); A. F. J. Klijn, Die EsraApokalypse (IV. Esra). Nach dem lateinischen Text unter Benutzung der anderen Versionen übersetzt und herausgegeben (GCS), Berlin 1992 (lit.!).

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 194–200; J. Keulers, Die eschatologische Lehre des vierten Esrabuches (Biblische Studien 20/2–3), Freiburg 1922; A. Kaminka, “Beiträge zur Erklärung der Esra-Apokalypse und zur Rekonstruktion ihres hebräischen Urtextes”, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 76 (1932), 121–138, 206–212, 494–511, 604–607; 77 (1933), 339–355; J. Bloch, “Was there a Greek Version of the Apocalypse of Ezra?”, JQR 46 (1955/1956), 309–320; id., “The Ezra-Apocalypse. Was it Written in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic?”, JQR 48 (1957/1958), 279–284; id., “Some Christological Interpretations in the Ezra-Apocalypse”, HThR 51 (1958), 87–94; A. von Gutschmidt, “Die Apokalypse des Esra und ihre späteren Bearbeitungen”, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 3 (1960), 1–81; F. Zimmerman, “Underlying Documents of IV Ezr”a, JQR 51 (1960–1961), 107–134; W. Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte. Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Ezra und in der syrischen Baruchapokalypse (FRLANT 97), Göttingen 1969; id., “Die Ironie der Oﬀenbarung. Exegetische Erwägungen zur Zionvision im 4. Buch Ezra”, ZAW 95 (1983), 75–95; D. Boyarin, “Penitential Liturgy in 4 Ezra”, JSJ 3 (1972), 30–34; E. Breech, “These Fragments I Have Shored Against My Ruins. The Form and Function of 4 Ezra”, JBL 92 (1973), 267–274; A. P. Hayman, “The Problem of Pseudonymity in the Ezra Apocalypse”, JSJ 6 (1975), 47–56; A. L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra (SBL Dissertation Series 29), Missoula MT 1977; E. Brandenburger, Die Verborgenheit Gottes im Weltgeschehen. Das literarische und theologische Problem des 4. Esrabuches (AThANT 68), Zurich 1981; M. E. Stone, “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple”, JSJ 12 (1981), 195–204; id., “Coherence and Inconsistency in the Apocalypses:

pseudepigrapha

611

The Case of ‘the End’ in 4 Ezra”, JBL 102 (1983), 229–243; id., “The Way of the Most High and the Injustice of God in 4 Ezra”, in: R. van den Broek e.a. (eds.), Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World, Leiden 1988, pp. 132–142; id., Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra (Harvard Semitic Studies 35), Atlanta GA 1989; M. A. Knibb, “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in IV Ezra”, JSJ 13 (1982), 56–74; M. Desjardins, “Law in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra”, Studies in Religion 14 (1985), 25–37; T. W. Willett, Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra ( JSP Supplement Series 4), Sheﬃeld 1989; G. Hallbäck, “The Fall of Zion and the Revelation of the Law. An Interpretation of 4 Ezra”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 6 (1992), 263–292; B. W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 1), Sheﬃeld 1995 (lit.!); id., “Locating 4 Ezra. A Consideration of its Social Setting and Functions”, JSJ 28 (1997), 271–293; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 815–853.

The fourth book of Ezra, also known as 2 Esdras or the Apocalypse of Ezra,51 is among the most important and most profound writings that have been bequeathed to us by Jewish apocalyptic. The value ascribed to the work in Christian circles is evident from the countless translations thereof, its citation in the writings of both Greek and Latin Church Fathers,52 who likewise quoted from the prologue (chapters 1–2, also referred to as V Ezra)53 and the epilogue (chapters 15–16, also known as VI Ezra),54 which were added to the book by a Christian hand.55 The text of 4 Ezra (3–14) has thus survived in Syriac,56 Ethiopic, Arabic,57 Slavonic, Armenian58 and Georgian59

51

The enumeration 4 Ezra is based on the Vulgate in which 1 Esdras = Ezra, 2 Esdras = Nehemiah, 3 Esdras = the apocryphal book of Ezra and 4 Esdras the work being treated in the present paragraph. The primarily Anglo-Saxon usage 2 Esdras is borrowed from the Geneva Bible (1560). 52 The quotations are not numerous, cf. A. M. Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 130–132 and id., Introd., pp. 194–200. 53 Th. A. Bergren, “Fifth Ezra. The Text, Origin and Early History”, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 25 (1990). 54 Th. A. Bergren, Sixth Ezra. The Text and Origin, New York 1998. 55 They were originally written in Greek, cf. the Greek Oxyrhyncus fragment, which contains 15:57–59 (see A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri VII, London 1910, n. 1010, pp. 11–15 [papyrus from the fourth century CE]). 56 The Syriac text is only known to us from the codex Ambrosianus, ms. B 21, Milan. For a recent edition see Bidawid, op. cit., 1973. 57 Cf. Gildemeister, op. cit., 1877, M. E. Stone, “A New Manuscript of the SyroArabic Version of the Fourth Book of Ezra”, JSJ 8 (1977), 181–182 and Drint, op. cit., 1996. 58 Cf. M. E. Stone, “Manuscripts and Readings of Armenian IV Ezra”, Textus 6 (1968), 48–61; id., The Armenian Version of IV Ezra (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 1), Missoula MT 1979 (with English translation). 59 See R. P. Blake, op. cit., 1926 and 1929.

612

chapter thirteen

versions together with a Coptic fragment60 known to us from a Latin translation. The latter, which ultimately acquired a place in the appendix to the Vulgate, deserves to be considered the most reliable. It is based on a Greek text that in turn was based on a Hebrew original. With the exception of a number of quotations of the Greek version (cf. Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 130–132), however, both texts have been lost to posterity. The translators of the Dutch Authorised Version included the work among the Old Testament apocrypha. Setting aside the two Christian additions (chapters 1–2 and 15–16), which need not be treated at the present juncture,61 the document consists of seven “visions”, said to have been granted to “Salathiel, also named Ezra” (3:1) thirty years after the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE). In reality Ezra lived a century later while Salathiel is referred to in the bible as the father of Zerubbabel (cf. Ezra 3:2; Hagg. 1:1 etc.). Only the fourth, ﬁfth and sixth visions can be considered visions in the strict sense of the term. The ﬁrst three are in fact dialogues, in which the angel Uriel is sent by God to provide answer to Ezra’s questions, while the seventh is best understood as a legend. After a summary of sacred history from the time of Adam to the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE), the ﬁrst vision (3:1–5:20)62 relates how Ezra presented God with a question, asking him why he had rejected Zion. While the latter was not without sin, it was nevertheless no worse than all the other peoples (the Babylonians excluded). The angel answers that while the ways of the Most High are not open to human scrutiny, when the number of the righteous has reached its completion, deliverance from the misery in which humanity ﬁnds itself on account of the wicked seed sown from the beginning in the heart of Adam, shall ﬁnally dawn. Prior to this moment, however, creation shall undergo a terrifying upheaval. In the second vision (5:21–6:34) Ezra asks God why he handed over his one chosen people to the “many”. Once again the angel answers that the problem cannot be solved by human persons. Generation after generation comes and goes according to God’s plan, mother 60 J. Leipolt and B. Violet, “Ein saidisches Bruchstück des vierten Esrabuches”, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 41 (1904), 137–140. 61 Cf. W. Schneemelcher (ed.), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen II, Tübingen 19976, pp. 581–590 (Duensing-de Santos Otero). 62 K. Koch, “Esras erste Vision. Weltzeiten und Weg des Höchsten”, BZ 22 (1978), 46–75 (= id., Vor der Wende der Zeiten. Beiträge zur apokalyptischen Literatur. Gesammelte Aufsätze III, eds. U. Glessmer e.a., Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996, pp. 77–108).

pseudepigrapha

613

earth has grown old, but the end and ﬁnal judgement are at hand in which evil shall be blotted out. The third vision (6:35–9:25), which contains the well-known oratio Esrae (prayer of Ezra; 8:20–36), asks why Israel does not possess the world that was nevertheless created for it. The angel responds that the righteous advance towards the broad space of the deliverance to come via the narrow path of pain and exertion while the godless shall receive the due reward for their disobedience to God’s commandments. At the endtime, God’s son, the messiah,63 shall appear and he shall reign for four hundred years64 after which he and all humanity shall die. The world shall return for seven days to its primordial state, whereafter the resurrection of the dead and the ﬁnal judgement shall take place. In response to Ezra’s observation that only a few shall be saved, the angel declares that this is in line with the rule that the most precious things are also the most exceptional: God shall rejoice over the righteous few that have been saved and shall not grieve the lost many whose eternal punishment is their own doing. While Ezra laments the fate of humankind and the fact that human beings, in contrast to the animals, are aware of the impending judgement, the angel answers that created beings poisoned by intelligence are responsible for their own transgressions. After a rather detailed excursus on the fate of the souls of the godless and the righteous in the interval between death and ﬁnal judgement, Ezra ask whether any intercession by the righteous on behalf of the godless will be possible at the time of the ﬁnal judgement. The angel’s negative response inspires the visionary to lament the fate of humanity on account of the fall of Adam (“O Adam, what is this that you have done!”, 7:118a). Ultimate guilt for humanity’s situation, however, should not be shifted exclusively onto Adam’s shoulders: life is a struggle in which one has to make the right choices. Ezra continues to express his doubts: is the destruction of so many souls really in harmony with the goodness of God? The angel responds that this world is for the many, the world to come for the few. Why does 63 The Latin text has ﬁlius meus Jesus (“my son Jesus”) at this juncture, evidently a later Christian correction. Cf. M. E. Stone, “The Question of the Messiah in 4 Ezra”, in: J. Neusner e.a., Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, New York 1987, pp. 209–224 (= id., Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha [SVTP 9], Leiden 1991, pp. 317–332). 64 The ﬁgure of 400 years is based on a combination of Ps. 90:15 with Gen. 15:13 (see G. Box, op. cit., p. 116).

614

chapter thirteen

God destroy human beings, the miracle of his creation? It is like seed that is sown: it produces little fruit! Ezra is given the reassurance that he himself belongs among the righteous. He should rejoice over the deliverance to come and not worry about the godless who shall receive their just rewards! The fourth vision ((9:26–10:59), which is also referred to as the Zion vision, represents the ﬁrst of three symbolic revelations granted to Ezra. After contrasting the persisting magniﬁcence of the Law with Israel’s inﬁdelity, the visionary sees a woman in mourning who, after thirty years of infertility, was granted the gift of a son at a late age but had to give him up to death. Ezra comforts the woman by comparing her maternal suﬀering with the suﬀering of Zion who has been robbed of all her children. At this juncture the woman makes way in Ezra’s vision for a magniﬁcent city. The angel Uriel explains to the visionary that the woman represents the heavenly city of Jerusalem who lost her son during the fall of the earthly city. Ezra is then comforted in his lament over the fall of the city with a glimpse of the new Jerusalem. In the ﬁfth vision (chapters 11–12), which is also known as the vision of the eagle,65 Ezra recounts a dream in which he sees an eagle with twelve wings and three heads emerging from the sea, growing eight little opposing wings and reigning over the entire earth. After the wings and (the majority of ) the opposing wings had reigned for a time and disappeared, the eagle’s middle head awakes and allies itself with the other two. The middle head then disappears and one of the remaining heads devours the other. A roaring lion appears at this juncture and announces to the eagle that it is the last of the four beasts created to reign over the world and that its end is near. Thereafter the remaining head and two opposing wings disappear and the body of the eagle is burnt up. In the explanation that follows the vision the angel interprets the eagle as the fourth kingdom that “appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel”, and the lion as the (pre-existent) messiah of the line of David who is to destroy the world power and deliver the remainder of God’s people. The vision is a clear example of the development and reinterpretation (cf.

65

D. Völter, “Die Geschichte vom Adler und vom Menschen im 4. Esra nebst Bemerkungen über den Menschensohn-Stellen in den Bilderreden Henochs”, Nieuw Theologisch Tijdschrift 8 (1919), 241–273.

pseudepigrapha

615

12:11–12) of traditional apocalyptic images, in this instance those of Dan. 7:7–8. In the sixth vision (chapter 13), also called the vision of the man from the sea,66 Ezra sees “something like the ﬁgure of a man” (13:3, cf. Dan. 7:13) coming up out of the sea, who devours a mighty army, gathered to wage war against him, with ﬁre from his mouth (cf. Isa. 11:4), but thereafter calls a peaceable multitude to himself. In the explanation that follows the man is referred to as God’s Son. He is the messiah that will assemble the ten tribes and the “remainder” of Israel to himself. In the seventh vision (chapter 14), also familiar to us as the Ezra legend, we are told how Ezra is commanded to “preserve in his heart” the revelations he has received and to prepare himself to be taken up into heaven where he shall dwell with God’s son until the dawn of the endtime. Given the loss of the sacred books during the destruction of Jerusalem and the danger that forthcoming generations might remain ignorant of salvation history and of God’s law, Ezra is granted a request, prior to his departure, whereby the Holy Spirit inspires his dictation of the content of the Sacred Scriptures to ﬁve men over a period of forty days. He is allowed to publish 24 books (the canonical books) while the remaining 70 are to remain secret and only made available to the “wise”. The book ends with the narrative of the assumption into heaven of the “the scribe of the knowledge of the Most High” (14:49–50). Some scholars have been inclined to doubt the literary unity of the book on account of its irregularities, repetitions and shifting of accents. This has led, for example, to the defence of a Salathiel and an Ezra apocalypse as well as arguments in favour of the independence of the ﬁfth, sixth and seventh visions as literary sources (Box 1912). The majority of contemporary scholars, however, are inclined to support the literary unity of the work and the present author considers such a position acceptable. The irregularities are best explained by the combination of personal visionary experiences with material provided by the tradition (Brandenburger 1981; Stone, commentary 1990). The claim that the visions were revealed to Ezra thirty years after the fall of Jerusalem and the temple (thus in 557 BCE; cf. 3:1) is 66 G. K. Beale, “The Problem of the Man from the Sea in 4 Ezra 13 and its Relation to the Messianic Concept in John’s Apocalypse”, NovTest 25 (1983), 182–188.

chapter thirteen

616

clearly ﬁctional. In addition to the fact that Ezra lived a century later, it is evident that the book does not represent the written documentation of the problems that emerged after the aforementioned catastrophe but rather those that brought about by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE. The vision of the eagle oﬀers a useful starting point in determining the period in which the work came into existence. It is generally accepted that the three heads of the eagle represent the Roman emperors Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. Given the fact that the death of the latter is not yet presupposed (12:28), the book must have come into existence prior to the year of his death (96 CE). Bearing in mind the language in which the work was originally written and the impression left on the author by the fall of Jerusalem, it is evident that the book stems from Palestine. Sensitive, profound, visionary and poetically gifted, the author of IV Ezra did not only struggle with the misfortunes of his own people—the history of which inspired him with pessimistic emotions— he also grappled with the misfortunes of the world as a whole. His attempts to arrive at a theodicy are reminiscent of the book of Job and several passages of the work remind one of the latter. The questions posed by Ezra in the ﬁrst three visions are answered in the following three visions in the form of revelations concerning the judgement to come and the immanent time of salvation: “God’s answer is not an explanation, but it is a promise” (Nickelsburg). The book exhibits aﬃnities with Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (see below) and may in turn have inﬂuenced 2 Baruch.

l. II Baruch (Syriac Baruch) Now we have nothing more, only the Almighty and his Law (85:3)

Text editions: Syriac: A. M. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana V,2, Milan 1871. pp. 113–180; M. Kmosko, “Liber Apocalypseos Baruch ﬁlii Neriae, translatus de Graeco in Syriacum et Epistola Baruch ﬁlii Neriae”, in: Patrologia Syriaca I, tomus II, Paris 1907, pp. 1057–1207, 1208–1306; Vetus Testamentum Syriace IV/3, Leiden 1973 (Dedering); cf. also W. Baars, “Neue Textzeugen der Syrischen Baruchapokalypse”, VT 13 (1963), 476–478; Greek fragment:

pseudepigrapha

617

B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri III, nr. 403, London 1903, pp. 3–7 (= 12:1–13:2 and 13:11–14:3), cf. Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 118–120 and P. Bogaert, L’apocalypse syriaque de Baruch I, Paris 1969, pp. 40–43; Arabic: F. Leemhuis, A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. H. van Gelder, The Arabic Text of the Apocalypse of Baruch, Edited and Translated with a Parallel Translation of the Syriac Text, Leiden 1986; Slavonic: cf. E. Turdeanu, “L’apocalypse de Baruch en slave”, Revue des études slaves 48 (1969), 23–48.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 470–526 (Charles); Kautzsch II, pp. 404–446 (Ryssel); Riessler, pp. 55–113, 1270–1272; JSHRZ V/2, pp. 103–191 (Klijn); Sparks, pp. 835–895 (Brockington); OTP I, pp. 615–652 (Klijn); R. H. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch Translated from the Syriac, London 1896 (reprint 1917, 1929); id., The Apocalypse of Baruch (TED), London-New York 1917; B. Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS 32), Leipzig 1924; P. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch. Introduction, traduction du Syriaque et commentaire I–II (SC 144–145), Paris 1969 (lit.!).

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 182–186; P. Bogaert, op. cit., 1969; W. Harnisch, op. cit., 1969 (see 4 Ezra); F. Zimmermann, “Textual Observations on the Apocalypse of Baruch”, JThS 40 (1939), 151–156; J. Hadot, “La datation de l’Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch”, Semitica 15 (1965), 79–97; id., “Le problème de l’Apocalypse syriaque d’après un ouvrage recent”, Semitica 20 (1970), 59–76; A. F. J. Klijn, “The Sources and the Redaction of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch”, JSJ 1 (1970), 65–76; W. Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte. Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der Syr. Baruchapokalypse (FRLANT 97), Göttingen 1970; P. M. Bogaert, “Les apocalypses contemporaines de Baruch, d’Esdras et de Jean”, in: L’Apocalypse johannique et l’apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testamen (BEThL 53), Gembloux 1980, pp. 47–68; G. B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBL Dissertation Series 72), Chico CA 1984; M. Desjardins, “Law in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra”, Studies in Religion 14 (1985), 25–37; F. J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (SBL Dissertation Series 78), Chico CA 1985; id., “2 Baruch and the Romans”, JBL 104 (1985), 663–669; id., “Sapiential Elements in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch”, JQR 76 (1986–1987), 311–327; id., “The Temple in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch”, JBL 106 (1987), 671–683; T. W. Willett, Eschatology (1989; see in relation to 4 Ezra); A. F. J. Klijn, “Recent Developments in the Study of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch”, JSP 4 (1989), 3–17 (lit.!); W. Harrelson, “Wisdom Hidden and Revealed According to Baruch (Baruch 3,9–4,4)”, in: E. Ulrich e.a. (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes (Suppl. JSOT

618

chapter thirteen

149; FS J. Blenkinsopp), Sheﬃeld 1992, pp. 158–179; J. E. Wright, “The Social Setting of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch”, JSP 16 (1997), 81–96; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 719–747.

In an endeavour to distinguish the work to be discussed in the following pages from the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (see below), scholars employ the designation Syriac (Apocalypse of ) Baruch in addition to 2 Baruch,67 the former being until recent times the only complete text of the book available to us.68 At the present time, however, we also have an Arabic version (Sinai No. 589), which is based on a late Syriac text (Leemhuis e.a. 1986). The Syriac text is based on a Greek translation, a fragment of which was found among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (see above under text editions).69 The document was originally written in Palestine and probably in Hebrew.70 In similar fashion to 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch can be sub-divided into seven parts. In the ﬁrst part (chapters 1–9) we are told how Baruch received an announcement from God concerning the fall of Jerusalem when King Jehoiakin was twenty-ﬁve years of age (591 BCE). The Chaldeans (Babylonians) enter the city only after the temple vessels have been removed from the Holy of Holies and hidden in the earth71 and other angels have levelled the walls of the city to the ground. The 67 By way of distinguishing the work from the apocryphal book 1 Baruch, the Greek apocalypse 4 Baruch and the Paralipomena Jeremiae, also known as the Remaining Words of Baruch (3 Baruch); for the latter two works see below. Confusion arises from the fact that the Greek apocalypse is also referred to as 3 Baruch and the Paralipomena Jeremiae as 4 Baruch. 68 The Syriac text has only survived in a single manuscript from the sixth or seventh century CE (Codex Ambrosianus, Milan, B. 21 Inf., fols. 257a–265b). A few excerpts from a later period can be found, however, in Jacobite lectionaries, cf. S. Dedering, op. cit., 1973, p. iii. The letter attached to 2 Baruch (chapters 78–87), on the other hand, is available in no less than 38 diﬀerent Syriac texts, cf. P. M. Bogaert, op. cit., 1969, pp. 43–46. 69 The Greek text of the papyrus does not deviate from the Syriac text to any signiﬁcant degree. 70 This generally accepted opinion is called into question by P. Bogaert, op. cit., 1969, I, pp. 351–380, who maintains the possibility of a Greek original. For arguments in favour of a Semitic original see F. Zimmermann, “Textual Observations on the Apocalypse of Baruch”, JThS 40 (1939), 151–156 and id., “Translation and Mistranslation in the Apocalypse of Baruch”, in: M. Ben Horin e.a. (eds.), Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham A. Neuman, Leiden 1962, pp. 580–587. See also A. F. J. Klijn, OTP I, pp. 616. 71 For this motif see M. Collins, “The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Tradition”, JSJ 3 (1972), 97–116.

pseudepigrapha

619

enemy is thus unable to boast that they themselves destroyed Zion and set ﬁre to the dwelling place of God. Baruch together with Jeremiah then fast for seven days. In the second part (chapters 10–12) the text relates how Jeremiah is ordered to accompany the exiles to Babylon while the lamenting Baruch is directed by God to stay behind in order to receive a revelation concerning the end of days. Baruch breaks into a song of lament and fasts once again for seven days. The third part (chapters 13:1–21:1) contains a dialogue between God and Baruch on the value of righteousness and a long life. Baruch is exhorted not to worry about the mortality of humankind. After the discussion he fasts for a further seven days on God’s command. In the fourth part (chapters 21:2–34:1) Baruch prays for a swift revelation of God’s glory, saddened by the vanity and transience of human existence. He is told that God will bring what He has started to completion. Twelve periods of oppression shall come but the time of salvation shall dawn with the advent of the messiah. Once the messiah has returned to heaven, the dead shall rise and the ﬁnal judgement shall take place. Baruch then addresses himself to the elders of the people and announces that “the building of Zion” (the temple) is to be destroyed once again only to be reconstructed thereafter forever in glory. In the ﬁfth part (chapters 35–47) we are told how Baruch received a vision and, upon his request, an explanation thereof. He sees a great forest located in a plane surrounded by high mountains (the forest symbolises the four world kingdoms) and a vine, under which a spring appears (the messiah). The water of the spring swells up into a mighty ﬂood that destroys the forest. A single cedar (the ﬁnal ruler of the fourth kingdom) remains standing only to be destroyed thereafter by ﬁre. Flowers appear around the vine that do not wither (the immortal righteous). After having received further answer to his question concerning the fate of the righteous and the godless in the time of judgement, Baruch returns once again to his people, addressing in particular his oldest son, a few friends and seven elders. He exhorts them to hold ﬁrm to God’s Law in this time of aﬄiction and to set their sights on the everlasting world to come, which the righteous shall inherit. They are to call upon the people to do everything in their power to avoid deviating from the commandments of the Almighty. Baruch then fasts once again for a further seven days.

620

chapter thirteen

The sixth part (chapters 48–77) begins with Baruch’s prayer for the deliverance of his people. God responds with a new revelation concerning the aﬄiction of the endtime and on the change of appearance the righteous and the godless shall undergo after their bodily resurrection from the dead. Baruch once again receives a vision. He sees a cloud rising up from the sea and spreading over the earth. Alternating black and clear water rains twelve times from the cloud and ﬁnally only the blackest of water remains mixed with ﬁre. A bolt of lightning on the upper edge of the cloud tosses it to the earth, takes control over it and restores the destruction it had brought about. At this juncture twelve streams emerge from the sea, surround the lightning and submit themselves to it. Upon Baruch’s request, the vision is explained to him by the angel Ramael. The black rain symbolises the darker periods of history (the fall of Adam and of the angels, the ﬂood, the sin of the nations and of godless Egypt, the works of the Amorites, the godlessness of King Jeroboam I and that of his successors, the exile of the tribes of Israel, the godlessness of Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem). The clear rain stands for better times (the righteousness of Abraham and his descendants, the appearance of Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Joshua and Caleb together with all those who resembled them, the salviﬁc era of David and Solomon, the righteousness of Hezekiah, the appearance of Josiah and the reconstruction and glory of Zion). The blackest of water stands for the aﬄictions of the endtime. The explanation goes on to speak of the clear water of the endtime (in contrast to the vision itself ) that symbolises future salvation. Baruch is then commanded by the angel to await the time to come on a high mountain. He must ﬁrst, however, address his people to inform them that they shall not go into exile if they maintain God’s commandments. In response to the people’s request, Baruch promises to send a letter containing exhortations and words of comfort to the brothers living in Babylon. Upon his own initiative he adds that he will also write a letter to the ‘nine and a half tribe’. The latter is delivered to its destination by an eagle while the letter intended for the diaspora in Babylon is delivered by three human messengers. The seventh part (78–87) contains the letter written to the ‘nine and a half tribe’ and speaks about the fall of Jerusalem and the judgement to come. The addressees are encouraged to repent and to maintain the Law of God with ﬁdelity. The Letter of Baruch (epis-

pseudepigrapha

621

tula Baruch) has been transmitted independently in Syriac bible manuscripts and once enjoyed a place in the church’s liturgy. In terms of literary form, the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch exhibits striking and detailed points of agreement with 4 Ezra. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, questions surrounding sin, suﬀering, mortality, retribution and divine governance come to the fore once again with the same intensity and are handled within the same universal framework. Signiﬁcant diﬀerences in content remain, however, between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, the tone of the latter being less sombre than that of the former: the suﬀering of the present is nothing compared to the glory to be revealed in the future! The agreements between the two documents have led scholars to suggest potential literary dependence.72 Indeed, one cannot exclude the possibility that the author of 2 Baruch wanted to temper the pessimism evident in 4 Ezra.73 In light of the fact that 2 Baruch oﬀers more mature theological reﬂection than 4 Ezra one can at least presume that the former came into existence after the latter. For the author of 2 Baruch, Adam cannot be blamed for the presence of evil in the world beyond that which applies to himself: “each of us has become his own Adam” (54:19; cf., however, 4 Ezra 7:118).

The fact that the Letter of Barnabas, written between 117 and 132 CE, already presupposes 2 Baruch74 implies that the apocalypse cannot have been written any later than the ﬁrst decennia of the second century CE. As we noted above with respect to 4 Ezra, the literary unity of 2 Baruch is occasionally called into question and, it would seem, unjustiﬁably so (cf. Bogaert 1969; Sayler 1984; Murphy 1985). The irregularities and contradictions apparent in the text can be explained as a result of the sources employed by the author and tend to be inherent to apocalyptic literature as a whole.75

72 Others consider the dependence of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch on a common source to be more plausible, cf. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP I, pp. 617 and 620. 73 Cf. J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity, New York 1984. 74 Compare 2 Baruch 61:7 with the Letter of Barnabas 11:9. 75 The Paralipomena Jeremiae (see below under p.) are dependent on 2 Baruch (cf. P. Bogaert, op. cit., 1969, pp. 175–222). In addition to 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch exhibits parallels with Pseudo-Philo (see below under p.).

622

chapter thirteen m. III Baruch (Greek Baruch)

Text editions: Greek: M. R. James, “Apocalypsis Baruchi tertia graece”, in: J. A. Robinson (ed.), Apocrypha Anecdota II (Texts and Studies V/1), Cambridge 1897, pp. li–lxxi and 83–94 (ms. A = British Museum Add. 10073; reprint 1967); J. C. Picard, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece, in: Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 2, Leiden 1967, pp. 61–96 (ms. A and ms. B discovered by Picard = the Andros ms.; best edition); Slavonic: M. I. Sokolov, “Apokriﬁceskoe Otkrovenie Varucha”, Moskovskago archeologiceskago obscestava 4, Moscow 1907, IV–1, pp. 201–258; see also E. Turdeanu, “L’apocalypse de Baruch en slave”, Revue des Etudes Slaves 48 (1969), 23–50 (= id., Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament [SVTP 5], Leiden 1981, pp. 364–391).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 527–541 (Hughes); Kautzsch II, pp. 446–457 (Ryssel); Riessler, pp. 40–54, 1269–1270; Sparks, pp. 897–914 (Argyle); OTP I, pp. 653–679 (Gaylord Jr.); JSHRZ V/1, pp. 15–44 (Hage); N. Bonwetsch, “Das slavisch erhaltene Baruchbuch”, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Phil.-hist. Klasse, Göttingen 1896, pp. 91–101; W. R. Morﬁll, “The Apocalypse of Baruch Translated from the Slavonic”, in: J. A. Robinson (ed.), Apocrypha Anecdota II, Cambridge 1897, pp. 95–102. See also A. M. Denis and Y. Janssens, Concordance de l’Apocalypse grecque de Baruch, Louvain 1970.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 79–84; E. Turdeanu, “Apocryphes bogomiles et apocryphes pseudo-bogomiles II”, RHR 69 (1950), 22–52, 176–218; id., “Les apocryphes slaves et roumains: Leur rapport à la connaissance des apocryphes grecs (Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 8)”, in: Atti dello VIII Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini (Palermo 1951) II, Rome 1953, pp. 47–52; J. C. Picard, “Observations sur l’Apocalypse grecque de Baruch”, Semitica 20 (1970), 77–103; U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW 44), Berlin 1978, pp. 71–84; G. Bohak, “GreekHebrew Gematrias in 3 Baruch and in Revelation”, JSP 7 (1990), 119–121; M. Frasson, “La struttura dei cieli in 3 Baruc, uno studio ﬁlologico”, Henoch 14 (1992) 137–144; D. C. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity (SVTP 12), Leiden-New YorkCologne 1996; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 749–775.

As a rule, 3 Baruch tends to be designated the Greek (Apocalypse of ) Baruch in order to distinguish it from the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch

pseudepigrapha

623

(2 Baruch). Some confusion arises from the fact that it is also referred to as 4 Baruch, a designation employed elsewhere for the Paralipomena Ieremiae (see below under p). The document has survived to the present day in two Greek manuscripts, which exhibit few variant readings (cf. Picard, text edition 1967, pp. 68–69), and in two Slavonic versions that deviate signiﬁcantly from the Greek texts (cf. Picard 1967, pp. 69–75). Questions surrounding the possibility that the author was inspired to write his book by 2 Baruch 76:3, in which Baruch is told to anticipate a number of revelations, cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. Any positive response to such questions is nevertheless undermined by the fact that the intended revelations would appear to be related to more earthly matters than to the secrets of heaven. While the document under discussion clearly contains reminiscences of 2 Baruch, it nevertheless exhibits a completely diﬀerent character, representing an example of the genre of heavenly journey descriptions as found in the Slavonic Enoch and in the Visio Isaiae. 3 Baruch begins with a question addressed by a lamenting Baruch to God asking why He had handed over Jerusalem into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar II. An angel of God commands Baruch not to be concerned about the city: heavenly secrets will be revealed to him. Without further reference being made to Jerusalem, chapters 2–16 describe Baruch’s journey through ﬁve heavens (instead of seven!) under the guidance of an interpreting angel. He beholds the punishment meted out to those who had challenged God by building the Tower of Babel (2; cf. Gen. 11:1–9), to those who had forced others to make bricks for the tower (3), and to the serpent that had tempted Adam and Eve (4f.). He sees the chariot of the sun and the Phoenix, which guides the sun in its path and absorbs its scorching rays with its wings (6–8), the moon as a woman on a chariot (9) and the place from which the salutary rains and the dew of heaven originate (10). The following chapters (11–16) focus their attention on the inhabitants of the earth, the righteous and the godless. The concluding chapter (17) relates Baruch’s return and his gratitude for the revelations he has received. The content of the book exhibits frequent points of contact with the traditions found in particular in the Syriac Baruch and the Slavonic Enoch. While the description of Baruch’s heavenly journey has clearly been inﬂuenced by Jewish apocalyptic, the text also contains motifs from Greek and Ancient Near Eastern mythology (the

624

chapter thirteen

sun chariot; the Phoenix; the moon as a woman on a chariot). The place and time in which 3 Baruch came into existence cannot be established with certainty. While the author of the original document probably belonged to the Jewish-Hellenistic diaspora, his work as such is only known to us in its Christian reworking (cf. 4:15; 13:4; 15:4). The hypothesis that the book is based on a Semitic original cannot be conﬁrmed. It is possible that Origen referred to 3 Baruch around 225 CE in his De principiis II,3,6, although the Church Father speaks of seven heavens rather than ﬁve. If the text of Origen does indeed refer to 3 Baruch—the author of which was familiar with the Syriac Baruch—then the work must have ﬁrst come to light between 120 and 225 CE. The content of the document likewise suggests that the work originated in the second century CE.

n. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Text editions: Greek: R. H. Charles, The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Edited from Nine MSS together with the Variants of the Armenian and Slavonic Versions and some Hebrew Fragments, Oxford 1908 (reprint Darmstadt 1960); M. de Jonge, Testamenta XII Patriarcharum (PVTG 1), Leiden 1964, 19702; M. de Jonge e.a., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG 1.2), Leiden 1978 (best text edition); Armenian: cf. Charles, op. cit., pp. xii–xviii; M. E. Stone, The Testament of Levi. A First Study of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs in the Convent of St. James, Jerusalem, with Text, Critical Apparatus, Notes and Translation, Jerusalem 1969; id., “The Jerusalem Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Samples of Text”, Sion 44 (1970), 1–6; id., The Armenian Version of the Testament of Joseph (SBL Texts and Translations 6. Pseudepigrapha Series 5), Missoula MT 1975; id., “The Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Selection of Manuscripts”, Sion 49 (1975), 207–214; Slavonic: cf. Charles, op. cit., and E. Turdeanu, “Les Testaments des douze Patriarches en slave”, JSJ 1 (1970), 148–184 (= id., Apocryphes slaves et roumaines de l’Ancien Testament (SVTP 5), Leiden 1981, pp. 239–275); Aramaic: Testament of Levi: R. H. Charles, op. cit., pp. 245–256 (fragments from the Cairo Geniza: Cambridge fr. 245, 253–256; Bodleian (Oxford) fr. 246–250); 1Q21, cf. DJD I, pp. 87–91; 4Q213–214, cf. J. T. Milik, “Le Testament de Lévi en araméen: Fragments de la grotte 4 de Qumrân”, RB 62 (1955), 398–406 (see also id., RB 73 (1966), 95 note 2); M. E. Stone and J. C. Greenﬁeld, “The Prayer of Levi”, JBL 112 (1993), 247–266; id., “The First Manuscript of Aramaic Levi from

pseudepigrapha

625

Qumran (4QLevia aram)”, Le Muséon 107 (1994) 257–281; id., “The Second Manuscript of Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran (4QLevia aram)”, Le Muséon 109 (1996) 1–15; id., “The Third and Fourth Manuscripts of Aramaic Levi Document from Qumran (4QLevic aram and 4QLevid aram)”, Le Muséon 109 (1996) 245–259; K. Beyer, Ergänzungsband, pp. 71–78; R. Eisenman and M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Shaftesbury etc. 1992, pp. 136–141; cf. DJD XXII, 1–72. Hebrew: Testament of Naphtali (4Q215), cf. R. Eisenman and M. Wise, op. cit., pp. 156–160; G. W. Nebe, “Qumranica I”, ZAW 106 (1994), 315–322; cf. DJD XXII, 73–82.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Charles II, pp. 282–367 (Charles); Kautzsch II, pp. 458–506 (Schnapp); Riessler, pp. 1149–1250, 1335–1338; JSHRZ III/1, pp. 15–163 (Becker); Sparks, pp. 505–599 (De Jonge); OTP I, pp. 775–828 (Kee); R. H. Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Translated from the Editor’s Greek Text, London 1908; id., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (TED 1), London 1917; H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Commentary (SVTP 8), Leiden 1985.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 49–59; M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition, and Origin, Assen 1953, 19752; id., “Christian Inﬂuence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, NovTest 4 (1960), 182–235; id., “Once More: Christian Inﬂuence in the Testaments of the Patriarchs”, NovTest 5 (1962), 311–319; id., “Recent Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, SEÅ 36 (1971), 77–96; id. (ed.), Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (SVTP 3), Leiden 1975; id., “The Main Issues in the Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, NTS 26 (1980), 508–524; id., “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Christian and Jewish. A Hundred Years after Friedrich Schnapp”, NTT 39 (1985), 265–275; id., “Two Messiahs in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs?” in: J. W. van Henten e.a. (eds.), Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Studia Post-biblica 36; FS J. C. H. Lebram), Leiden 1986, pp. 150–162; id., “The Future of Israel in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, JSJ 17 (1986), 196–211; id.? “The Testament of Levi and Aramaic levi”, Revue de Qumran 4–52 51988) 367–388; id., Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Collected Essays (Supplements to NovTest 63), Leiden 1991; id., “The Transmission of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by Christians”, Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993), 1–28; id., A. S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 3), Assen 1957, pp. 190–216; M. Philonenko, Les interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les manuscrits de Qumran (Cahiers de la RHPR),

626

chapter thirteen

Paris 1960; F. M. Braun, “Les Testaments des XII Patriarches et le problème de leur origine”, RB 67 (1960), 516–549; C. Burchard – J. Jervell – J. Thomas, Studien zu den Testamenten der zwölf Patriarchen (BZNW 36), Berlin 1969; J. Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen (AGJU 8), Leiden 1970; K. H. Rengstorf, “Herkunft und Sinn der PatriarchenReden in den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen”, in: W. C. van Unnik (ed.), La littérature juive entre Tenach et Mishna (Recherches bibliques 9), Leiden 1974, pp. 29–47; G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Joseph, Missoula MT 1975; A. Hultgård, L’eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Historia Religionum 6–7): I. Interprétation des textes, Uppsala 1977; II. Composition de l’ouvrage, textes et traductions, Stockholm 1982; M. E. Stone, “New Evidence for the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, RB 84 (1977), 94–107; H. D. Slingerland, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (SBL Monograph Series 21), Missoula MT 1977; H. C. Kee, “The Ethical Dimensions of the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to their Provenance”, NTS 24 (1978), 259–270; H. W. Hollander, Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 6), Leiden 1981; D. Slingerland, “The Nature of the Nomos (Law) Within the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, JBL 105 (1986), 39–48; J. H. Ulrichsen, Die Grundschrift der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen. Eine Untersuchung zu Umfang, Inhalt und Eigenart der ursprünglichen Schrift (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum 10), Stockholm 1991; R. A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest. The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 9), Atlanta GA 1996; M. de Jonge and J. Tromp, “Jacob’s Son Levi in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and Related Literature”, in: M. Stone and Th. A. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, Harrisburg, Penns. 1998, pp. 203–236; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 227–289.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (TestXIIPatr) represent a collection of the last words of the twelve sons of Jacob, which they are said to have addressed to their descendants prior to their death. In line with the typical characteristics of such addresses, virtually all of the testaments contain biographical-haggadic, exhortatory and eschatological-apocalyptic material. Each testament, in which the exhortations tend as a rule to occupy the most important place,76 deals with one or more virtue or misdeed, illustrated on the basis of the patriarch’s own experience77 or by reference to the Joseph. Ruben, who had sexual intercourse with one of his father’s concubines (Gen. 35:22; 49:4), warns against illicit sex; Simeon against

76 77

The Testament of Levi contains few exhortations. The Testament of Asher contains virtually no biographical details.

pseudepigrapha

627

envy and jealousy (cf. Gen. 42:24); Levi, to whom the priesthood was granted, against arrogance among priests; Judah, who gave in to alcohol and lust (Genesis 38), against wine, impurity and avarice; Issachar who, according to lxx Gen.49:15, became a farmer, argues in favour of simplicity; Zebulun, who had pity on Joseph, appeals for compassion and mercy; Dan, who rejoiced at the sale of his brother Joseph, warns against anger and deceit; Naphtali, light footed as a doe (cf. Gen. 49:21), appeals for goodness; Gad, who hated Joseph, counsels fraternal and neighbourly love; Asher (literally: “just one, pure”) calls for radical devotion to God and his commandments. Partly on account of his experiences with the wife of Potiphar (Genesis 39), Joseph adjures perseverance, chastity and neighbourly love. As the Lord’s labourer who “divides the spoil” (Gen. 49:27) and no longer a ravenous wolf, Benjamin urges a pure disposition. Worthy of particular interest in the TestXIIPatr are the apparent precedence it gives to Levi (priesthood) over Judah (kingship), its associated reference to the expectation of two messianic ﬁgures (cf. the Dead Sea Scrolls) and the particular emphasis it places on the love of God and neighbour and on purity of life. A prominent role is likewise set aside for Joseph as ethical model (Hollander 1981). The Testaments have survived to the present day in the form of fourteen Greek manuscripts,78 several Armenian manuscripts that diﬀer considerably on occasion from the Greek text79 and (in addition to a Latin and Modern Greek tradition) a number of Slavonic versions.80 We also have a number of Hebrew and Aramaic fragments at our disposal that exhibit kinship with the text of the book as we now have it. Perhaps the most important of the latter is the Aramaic fragment of Test. Levi, discovered in the geniza (refuse room) of the Ezra synagogue in Old Cairo, which agrees in places with the remnants of the Test. Levi found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.81 The scant remains of an Aramaic text from Cave 4 of 78 Cf. M. de Jonge, “Recent Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, SEÅ 36 (1971), 77–96; H. J. de Jonge, “Die Textüberlieferung der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen”, ZNW 63 (1972), 27–44. See also M. de Jonge (ed.), Studies 1975, pp. 45ﬀ. 79 Burchard counts 45 manuscripts, cf. C. Burchard, “Zur armenischen Überlieferung der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen”, in: C. Burchard-J. Jervell-C. Thomas, op. cit., 1970, pp. 1–29. 80 Cf. E. Turdeanu, op. cit., 1970. 81 Cf. F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, Vol. II, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1997, pp. 1076–1081.

628

chapter thirteen

Qumran potentially pertain to a Testament of Joseph,82 which served as the basis of the Greek text of the TestXIIPatr. In part fairly large fragments of a Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, likewise discovered in Cave 4 of Qumran, contain a text that is related to the Greek Testament of Naphtali (which forms part of the TestXIIPatr), but the precise nature of the relationship between them remains to be determined.83 A medieval Testament of Naphtali, know to us in the form of two recensions, exhibits striking kinship with the Greek version but oﬀers no points of agreement with the Qumran fragments.84 It is diﬃcult to imagine a subject more disputed than the origins of the TestXIIPatr. After a long period of time in which the document was considered to be of Jewish origins with later Christian editing/interpolation,85 scholars have more recently defended the hypothesis that the book was originally Christian, that it was written in the second (or third) century CE and that it made use of existing (already documented) Jewish traditions.86 The discoveries at Qumran, moreover, have led some scholars to favour an Essene origin whereby Christian interpolations are barely considered acceptable.87 Others support the idea of an Essene sub-stratum that was later reworked by Christian writers. One can argue with a considerable degree of assurance that the Aramaic Test. Levi served as the Vorlage of the present Greek Testament. In light of the manuscripts thereof discovered at Qumran, this Aramaic document must have had its origins in the second century BCE. A number of scholars likewise favour the suggestion that similar Vorlagen, possibly written in Hebrew, can be presupposed with respect to the other Testaments. It is argued that a collection of Testaments came into existence on the basis of such Vorlagen that also attracted the attention of Christians who subjected them to further redaction. The TestXIIPatr would thus appear to have come into existence around the beginning of the Common Era after a cen82

Cf. F. García Martínez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, op. cit. Cf. G. W. Nebe, op. cit., 1994. 84 Cf. R. H. Charles, op. cit., 1908, pp. 239–244. 85 J. E. Grabe, Spicilegium SS. Patrum et Haereticorum I, Oxford 1698 (17142) [“a Judaeo olim scripta, a Christiano autem postea interpolata”]; R. H. Charles, op. cit. [interpolation]; F. Schnapp (in Kautzsch) [redaction]. For an overview of the Forschungsgeschichte see J. Becker, Untersuchungen, pp. 129–154. 86 Thus M. de Jonge and J. T. Milik. 87 Thus A. Dupont-Sommer, Semitica 4 (1951–1952), pp. 33ﬀ. and M. Philonenko, op. cit., 1960. 83

pseudepigrapha

629

turies long process of reworking and adaptation of older traditions and the addition of new material. While the location in which this process took place is diﬃcult to determine, the importance ascribed to Joseph in several of the Testaments has led to the postulation of Jewish-Hellenistic circles in Egypt, at least with respect to the Greek redaction.88 In spite of certain points of agreement with the content of some Qumran documents, the suggestion of an Essene origin remains diﬃcult to support. Too many characteristic features of the Qumran community, such as strict observation of the sabbath, the new covenant, celibacy etc., are lacking in the Testaments to make such an identiﬁcation feasible.

o. The Life of Adam and Eve Text editions: Latin: W. Meyer, “Vita Adae et Evae”, in: Abhandlungen der philosophischphilologischen Klasse der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 14/3, Munich 1878 (introduction: pp. 185–220; text: pp. 221–250); Greek: C. von Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae, Leipzig 1866 (reprint Hildesheim 1966), pp. 1–23; M. Nagel, La vie d’Adam et d’Eve (Apocalypse de Moïse) I–III, Lille 1974 (provisional critical text in A. M. Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’ Ancien Testament, Louvain-la-Neuve 1978, pp. 815–818); D. A. Bertrand, La vie grecque d’Adam et Eve. Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire (Recherches intertestamentaires 1), Paris 1987 (lit.!); Armenian: M. E. Stone, The Penitence of Adam (CSCO 429–430), Leuven 1981. See also G. A. Anderson and M. E. Stone (eds.), A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 5), Atlanta GA 1994, which provides translations of the Armenian Penitence of Adam (cf. M. E. Stone 1981) and the Georgian and Slavonic versions in addition to the Greek and Latin texts; cf. also W. L. Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, Atlanta GA 1990.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Greek text: Charles II, pp. 123–154 (Wells); Kautzsch II, pp. 506–528 (Fuchs); Riessler, pp. 138–155, 668–681, 1273–1274; 1311–1312; OTP II, pp. 249–295 ( Johnson); JSHRZ II/5 (Merk und Meiser), pp. 737–870; D. A. Bertrand, op. cit.; Sparks, pp. 141–167 (Wells and Whittaker).

88

Cf. H. W. Hollander, op. cit., 1981.

630

chapter thirteen

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 3–14; J. H. Mozley, “The Vitae Adae”, JThS 30 (1929), 121–129; J. M. Evans, Paradise Lost and the Genesis Traditions, Oxford 1968; M. Nagel, La vie grecque d’Adam et d’Eve (Apocalypse de Moïse), Oberbronn 1972; J. L. Sharpe, Prolegomena to the Establishment of the Critical Text of the Greek Apocalypse of Moses, Ann Arbor Mich. 1969; id., “The Second Adam in the Apocalypse of Moses”, CBQ 35 (1973), 35–46; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Some Related Traditions in the Apocalypse of Adam, the Books of Adam and Eve, and 1 Enoch”, in: The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol. 2: Sethian Gnosticism (Studies in the History of Religions 41), Leiden 1980, pp. 515–539; H. Cousin (ed.), Vies d’Adam et Eve, des patriarches et des prophètes. Textes juifs autour d’ère chrétienne (Supplément au Cahiers Evangile et Vie 32), Paris 1980; M. E. B. Halford, “The Apocryphal Vita Adae et Evae. Some Comments on the Manuscript Tradition”, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 82 (1981), 417–427; E. Turdeanu, “La vie d’Adam et Eve en slave et en roumain”, in: id., Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament (SVTP 5), Leiden 1981, pp. 75–145; J. R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch ( JSP Supplement 1), Sheﬃeld 1988; id., “The Exoneration of Eve in the Apocalypse of Moses 15–20”, JSJ 20 (1989), 135–150; G. A. Anderson, “The Penitence Narrative in the ‘Life of Adam and Eve’”, HUCA 63 (1992), 1–38; M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 3), Atlanta GA 1992; id., “The Fall of Satan and Adam’s Penance. Three Notes on the Books of Adam and Eve”, JThS 44 (1993), 143–156; id., Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Adam and Eve (SVTP 14), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996; L. van Rompay, “Memoires of Paradise. The Greek ‘Life of Adam and Eve’ and Early Syriac Tradition”, ARAM Periodical 5 (1993), 555–570; A. Piñero, “Angels and Demons in the Greek Life of Adam and Eve”, JSJ 24 (1993), 191–214; M. de Jonge and J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 4), Sheﬃeld 1997 (lit.!); G. Anderson e.a. (eds.), Literature on Adam and Eve. Collected Essays, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2000; DenisHaeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 3–58.

An extensive cycle of Adam literature emerged in early Judaism and in Christian circles surrounding the ﬁgures of Adam and Eve. The vast majority of the said material is of Christian origin, while the two works to be treated in the present paragraph exhibit, albeit slight, Christian reworking: a Greek text preserved in three diﬀerent forms and designated the Apocalypse of Moses, and a Latin text signiﬁcantly parallel to the latter entitled The Lives of Adam and Eve (Vita Adae et Evae). In addition to the (on occasion) verbatim agreements between the two texts, however, each contains pericopes that are lacking in the other.

pseudepigrapha

631

In spite of the eﬀorts of Nagel (text edition 1974), a critical edition of the Greek text is not yet available. A much-needed new edition of the Latin Vita Adae et Evae likewise awaits completion. The Armenian Book of Adam (to be distinguished from the Penitence of Adam) is dependent on the Greek version. In addition, we possess a Georgian Book of Adam (closely related to the Armenian Penitence of Adam),89 a Slavonic version and fragments of a Coptic translation (for details cf. M. de Jonge and J. Tromp, op. cit., 1997).

The books relate the various penitential acts performed Adam and Eve after their expulsion from paradise whereby Eve falls victim once again to Satan’s deceit (Vita 1–17), the birth of Cain and Abel, Eve’s dream and Abel’s death, the birth of Seth and the remaining children (Vita 18–24; Apoc. 1–5), Adam’s declaration to Seth concerning a reception into the “paradise of justice” in which the ﬁrst human person received the announcement of his death, and the secrets of the future revealed by Adam to Seth (Vita 25–29). The narrative of Adam’s sickness follows and we are told of Eve and Seth’s mission to paradise and their futile attempt to acquire oil to heal him (Vita 30–44; Apoc. 5–14).90 After Eve has related the fall (Apoc.15–30), Adam makes known his last will and testimony and dies (Vita 45–46; Apoc. 31–32). All the angels pray for Adam’s forgiveness (Apoc. 33–36) and God in response has mercy on him (Vita 46–47; Apoc. 37). The angels ask permission to bury him (Apoc. 38–39) whereupon he is interred together with Abel in paradise (Vita 48; Apoc. 40–42). Both books end with the narrative of Eve’s death and burial (Vita 49–51; Apoc. 42–43). Both documents exhibit such a degree of agreement that they appear to have been based on a common source. Parallels in terms of content with early rabbinic traditions and Pauline theology together with agreements with material preserved in 2 Enoch and Josephus make it likely that the original work (probably written in Greek) ﬁrst came to light in the second century CE. Based on the Vita’s apparent presupposition of the existence of the temple in Jerusalem, several scholars have defended the hypothesis that the author must have

89 J. P. Mahé, “Le livre d’Adam géorgien”, in: R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (eds.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (FS G. Quispel), Leiden 1981, pp. 227–260. 90 E. C. Quinn, The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life, Chicago-London 1962.

632

chapter thirteen

penned his work prior to 70 CE. The lack of evidence to this end in the best Latin manuscripts, however, makes such a hypothesis unsustainable. The author of the original work’s lively imagination and artistic skills are abundantly evident in the document’s copious use of edifying narrative (haggadic) material. The emphasis on fervent penitence as a means to defeat Satan is a striking feature. Shades of Pharisaic theology have led scholars to suspect that the author should be counted among the early rabbis. The abundance of Adam literature that was to develop in later years may have been motivated and/or inspired by the Vita Adae et Evae. For further details see M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 3), Atlanta GA 1992 and M. de Jonge – J. Tromp, op. cit., 1997, pp. 79–94.

p. Other pseudepigraphal documents Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Text editions: G. Kisch, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Publications in Mediaeval Studies 10), Notre Dame Ind., 1949; D. J. Harrington, The Hebrew Fragments of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Preserved in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel. Edited and Translated (SBL Texts and Translations 3. Pseudepigrapha Series 3), Missoula MA 1974; D. J. Harrington – J. Cazeaux – C. Perrot – P. M. Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon. Les Antiquités Bibliques I–II (SC 229–230), Paris 1976; H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation I–II (AGJU 31), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Riessler, pp. 735–861, 1315–1318; JSHRZ II/2, pp. 89–271 (Dietzfelbinger); OTP II, pp. 297–377 (Harrington); M. R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (TED 1), London 1917 (reprint New York 1971 with a length introduction by L. H. Feldman, pp. vii-clxix: lit.!; see also id., “Epilogomenon to Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB)”, JJS 25 (1974), 305–312); P. W. van der Horst, De bijbelse geschiedenis van Pseudo-Philo (Na de Schriften 7), Kampen 1990; Harrington e.a., op. cit., 1976; Jacobson, op. cit., 1996.

pseudepigrapha

633

Monographs and articles/commentaries: L. Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria”, JQR 10 (1898), 277–332; O. Eissfeldt, “Zur Kompositionstechnik des pseudo-philonischen Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, Kleine Schriften III, Tübingen 1966, pp. 340–353; G. Delling, “Von Morija zum Sinai (Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 32,1–10)”, JSJ 2 (1971), 1–18; id., “Die Weise, von der Zeit zu reden, im Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, NovTest 13 (1971), 305–321; D. J. Harrington, “The Original Language of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, HThR 63 (1970), 503–514; id., “The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, CBQ 33 (1971), 1–17; id., The Text-Critical Situation of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, Revue Bénédictine 83 (1973), 383–388; id., “A Decade of Research on Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities”, JSP 2 (1988), 3–12; I. Fröhlich, “Historiographie et aggada dans le Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum du PseudoPhilo”, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28 (1980), 353–409; A. Zeron, ‘Erwägungen zu Pseudo-Philos Quellen und Zeit’”, JSJ 11 (1980), 38–52; J. Hadot, “‘Le milieu d’origine du ‘Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum’”, in: A. Caquot (ed.), La littérature intertestamentaire. Colloque de Strasbourg (17–19 Octobre 1983), Paris 1985, pp. 153–171; F. J. Murphy, “Divine Plan, Human Plan: A Structuring Theme in Pseudo-Philo”, JQR 77 (1986), 5–14; id., “God in Pseudo-Philo”, JSJ 19 (1988), 1–18; id., “The Eternal Covenant in Pseudo-Philo”, JSP 3 (1988), 43–57; P. S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament”, in: D. A. Carson e.a., It is Written. Scripture Citing Scripture (FS B. Lindars), Cambridge 1988, pp. 99–121; E. Reinmuth, “Beobachtungen zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (PseudoPhilo)”, JSJ 20 (1989), 151–170; P. W. van der Horst, “Portraits of Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, JSP 5 (1989), 29–46; H. Jacobson, “Biblical Quotation and Editorial Function in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, ibid., 47–64; C. T. R. Hayward, “The Figure of Adam in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities”, JSJ 23 (1992), 1–20; Cheryl A. Brown, No Longer Be Silent. First Century Jewish Portraits of Women. Studies in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (Gender and Biblical Tradition 1), Louisville Kent. 1992; D. Mendels, “PseudoPhilo’s Biblical Antiquities, the ‘Fourth Philosophy’, and the Political Messianism of the First Century C.E.”, in: J. H. Charlesworth, The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, Minneapolis 1992, pp. 261–275; E. R. Smits, “A Contribution to the History of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum in the Middle Ages”, JSJ 23 (1992), 197–216; F. J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo. Rewriting the Bible, New York-Oxford 1993; J. R. Levinson, “Prophetic Inspiration in Pseudo-Philo’s ‘Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum’”, JQR NS 85 (1995/1996), 297–329; id., “Torah and Covenant in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”, in: F. Avemarie e.a. (eds.), Bund und Tora (WUNT 92), Tübingen 1996), pp. 111–128; H. M. Jackson, “Echoes and Demons in the Pseudo-Philonic Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum”,

634

chapter thirteen

JSJ 27 (1996), 1–20; M. DesCamp, “Why Are these Women Here? An Examination of the Sociological Setting of Pseudo-Philo through Comparative Reading”, JSP 16 (1997), 58–80; H. Jacobson, “Thoughts on the ‘Cronicles of Jerahmeel’, Ps-Philo’s ‘Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum’ and their Relationship”, Studia Philonica Annual 8 (1997), 239–263; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 405–429.

Paralipomena Ieremiae Text editions: J. R. Harris, The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 AD, London 1889; R. A. Kraft and A. E. Purintun, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (SBL Texts and Translations 1. Pseudepigrapha Series 1), Missoula MT 1972; J. Riaud, “Les Paralipomènes du prophète Jérémie. Presentation, texte original, traduction et commentaries”, Cahiers du centre interdisciplinaire de recherches en histoire, Lettres et langues 14, Angers 1994, pp. 137–159. For editions and translations of the Ethiopic, Armenian and Slavonic texts see B. Schaller, JSHRZ I/8, pp. 696–698.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Riessler, pp. 903–919, 1323; Sparks, pp. 813–833 (Thornhill); JSHRZ I/8, pp. 659–777 (Schaller); OTP II, pp. 413–425 (Robinson); R. A. Kraft and A. E. Purintun, op. cit.; J. Riaud, “Paralipomena Jeremiou”, in: M. de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament, Cambridge 1985, pp. 213–220; id., op. cit., 1994.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 70–78; G. Delling, Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremias (BZAW 100), Berlin 1967; P. Bogaert, “Les Paralipomena Jeremiae et l’Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch”, in: id., L’Apocalypse de Baruch I (SC 144), Paris 1969, pp. 177–221; M. E. Stone, “Some Observations on the Armenian Version of the Paralipomena of Jeremiah”, CBQ 35 (1973), 47–59; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Narrative Traditions in the Paralipomena of Jeremiah and 2 Baruch”, ibid., 60–68; J. Riaud, “La ﬁgure de Jérémie dans les Paralipomena Jeremiae”, in: A. Caquot et M. Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212), Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 373–385; id., “Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae”, Folia Orientalia 27 (1990), 25–41; C. Wolﬀ, “Irdisches und himmlisches Jerusalem—Die Heilshoﬀnung in den Paralipomena Jeremiae”, ZNW 82 (1991), 147–158; J. Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae. Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43), Tübingen 1994; J. D. Kaestli, “L’inﬂuence du livre de Jérémie dans les Paralipomènes de Jérémie”,

pseudepigrapha

635

in: A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer (eds.), The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception (BEThL 128), Leuven 1997, pp. 217–231; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 681–718.

The Lives of the Prophets Text editions: Th. Schermann, Prophetarum vitae fabulosae. Indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini: Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicate (TU 31.3), Leipzig 1907; C. C. Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets. Greek Text and Translation (SBL Monograph Series 1), Philadelphia 1946; M. A. Knibb, “The Ethiopic Version of the Lives of the Prophets”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43 (1980), 197–206, 48 (1985), 16–41; Anna Maria Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum I–II (TSAJ 49–50), Tübingen 1995–1996 (text with extensive commentary).

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Riessler, pp. 871–880, 1321–1322; OTP II, pp. 379–399 (Hare); JSHRZ I/7, pp. 535–658 (Schwemer); C. Torrey, op. cit., 1946; A. M. Schwemer, op. cit., 1995–1996.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 85–90; T. Schermann, Propheten- und Apostellegenden nebst Jüngerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte (TU 31/3), Leipzig 1907; J. Jeremias, Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt, Göttingen 1958; M. de Jonge, “Christelijke elementen in de Vitae Prophetarum”, NTT 16 (1961–1962), 161–178; A. M. Schwemer, “Die Verwendung der Septuaginta in den Vitae Prophetarum”, in: M. Hengel und A. M. Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT 72), Tübingen 1994, pp. 62–91; D. Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine. Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995; A. M. Schwemer, op. cit., 1995–1996; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 577–606.

Testament of Abraham Text editions: M. R. James, The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Text Now First Edited with an Introduction (Texts and Studies 2.2), Cambridge 1892; M. E. Stone (ed.), The Testament of Abraham. The Greek Recensions (SBL Texts and Translations 2, Pseudepigrapha Series 2), Missoula MT 1972; F. Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham (TSAJ 11), Tübingen 1986.

636

chapter thirteen

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Riessler, pp. 1091–1103, 1332–1333; JSHRZ III/2, pp. 193–256 ( Janssen); OTP I, pp. 871–902 (Sanders); Sparks, pp. 393–421 (Turner); G. H. Box, The Testament of Abraham (TED 2.8), London 1927; M. Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham (SVTP 2), Leiden 1973; M. E. Stone, op. cit., 1972; F. Schmidt, op. cit., 1986.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 31–39; N. Turner, “The Testament of Abraham: Problems in Biblical Greek”, NTS 1 (1954–1955), 219–223; D. J. Harrington, “Abraham Traditions in the Testament of Abraham and the Rewritten Bible of the Intertestamental Period”, in: G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Abraham (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 6), Missoula MT 1972, pp. 139–152; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Eschatology in the Testament of Abraham: A Study of the Judgement Scenes in the Two Recensions”, ibid., pp. 180–227; A. B. Kolenkow, “The Angelology of the Testament of Abraham”, ibid., pp. 228–245; E. Turdeanu, “Le Testament d’Abraham en slave et en roumain”, in: id., Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament (SVTP 5), Leiden 1981, pp. 201–239; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 173–199.

Testament of Job Text editions: Greek: M. R. James, “The Testament of Job”, in: Apocrypha Anecdota II (TS V, 1), Cambridge 1897, pp. lxxii-cii, 103–137; S. P. Brock, Testamentum Iobi (PVTG 2), Leiden 1967, pp. 1–59; R. A. Kraft e.a., The Testament of Job According to the S.V. Text (SBL Texts and Translations 5. Pseudepigrapha Series 4), Missoula MT 1974; Coptic fragments: Cornelia Römer und H. J. Thissen, P. Köln Inv. Nr. 3221: “Das Testament des Hiob in koptischer Sprache. Ein Vorbericht”, in: M. A. Knibb and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies on the Testament of Job, Cambridge 1989, pp. 33–45.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Riessler, pp. 1104–1134, 1333–1334; JSHRZ III/3, pp. 301–387 (Schaller); OTP I, pp. 829–868 (Spittler); Sparks, pp. 617–648 (Sparks-Thornhill); M. Philonenko, “Le Testament de Job. Introduction, traduction et notes”, Semitica 18 (1968), pp. 1–75; R. A. Kraft e.a., op. cit., 1974; R. P. Spittler, The Testament of Job, in: M. de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament, Cambridge 1985, pp. 65–72.

pseudepigrapha

637

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 100–104; M. Philonenko, “Le Testament de Job et les Thérapeutes”, Semitica 8 (1958), 41–53; M. Delcor, “Le testament de Job, la prière de Nabonide et les traditions targoumiques”, in: S. Wagner (ed.), Bibel und Qumran (FS H. Bardtke), Berlin 1968, pp. 57–74; I. Jacobs, “Literary Motifs in the Testament of Job”, JJS 21 (1970), 1–10; D. Rahnenführer, “Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament”, ZNW 62 (1971), 68–93; J. J. Collins, “Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job”, in: G. MacRae (ed.), SBL 1974 Seminar Papers I, Cambridge MA 1974, pp. 35–52; H. C. Kee, “Satan, Magic, and Salvation in the Testament of Job”, ibid., pp. 53–76; B. Schaller, “Das Testament Hiobs und die SeptuagintaÜbersetzung des Buches Hiob”, Biblica 61 (1980), 377–406; P. W. van der Horst, “The Role of Women in the Testament of Job”, NTT 40 (1986), 273–289; M. A. Knibb and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies on the Testament of Job (SNTS Monograph Series 66), Cambridge 1989; Susan R. Garrett, “The ‘Weaker Sex’ in the Testament of Job”, JBL 112 (1993), 55–70 (disputes the thesis proposed by Van der Horst that the two parts of the work are based on diﬀerent sources); C. T. Begg, “Comparing Characters. The Book of Job and the Testament of Job”, in: W. A. M. Beuken (ed.), The Book of Job (BEThL 114), Leuven 1994, pp. 405–429; H. M. Wahl, “Elihu, Frevler oder Frommer? Die Auslegung des Hiobbuches (Hi 32–37) durch ein Pseudepigraphon (TestHi 41–43)”, JSJ 25 (1994), 1–17; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 889–909.

Apocalypse of Abraham Denis, Introd., pp. 37–38; Riessler, pp. 13–39, 1267–1269; OTP I, pp. 681–705 (Rubinkiewicz-Lunt); Sparks, pp. 393–422 (Pennington); JSHRZ V/5, pp. 413–460 (Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko); N. Bonwetsch, Die Apokalypse Abrahams. Das Testament der vierzig Märtyrer (Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche I/1), Leipzig 1897 (reprint Aalen 1972); G. H. Box and J. I. Landsman, The Apocalypse of Abraham (TED), London 1918 (reprint 1919); E. Turdeanu, “L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en slave”, JSJ 3 (1972), 153–180; R. Rubinkiewicz, “La vision de l’histoire dans l’Apocalypse d’Abraham”, in: W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Teil II Principat, Band 19, 1: Religion ( Judentum: Allgemeines; Palästinisches Judentum), Berlin-New York 1979, pp. 137–151; id., L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire, Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Université Catholique de Lublin, Lublin 1987; Belkis Philonenko-Sayar et M. Philonenko, L’apocalypse d’Abraham (= Semitica 31), Paris 1981; R. G. Hall, “The ‘Christian Interpolation’ in the Apocalypse of Abraham, JBL 107 (1988), 107–110.; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 201–225.

638

chapter thirteen

Joseph and Asenath Text editions: Greek: P. Batiﬀol, “Le Livre de la prière d’Aséneth”, in: Studia Patristica 1–2, Paris 1889–1890, pp. 1–27 (introduction), 39–87 (Greek text), pp. 89–115 (abbreviated Latin version); M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (Studia Post-Biblica 13), Leiden 1968 (lit!); C. Burchard, Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph und Aseneth (SVTP 13), Leiden 1996, pp. 161–212.

Translations with introduction and notes/commentary: Riessler, pp. 497–538, 1303–1304; JSHRZ II/4, pp. 575–735 (Burchard); OTP II, pp. 177–247 (Burchard); Sparks, pp. 465–503 (Cook); E. W. Brooks, Joseph and Asenath (TED II. Hellenistic-Jewish Texts 7), London and New York 1918; M. de Goeij, Jozef en Aseneth. Apokalyps van Baruch (De Pseudepigrafen 2), Kampen 1981, pp. 9–62; Philonenko, op. cit., 1968.

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd., pp. 40–48; V. Aptowitzer, “Aseneth, the Wife of Joseph”, HUCA 1 (1924), 239–306; M. Delcor, “Un roman d’amour d’origine thérapeute: Le Livre de Joseph et Asénath”, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique (Toulouse) 63 (1962), 3–27; C. Burchard, Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Asenath. Überlieferung-Ortsbestimmung (WUNT 8), Tübingen 1965; id., “Zum Text von ‘Joseph und Aseneth’”, JSJ 1 (1970), 3–34; id., “Zur armenischen Übersetzung von Joseph und Aseneth”, Revue des études arméniennes 17 (1983), 207–240; id., “The Importance of Joseph and Aseneth for the Study of the New Testament”, NTS 33 (1987), 102–134; id., “The Present State of Research on Joseph and Aseneth”, in: J. Neusner e.a. (eds.), Religion, Literature, and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity and Judaism, Langham MD 1987, pp. 31–52; id., Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph und Aseneth (SVTP 13), Leiden 1996; T. Holtz, ‘Christliche Interpolationen in “Joseph und Aseneth’”, NTS 14 (1968), 482–497; S. West, “Joseph and Asenath: A Neglected Greek Romance”, The Classical Quarterly 24 (1974), 70–81; G. Delling, “Einwirkungen der Sprache der Septuaginta in ‘Joseph und Aseneth’”, JSJ 9 (1978), 29–56; D. Sänger, “Bekehrung und Exodus. Zum jüdischen Traditionshintergrund von ‘Joseph und Aseneth’”, JSJ 10 (1979), 11–36; id., Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Asenet (WUNT 5), Tübingen 1980; id., “Jüdisch-hellenistische Missionsliteratur und die Weisheit”, Kairos 23 (1981), 231–243; id., “Erwägungen zur historischen Einordnung und zur Datierung von Joseph und Asenet”, ZNW 76 (1985), 86–106; H. C. Kee, “The Socio-Cultural Setting of Joseph and Aseneth”, NTS 29 (1983), 394–413; G. Delling, Die Kunst des Gestaltens in Joseph

pseudepigrapha

639

und Aseneth, NovTest 26 (1984), 1–42; R. T. Beckwith, “The Solar Calendar of Joseph and Asenath: A Suggestion”, JSJ 15 (1984), 90–111; J. Schwartz, “Recherches sur l’évolution du roman de Joseph et Aséneth” REJ 143 (1984), 273–285; R. D. Chesnutt, “The Social Setting and Purpose of Joseph and Aseneth”, JSP 2 (1988), 21–48; id., From Death to Life. Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth ( JSP Supplement 16), Sheﬃeld 1995; R. C. Douglas, Liminality and Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth, JSP 3 (1989), 31–42; Angela Standhartinger, Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag anhand von Joseph und Aseneth (AGJU 26), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 10), Atlanta GA 1996; C. Burchard, Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph und Asenath (SVTP 13), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1996; C. Hezser, “‘Joseph and Aseneth’ in the Context of Ancient Greek Erotic Novels”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 24 (1997), 1–40 (lit.!); Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 291–329.

The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 149–156; id., Introd., pp. 215–219; Riessler, pp. 862–870, 1318–1321; OTP II, pp. 565–582 (Van der Horst); JSHRZ IV/3, pp. 182–216 (Walter); P. W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (SVTP 4), Leiden 1978 (introduction, text and translation, commentary); id., “Pseudo-Phocylides and the New Testament”, ZNW 69 (1978), 187–202; id., De Spreuken van Pseudo-Phocylides (Na de Schriften. De Pseudepigrafen 3), Kampen 1982, pp. 11–41; id., “Pseudo-Phocylides Revisited”, JSP 3 (1988), 3–30; M. Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen. Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens (OBO 26), Freiburg CH/ Göttingen 1979, pp. 236–302; P. Derron, “Inventaire des manuscrits du Pseudo-Phocylide”, Revue d’histoire des textes 10 (1980), 237–247 (157 manuscripts!); id., Les sentences du Pseudo-Phokylide. Texte, traduction, commentaire, Paris 1986 (critical edition with comprehensive introduction); J. Thomas, Der jüdische Phokylides. Formgeschichtliche Zugänge zu Pseudo-Phokylides und Vergleich mit der neutestamentlichen Paränese (NOTA 23), Freiburg-Göttingen 1992: W. T. Wilson, The Mysteries of Righteousness. The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (TSAJ 40), Tübingen 1994; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1037–1061.

In the following pages we will brieﬂy discuss a number of pseudepigraphal documents that tend on the whole to be left untreated in introductions to the Old Testament and early Jewish literature. Incorrectly ascribed to Philo of Alexandria, the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB: “the Book of Biblical Antiquities”) constitutes a retelling of biblical history from the time of Adam to the death of Saul supplemented with haggadic material. When compared with the

640

chapter thirteen

canonical tradition, the LAB exhibits a signiﬁcant number of omissions (e.g. Genesis 1–3 and Leviticus; the period from Abraham to the exodus from Egypt is related in abbreviated form; the author shows little interest in the tabernacle and the priesthood etc.). On the other hand, however, the text also contains emendations and interpolations (prayers, speeches etc.; cf., for example, the elaborate narratives relating to Kenaz [see Judg. 1:13] in chapters 25–28). Some take the book to be a counterpart to Chronicles, which begins its narrative with the death of Saul, while others maintain that the document as we now have it is incomplete. The work, which only survives to the present day in Latin translation,91 is based on a Greek Vorlage, which in turn harks back to a Hebrew original. It was probably written in Palestine prior to 70 CE (cf. 22:8; 32:3)92 and was apparently known to the authors of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The book contains motifs and legends that are characteristic of synagogue circles from the ﬁrst century of the Common Era. The author urgently recommends the maintenance of the Law as the way to salvation. While LAB contains a number of popular motifs that re-emerge in later Jewish legend (Abraham’s escape from Ur [6], Job as husband of Jacob’s daughter Dinah [8:8], the birth of Moses as an already circumcised boy [9:13]), it also contains material restricted only to the document itself (the relationship between the tower of Babel and Abraham being cast into the ﬁre [6:3–18], the narrative concerning Kenaz [25–28]). Particular attention is devoted to prophecy, the Holy Spirit, good and evil leaders and angels. Idolatry and mixed marriages between Jews and pagan women are rejected as contrary to God’s covenant with Israel. The Paralipomena Ieremiae, also referred to as 4 Baruch or (in Ethiopic manuscripts) the Rest of the Words of Baruch, contains a legend stemming from Palestine that brings the reader to the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE and the Babylonian exile (cf. also 2 and 3 Baruch [l. and m. above]). The book has been preserved in Greek,

91 The Hebrew fragments of LAB in the medieval Chronicles of Jerachmeel would appear to have been translated from Latin, cf. Harrington, op. cit., 1974. 92 While a date of 70 CE is often proposed on the basis of 19:7, it is possible that the text refers to the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II, cf. further D. J. Harrington, OTP II, p. 299.

pseudepigrapha

641

Ethiopic, Armenian and Slavonic translations,93 although it was originally written in Hebrew. The work tells us how the prophet Jeremiah was ordered by God to leave Jerusalem prior to the city’s destruction (1), how angels razed the city walls to the ground and how the temple vessels were swallowed up by the earth (3). Upon the prophet’s request, his servant Abimelech is spared the sight of the city’s destruction.94 After gathering ﬁgs on land owned by Agrippa, Abimelech falls asleep only to wake up again 66 years later and ﬁnd the ﬁgs he had plucked were still fresh (5)! He then establishes contact with Baruch who had remained in Jerusalem. Baruch understands the signiﬁcance of the miracle (the restoration of the people) whereupon he is commanded by an angel to send a letter by way of an eagle to Babylon ordering Jeremiah and the exiles to return to Jerusalem (6–7). Those who had entered into marriage with pagan women are refused entry to the holy city and construct for themselves the city of Samaria (8). After having oﬀered sacriﬁce, Jeremiah dies only to rise again after three days and predict the coming of Christ and his salvation. He is then stoned to death by the people (9). With the exception of the concluding segment with its evident Christian reworking, the document as a whole is clearly Jewish in origin. The edifying and exhortatory work presupposes the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch and, like the latter, was written under the inﬂuence of the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE). The lack of any reference to the second Jewish revolt under Simon bar Kochba (132–135 CE) suggests that document probably stems from the beginning of the second century CE. The Vitae prophetarum, the Lives of the Prophets, represents a document that has survived in a variety of often highly divergent Greek recensions and in a number of other languages.95 It contains a collection of non-biblical haggadic material concerning the lives of the prophets (the Major and Minor prophets together with those mentioned in the historical books of the Old Testament), providing as a minimum

93 Additional details in Denis, Introd., pp. 70–78 and Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 690–703. 94 Ebed-melech is intended here, cf. Jer. 38:7–13 and 39:16–18. 95 Cf. Denis, Introd., pp. 85–90; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 585–589; A. M. Schwemer, op. cit. ( JSHRZ I,7), pp. 541–543.

642

chapter thirteen

reference to their name, place of birth and the location of their grave. The oldest form of the document’s superscription reads: “Names of the prophets and the place from which they come and where they died and how and where they lie buried”. The epilogue reads: “There are [yet] other prophets, [who are] hidden, whose names are recorded in their genealogies in Israel’s books of names, for the entire generation of Israel is written down by name”. It would thus appear that the author limited himself to those prophets concerning whom legendary material was available to him.

Strongly inﬂuenced by the vocabulary of the Septuagint, the Vitae exhibit kinship with other ancient Vitae collections and represent an attempt to introduce the same sort of information contained in the latter to a broader public. The author has clearly borrowed his material from a variety of self-selected written sources of Jewish origin. His interest in the prophets is not based on their ethical preaching but rather on their miraculous deeds, their intermediary intercessions and their predictions of the future. The language in which the document was ﬁrst compiled (Hebrew c.q. Aramaic or Greek) remains the subject of scholarly dispute. Heavily inﬂuenced by legends and popular religion (cf., for example, 2:4) the work may have been written in Jerusalem as early as the ﬁrst half of the ﬁrst century CE. The recensions of the Vitae available to us all contain Christian interpolations. The Testament of Abraham is known to us in the form of two Greek recension, one long (A) and one short (B), both of which have been subject in later centuries to, albeit minor, Christian reworking. In addition to the latter we also possess Slavonic, Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic versions.96 The suggestion that the document was originally written in Hebrew remains unsubstantiated and indeed unlikely (cf. Delcor 1973). We are told that as death approached the righteous and hospitable Abraham, the archangel Michael was sent to him in the hope that patriarch would relinquish his soul to the messenger of the Most High. Abraham refuses, however, insisting that he desires

96 Cf. further Denis, Introd., pp. 31–39 and Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 178–209.

pseudepigrapha

643

to see the whole of the civilised world before he dies. Michael ﬁrst consults with God and Abraham’s wish is granted. The archangel transports him through the air in a heavenly chariot from which Abraham is able to observe humanity below. When he sees men and women committing outrages he calls for punishment by death. At this point, however, Michael is ordered to bring the journey to an end, for God is merciful and postpones judgement to allow sinners the chance to repent. Abraham is then allowed to witness the fate of the souls of humanity, the majority of which enter the wide gate to face judgement while only a few enter through the narrow gate into paradise (cf. Mt. 7:13–14). Three judgements take place in succession: by Abel, by the twelve tribes of Israel and ﬁnally by God himself, since only on the basis of two or three witnesses shall the condemned be put to death (cf. Deut. 17:6)! Once they have returned home Abraham again refuses to relinquish his soul to the archangel. At this juncture God sends Death to Abraham who, upon God’s request, reveals to the latter his violent cruelty and steals his soul by cunning. Abraham is then transported to paradise by the angels. Recension B diﬀers from recension A in locating Abraham’s vision of the place of judgement prior to his journey in the heavenly chariot and in providing a considerably less elaborate judgement scene. The presence of Egyptian motifs (including the weighing of souls in judgement: A 11–13) suggests that the Testament of Abraham, which is not a testament in the strict sense of the term, was probably written in Egypt and not in Palestine (thus Schmidt 1986) and perhaps in the ﬁrst century CE. Abraham’s refusal to die has parallels in Jewish traditions surrounding the ﬁgure of Moses. With the exception of A 13:6, which alludes to the judgement carried out by the twelve tribes of Israel, the book’s universalistic portrayal makes no distinction between Jews and gentiles. As descendants of Adam, all humanity will be saved or punished according to their deeds. Surviving in Greek, Old Slavonic and (incomplete) Coptic versions,97 the Testament of Job presupposes the canonical book of Job in the Septuagint version while exhibiting its own particular characteristics. In line with the main features of a testament, the book tells us how the former pagan King Jobab (cf. Gen. 36:33), who later came to

97

Cf. Denis, Introd., pp. 100–104; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 894–900.

644

chapter thirteen

be known as Job, informed his (later) children on his deathbed of his quest for the true God, how he was informed by angels of the satanic character of the idols worshipped in his kingdom and how he then destroyed their idolatrous temple. Filled with rage, Satan then set about robbing him of his property and children and making him suﬀer intensely. Job persevered in spite of the devil’s revenge, rejecting the advice of his wife and friends as inspired by Satan. His wife Sitis was dead and Elihu had addressed him in anger. Although the latter is cursed, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar are granted forgiveness. Job’s wealth had been returned to him twofold, he had married Dinah, the daughter of Jacob (1:6), and he had been granted seven sons and three daughters as before (1:2–3). The text goes on to relate how Job admonished his children and divided his property among his seven sons. In response to his daughters’ request for a share in the inheritance, Job bequeaths them the three girdles that God had granted him to heal him of his sickness. Once clothed in the girdles, the daughters begin to speak ecstatically in the language of the angels, sing hymns of praise and glorify the Most High in their own language. As they do so the soul of Job is transported away in a heavenly chariot and his body is then buried. While the designation Testament of Job is clearly justiﬁed, the testament’s characteristic elements of exhortation (cf. 45) and its apocalyptic features are evidently forced into the background in favour of the haggadic tale in which Job’s mercy and the virtue of perseverance are given a prominent place. While there is little doubt among scholars that the work was originally written in Greek and came to light in Hellenistic-Jewish circles, the place (probably Egypt) and period (probably during the ﬁrst century of the Common Era) in which it was written remain the subject of dispute. The author accentuates God’s creative power, ﬁnal judgement and heaven as the place of salvation. In addition, however, the work exhibits a highly moralistic and individualistic piety focused on the hereafter, hand in hand with a spiritualisation of the idea of salvation and a devaluation of earthly existence, which nevertheless does not lead to asceticism or pessimism. It is striking that Job’s suﬀering does not occasion questions concerning God’s righteousness but is seen rather within the framework of Satan’s conﬂict with the pious. While the work clearly borrows from Jewish Wisdom Literature, apocalyptic and mysticism, the inﬂuence of magical notions is likewise present.

pseudepigrapha

645

The Apocalypse of Abraham, in which election and covenant play a signiﬁcant role, is a midrash based on Genesis 15 and presented in the form of a revelation. The work is only known to us from Old Slavonic texts, which have survived in a number of Russian redactions and represent translations of a Greek version that may have been based on a Hebrew original. Given the fact that it presupposes the destruction of the temple (27) the book must have been written after 70 CE but before the middle of the second century. It was probably written in Palestine. The work consists of a narrative segment (1–8) together with the apocalypse as such (9–32).98 Chapters 1–8 relate how the youthful Abraham came to the conclusion that the idols of his father Terach did not symbolise gods. He thus beseeches God to reveal Himself to him. God answers his prayer and commands him to leave the house of his father (chapter 7 is a redactional addition). In chapters 9–16 Abraham is commanded by God to oﬀer sacriﬁce (cf. Gen. 15:9) so that he might be allowed to see great things that he has not yet seen. The patriarch is then taken up to heaven, under the guidance of the angel Jaoel, where he sees the light and the ﬁery angels (15), ﬁre (17), the throne of God (18), the ﬁrmaments (19), the world (21) and its seven sins (24–25) as well as the destruction of the temple (27) (it is possible that chapter 23 is secondary). God announces, thereafter, the ﬁnal punishment of the godless by ten plagues (29–30) and the victory of the righteous (31–32). The document exhibits evidence of a number of Christian interpolations and contains glosses stemming from the Bogomiles, an eleventh century CE sect typiﬁed by “Marcionite” dualism (see, for example, 20:5; 22:5).

The book of Joseph and Asenath was originally written in a form of Greek that exhibits evident Septuagint inﬂuence. The work is in fact a novel of Egyptian Jewish origin, probably stemming from the period around the beginning of the Common Era. Taking Gen. 41:45,50–52 and 46:20 as its point of departure, it relates how Joseph took

98 While some scholars ascribe the apocalypse to a diﬀerent author than that of the narrative of chapters 1–8, Rubinkiewisz (OTP I, p. 682) argues in favour of the literary unity of the work (allowing for later interpolations).

646

chapter thirteen

Asenath, the beautiful daughter of Potiphera (lxx: Pentefres), the priest of Heliopolis (On), as his wife only after she had converted to the true God (1–21). In the second part of the work (22–29) we are told of an attempt on the part of pharaoh’s son—with the help of Dan, Gad, Naphtali and Asher—to kill Joseph and to abduct Asenath. The attempt failed, however, and pharaoh’s son died as a result of wounds inﬂicted by Benjamin. Joseph then becomes king of Egypt. In addition to the Greek version, the text of Joseph and Asenath has been passed on to us in Syriac, Armenian, Latin, Slavonic and Ethiopic translations.99 The suggestion that it was written as a proselytising document has gained little support. The addressees would appear rather to be Jews and the work itself designed to show that gentiles who convert to Judaism deserve an equal place within the faith community to those who were born into it. Associations of the work with the Essenes, the followers of Gaius Therapeutes, Jewish Merkabah mysticism and Gnosticism have proven insubstantial.

The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides endeavour to imitate—in terms of language, style and meter—the poetry of the famed Greek poet Phocylides who lived in the second half of the sixth century BCE in Miletus in Asia Minor. Terminology inﬂuenced by the Septuagint, aﬃnity with the conceptual world of the later Stoa and elements of content (including belief in the resurrection of the body, vv. 103–104), however, serve to identify the author of the text rather as a Hellenistic Jew who lived, presumably in Alexandria, in the ﬁrst decades of the Common Era. Basing himself on both biblical and gentile sources, the author has put together a “vademecum of ethical instructions” (Van der Horst), in which typically Jewish customs and laws (sabbath, circumcision, food laws, cultic prescriptions) are left unmentioned. While his moral tone would have been lofty enough to attract gentile approval, it is suﬃciently inspired by Old Testament ethics to lead one to presume that he wanted to create the impression that Phocylides served his apprenticeship, as it were, under Moses.

99 Cf. Denis, Introd., pp. 40–48; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 297–312; C. Burchard, JSHRZ II/4, pp. 580–589; id., OTP II, pp. 178–181.

pseudepigrapha

647

Other pseudepigrapha cited by the Church Fathers or discovered elsewhere tend to have survived in only fragmentary form.100 These include the Prayer of Joseph,101 the Book of Eldad and Medad (cf. Num. 11:26–29),102 the Book of Jannes and Jambres (cf. 2 Tim. 3:8),103 the Apocalypse of Zephaniah104 and the Greek Apocryphon of Ezekiel.105 Others still have undergone such a thorough Christian reworking that any Jewish substratum is barely recognisable. Such is the case, for example, with respect to the Apocalypse of Ezra,106 the Apocalypse of Sedrach (cf. Dan. 1:7),107 the Apocalypse of Elihah,108 100 Cf. M. R. James, The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Their Titles and Fragments, London-New York 1920 (reprint 1936). 101 Cf. Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 61–62; id. Introd., pp. 125–127; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 331–348; OTP II, pp. 699–714 (Smith); J. Z. Smith, “The Prayer of Joseph”, in: J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity (Supplements to Numen 14), Leiden 1970, pp. 253–294 (lit.!). 102 Cf. Denis, Fragmenta, p. 68; id., Introd., pp. 142–145; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 477–490; OTP II, pp. 463–465 (Martin). 103 Cf. Denis, Fragmenta, p. 69; id. Introd., pp. 146–149; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 491–506; OTP II, pp. 427–442 (Pietersma); K. Koch, “‘Das Lamm, das Ägypten vernichtet’. Ein Fragment aus Jannes und Jambres und sein geschichtlicher Hintergrund”, ZNW 57 (1966), 79–93; P. Maraval, “Fragments grecs du Livre des Jannès et Jambré (pap. Vindob. 29456 et 29828 verso)”, ZPE 25 (1977), 199–207; A. Pietersma, The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians. P. Chester Beatty XVI (with New Editions of Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek inv. 29456 + 29828 verso and British Library Cotton Tiberius B. v f.87). Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 119), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1994. 104 Cf. Denis, Fragmenta, p. 129; id., Introd., pp. 192–193; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 793–802; Riessler, pp. 114–125; OTP I, pp. 497–515 (Wintermute); G. Steindorﬀ, Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und Bruchstücke der Sophonias-Apokalypse (TU 17/3a), Leipzig 1899; P. Lacau, “Remarques sur le manuscrit akhmimique des apocalypses de Sophonie et d’Elie”, Journal Asiatique 254 (1966), 169–195. 105 Cf. Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 121–128; id., Introd., pp. 187–191; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 777–792; Riessler, pp. 334–336, 1288–1289; JSHRZ V/1, pp. 45–54 (Eckart); OTP I, pp. 487–495 (Mueller and Robinson); J. R. Mueller, The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel. A Critical Study ( JSP Supplement Series 5), Sheﬃeld 1994. 106 Cf. Denis, Introd., pp. 91–96; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 855–876; Greek text: K. von Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae, Leipzig 1866 (reprint Hildesheim 1966), pp. xii–xiv, 24–33; O. Wahl, Apocalypsis Esdrae. Apocalypsis Sedrach. Visio beati Esdrae (PVTG 4), Leiden 1977, pp. 25–34; Translations: Riessler, pp. 126–137; JSHRZ V/2, pp. 85–102 (Müller); OTP I, pp. 561–579 (Stone). 107 Cf. Denis, Introd., pp. 97–99; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 877–885; OTP I, pp. 605–608 (Agourides); text published by O. Wahl, Apocalypsis Esdrae. Apocalypsis Sedrach. Visio beati Esdrae (PVTG 4), Leiden 1977, pp. 37–46; G. Mercati, “The Apocalypse of Sedrach”, JThS 11 (1910), 572–573. 108 Denis, Introd., pp. 163–169; id., Fragmenta, pp. 103–104; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 609–632; Riessler, pp. 114–125; OTP I, pp. 721–753 (Wintermute); J.-M. Rosenstiehl, L’Apocalypse d’Elie, Paris 1972; A. Pietersma, Susan J. Comstock

648

chapter thirteen

the Testament of Isaac,109 the Testament of Jacob,110 the Testament of Solomon111 and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah.112 The occasional inclusion of the Odes of Solomon113 among the Old Testament pseudepigrapha cannot be adequately justiﬁed.

q. Fragments of Jewish-Hellenistic works Text editions: Denis, Fragmenta, pp. 175–228 [cf. K. Mras (ed.), Eusebius’ Werke VIII. Die Praeparatio Evangelica (GCS 43,1–2), Berlin 1954–1956]; C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume I: Historians (SBL Texts and Translations 20. Pseudepigrapha Series 10), Chico CA 1983; II: Poets—The Epic Poets Theodotus and Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian (SBL Texts and Translations 30. Pseudepigrapha Series 12), Atlanta GA 1989; III: Aristobulus (SBL Texts and Translations 39. Pseudepigrapha Series 13), Sheﬃeld 1995; IV: Orphica (SBL Texts and Translations 40. Pseudepigrapha Series 14), Atlanta GA 1996; B. Snell (ed.), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. I, Göttingen 1986.

Translations with notes/commentary: Riessler, pp. 11–12, 1266–1267 (Pseudo-Eupolemus), 178, 1275 (Aristeas), 179–185, 1275–1276 (Aristobulus), 186–191, 1276–1277 (Artapanus), 241–245, 1280–1281 (Demetrius), 328–333, 1287–1288 (Eupolemus), 337–345, 1289 (Ezekiel the Tragedian), 667, 1311 (Cleodemus Malchus), 733–734, 1315 (Epic Philo), 862–870, 1318–1321 (Phocylides), 1263–1265, 1339 (Epic Theodotus); OTP II, pp. 775–919; JSHRZ I/2, pp. 89–163 (historiographers: Walter), III/2, pp. 257–299 (exegetes: Walter), IV/3, pp. 11–278 and H. W. Attridge, The Apocalypse of Elijah (based on P. Chester Beatty 2018) (SBL Texts and Translations 19. Pseudepigrapha Series 19), Chico CA 1981; D. Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt. The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity), Minneapolis 1993. 109 Cf. OTP I, pp. 903–911 (Stinespring). 110 Cf. OTP I, pp. 913–918 (Stinespring). 111 Cf. OTP I, pp. 935–987 (Duling); H. M. Jackson, “Notes on the Testament of Solomon”, JSJ 19 (1988), 19–60; D. C. Duling, “The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect”, JSP 2 (1988), 87–112. 112 Cf. OTP I, pp. 497–515 (Wintermute); Denis, Introd., pp. 192–193; id., Fragmenta, p. 129. 113 Cf. J. H. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon, Edited with Translation and Notes, Oxford 1973; M. Lattke, Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung für Neues Testament und Gnosis (OBO 25, 1–3), 3 vols., Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1979–1986.

pseudepigrapha

649

(poets: Vogt and Walter). See also P. W. van der Horst, Joods-hellenistische poëzie. De fragmenten der gedichten van Ezechiël Tragicus, Philo Epicus en Theodotus en de vervalste dichtercitaten, vertaald, ingeleid en toegelicht (Na de Schriften 3), Kampen 1987; Holladay, op. cit., I–III (1983, 1989, 1995).

Monographs and articles: Denis, Introd. pp. 270–283; N. Walter, Zur Überlieferung einiger Reste jüdisch-hellenistischer Literatur bei Josephus, Clemens und Euseb, Studia Patristica 7 (1966), 314–320; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (WUNT 10), Tübingen 1969, 19883; P. W. van der Horst, “The Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors”, in: M. J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra. Text, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT II/1), Assen-Maastricht 1988, pp. 519–546; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1191–1237. (Sosates) S. J. Cohen, “Sosates, the Jewish Homer”, HThR 74 (1981), 391–396; P. W. van der Horst, “Korte notities over vroeg-joodse epiek”, NTT 39 (1985), 102–109. (Epic Philo) Y. Gutman, “Philo the Epic Poet, Scripta Hierosolymitana 1 (1954), 36–63; P. W. van der Horst, op. cit., 1985; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1192–1197. (Epic Theodotus) J. J. Collins, “The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans”, HThR 73 (1980), 91–104; R. Pummer, “Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods”, HThR 75 (1982), 177–188; R. Pummer – M. Roussel, “A Note on Theodotus and Homer”, JSJ 13 (1982), 177–182; P. W. van der Horst, op. cit., 1985; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1197–1200. (Ezekiel the Tragedian) K. Kuiper, “Le poète juif Ezéchiel”, REJ 46 (1903), 48–73 (Greek text and translation), 161–177 (studies); M. Freyhan, “Ezekiel der Tragiker”, Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 31 (1938), 46–83; B. Snell, “Ezechiels Moses-Drama”, Antike und Abendland 13 (1967), 150–164; id., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta I, Göttingen 1986, pp. 288–301; J. Strugnell, “Notes on the Text and Metre of Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge”, HThR 60 (1967), 449–457; H. Jacobson, “Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel’s Exagoge”, Illinois Classical Studies 6 (1981), 272–293; id., “Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 22 (1981), 167–178; id., The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Translation and Commentary, Cambridge 1983; P. Fornaro, La voce fuori scena. Saggio sull’ Exagoge di Ezechiele con texto greco, note e traduzione, Turin 1982; P. W. van der Horst, “De joodse toneelsch jver Ezechiël”, NTT 36 (1982), 97–112; id., “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist”, JJS 34 (1983), 21–29; id., “Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel”, Mnemosyne (ser. 4) 37 (1984), 354–375; Nina L. Collins, “Ezekiel,

650

chapter thirteen

the Author of the Exagoge: His Calendar and Home”, JSJ 22 (1991), 201–211; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1201–1216. Denis, Introd., pp. 241–269; P. W. van der Horst, “Schriftgebruik bij drie vroege joods-hellenistische historici: Demetrius, Artapanus, Eupolemus”, ACEBT 6 (1985), 144–161; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1107–1189. (Demetrius) E. J. Bickerman, “The Jewish Historian Demetrios”, in: J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (SJLA 12/3), Leiden 1975, pp. 72–84; C. R. Holladay, “Demetrius the Chronographer as Historian and Apologist”, in: G. Ferguson (ed.), Christian Teachings (FS G. LeMoine), Abilene Tex. 1981, pp. 117–129; L. DiTomasso, “A Note on Demetrius the Chronographer, Fr. 2.11 (= Eusebius, PrEv 9.21.11)”, JSJ 29 (1998), 81–91; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1122–1127. (Artapanus) D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBL Diss. Series 1), Missoula MT 1972, pp. 146–177; C. R. Holladay, Theios Anèr in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology (SBL Diss. Series 40), Missoula MT 1977, pp. 199–232; T. Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature”, JJS 29 (1978), 111–122; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, New York 1983, pp. 32–38; 1135–1146. (Eupolemus) Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College III), Cincinnati-New YorkJerusalem 1974; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1127–1135. (Pseudo-Eupolemus) B. Z. Wacholder, “Pseudo-Eupolemus’ two Greek Fragments on the Life of Abraham”, HUCA 34 (1963), 83–113; N. Walter, “Zu Pseudo-Eupolemus”, Klio 43–45 (1965), 282–290; A. M. Denis, “L’historien anonyme d’Eusèbe (Praep. Ev. 9, 17–18) et la crise des Maccabées”, JSJ 8 (1977), 42–49; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1154–1160. (Pseudo-Hecataeus) B. Schaller, “Hekataios von Abdera über die Juden: Zur Frage der Echtheit und der Datierung”, ZNW 54 (1963), 15–31; J. G. Gager, “Pseudo-Hecataeus Again”, ZNW 60 (1969), 130–139; J. D. Gauger, “Zitate in der jüdischen Apologetik und die Authentizität der HekataiosPassagen bei Flavius Josephus und im Ps. Aristeas-Brief ”, JSJ 13 (1982), 6–46; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1162–1172. (Aristobulus) N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (TU 86), Berlin 1964; D. Winston, “Aristobulus. From Walter to Holladay”, The Studia Philonica Annual 8 (1996), 155–166.; Denis-Haeleweyck, Introduction, pp. 1216–1237.

Of the works of the Jewish-Hellenistic poets Epic Philo, Epic Theodotus and Ezekiel the Tragedian only fragments have survived in book IX of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Praeparatio evangelica (roughly 260–340 CE).

pseudepigrapha

651

The latter borrowed his material from the document Concerning the Jews by Alexander Polyhistor, a Greek author from the ﬁrst century BCE.114 After providing brief commentary on the reign of Ptolemy XII (80–51 BCE) and the High Priests Simon and John Hyrcanus I, the medieval Latin chronicle entitled Excerpta Latina Barbari (seventh or eighth century CE), a translation of a no longer extant Greek world chronicle from the ﬁfth century CE, contains the following line: “In the same period, Sosates, the Jewish Homer, was highly respected in Alexandria”. While one can conclude from the use of the epithet (“the Jewish Homer”) that Sosates must have composed his biblical history in hexametric poetry, not a single line thereof has survived to the present day. Epic Philo composed his epic hexametric poem Concerning Jerusalem in a ‘baroque’ and for modern readers frequently obscure Greek.115 Eusebius quotes 23 lines thereof in his Praeparatio evangelica (IX,20,1; IX,24,1: IX,37,1–3), referring to Abraham and in particular to the sacriﬁce of Isaac (Genesis 22), to Joseph’s reign over Egypt and the provision of water for Jerusalem respectively. The identiﬁcation of Philo with the historian Philo the Elder, who is referred to by Josephus (Contra Apionem 1,218) and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 1,141,3) is more than likely incorrect (cf. N. Walter, JSHRZ I/2, p. 113). Epic Philo may have lived in the second century BCE, probably writing his work in Alexandria. Fragments of Theodotus’ work composed in the style of Greek epic poetry116 are likewise cited in Eusebius (Praeparatio evangelica IX,22,1–11). After a description of the surroundings and geographical location of Shechem and a summary of Jacob’s vicissitudes, the

114 J. Freudenthal, “Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke”, Jahresbericht des jüdisch-theologischen Seminars “Fraenkel’scher Stiftung”, Breslau 1874–1875, pp. 105–130; 212–215. Given the process of textual transmission, textual abbreviation and reformulation, the literal text of the authors alluded to by Alexander Polyhistor is no longer open to reconstruction. The same is true with respect to Eusebius on account of textual corruption. This does not prevent us, however, from forming a more or less reliable image of the intentions and use of Scripture of the authors cited by Eusebius and the content of the works ascribed to them. 115 Probably due in part to the style of Philo and in part to defective transmission. 116 The title of the original is uncertain. Alexander Polyhistor refers to it as Concerning the Jews, but there are reasons to suspect that the original title was Concerning Shechem, cf. N. Walter, JSHRZ IV/3, p. 155.

652

chapter thirteen

fragments paraphrase the narrative of the rape of Jacob’s daughter Dinah found in Genesis 34. As is the case in Jdt. 9:2, Jub. 30:6–7 and Test. Levi 5:1–5; 6:8,11, the attack on the unrighteous Shechemites is not portrayed as a revenge oﬀensive on the part of Simeon and Levi but rather as a punishment desired by God. Scholars are at odds as to whether Theodotus was a Jew or a Samaritan. The author probably lived in the second century BCE. The hypothesis that the surviving fragments represent a justiﬁcation of the destruction of the temple on Mount Gerizim (129 BCE) and of Shechem (109 BCE) by John Hyrcanus I (135–104 BCE), based on an anti-Samaritan interpretation of Genesis 34, cannot be established with any degree of accuracy and is certainly to be rejected if Theodotus was a Samaritan. Written in the style of Greek tragic drama, substantial portions of Exagoge (“Exodus”) by Ezekiel, the “composer of tragedies”, have been preserved in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica (IX,28–29).117 The surviving material relates the departure of the Israelites from Egypt (Exodus 1–15) in which Moses enjoys a prominent role. In addition to the biblical tradition, Ezekiel also makes use of haggadic material. While the Exagoge’s use of iambic meter serves to conﬁrm the suggestion that the work was written in Greek, the period in which the author composed his work is far from certain: his dependence on (a recension of ) the Septuagint together with the content of the Letter of Aristeas 312–316, in which the inclusion of the scriptural material in a dramatic work is explicitly condemned, point to the second half of the second century BCE. The place in which he composed his poem is also disputed (Alexandria? Cyrene?). It is possible that Ezekiel’s dramatic work was actually intended for the stage (cf. how the plagues with which Egypt was to be confronted were announced in advance to Moses by God [132ﬀ.] and how a survivor relates the massacre of the Egyptian army in the Sea of Reeds (193 ﬀ.). The Exagoge also contains a striking description of the phoenix, the extraordinary and impressive bird that was sighted in Elim (cf. Exod. 15:27, vv. 254–269) and that always represents the beginning of a new era in (salvation) history (cf. Van der Horst 1982, pp. 111–112 and Jacobson 1983, pp. 157–164). 117 A number of fragments have also survived in the works of Clement of Alexandria and Eustathius of Antioch.

pseudepigrapha

653

With the exception of 2 and 3 Maccabees, only fragments have survived of the work of Jewish-Hellenistic historical writers. During the Hellenistic period, when more and more nations of the Ancient Near East found themselves absorbed within the horizon of the Greek world, representatives of the former employed a combination of Greek literary forms and their own traditions in an endeavour to demonstrate that their national history and wisdom had its roots in most ancient times (cf. the Aegyptiaca of the Egyptian priest Manetho and the Babyloniaca of the Babylonian priest Berossus from the third century BCE). The purpose was to bring to light the credibility of their national traditions and, as was often the case, to demonstrate, albeit implicitly, that Greek culture was dependent on their culture. Demetrius “the chronographer” is almost certainly the oldest Jewish historian who wrote in Greek. Fragments of his work, which may have been entitled On the Kings of Judah and apparently presented the history of the Jewish people from the time of the patriarchs to the post-exilic period, are known to us from Eusebius (Praeparatio evangelica IX,19,4, IX,21,1–19, IX,29,1–3,15,16c—excerpts borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor) and from a quotation found in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata (I,141,1–2). Among the remains of Alexander Polyhistor’s work, brief mention is made of the sacriﬁce of Isaac together with detailed allusion to the chronology of the patriarchs, the ancestry of Moses and the genealogy of Moses and Sippora. The material also contains a summary narrative of the incidents at Marah and Elim (cf. Exod. 15:22–27) and a treatment of the question concerning the way in which the Israelites came to acquire their weapons at the time. It would appear from the quotation preserved in Clement’s Stromata, which determines the length of the exile of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms up to the reign of Ptolemy IV (221–205 BCE), that Demetrius wrote his work in the last decades of the third century BCE, most probably in Alexandria. He exhibits familiarity with the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch. His rather dry writing style is akin to Hellenistic “scientiﬁc historiography” and the question-answer schema (erotapokriseis), whereby problems raised in the text are provided with a solution. His work is free of legendary trimmings, of the gloriﬁcation of the patriarchs and Moses and of syncretism. Analogous to the historiography of his day, primary emphasis is placed on the historical plausibility of the Scriptures, substantiated on the basis of chronological considerations. Three fragments found in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica (IX,18,1;

654

chapter thirteen

IX,23,1–4; IX,27,1–37—likewise borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor’s work)118 have been ascribed to Artapanus, suggesting that the latter composed a Moses novel under the title Concerning the Jews, a work with which Josephus would appear to have been familiar (cf. Jewish Antiquities II 201–349). After a brief introduction on Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt, where he educated the pharaoh in matters of astrology (fragment 1), and Joseph’s ordinances in support of the Egyptians as well as his discovery of measures (fragment 2), Artapanus’ work would appear to have been entirely dedicated to Moses, portraying the latter as the initiator of all sorts of cultural patrimony and not in the ﬁrst instance as a legislator (see fragment 3). We are told how Moses’s jealous stepfather Chenephres employed a variety of means to get rid of his son-in-law but without success. After killing the man sent to murder him, Moses ﬂees to Arabia. Upon his return to Egypt Moses is thrown into prison in response to his demand that the reigning pharaoh set the Jews free, only to enjoy a miraculous escape when the doors to his cell open by themselves. In a discussion thereafter with the pharaoh, whom Moses had aroused from his sleep, the former asks the name of the God who had sent Moses. Upon hearing the name the pharaoh falls unconscious to the ground only to be brought back to consciousness by Moses. Confronted by devastating plagues, the pharaoh ultimately decides to grant the Jews their liberty. Reference is made to the various explanations provided by the Memphites and the Heliopolites concerning the passage of the Israelites through the See of Reeds. Fragment 3 concludes with a brief allusion to the journey in the wilderness and the provision of manna as well as to the physical vitality of Moses, who would have been roughly 89 years old at the time. Artapanus represents Moses in particular as Kulturheros, identifying him with the god Hermes and with Musaeus, the instructor of Orpheus. The author’s goal was ultimately to demonstrate the superiority of Moses and Judaism over Egyptian culture and religion. Indeed, he even goes so far in his endeavours as to ascribe the Egyptian animal cult to Moses. It is possible that his work was a reaction against the defamation of the Jews and their religion in Egypt where he would appear to have published his Greek language opus in the ﬁrst half of the second century BCE. 118 A partial parallel of the latter fragment can be found in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata I, 23, 154, 2–3.

pseudepigrapha

655

Five fragments remain of Eupolemus’ book, which was probably published under the title On the Kings in Judah, four of which are to be found in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica (IX,26,1; IX,30,1–34,18; IX,34,20; IX,39,2–5—borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor) and one in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata (1,141,4–5 cf. also a parallel with Eusebius IX,26,1 and a brief allusion to IX, 31,4–34,3). The ﬁrst fragment relates how Moses, the ﬁrst wise man, taught the Jews the alphabet, which they in turn passed on to the Phoenicians, and how the Greeks received it from the latter. Moses is also represented as a lawgiver. The lengthy second fragment begins with a summary of history from Moses to Saul after which it turns its attention to David and, in particular, to Solomon. A considerable amount of space is devoted to the construction of the temple of Solomon (diﬀering in many respects from the biblical text) and the latter’s correspondence with Pharaoh Vaphres and the Phoenician king Suron (= Hiram). The short third fragment provides further information concerning Solomon. Fragment 4 relates how Jeremiah prevented the ark and the two stone tables from being transported to Babylon. The ﬁfth fragment, preserved in Clement’s Stromata, calculates the number of years from Adam and from the exodus from Egypt up to the ﬁfth year of the reign of Demetrius I Soter (158/157 BCE), the year in which Eupolemus wrote his work. Such a date supports the probable identiﬁcation of Eupolemus with the priest of the same name who, according to 1 Macc. 8:17–18, was sent by Judas the Maccabean to Rome in 161 BCE together with a certain Jason in order to establish a friendship treaty with the Romans. Eupolemus appears to have given preference to Chronicles over Kings, occasionally harmonising details from both. He was nevertheless familiar with the Hebrew text as well as the Septuagint. It would seem that his history, which begins with Moses, was intended for non-Jewish readers, although his work is much less defensive and missionary-apologetic than then later Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. Within the framework of its treatment of Abraham, Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica alludes to two texts, the ﬁrst of which being ascribed by Alexander Polyhistor to Eupolemus, the second remaining anonymous. Both texts, referred to in the scholarly world as Pseudo-Eupolemus (Praeparatio evangelica IX,17,2–9 and IX,18,2 respectively), portray Abraham as an astrologer who, according to fragment 1, had acquired his knowledge from Enoch.

656

chapter thirteen

Fragment 1 relates how the tower of Babel was constructed by the giants who had survived the ﬂood. After the tower was destroyed by God’s power the giants dispersed themselves over the earth. We are told how Abraham, born in Babylon, travelled to Phoenicia on God’s command where his nephew was taken prisoner in battle by the Armenians (!). Having liberated his nephew, however, Abraham is received as a guest in the temple on Mount Gerizim (!) where he is granted gifts by Melchizedek (cf. Genesis 14). Famine forces Abraham to travel to Egypt where the pharaoh marries his wife but is unable to have intercourse with her (cf. Genesis 12). While in Egypt Abraham spends his time educating the priests in matters of astrology and other sciences. A genealogy follows in which Bel features as the father of Canaan. The fragment’s allusion to Melchizedek as priest of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (cf. Gen. 14:18–20), together with its syncretistic association of biblical ﬁgures with characters from Babylonian and Greek mythology (Bel as father of Canaan, Enoch identiﬁed with Atlas), serves as suﬃcient proof for many scholars that the author must have been a Samaritan and cannot, therefore, be identiﬁed with Eupolemus. Doran (OTP II, pp. 874–876), nevertheless, has defended the attribution of fragment 1 to Eupolemus. The anonymous second fragment relates how Abraham traced his ancestry to the giants who were destroyed by the gods on account of their wickedness. Bel, however, escaped death and built a tower in which he lived. Abraham instructed the Phoenicians in matters of astrology and then travelled to Egypt. The fragment would appear to combine traditions from a variety of diﬀerent sources. In light of the fact that the sanctuary on Mount Gerizzim (destroyed in 132 BCE by John Hyrcanus) is presupposed in fragment 1, one can argue that the material it contains stems from the ﬁrst half of the second century BCE. Only a small fragment remains of the work of Theophilus (cf. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX,34,19), which relates how Solomon gave the gold left over after the construction of the temple to Hiram who used it to make a statue for his daughter. While it is apparent that Theophilus must have written about the construction of the temple (as did Eupolemus), we know nothing more about his historical work beyond the probability that it was written around 100 BCE. It may be possible to identify him with a person of the same

pseudepigrapha

657

name (incorrectly taken to be Greek) referred to by Flavius Josephus (Contra Apionem I, 216). Cleodemus, “the prophet, also known as Malchus”, is referred to by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (I, 240–241) in a quotation taken from one of the works of Alexander Polyhistor (On Libya?). Eusebius borrowed the said excerpt from Josephus and incorporated it into his Praeparatio Evangelica (IX,20,2–4). It speaks of the children fathered by Abraham with his wife Keturah (cf. Gen. 25:1–6) and draws genealogical associations between his descendants and the Greek hero Heracles. Cleodemus apparently lived in the diaspora in Carthage where he endeavoured to co-ordinate the traditions current at the time with the biblical tradition. While he clearly must have lived prior to Alexander Polyhistor, further details of his work and career remain unknown. Scholars generally date him between 200 and 50 BCE. A number of fragments ascribed to the Hellenistic author Hecataeus of Abdera (around 300 BCE) can be found in Josephus (Contra Apionem I,183–204; see also II,43) and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata V,113,1–2; cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities I,159a). The material in question has engendered a great deal of discussion (cf. likewise the Letter of Aristeas 31). Some scholars are of the opinion that the fragments are taken from one and the same document, while others argue that the work On Abraham and the Egyptians, referred to by Clement and employed by Josephus in his portrayal of Abraham, has nothing to do with the document quoted in Josephus’ Contra Apionem (I, 183–204), which transports us to the time of Ptolemy I. Some scholars likewise argue that we should account for two pseudepigrapha in this regard (pseudo-Hecataeus I and pseudo-Hecataeus II; see Walter, JSHRZ I/2, pp. 144–151) while others maintain that at least the larger fragment (Contra Apionem I, 183–204), which praises the Jewish people, the beauty of their land and of the city of Jerusalem, should be considered an authentic example of the work of Hecataeus of Abdera (see Gauger 1982). Among the Jewish-Hellenistic exegetes one can include both Aristobulus and Aristeas, fragments of their work having been preserved by Eusebius (and in the case of Aristobulus also by Clement of Alexandria). Aristobulus composed a tractate, addressed to Ptolemy VI Philometer (181–145 BCE), in which he endeavoured to show that religious doctrine proposed by (the Greek translation of ) the Pentateuch contained

658

chapter thirteen

the “true philosophy”. Every passage in the Law of Moses that gives oﬀence on account of its anthropomorphic expressions concerning God should be interpreted allegorically in order to achieve an accurate representation of the Most High. For those who are able to reason correctly, the Law stands as proof Moses’ wisdom and godly spirit, the latter’s writings being known to Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato! Fragments of the work of Aristobulus, who should be located in Alexandria, have also been preserved by Clement of Alexandria in his Historia ecclesiastica (VII, 32,16–18) and in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica (VIII,10,1–17, XIII, 12,1–2,3–8,9–16). Only a single fragment has been preserved of Aristeas’ work On the Jews, once again in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica (IX,25,1–4, borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor). The fragment oﬀers a brief history of Job, the son of Esau (!), who was initially called Jobab (cf. Gen. 36:33 and Test. of Job) and was the king of Edom. Tested by God with misfortune and sickness, Job nevertheless remained faithful. His indomitability moved God who healed his sickness and granted him much property. Nothing further is known of Aristeas beyond the fact that he must have written his work around 100 BCE, if not earlier. He should not be confused, however, with the author of the Letter of Aristeas.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Between 1947 and 1962, a large number of mostly fragmentary manuscripts were found, both by accident and as a result of systematic ﬁeld study, in the Judean desert to the west of the Dead Sea. The discoveries centred around eleven caves located in the neighbourhood of Chirbet Qumran, which is situated on an extended rocky plateau roughly 12 km south of Jericho. The manuscripts found at Qumran would appear to have belonged to a Jewish sect that had assembled as a community in the area from the end of the second century BCE to 68 CE (with a temporary interruption). The site in question has since been thoroughly excavated and now functions as a popular tourist attraction. The documents stem from three centuries before to a half century after the beginning of the Common Era and can be dated at the latest to 68 CE when the members of the sect living in Qumran were forced to ﬂee in face of advancing Roman forces moving in on Jerusalem from the east at the time of the ﬁrst Jewish revolt. The same forces were to destroy Jerusalem and its temple two years later in 70 CE. A clear distinction must be made between the manuscripts found at Qumran and the documents discovered at Chirbet Mird, roughly 10 km south-west of Qumran, which stem from a much later period. Likewise, documents discovered 20 km to the south at Wadi Murabba"at and in a number of valleys further south should not be counted as part of the library of the community of Qumran. The documents in question belonged to Jewish resistance groups that were active during the second revolt against the Romans under the leadership of Simon bar Kochba (132–135 CE). A ﬁnal group of manuscripts discovered at the mountain fortress of Masada, which served as the last bastion of Jewish resistance against the Romans in the ﬁnal days of the ﬁrst Jewish revolt in the year 73 (or 74) CE, should also be considered independently. While it is strictly speaking inappropriate to refer to all the abovementioned manuscripts as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the designation has nevertheless become common usage for the most extensive of the

660

chapter fourteen

various discoveries, namely those found at Qumran. The latter have been the subject of much press attention and, up to the end of the 1980’s, occasioned a number of sensation seeking popular publications that have tended to mislead their wider audience with respect to the actual signiﬁcance of the manuscript discoveries.1 The Qumran scrolls are of immeasurable value for our understanding of the textual transmission of the Old Testament, the history of early Judaism and the world of the New Testament. Their study has led scholars to an increasing realisation that the New Testament, in spite of its roots in early Judaism, radiates an entirely diﬀerent spiritual climate to that of the Qumran documents and that Judaism at the time of Jesus was a heterogeneous phenomenon, whereby a variety of factions denounced one another with respect to the explanation of the Law and the practices of daily life.

a. The manuscripts of Qumran 1. Introduction According to the majority of scholars the manuscripts of Qumran stem from the library of a religious sect known as the Essenes and described in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, Flavius Josephus and other authors.2 Others are of the opinion, however, that the material belonged to the library of a splinter group that had separated itself from the mainline Essene sect in the second half of the second century BCE under the leadership of the so-called “Teacher of Righteousness” (understood as “the true teacher”), an opinion often referred to as the “Groningen hypothesis”.3

1 An example thereof is the best selling, but (with the exception of a few interesting interviews) far from scientiﬁcally accurate work of M. Baigent and R. Leigh, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, London 1991. 2 The texts in question with introduction, translation and notes can be found in G. Vermes and M. D. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Oxford Centre Books I), Sheﬃeld 1989. 3 Cf. F. García Martínez and A. S. van der Woude, “A ‘Groningen’ Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History”, Revue de Qumrân 14/4 (1990), 521–541; F. García Martínez, “The History of the Qumran Community in the Light of Recently Available Texts”, in: F. H. Cryer and Th. L. Thompson, Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (Suppl. JSOT 290; Copenhagen International Seminar 6), Sheﬃeld 1998, pp. 194–216.

the dead sea scrolls

661

In order to distinguish the discovered remains of roughly 800 manuscripts from one another in a simple and comprehensible fashion scholars employ a system of abbreviations whereby the sigla used designate the place in which a manuscript was found (according to the chronological order of discovery: thus 1Q designates the ﬁrst Qumran Cave, 2Q the second etc.), the nature of the document in question and, in the event that a single cave contained more than one scroll of the same work, the sequence of the documents. The second Isaiah scroll from the ﬁrst cave in which manuscripts were discovered, for example, is designated with 1QIsb and the ﬁrst Exodus scroll from Cave four of Qumran with 4QExa. In addition, the sigla p designates a pesher (“commentary”; see below), ‘ap’ an apocryphal book and ‘tg’ a targum (cf., for example, 1QpHab[akkuk], 4QGen[esis]ap, 11QtgJob). As a rule, a numerical sequence is employed that conforms to that of the publication of the Qumran manuscripts in the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD), e.g. 4Q178. Manuscripts that have survived in extremely fragmentary form, which in some instances cannot be identiﬁed, are generally designated with the latter abbreviation only. For the history of the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, which has already been recounted several times and can no longer be retrieved in all its details, we refer the reader to the general introductory works listed in the bibliography below. In any event, it is clear that Caves 1, 4 and 11 contained the greatest number and the most important manuscripts. Literature dealing with the discoveries has become so extensive in recent years that the present volume is obliged to limit itself to a list of introductions and bibliographies. At the same time, the published texts are so numerous that it would be impossible to review them all. In this regard, therefore, the reader is once again referred to the oﬃcial editions of the documents in question and to translations thereof. The remainder of the present chapter will thus limit itself to a discussion of the most important documents discovered at Qumran. For modern introductions to the literature and community of Qumran cf. D. Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature”, in: M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II/2), Assen-Philadelphia 1984, pp. 483–550; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135) III, A New English Version, Revised and Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, pp. 380–469; F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran, Sheﬃeld 19953; G. Vermes, The

662

chapter fourteen

Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran in Perspective, London 19943; J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, Grand Rapids-London 1994; H. Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Ein Sachbuch, Freiburg 1993; L. H. Schiﬀman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philadelphia 1994. Bibliographical information can be found in C. Burchard, Bibliographie zu den Handschriften vom Toten Meer (BZAW 76), Berlin 1957; id., Bibliographie zu den Handschriften vom Toten Meer II (BZAW 89), Berlin 1965; W. S. LaSor, Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1948–1957, Pasadena, Cal. 1958; B. Jongeling, A Classiﬁed Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1958–1969 (STDJ 7), Leiden 1971; F. García Martínez and D. W. Parry, A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1970–95 (STDJ 19), Leiden 1996. For a list of the discovered texts and information on their content and publication cf. J. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Major Publications and Tools for Study (SBL Resources for Biblical Study 20), Atlanta GA 19902 and F. García Martínez – A. S. van der Woude, De rollen van de Dode Zee, ingeleid en in het Nederlands vertaald I, Kampen-Tielt 1994, pp. 37–115. For a complete list of discovered manuscripts see also E. Tov and S. J. Pfann, Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microﬁche Edition, Leiden 1993, 19952, pp. 20ﬀ. and S. Reed, Marilyn J. Lundberg and M. B. Phelps, The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue. Documents, Photographs and Museum Inventory Numbers (SBL Resources for Biblical Study 32), Atlanta GA 1994. In addition to the earlier editions of the best known scrolls from Cave 1, the documents from Qumran, the manuscripts discovered in the Judean desert to the south of Qumran together with those from Wadi ed-Daliyeh, have been oﬃcially published in the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD), Clarendon Press, Oxford (1955–). Editions of the scrolls from Cave one include: M. Burrows – J. C. Trever – W. H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, Vol. I: The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, New Haven 1950 (= 1QIsa together with 1QpHab); II/Fascicle 2: Plates and Transcription of the Manual of Discipline, New Haven 1951 (= 1QS); E. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1955 (= 1QIsb, 1QM and 1QH); N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, Jerusalem 1956 (= 1QGenAp); D. Barthélemy – J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD I), Oxford 1955 (= 1Q1–72), Editions of the scrolls from Cave 4 include: J. M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4, vol. I (DJD V), Oxford 1968 (= 4Q158–186) [to be corrected in line with J. Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge du volume V des “Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan”’, Revue de Qumrân 7 (1969–1970), 163–276]; R. de Vaux – J. T. Milik, Qumrân grotte 4. II (DJD VI), Oxford 1977 (= 4Q128–157); M. Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4. III (DJD VII), Oxford 1982 (= 4Q482–520); P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4. IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD IX), Oxford 1992 (4Q11–12, 22, 45–46, 101, 119–127); E. Qimron – J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqsat Ma'a“e haTorah (DJD X), Oxford 1994 (= 4Q394–399); E. Eshel e.a., Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts. Part 1 (DJD XI), Oxford 1998 (= 4Q286–290, 380–381, 400–407, 448); E. Ulrich – F. M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4. VII: Genesis to Numbers (DJD XII), Oxford 1994 (= 4Q1–10, 13–27); H. Attridge

the dead sea scrolls

663

e.a., Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XIII), Oxford 1994 (= 4Q216–228, 364–367, 369, 382, 422); E. Ulrich e.a., Qumran Cave 4; IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD XIV), Oxford 1995 (= 4Q28–44, 47, 50, 54); E. Ulrich e.a., Qumran Cave 4. X: The Prophets (DJD XV), Oxford 1997 (= 4Q55–82); E. Ulrich e.a, Qumran Cave 4. XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI), Oxford 2000 (= 4Q83–100, 102–118, 522); J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (DJD XVIII), Oxford 1996 (= 4Q266–273); M. Broshi e.a., Qumran Cave 4. XII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XIX), Oxford 1995 (= 196–200, 339–340, 370, 374–376, 384, 391, 462–464, 470); T. Elgvin e.a., Qumran Cave 4. XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD XX), Oxford 1997 (= 4Q298–305, 411–413, 420–421, 425–426); G. Brooke e.a., Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD XXII), Oxford 1996 (= 4Q213–215, 242–246, 252–254, 378–379, 473, 478–481); E. Puech, Qumrân grotte 4; XVIII: Textes hébreux (DJD XXV), Oxford 1998 (= 4Q521–528, 576–579); P. Alexander – G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX: 4QSerek Ha-Yahad and Two Related Texts (DJD XXVI), Oxford 1998 (= 4Q255–264, 275, 279); E. Chazon e.a., Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XXIX), Oxford 1999 (= 4Q280, 291–293, 392–393, 409, 427–457, 471, 476); J. Sturgnel, D. J. Harrington, T. Elgvin, Qumran Cave 4. XXIV: 4QInstruction (DJD XXXIV), Oxford 1999 (4Q415–418, 423); J.M. Baumgarten e.a., Qumran Cave 4. XXV: Halakhic Texts (DJD XXXV), Oxford 1999 (= 4Q249, 251, 264a, 265, 274–278, 284, 284a, 414, 472a); S. Pfann, e.a., Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD XXXVI), Oxford 2000 (= 4Q201, 203, 206, 208–209, 215a, 234, 247–248, 249–250, 269, 281–282, 285, 294, 306–307, 313, 318, 331–333, 338, 341, 350, 355, 360, 408, 410, 419, 424, 440, 455, 458–459, 460–461, 466–469, 471–472, 474, 475, 477). Editions of the scrolls from Cave 11 include: D. N. Freedman – K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev), Winona Lake 1985 (= 11Q1); J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a) (DJD IV), Oxford 1965 (= 11Q5); F. García Martínez, E. J. Tigchelaar, A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. II (DJD XXIII), Oxford 1998 (= 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31). For a useful yet somewhat dated edition of the most important scrolls from Cave 1, the Damascus Document and a few documents discovered in Cave 4 (with translation) cf. E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran, Hebräisch und Deutsch, Darmstadt 19864. A modern, extremely useful and complete edition of the discovered texts with translation and bibliography can be found in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition I (1Q1–4Q273), II (4Q274–11Q31), Leiden-Grand Rapids 2000 (lit.!; frequent reference will be made to these volumes in the treatment of individual texts). Translations of the discovered manuscripts can be found, for example, in F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English, Second Edition, Leiden-Grand Rapids 1996; M. O. Wise, M. Abegg, E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, San Francisco 1996; G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, London 1997, in J. Maier,

664

chapter fourteen

Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer I–II, Munich-Basel 1995 (supplemented with part III: Einführung, Zeitrechnung, Register und Bibliographie, Munich-Basel 1996) and (with extensive introductions to the individual manuscripts) in F. García Martínez and A. S. van der Woude, De rollen van de Dode Zee, ingeleid en in het Nederlands vertaald I–II, Kampen 1994–1995. For an overview of that last ﬁfty years of research into the Qumran manuscripts see P. W. Flint – J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment I–II, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1998–1999, a most appropriate introduction. Cf. also S. E. Porter – C. A. Evans (eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After (Suppl. JSP 26), Sheﬃeld 1997; F. H. Cryer – Th. L. Thompson, Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (Suppl. JSOT 290), Sheﬃeld 1998; L. H. Schiﬀman, E. Tov, J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery, Jerusalem 2000; L. H. Schiﬀman – J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls I–II, Oxford-New York 2000. The journals Revue de Qumrân and Dead Sea Discoveries are speciﬁcally dedicated to the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

2. Biblical manuscripts The discoveries at Qumran include a large number of mostly fragmentary manuscripts of material from the Hebrew Bible. The manuscripts in question account for roughly one quarter of the discovered documents and are of extraordinary importance for the text-critical and the textual and canonical history of the Old Testament.4 With the exception of Nehemiah and Esther, all the books of the Hebrew Bible are represented in one form or another among the Qumran documents. Given the fact that the books Ezra-Nehemiah tend to be preserved in a single scroll, the discovery of Ezra fragments (4Q117) has inclined scholars to argue that the absence of Nehemiah is purely accidental. The book of Esther likewise did not belong among the sacred scriptures of the community of Qumran, the feast of Purim described therein being unattested in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The ﬁrst and second Isaiah scrolls from Cave 1 (1QIsa and 1QIsb) enjoy a place of prominence among the biblical manuscripts, the ﬁrst scroll oﬀering a virtually complete text of Isaiah, the second accounting for roughly one third of the book. 1QIsb is closely related to the Masoretic traditions while 1QIsa would appear to be the result of an intentionally actualising recension.5 4

Cf. E. Tov, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticis”, JJS 39 (1988), 5–37. 5 Cf. A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches (OBO 35), Freiburg CH-Göttingen 1981.

the dead sea scrolls

665

The biblical manuscripts discovered at Qumran serve to prove that in the ﬁrst century prior to the beginning of the Common Era, the canonisation process of the Old Testament had not reached deﬁnitive closure within Judaism in its totality. In addition, it is evident that a (more or less) uniform text of the Old Testament had not yet established itself at the time, although there are indications that the textual tradition as we know it from the editions of the Hebrew Bible we now have at our disposal had achieved a substantial degree of permanence in circles surrounding the temple in Jerusalem.6 In Qumran, however, we also encounter a variety of text recensions. While it is true that the majority of the discovered biblical manuscripts are akin to the later Masoretic tradition (roughly 60%), they also include manuscripts that would appear to be based on a Hebrew text that served as the basis of the Septuagint translation (see, for example, 4QJerb),7 and recensions that constituted the Vorlage of the Samaritan Pentateuch (see, for example, 4QpaleoExm).8 A number of other biblical texts cannot be classiﬁed among the proto-Masoretic, proto-Septuagint or proto-Samaritan text traditions (see, for example, 11QpaleoLev[iticus]).9 In addition to the Hebrew manuscripts, a number of (Greek) fragments of the Septuagint10 have been found that correspond for the most part with the text as we know it (see also chapter V). Old Testament biblical texts are quoted with great frequency in the Qumran documents, in ﬂorilegia from books of the bible and in particular in the “bible commentaries” (see below). An example of the former can be found in 4Q Testimonia

6 Cf. A. S. van der Woude, “Pluriformity and Uniformity. Reﬂections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament”, in: J. N. Bremmer & F. García Martínez (eds.), Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism (CBET 5), Kampen 1992), pp. 151–169 (= id., Pluriformiteit & uniformiteit. Overwegingen betreﬀende de tekstoverlevering van het Oude Testament (retirement lecture 3–11–1992), Kampen 1992). 7 Cf. E. Tov, “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Cave 4”, Revue de Qumrân 14/54 (1989), 189–206; P. M. Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jérémie”, in: id. (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie. Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission (BEThL 54), Louvain 1981, pp. 168–173; E. Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah”, ibid., pp. 145–167. Cf. DJD XV, 1997. 8 Cf. J. E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExod m and the Samaritan Tradition (Harvard Semitic Studies 30), Atlanta GA 1986; DJD IX, 1992. 9 Cf. D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QPaleoLev), Winona Lake, Ind. 1985. 10 See E. Ulrich, “The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran”, in: A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta (FS J. W. Wevers), Mississauga, Ont. 1984, pp. 71–82. Cf. DJD IX, 1992.

666

chapter fourteen

(4Q175) [see below under the heading Texts related to the endtime] and 4Q Tanchumim (4Q176), a collection of words of comfort borrowed to a signiﬁcant degree from Deutero-Isaiah (this collection also includes commentary on a number of the quoted passages).11 3. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Fragments of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal documents have also been found among the discoveries at Qumran, material that frequently allows us an initial glimpse of the original language in which the books in question were ﬁrst written. Discoveries include fragments of Tobit (both in Aramaic and in Hebrew),12 of Jesus Sirach and the Letter of Jeremiah (see chapter XII), of Jubilees and of four of the ﬁve books of I Enoch (see chapter XIII). Given the fact that the community of Qumran would appear not to have accepted any books that had been written elsewhere after it had established itself in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea around 130 BCE, the books alluded to above must thus have already existed prior to the said date. This also explains why several other apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books known to us today were not included in the library of Qumran. 4. Bible commentaries Among the literature conceived by the Qumran community itself a number of documents have been found that bring us into contact with a hitherto unknown form a biblical interpretation.13 11 For an English translation see F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1997, pp. 356–362. 12 K. Berger, Ergänzungsband, pp. 134–147 (4Q196–199 [Aramaic] and 4Q200 [Hebrew]). Cf. DJD XIX, 1995. 13 J. P. M. van der Ploeg, Bijbelverklaring te Qumran (Mededelingen KNAW, afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe reeks 23), Amsterdam 1960, pp. 207–229; O. Betz, Oﬀenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (WUNT 6), Tübingen 1960; F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Exegetica III, 1), Amsterdam 1959; M. P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, Washington DC 1979; H. Gabrion, “L’interprétation de l’Ecriture dans la littérature de Qumrân”, in: W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Teil II Principat, Band 19, 1: Religion ( Judentum: Allgemeines; Palästinisches Judentum), Berlin-New York 1979, pp. 779–848; G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context ( JSOT Suppl. Series 29), Sheﬃeld 1985; M. Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran”, in: M. J. Mulder with H. Sysling, Mikra (CRINT 2/1),

the dead sea scrolls

667

Formally speaking, these “commentaries” are made up of the text of a prophetic book or of the Psalms interrupted at intervals with an interpretation of the relevance of the passages. The interpretation is introduced by a formula that generally includes the word pesher (“explanation”) although this varies from time to time. It is for this reason that the scientiﬁc literature tends to designate such biblical commentaries as pesher (plural pesharîm). The “commentaries” in question are clearly unrelated to modern biblical interpretation, which endeavours to explain the words of a prophet or psalmist within the framework of his own time and circumstances. Rooted in the conviction that the prophets (including the prophet [!] David, to whom the book of Psalms is ascribed) had spoken their words with respect to “the last of days”, their message was applied in actualising fashion to contemporary circumstances. In line with this procedure, certain commentaries relate the prophetic text primarily to the history of the Qumran sect (e.g. 1QpHab[akkuk]; 1QpMicah = 1Q14; 4QpPs[alm]37 = 4Q171), while others place the emphasis on the powers unleashed by the endtime which, in their opinion, was already at hand (in part 1QpHab, but see also 4QpNahum = 4Q169) or on the messianic future (4QpIsa = 4Q161).14 Given the fact that the words of the prophets are explained on the basis of persons and events from the time of the sect, it is possible, at least in principle, to determine the date of the documents in question with some degree of accuracy and draw conclusions thereby with respect to the history of the community. On the other hand, the authors of the “commentaries” tend as a rule to employ characterisations and pseudonyms (such as “the Teacher of Righteousness”, “the False Prophet”, “the Godless Priest”, “the Raging Lion”, “Ephraim”, “Manasseh”, “Judah” etc.) which, while undoubtedly familiar to their contemporaries, often

Assen-Philadelphia 1990, 339–377; G. Vermes, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran”, Eretz Israel 20 (1989), 184–191; J. Trebolle Barrera, “The Bible and Biblical Interpretation in Qumran”, in: F. García Martínez and J. Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden 1995, pp. 99–121. For a survey of recent studies on the biblical commentaries see. A. S. van der Woude, Theologische Rundschau 57 (1992), 23–29. For a translation of the said commentaries see. F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1997. 14 For a translation of the texts in question see F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit.: commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab) on pp. 10–20; commentary on Micah (1QpMic) on pp. 8–9; commentary on Psalm 37 (4QpPsa) on pp. 342–348; commentary on Nahum (4QpNah) on pp. 334–341; commentary on Isaiah (4QpIsa) on pp. 312–316.

668

chapter fourteen

present something of a riddle to the present day reader in his or her endeavour to trace the fortunes of the sect.15 The term pesher (Aramaic peshar) is employed in Daniel 2 and 5 for the explanation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the mysterious writing that appeared on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast. The Habakkuk commentary from Cave 1 of Qumran16 similarly states that God has made known “all the secrets of his servants the prophets” (1QpHab 7:4–5) to the Teacher of Righteousness. What would appear to be intended by this statement is that the Teacher was granted insight into the content of the prophecies (understood as predictions) of the Old Testament for his own faith community and the eschatological community. From the hermeneutical perspective, use is made of exegetical methods similar to those known to us from later Jewish literature, although the actualising explanations oriented towards the endtime no doubt fulﬁlled a self-conﬁrming and comforting role for the members of the community of Qumran. A distinction should be made between continuous commentaries, whereby the content of a biblical book or a segment thereof is closely followed and explained (cf. 1QpHab), and thematic commentaries that exhibit a similar form of scriptural exegesis while focusing on a single subject, elucidated on the basis of a variety of passages borrowed from diﬀerent biblical books. A representative example of the latter type of thematic commentary can be found in 11Q Melchizedek (11Q13), which alludes to a selection of texts in its presentation of Melchizedek (cf. Gen. 14:18–20) as a heavenly ﬁgure who will be victorious against Belial (the devil) at the endtime.17 The text of this document sheds new light on Hebr. 7:1–3. The Eschatological Midrashîm 15 For studies dealing with the origins and history of the Qumran community see A. S. van der Woude, Theologische Rundschau 57 (1992), 227–253. While scholars tend to identify the wicked priest of the commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab) with Jonathan the Maccabean, the present author is more inclined to favour identiﬁcation with a series of High Priests from Judas the Maccabean to Alexander Jannaeus, cf. A. S. van der Woude, “Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reﬂections on the Identiﬁcation of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary”, in: G. Vermes and J. Neusner (eds.), Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin, Oxford 1982 (= JJS 33 [1982]), pp. 349–359. The raging lion from the commentary on Nahum found in Cave 4 is clearly referring to Alexander Jannaeus. 16 Cf. K. Elliger, Studien zum Habakkuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer, Tübingen 1953, and W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (SBL Monograph Series 24), Missoula, Mont. 1979. 17 Cf. F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 1206–1209 (lit.!); DJD XXIII, 1998.

the dead sea scrolls

669

from Cave 4 (4Q174 together with 4Q177 and 4Q182), originally published as 4QFlorilegium and 4QCatena, exhibit a similar character.18 5. Targums During synagogue services, the biblical texts associated with the liturgy of a particular Sabbath were read aloud in Hebrew and translated simultaneously into the vernacular (Aramaic) for the beneﬁt of the assembled community. The person assigned to read the Sacred Scriptures did so on the basis of a scroll while the person assigned to provide the translation did so from memory and without any form of written support. In the rabbinic period, such Aramaic translations, which simultaneously provided an occasion for the explanation and actualisation of the recited texts, were consigned to book form (see chapter V). The codiﬁcation of the Targums (“translations”) thus served in addition as a tool for the study of the scriptures outside the synagogue liturgy. It has long been believed that any written registration of the translation of the Sacred Scriptures into Aramaic must have taken place at a relatively late date. Three Targums have been preserved in fragmentary form among the Qumran documents (4QtgLev, 4QtgJob and 11QtgJob),19 however, which prove the existence of Aramaic renditions of the Sacred Scriptures prior to the beginning of the Common Era. Given the fact that the members of the community of Qumran were evidently familiar with the Hebrew language, such Targums must have been employed in the ﬁrst instance as a support in understanding the biblical text and will thus have been used for study purposes.

18 Cf. Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschat a.b) (STDJ 13), Leiden 1994. See also F. García Martínez and A. S. van der Woude, op. cit., pp. 245–255. 19 A few paltry remains have survived of the texts from Cave 4 (4Q156 and 4Q157), cf. DJD VI, pp. 86–89 and p. 90. The ﬁrst edition of 11QtgJob (= 11Q10) stems from J. P. M. van der Ploeg and A. S. van der Woude, Le targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumrân (KNAW), Leiden 1971; cf. the recent work of F. García Martínez e.a., Qumran Cave 11. II (DJD XXIII), Oxford 1998, pp. 79–180. Cf. also B. Jongeling, Een Aramees boek Job uit de bibliotheek van Qumrân, Amsterdam 1974, and M. Sokoloﬀ, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave 11, Ramat-Gan 1974. A translation of the preserved text of the Targums can also be found in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 302–303, 303–304, 1184–1201 respectively.

670

chapter fourteen

6. Para-Biblical literature The Qumran scrolls have brought us into contact with a number of documents that scholars have designated as para-biblical. While the authors of such material are familiar with the biblical text and take it as their point of departure, they rewrite the latter by adding information from diﬀerent traditions and by introducing their own contribution. The extent to which the authors in question base themselves on the biblical text varies from case to case. Some such documents are closely akin to the original text while others would appear to limit the latter to little more than a point of departure for the composition of an entirely unique work. The manuscripts that oﬀer a Reworked Pentateuch,20 a clear example of a “rewritten Bible” are closely related to the biblical text. While the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon from Cave 1 of Qumran (1QGenAp),21 of which only columns 2, 12 and 19–22 have been preserved in reasonable conditions, tends to follow the course of history as it is related in the Old Testament, it nevertheless paraphrases the latter to a signiﬁcant degree. Col. 2 narrates the birth of Noah in a fashion reminiscent of 1 Enoch 106. The narratives devoted to Abraham in col. 19–22 associate biblical material with other information from the tradition, including a description of Sarah’s beauty (col. 20:1ﬀ.) and Abraham’s journey along the boundaries of the promised land (col. 21:15–19). The Book of Jubilees and segments of 1 Enoch can likewise be reckoned among the para-biblical literature of Qumran. Several other works discovered among the scrolls would also appear to belong to this category, the majority being hitherto unknown: remains of the Book of Noah,22 testaments of Joseph, Levi, Naphtali, Kehat and Aram, pseudo-Mosaic documents, Psalms of Joshua and works classiﬁed as Pseudo-Samuel, Pseudo-Jeremiah, Pseudo-Ezekiel and Pseudo-Daniel.23

20 See DJD XIII, 1995. Cf. also F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 718ﬀ. 21 For the text see N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, Jerusalem 1956 and J. C. Greenﬁeld and E. Qimron, The Genesis Apocryphon col. XII, in: T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Qumran Aramaic, Leuven 1994, pp. 70–77. See further J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, Rome 1971. Cf. also F. García Martínez and A. S. van der Woude, op. cit., II 1995, pp. 26–49. 22 See the recent detailed study by F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic (STDJ 9), Leiden 1992, pp. 1–44. 23 Cf. F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pasim.

the dead sea scrolls

671

Written in Aramaic, the Prayer of Nabonidus 24 (4Qpr[ayer]Nab = 4Q242), the last king of the neo-Babylonian empire, should be included among the pseudo-Daniel literature. Only a few segments of the ﬁrst column and a couple of fragmentary lines from the second have been preserved. The text is extremely interesting because it provides a tradition-historical precursor to the tradition found in the text of Dan. 3:31–4:34, where it is related to Nebuchadnezzar II. The relationship with the canonical-biblical text should be evident from the following translation: The words of the prayer spoken by Nabonidus, the king of Babel, the great king, when he was stricken by the Most High God with malignant abscesses in the city of Teman. I was stricken with malignant abscesses for seven years and I became like the beasts. But I gave honour to the Most High God and he forgave my sins. He had a seer, a Jewish man from the exile, who said to me: Proclaim in writing that honour, glory and majesty be given to the name of the Most High God. I thus wrote: When I was stricken with malignant abscesses . . . in Teman for seven years, I called out to and praised the gods of silver, gold, bronze, iron, wood, stone and clay, because [I thought] that they were gods . . .

The remains of manuscripts known to us as Proto-Esther (4Q550a–f ), on the other hand, are far removed from the biblical tradition. The hypothesis that the said remains represent an earlier or contemporary tradition-historical stage of the Old Testament Esther narrative25 remains unlikely.26 7. Legislative literature and rules of order Much of the literature we have outlined thus far did not originate within the community of Qumran itself. This is clearly the case with

24

J. T. Milik, “‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel: fragments araméens de Qumrân 4”, RB 63 (1956), 408–415; R. Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid (Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Klasse 107/3), Berlin 1962; F. M. Cross, “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus”, IEJ 34 (1984), 260–264. Cf. DJD XXII, 1996. 25 As presented in J. T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân”, Revue de Qumrân 15 (1991–1992), 321–399. For the text see F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 1098–1103. 26 Cf. Ruth Koßmann, Die Esthernovelle. Vom Erzählten zur Erzählung. Studien zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches (Suppl. VT 79), Leiden 2000, pp. 213–291.

chapter fourteen

672

respect to biblical books, the Targums and the majority of the parabiblical material. The legislative literature and rules of order discovered at Qumran, however, ﬁrst saw the light of day within the sect as such or can be traced back to the circles that gave rise to the Qumran community. The documents in question can be divided into three categories: a. documents containing the norms that the Qumran community believed to be binding for all Israel; b. scrolls containing prescribed rules binding in the ﬁrst instance for the community itself; c. texts of a utopic nature containing legal provisions for the endtime. Representative examples of the ﬁrst category include 4Q Certain Works of the Law (4QMMT = 4QMiqsat Ma"a“e ha-Torah = 4Q394–399),27 4Q Ordinances (4Q159 and 4Q513–514)28 and the Rules for Puriﬁcation (4QTohoroth = 4Q274–279).29 The content of 4Q Certain Works of the Law 30 is of particular interest. It appears to take the form of a letter written by the religious movement that would later constitute the Qumran community and addressed to the Sadducees (or their predecessors) and their leader. After making reference to a festival calendar based on a 364-day year (A), the document goes on to detail its opposition to certain elements of the explanation of the Law proposed by a third group, namely the Pharisees or their direct predecessors (B). The work proceeds to spell out that the petitioners had separated themselves from “the mass of the people” on account of the opposed explanation of the Law and that while the blessings and curses foretold in the Sacred Scriptures had in part already been realised, they were to be brought to further completion in the endtime that had now dawned. The leader of the addressees is urged to accept the perspectives of the authors of the letter (C). Given the fact that the explanation of the provisions of the Law supported in the document is in line with ordinances that recur in other Qumran documents and run counter to Pharisaic and later rabbinic (under Pharisaic inﬂuence) insights 27 28 29 30

Cf. Op. Cf. Cf.

F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 790–805. cit., pp. 309–311, 1040–1043. DJD XXXV, pp. 79–122; op. cit., pp. 630–633. DJD X, 1994.

the dead sea scrolls

673

and practices, it seems reasonable to conclude that the petitioners as “sons of Zadok” upheld an interpretation of the Law that was closely akin to that of the Sadducees. This “act of separation” must thus stem from the ﬁrst decennia of the second half of the second century BCE, the period prior to the community’s withdrawal into desert of Qumran. Among the documents to be classiﬁed under the second category outlined above, documents intended in the ﬁrst instance for the sect itself, the Rule of the Community (1QS) and the so-called Damascus Document (CD = Covenant of Damascus) deserve particular attention. The documents in question do not limit themselves to designating codes of behaviour, the hierarchical structure of the community and various penal ordinances, they also contain several other elements, including theological tractates, interpretations of sacred history, hermeneutical discourses and even hymns. The Rule of the Community (Sèrèk ha-Yachad), initially referred to as the Manual of Discipline, has survived more or less intact in Cave 1 (1QS) and in part (in older recensions) in Cave 4 (two indecipherable fragments were discovered in Cave 5, cf. DJD III, 181).31 Based on the content of the surviving manuscripts we can determine that the document emerged in a complex process around the time that the community of the “Teacher of Righteousness” withdrew into the desert around Qumran.32 After a general introduction (I 1–15), 1QS contains a description of the annual ceremony of admission to the covenant (I 16–III 12). Thereafter we are introduced to a tractate on the two spirits, the spirit of truth and the spirit of iniquity, c.q. the spirit of light and the spirit of darkness. The continuous struggle between the two spirits dominates the heart of humankind and its history, placing a strong emphasis on predestination and

31

First edition by M. Burrows – J. C. Trever – W. H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery II, fascicle 2: Plates and Transcription of the Manual of Discipline, New Haven 1951. See the recent edition of J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Reitz, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Rule of the Community. Photographic Multi-Language Edition, Philadelphia 1996 (introduction, colour photos and English, Modern Hebrew, French, Italian, Spanish and German translations). See F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 68ﬀ. 32 For an attempt to reconstruct origin and history cf. J. Pouilly, La Règle de la Communauté de Qumrân: son évolution littéraire, Paris 1976, and Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997.

674

chapter fourteen

dualism (III 13–IV 26).33 The rule of the community in the strict sense of the term (including a penal code) is to be found in columns V–VII, followed by a plan for the establishment of a future community that would be constituted as a spiritual temple in the wilderness (VIII–IX). Given its style, vocabulary and content, the latter segment, which also contains instructions for the Wise One, a functionary within the community charged, among other things, with the task of education, and is interrupted with a fragment from the penal code, must have been written earlier than the actual rule of the community found in columns that already presuppose residence in the desert. The work, which probably came to light in its present form in the second century BCE, ends with a lengthy hymn of thanksgiving (X–XI). The Rule of the Community is of exceptional value because the document provides us with information concerning the religious conceptual world of the community of Qumran, its understanding of the covenant and divine predestination, its confessed dualism, the centrality of the Scriptures and ﬁdelity to the Law of Moses, together with its eschatological and messianic ideas, its opposition to the temple cult in Jerusalem and its substitution of cultic sacriﬁce with the “praise of the lips”. Two further documents, generally referred to as the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa = 1Q28a = Règle de la Congrégation)34 and the Rule of Benedictions (1QSb = 1Q28b = Recueil des Bénédictions),35 are attached to 1QS. The ﬁrst document (1QSa) can be classiﬁed under the third category outlined above. It contains a number of ordinances related to the coming endtime and concludes with the description of an eschatological banquet at which the high priestly messiah of Aaron and the royal messiah of David expected by the sect will participate.36 The fragmentary second document (1QSb) will be treated under the liturgical texts (see 9 below). 33

J. Duhaime, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits et les interpolations dualistes à Qumrân (1QS III, 13–IV, 26)”, RB 84 (1977), 566–594; H. Stegemann, “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken von 1QS III,13–IV,26”, Revue de Qumrân 13 (1988), 95–131. 34 First publication in D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I (DJD I), Oxford 1955, pp. 108–118. Cf. F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 98ﬀ. 35 First publication in D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, op. cit., pp. 118–130. Cf. F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., II 1995, pp. 104–109. 36 L. H. Schiﬀman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBL Monograph Series 38), Atlanta GA 1989.

the dead sea scrolls

675

Among the manuscripts discovered at the end of the nineteenth century in the geniza (refuse room) of the Ezra synagogue in Old Cairo, two copies were found of a hitherto unknown work later published by Solomon Schechter under the title Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge 1910).37 The ﬁrst copy consists of 8 pages of double-sided written text that, with the exception of the two last pages, has been preserved in perfect condition (columns I–XVI = CD A). The second copy consists of only a single page, with similarly double-sided notation, designated by Schechter as columns XIX and XX (CD B; the content of column XIX coincides to a signiﬁcant extent with that of columns VII–VIII van CD A).38 The work is commonly referred to as the Damascus Document,39 because it speaks repeatedly of “the land of Damascus” (an allusion to the territory of Qumran?), or in abbreviation as CD. The discovery of fragments of the Damascus Document in Caves 4, 5 and 6 at Qumran conﬁrms the fact that CD represents a further example of the sectarian works that include the Rule of the Community (1QS). The remains of manuscripts found in Cave 4 (4QDa–h) serve in the meantime to support the hypothesis that CD represents only a portion of the original document. The original content included the following: the beginning of the work, not represented in CD, but partly preserved in 4QDa and 4QDb; columns I–VIII of CD A; column XX of CD B;

37 Later edition with foreword J. A. Fitzmyer in S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries: Fragments of a Zadokite Work I–II, New York 1970. For the fragments found in Cave 4 see DJD XVIII, 1996. For a translation of the fragments found in Caves 4 (4QDa–h), 5 and 6 of Qumran see F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 580–628, 1134, 1152–1153 respectively. 38 See S. Zeitlin, The Zadokite Fragments (The JQR Monograph Series 1), Philadelphia 1952 (with photocopies). Critical edition: Ch. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents, Oxford 19582. Most recent critical edition: M. Broschi, The Damascus Document Reconsidered, Jerusalem 1992 (text and transcription with contributions by J. M. Baumgarten, “The Laws of the Damascus Document in Current Research” [pp. 51–62], and F. García Martínez, “Damascus Document: A Bibliography of Studies 1970–1989” [pp. 63–83]). A personal interpretation of the document can be found in P. R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant. An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” ( JSOT Supplement Series 25), Sheﬃeld 1983. Cf. Ch. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document. Sources, Traditions and Redaction (STDJ 29), Leiden 1998. 39 J. M. Baumgarten e.a. (eds.), The Damascus Document. A Centennial of Discovery (STDJ 34), Leiden 2000.

676

chapter fourteen

numerous legal prescriptions preserved in various manuscripts from Cave 4; column XV–XVI of CD A; column IX–XIV of CD A; a continuation of the legal prescriptions preserved in 4QDb; a penitential codex found in 4QDb,d,e; a ritual of exclusion from the covenant and the conclusion of the work represented in 4QDb and 4QDe.

In terms of content the work can be divided into three main segments: a. “admonitions” addressed to the members of the community by way of introduction to the legal prescriptions that follow;40 b. a collection of legal ordinances borrowed from the bible or based on the community’s interpretation of the Law, a special set of regulations intended to determine the life of the community; c. a collection of ordinances for the meetings of the military platoon, for the Supervisor, for the plenary assembly of the sect members, followed by a penal codex and a description of the ceremony for exclusion from the community. Agreements and diﬀerences between 1QS and CD can be explained on the basis of the fact that the communities referred to in the Damascus Document coincide with Essene groups spread throughout Palestine as a whole while the Rule of the Community (1QS) embodies the standpoint adhered to by those who had withdrawn into the wilderness of Qumran under the command of the “Teacher of Righteousness” around 130 BCE. Given the allusions to the book of Jubilees in CD A XVI 3, scholars are inclined to date the Damascus Document in the second half of the second century BCE and prior to the ﬁnal redaction of 1QS. The Temple Scroll from Cave 11 of Qumran (11QTemplea = 11Q19),41 which was copied by two diﬀerent scribes, represents the 40

The hypothesis maintained by H. Stegemann, “Das Gesetzeskorpus der Damaskusschrift (CD IX–XVI)”, Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989–1990), 409–434, that the Exhortations originally constituted an independent document is countered by the fragments from Cave 4. 41 Edition by Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll I–III, Jerusalem 1977 (Modern Hebrew; English edition 1983); E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll. A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. Bibliography by F. García Martínez, Beer Sheva 1996. See also Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect, New York 1985; J. Maier, Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer, Munich-Basel 1978 (English edition Sheﬃeld 1985); B. Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran. The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness, Cincinnati 1983; G. Brooke (ed.), Temple Scroll Studies, Sheﬃeld 1989;

the dead sea scrolls

677

longest of the scrolls discovered among the documents of the Dead Sea (at the moment more than 8 meters long) and should be classiﬁed under the third category outlined above. Certain hiatuses in the document, which has been preserved for the most part in good condition, can be ﬁlled in on the basis of a copy of the same work likewise stemming from Cave 11 (11QTempleb = 11Q20).42 Located within the framework of the Sinai covenant, the author presents his work as a direct revelation from God to Moses and as a new Law for all Israel. The document integrates various laws concerning the sanctuary and the cult as found in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers with those of Deuteronomy, either literally or in an adapted form or with additions not found in the biblical texts. The laws dealt with in the work address a number of diﬀerent themes: the construction of the temple and the altar (columns II–XIII) as well as the temple square and the buildings located therein (XXX–XLV); the annual festival cycle with its associated sacriﬁces (XIII–XXIX); prescriptions intended to guarantee the ritual purity of the temple and the city (XLV–XLVII), more general purity laws (XLVIII–LI); a rewriting of the laws of Deuteronomy 12–23 (LI–LXVI) with a detailed tractate dedicated to Deut. 17:14–20, referred to as the King’s Law (LVI–LIX), ordinances concerning the Levites (LX 1–11) and cruciﬁxion as punishment for a capital oﬀence (LXIV 6–13). There can be little doubt that the author of the Temple Scroll made use of a variety of written sources. It is apparent from his work that he did not consider the existing sanctuary in Jerusalem to be in agreement with God’s will as revealed on Sinai. Agreements in use of terminology and concrete legal ordinances between the Temple Scroll and 4QMMT (see above) compel us to locate the document among the priestly circles surrounding the temple in Jerusalem and to accept that the work must have ﬁrst seen the light of day in the second half of the second century BCE. It clearly stems from the M. O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Cave 11 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 49), Chicago IL 1990; F. García Martínez, “Sources et composition du Rouleau du Temple”, Henoch 13 (1991), 219–232; D. D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible (STDJ 14), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995 (lit.!). English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 1228–1289. 42 Cf. J. P. M. van der Ploeg, “Un halakha inédite de Qumrân”, in; M. Delcor (ed.), Qumrân: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (BEThL 46), Paris-Gembloux 1978, pp. 107–113. See F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11 II (DJD XXIII), Oxford 1998, pp. 357–409.

678

chapter fourteen

community of Essenes that had withdrawn into the wilderness of Qumran. Given the authority claimed for the document and the candour with which the author rewrites biblical texts, one can argue, albeit without conclusive proof, that the leader of the group, the “Teacher of Righteousness”, was responsible for compiling the Temple Scroll. 8. Poetic texts Among the poetic texts stemming from the community of Qumran, the Hymn Scroll, sometimes referred to as the Thanksgiving Scroll or Hodayot,43 enjoys the most important place. The work has survived in a manuscript from Cave 1 (1QHa), which appears to have been copied by two diﬀerent scribes. It was published by Sukenik in 1954 and later by Puech in 1988, the latter attempting a reconstruction of twenty-six columns in the original sequence,44 24 of which provide a more or less complete text. Both the beginning and the end of the manuscript have been lost. One of two fragments of an alternative copy (1QHb) discovered in the same Cave, however, provide us with the opportunity to supplement a portion of column XV of 1QHa. While the remains of six manuscripts of the work found in Cave 4 (4Q427–432) tend on the whole to coincide in terms of content with certain passages from 1QHa, they occasionally provide segments of thanksgiving hymns not found in the latter. It is interesting to note that one of the six manuscripts oﬀers evidence of the possibility that the sequence of songs in the scrolls could vary.45

43 Text edition in E. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1955. See E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und deutsch, Darmstadt 1964, pp. 109–175. See also A. Dupont-Sommer, Le Livre des Hymnes découvert près de la Mer Morte, Paris 1957; J. Licht, The Thanksgivings Scroll, Jerusalem 1957 (Modern-Hebrew); G. Morawe, Aufbau und Abgrenzung der Loblieder von Qumrân, Berlin 1960; S. HolmNielsen, Hodayot. Psalms from Qumran, Aarhus 1960; M. Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ III), Leiden 1961; M. Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumran (Hodayot), Paris 1962; B. Kittel, The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary (SBL Diss. Series 50), Chico, Cal. 1981. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 146ﬀ. and 202ﬀ. 44 E. Puech, “Quelques aspects de la restauration du Rouleau des Hymnes (1QH)”, JJS 39 (1988), 38–55. Cf. H. Stegemann, “The Material Reconstruction of the Cave 1 Hodayot Scroll”, L. H. Schiﬀman, E. Tov, J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery, Jerusalem 2000, pp. 272–284. 45 Cf. E. Schuller, DJD XXIX 1999, pp. 69–254.

the dead sea scrolls

679

The work consists of a collection of hymns of praise that begin as a rule with the words: “I praise you, Lord, for . . .”. The hymns are strongly inﬂuenced by the language of the Old Testament, from which they borrow a large number of expressions. In terms of literary genre, poetic structure and style, the hymns exhibit a high degree of homogeneity, suggesting that they were written over a relatively short period of time. It is no longer possible to establish with certainty whether the songs were written by one and the same author. Some scholars have been inclined to ascribe them all to the “Teacher of Righteousness”, the founder of the Qumran community, others only a portion thereof.46 While the exact date of origin if the hymns can no longer be established, it must be prior to that of the oldest manuscript found in Cave 4 (4Q428 = 4QHb), which stems from the ﬁrst half of the ﬁrst century BCE. There is little doubt that the songs emerged from the community of Qumran but the function they fulﬁlled within the sect (liturgical?) remains unknown. The primary theme of the scroll is God, whose power, omniscience, glory and righteousness are continually accentuated together with his mercy, kindness and love. By contrast, human persons tend to be portrayed in rather negative terms: formed out of clay, a corporeal spirit, corrupt from birth onwards and destined to die. It is only on account of God’s preordination and grace that humankind is blessed with a share of His Holy Spirit, is justiﬁed by Him and is allowed to cherish the hope of a future heavenly glory together with the angels. The fact that the songs frequently exhibit a cogently personal character suggests that we should not exclude the possibility that at least some of them stem from the “Teacher of Righteousness”. The question of authorship to one side, the songs provide us with a picture of religious perspectives that had already come to predominate within the community of Qumran in its earliest days. A further category of poetic texts is formed by the Apocryphal and Non-Canonical Psalms. Closely akin to biblical poetry, and in particular to the book of Psalms, they represent the evolution of the latter in the period of early Judaism. Three manuscripts from Qumran

46

Cf. G. Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (SUNT 2), Göttingen 1963, pp. 168–267; M. C. Douglas, “The Teacher Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux”, Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999), 239–266.

680

chapter fourteen

(4QPsf = 4Q88;47 11QPsa = 11Q5;48 11QPsb = 11Q6)49 contain a number of songs not found in the Hebrew Bible intermingled with other canonical songs.50 Some are already known to us from Greek (Psalm 151) or Syriac (Psalm 151–155) collections of psalms.51 The manuscript that contains the largest number of apocryphal songs is the First Psalm Scroll from Cave 11 (11QPsa),52 which stems from the ﬁrst half of the ﬁrst century BCE. In between a large collection of canonical psalms we ﬁnd a reference written in prose alluding to the 4050 songs allegedly composed by David (column XXVII 2–11). Two further poems, the second of which having survived in a highly fragmentary state, oﬀer us the Vorlage of Psalm 151 included after the book of Psalms in the Septuagint and in an appendix to the Vulgate. The psalm in question reveals that the Goliath scene in lxx Ps. 151:6–7 would appear to have been borrowed from a diﬀerent song to the description of the election of the youthful David found in the preceding verses (column XXVIII 3–14).53 In addition to Psalm 151, the ﬁrst Psalm Scroll from Cave 11 contains the original Hebrew text of two other psalms (Psalm 154 and 155), known to us since 1759 from the ﬁve so-called “Syriac Psalms”,54 which have survived in a bible manuscript and in manuscripts of a work by Bishop Elias of al-Anbar. 11QPsa also contains a prayer for deliverance (column XIX 1–18), a hymn to Wisdom (column XXI 11–17), which is par-

47 Cf. J. Starcky, “Psaumes apocryphes de la grotte 4 de Qumrân (4QPs f VII–X)”, RB 73 (1966), 350–371. Cf. DJD XVI, 2000. 48 J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a), Oxford 1965 (= DJD VI); Y. Yadin, “Another Fragment (E) of the Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11”, Textus 5 (1966), 1–10. Cf. DJD XXIII, Oxford 1998, pp. 29–36 (fragments E and F). 49 J. P. M. van der Ploeg, “Fragments d’un manuscrit de psaumes de Qumrân (11QPsb)”, RB 74 (1967), 408–412. Cf. DJD XXIII, Oxford 1998, pp. 37–47. 50 English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, pasim. 51 Cf. A. S. van der Woude, “Die fünf syrischen Psalmen”, in: JSHRZ IV/1, pp. 29–47. 52 J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (DJD IV), Oxford 1965. 53 Cf. P. Auﬀret, “Structure littéraire et interprétation du Psaume 151 de la grotte XI de Qumrân”, Revue de Qumrân 9 (1977–1978), 163–188; M. Haran, “Two TextForms of Psalm 151”, JJS 39 (1988), 171–182; S. Talmon, “Extra-Canonical Hebrew Psalms from Qumran—Psalm 151”, in: id., The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies, Leiden 1990, pp. 244–272. 54 Cf. A. S. van der Woude, “Die fünf syrischen Psalmen”, in: Poetische Schriften ( JSHRZ IV/1–3), Gütersloh 1974, 1977, 1983, pp. 29–47.

the dead sea scrolls

681

allel to Jesus Sirach 51:13–19, a hymn to Zion (column XXII 1–15) and a hymn to the Creator (column XXVI 9–15).55 The fragments of 4Q380–381 also contain apocryphal psalms, which most probably represent the remains of one and the same work possibly stemming from the late Persian or early Hellenistic period.56 Those to whom the songs are ascribed include King Manasseh, a king of Judah whose name has been lost, a certain Obadiah and “the man of God” (Moses?; David?). A further genre of poetic works contains hymns against the evil spirits. The Songs of the Wise (4Q510–511),57 for example, aim to “frighten oﬀ those who inspire fear” and “to scare and confuse all the spirits of the angels of destruction”. Rather than being intended for ritual exorcisms to drive out wicked spirits, the poems were probably recited during the assemblies of the community of Qumran with a view to protecting its members against the inﬂuence of evil powers. Non-sectarian psalms of exorcism ascribed to David and followed by a unique version of Psalm 91 have survived in fragmentary form in 11Q Apocryphal Psalmsa (11QPsApa = 11Q11) and are akin to the hymns against the evil spirits.58 A further category of poetical texts is constituted by the Wisdom Songs, an example of which was found in Cave 4 and is referred to as The Wiles of the Wicked Woman (= 4Q184).59 The text clearly alludes 55 Cf. J. A. Sanders, op. cit. An English translation of the songs in question can be found in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 1172ﬀ. 56 Eileen M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran. A Pseudepigraphic Collection (Harvard Semitic Studies 28), Atlanta GA 1986. Cf. DJD XI, 1998. English translation with introduction in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 752–763. 57 Cf. M. Baillet, DJD VII, pp. 215–262. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 1026–1037. 58 J. P. M. van der Ploeg, “Un petit rouleau de psaumes apocryphes (11QPsApa)” in: G. Jeremias e.a. (eds.), Tradition und Glaube (FS Kuhn), Göttingen 1971, pp. 128–139; E. Puech, “Les deux derniers psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme” 11QPsApa IV,4–V,14, in: D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research (STDJ X), Leiden-Jerusalem 1992, pp. 64–89; id., “11QpsApa: un rituel d’exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction”, Revue de Qumran 14 (1990), 377–408; id., “Les psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme”, D. FK. Falk, F. García Martínez, E. M. Schuller (eds.), Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran (STDJ 35), Leiden 2000, 160–181. Cf. DJD XXIII, 1998, 181–205. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 1200–1205. 59 Cf. J. M. Allegro, DJD V, pp. 82–85. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 376–377.

682

chapter fourteen

to the “strange (loose) woman” of Proverbs 1–9, whereby the mistress portrayed in the song, who seduces many and ruins them all, is identiﬁed with the personiﬁcation of Foolishness as counterpart to Wisdom, likewise portrayed as a woman. 4Q Concerning the Resurrection (4Q Messianic Apocalypse = 4Q521),60 which describes the deeds God will perform in the days of the messiah, is also worthy of note. The work, which probably stems from the community of Qumran and can be dated to the ﬁrst half of the ﬁrst century BCE, provides us with a text that would appear to have been strongly inﬂuenced by Psalm 146 and Isa. 61:1, although striking emendations have been made in both instances. Similar mention of the resurrection of the dead in the same breath as the announcement of the good news in Jesus’ response to the disciples of John the Baptist (Mt. 11:4–5; Lk. 7:22–23) is worthy of note: Magniﬁcent deeds, as yet undone, the Lord shall perform, as He has spo(ken). For he shall heal the wounded, bring the dead back to life, announce the good news to the humble, sati(sfy) (the needy), lead the rejected and make the hungry rich (lines 11–13).

4Q Wisdom Text with Beatitudes (4QBéat[itudes] = 4Q525),61 a manuscript that oﬀers us a series of beatitudes with a pronounced Wisdom character (in fragment 2) stems from the end of the ﬁrst century BCE. From the perspective of form, the series constitutes the best and most complete precursor to the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), although it diﬀers signiﬁcantly in terms of content from the latter: (Blessed are those who speak the truth) with a pure heart, and on whose tongue no slander can be found. Blessed are those who uphold her ordinances,

60 E. Puech, “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)”, Revue de Qumrân 15 (1991–1992), 475–522. Cf. DJD XXV, 1998. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 1044–1047. 61 E. Puech, “Un hymne essénien en partie retrouvé et les Béatitudes”, in: F. García Martínez and E. Puech (eds.), Mémorial Jean Carmignac [= Revue de Qumrân 13/49–52 (1988)], Paris 1988, pp. 84–87; id., “4Q525 et les péricopes des Béatitudes en Ben Sira et Matthieu”, RB 98 (1991), 80–106. Cf. DJD XXV, 1998. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 1052–1059.

the dead sea scrolls

683

and do not adhere to improper ways. Blessed are those who rejoice in her, and who do not abandon themselves to the ways of foolishness. Blessed are those who seek her with clean hands, and do not try to ﬁnd her with a deceitful heart. Blessed is the one who achieves Wisdom, who walks in the Law of the Most High and directs his heart in her ways; who applies himself to her discipline and always takes pleasure in her reprimands; who does not reject her in the destitution of the oppressed and does not abandon her in the time of distress; who does not forget her (in the days of ) fear and does not despise her during the oppression of his soul (column II 1–6).

Wisdom songs belonging to the same category include 4Q Work of Wisdom (4Q185),62 4Q Words of the Wise to the Children of the Dawn (4Q298)63 and 4Q Wisdom Song (4Q413),64 together with 4Q Wisdom Documents (4QSap[iential] Work Aa.b.c.d and B = 4Q415–419;65 4QSap. Work Ae and C = 4Q423–424, now known as 4QInstruction),66 which represent a single (originally very comprehensive) work. The latter was written for the most part in prose and devoted to instruction on the acceptable behaviour to be adopted in diﬀerent circumstances and with respect to diﬀerent individuals: in poverty and

62 Cf. J. M. Allegro, DJD V, pp. 85–87. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 401–404. 63 S. J. Pfann, 4Q298: “The Maskîl’s Address to All Sons of Dawn”, JQR 85 (1994), 203–235. Cf. DJD XXXVI, 2000. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 404–405. 64 E. Qimron, “A Work Concerning Divine Providence: 4Q413”, in: Z. Zevit e.a. (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenﬁeld, Winona Lake, Ind. 1995, pp. 191–202. Cf. DJD XI, 1998. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 842–843. 65 E. Torleif, “The Reconstruction of Sapiential Work A”, Revue de Qumrân 64/16 (1995), 559–580; id., “Early Essene Eschatology: Judgement and Salvation According to Sapiential Work A”, in: D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden 1996, pp. 126–165. A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995, pp. 45–92 (4QSapA = 4Q417 2); D. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran, London 1996. Cf. DJD XXXIV, 1999. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 844–881. 66 English translation of 4Q Wisdom Document C in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 886–891.

684

chapter fourteen

riches; towards fathers, wife and children, the powerful, debtors etc. In addition to the latter instructive material, however, a number of theological topics are also developed. All the aforementioned wisdom documents do not appear to have stemmed from the community of Qumran itself but to have been adopted from elsewhere.67 Only remnants remain of many additional poems. Perhaps the best preserved document is the Book of Mysteries,68 three or four fragmentary copies of which have survived, one from Cave 1 (1Q27, cf. DJD I, pp. 102–107) and two or three from Cave 4 (4Q299–300, cf. DJD XX, pp. 31–123; while 4Q301 has been designated as a manuscript of the work it does not exhibit agreements with the other three documents). The work is markedly related to 4Q Wisdom document A. The stylistically impressive Apocryphal Laments A and B (4Q17969 and 4Q501)70 are also worthy of note. Both texts are clearly inspired by the biblical book of Lamentations. The ﬁrst poem laments over the destruction of Jerusalem but there is no clear evidence to determine the disaster to which it refers. The second laments over the fate of the people of the covenant and appears to allude to a distressing situation in which the community of Qumran found itself, brought about by the “villains of the people”. 9. Liturgical texts Little is known to us concerning the liturgy of the community of Qumran celebrated in independence of the sacriﬁcial liturgy of the temple in Jerusalem, which it shunned. The texts referred to in the present paragraph, which contain concrete instructions for liturgical use, can only provide a partial picture of the sect’s liturgical practices.71

67 Cf. A. S. van der Woude, “Wisdom at Qumran”, in: J. Day e.a. (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, Cambridge 1995, pp. 244–256. 68 English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 656–665. 69 M. P. Horgan, “4Q179: A Lament over Jerusalem”, JSS 18 (1973), 222–234; H. Pabst, “Eine Sammlung von Klagen in den Qumranfunden (4Q179)”, in M. Delcor (ed.), Qumrân: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (BEThL 46), Paris-Gembloux 1978, pp. 137–149; F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 368–371. 70 English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 992–995. 71 Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (STDJ 12), Leiden-New YorkCologne 1994.

the dead sea scrolls

685

The extremely fragmentary Daily Prayers (4Q503, see DJD VII, pp. 105–136), the equally poorly preserved copies of the Festival Prayers (1Q34, see DJD I, pp. 136, 152–155; 4Q507–509, see DJD VII, pp. 175–215) and the Words of the Luminaries (4Q504–506, see DJD VII, pp. 137–175), a work containing hymns and prayers for the various days of the week, would appear to have been written outside the community of Qumran.72 The same can be said of a number of texts that were employed in puriﬁcation rituals. A place of honour can be ascribed among the liturgical texts to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacriﬁce,73 of which the remains of eight manuscripts from Cave 4 (4Q400–407), of one manuscript from Cave 11 (11Q17) and a further manuscript from the Masada documents have been discovered. The copies stem from the middle of the ﬁrst century BCE to the middle of the ﬁrst century CE. The work consists of 13 songs intended to be recited during the 13 consecutive sabbaths of every quarter of the 364-day solar year. They refer to the heavenly priesthood, allude to the beatitudes intended for God and recited by the seven archangels and their subordinate angelic princes in the heavenly temples, mention the songs of praise of the angelic hosts, the animated parts of the heavenly sanctuary, the heavenly chariot and the sacriﬁces oﬀered in the heavenly temple. The work exhibits a thoughtfully contrived literary structure surrounding the song of the seventh sabbath, the midpoint of the cycle, and a progression that culminates in the liturgy of the most holy of the heavenly temple. The fact that the songs originate from the community of Qumran is virtually undisputed. Their liturgical recitation on the successive sabbaths of the four quarters of the year provided its members with the opportunity to participate in the sabbath sacriﬁces of the angels in the heavenly temple as a substitute for their participation in the sabbath sacriﬁces at the temple in Jerusalem, which was precluded for them as a matter of principle: songs of praise came to replace actual sacriﬁces. Attached to 1Qsa and the Rule of the Community (1QS), The Collection of Benedictions from Cave 1 (1Q Recueil des Bénédictions = 72 English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 998–1027. 73 C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacriﬁce: A Critical Edition (Harvard Semitic Studies 27), Atlanta, GA 1985. Cf. DJD XI, 1998, pp. 173–401 and DJD XXIII, 1998, 259–304. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 810–837.

686

chapter fourteen

1QSb = 1Q28b)74 can likewise be classiﬁed among the liturgical texts of Qumran. The collection contains a number of benedictions intended for the messianic era addressed to those of the community who had remained faithful to the Law, the priestly messiah of Aaron, the priesthood and the Prince of the assembly to be identiﬁed with the Davidic messiah. Worthy of note are the Benedictions from Cave 4 (4Q280 and 4Q286–290),75 likewise intended for the celebration of the renewal of the covenant, which have survived in six fragmentary (in some instances extremely fragmentary) manuscripts. They contain, among other things, a threefold blessing of the Prince of light and of those who had remained faithful together with a similarly threefold curse of the Prince of darkness and his cohorts. There can be little doubt that the document in question stems from the community of Qumran. Surviving in six copies (4Q434–439), Bless, Oh my soul,76 the title of which is taken from the ﬁrst words of the poem, is closely related to the Hymn Scroll (1QH). The preserved segments of the work contain a gloriﬁcation of the deeds of God who grants deliverance to the poor, the righteous and the pious by liberating them from the dominion of evil, transforming their hearts and granting them the grace to understand His mysteries. 10. Texts associated with the endtime The present paragraph will focus on manuscripts that do not exhibit a common literary genre but are related in terms of content on account of their characteristic allusions to the endtime. A number of texts have already been referred to in the preceding paragraphs that contain eschatological thematic elements: the Bible Commentaries, the Rule of the Community (1QSa), 4Q Testimonia (4Q175), the 74

DJD I, pp. 118–130. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 98–99, 104–109. 75 J. T. Milik, “Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-re“a' dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens”, JJS 23 (1972), 95–144; Bilhah Nitzan, “4QBerakot (4Q286–290): A Preliminary Report”, in: G. Brooke and F. García Martínez (eds.), New Qumran Texts and Studies (STDJ XV), Leiden 1994, pp. 53–71. Cf. DJD XI, 1998. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 636–637, 644–653. 76 D. R. Seely, “The Barki Nafshi Texts (4Q434–439)”, in: D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden 1996, pp. 194–214. Cf. DJD XXIX, 1999. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 910–921.

the dead sea scrolls

687

Collection of Beatitudes (1QSb), 11Q Melchizedek (11Q13) and 4Q Concerning the Resurrection (4Q521). The War Scroll from Cave 1 of Qumran (1QM = 1QMilchama), which is also referred to with the extended title: “Scroll of the war of the children of light against the children of darkness” enjoys a place of prominence among those documents that have the eschatological struggle as their primary theme.77 19 columns of the document have survived, the lower part having been lost together with the end of the scroll, which dates from the end of the ﬁrst century BCE. The document contains a summary of the course of the eschatological struggle, which results in the victory of the powers of good and the restoration of the temple cult (columns I–II 14). Considerable attention is then devoted to organisational directives and battle strategies: rules concerning the trumpets with their legends, the ensigns with their legends, the formation of the military battalions, the armament of each of the units and their tactical manoeuvres, the supervision of the battle by the priests and the Levites and the redeployment of the military battalions (II 15–IX 17). This is followed by a number of prayers to be recited during the course of the battle (X–XIV). From column XV onwards we encounter a new segment preceded by a new introduction, oﬀering a detailed description of the battle against the Kittites, the enemy of the endtime. This portion of the document contains a considerable amount of material that is more or less identical to that of the preceding columns while at the same time exhibiting clear points of diﬀerence. The text of the scroll is thus the result of a compilation of two (or perhaps even three) documents that deal with the same theme: an apocalyptic work that portrays a forty year war against all the nations of the earth and a work that describes the struggle against the Kittites as the adversary of the endtime. Four of the manuscripts of the War Scroll discovered in Cave 4 (4Q492; 4Q494–496) represent copies of the recension known to us 77 First edition: E. L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1955, pp. 1–19. Translations with commentary: J. Carmignac, La règle de la guerre des ﬁls du lumière contre les ﬁls de ténèbres, Paris 1958; J. P. M. van der Ploeg, “La Règle de la guerre”, VT 5 (1955), 373–420; id., Le rouleau de la guerre (STDJ II), Leiden-Grand Rapids 1959; B. Jongeling, Le rouleau de la guerre des manuscrits de Qumrân, Assen 1962; Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, Oxford 1962. See P. R. Davies, 1QM. The War Scroll from Qumran. Its Structure and History, Rome 1977. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 112ﬀ.

688

chapter fourteen

from 1QM. Two other manuscripts (4Q491; 4Q493), however, bear witness to diﬀerent documents dealing with the same theme and to diﬀerent recensions of the same work. They allow us to reconstruct the main features of the genesis and evolution of 1QM and oﬀer proof that the latter manuscript represents the ﬁnal redaction of the work. The document as represented by 1QM oﬀers us a dramatic portrayal of the ﬁnal struggle between the powers of good and the powers of darkness in which trumpets are just as eﬀective as lances and swords, priestly prayers are just as necessary as troop manoeuvres and the participation of angels in the battle, the ﬁnal result and divine victory are just as important as the prescriptions concerning the ritual purity of the participants and the military tactics that have to be implemented in order to defeat the enemy. The Description of the New Jerusalem (NJ) diﬀers considerably in character from 1QM. Fragmentary remains of seven copies of the work from ﬁve diﬀerent caves (1, 2, 4, 5 and 11)78 have survived, dating from the period between the second half of the ﬁrst century BCE and the ﬁrst half of the ﬁrst century CE. The document is devoted to a description of the future Jerusalem and the future temple together with the cult to be practised therein. It is conceived as a sort of tour, whereby the author is shown around the immense city (a rectangle of 32 km × 23 km) and its temple by an angelic guide. Detailed description of the construction and dimensions of the walls, gates, streets, houses and their interiors is provided. A fragment of a manuscript from Cave 4 (4Q554) locates the description within the ﬁnal struggle against the nations, thereby underlining the work’s eschatological character. Agreements in terms of content with the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) more or less certify that the document owes its origins to the circles from which the community of Qumran emerged. A third category of texts is devoted to the various ﬁgures that are to contribute to the deliverance of the endtime.79 On a single sheet 78 1Q32, cf. DJD I, pp. 134–135; 2Q24, cf. DJD III, pp. 84–89; 4Q554–555, cf. K. Beyer, Ergänzungsband, pp. 95–104; 5Q15, cf. DJD III, pp. 184–193; 11Q18, cf. DJD XXIII, pp. 305–355. Cf. F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic (STDJ IX), Leiden 19942, pp. 180–213. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pasim. 79 With respect to the messianic expectations of the community of Qumran see J. H. Charlesworth e.a. (eds.), Qumran-Messianism. Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tübingen 1998 (lit.!); J. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran (WUZNT 104) Tübingen 1998.

the dead sea scrolls

689

of leather, 4Q Testimonia (4Q175, cf. DJD V, pp. 57–60) contains a small collection of four quotations from texts relating to the coming of the messiah and the anti-messiah: Exod. 20:21b according to the Samaritan Pentateuch (in which the Masoretic tradition of Deut. 5:28–29 and Deut. 18:18–19 are combined in a single verse); Num. 24:15–17; Deut. 33:8–11; a passage from the Psalms of Joshua discovered in Cave 4.80 The ﬁrst three texts allude to the prophet as Moses, the royal messiah and the priestly messiah respectively (cf. 1QS IX 11). The fourth quotation would appear to refer to three eschatological adversaries: “a cursed one, one of Belial” and two other individuals that are to serve as “instruments of oppression”.81 Written in Aramaic, 4Q Aramaic Apocalypse, also referred to as 4Q Son of God Text or 4Q Pseudo-Danield (= 4Q246) is of particular interest.82 Only a single fragment containing the remains of two columns of the document, copied in the ﬁrst century BCE, has survived. Allusion is made to a ﬁgure who falls prostrate before a royal throne and explains the vision seen by the king seated thereon in which a future world war is announced. At that time a mysterious ﬁgure shall intervene and he shall be called “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High”. Troubled times shall follow his appearance “until he has established the people of God” (others read: “until the people of God rise up”). His kingship shall be an eternal kingship. With God’s help he shall defeat the nations, establish peace and exercise dominion over the primal depths. While the apocalyptic and eschatological character of the fragment is not open to question, it has nevertheless been subject to a variety of interpretations. The most plausible interpretation maintains that the “Son of God” and the “Son of the Most High” allude to a messiah of heavenly origin. The functions he is to fulﬁl are messianic in character and are portrayed with the characteristics of the “Son of man” from Daniel 7. A messianic ﬁgure of the same character can be found in the Similitudes of 1 Enoch (48:2–3,10;

80 C. A. Newsom, “The Psalms of Joshua from Qumran Cave 4”, JJS 39 (1988), 56–73. Cf. ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’ (4Q378–379) DJD XXII, pp. 237–288. 81 English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 354–357. 82 E. Puech, “Fragment d’une apocalypse en araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le ‘Royaume de Dieu’”, RB 99 (1992), 98–131. Cf. DJD XXV, 1998. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 492–495.

690

chapter fourteen

52:4) and 4 Ezra (7:28–29; 12:32). The apparent parallel with the messianic designation in Lk. 1:32,35 is worthy of note.83 Likewise written in Aramaic, but in an extremely fragmentary condition, the text of two copies of 4Q Four Kingdoms (4Q552–553)84 describes how an angel engages in a dialogue with an individual who has seen a vision of four trees, the name of only one of which has survived (Babel). We are clearly dealing in this instance with an eschatological text containing a description of history in line with the four kingdoms schema familiar to us from Daniel 2 and 7. A treatment of 11Q Melchizedek, of which 14 fragments of a Hebrew manuscript copied in the second half of the ﬁrst century BCE have survived, is provided above under the (thematic) bible commentaries. 11. Astronomical texts, calendars and horoscopes A relatively large number of manuscripts discovered at Qumran represent astronomical or astrological material, whereby astronomical knowledge serves, for example, in the establishment of sacred seasons and astrological insights are employed to determine the fate of human persons. The remains of four copies of 4Q Astronomical Enoch (4Q208–211)85 provide a synchronised account of the movements of the sun and moon together with other information relevant to the heavenly bodies. The oldest manuscript (4Q208) brings us back to the beginning of the second century BCE and serves as evidence that the work could not have originated in the community of Qumran itself. 1 Enoch 72–82 oﬀer us an abbreviated and somewhat confused version of the document. Likewise written in Hebrew but copied in a cryptic script, 4Q Phases of the Moon (4Q317)86 is related to Astronomical Enoch and describes the phases of the moon based on the strength of the full moon’s luminosity (divided into 14 parts) over a 364-day year. 83 Cf. further F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic (STDJ IX), Leiden 19942, pp. 162ﬀ. 84 Cf. K. Beyer, Ergänzungsband, pp. 108–109. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 1102–1107. 85 Cf. M. Albani, Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube. Untersuchungen zum astronomischen Henochbuch (WMANT 68), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1994. Cf. DJD XXXVI, 2000. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 430–443. 86 Cf. J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch, Oxford 1976, pp. 68–69. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 672–677.

the dead sea scrolls

691

The remains of several cultic calendars 87 have been discovered, some of which synchronise data relating to the lunar calendar current in early Judaism with the solar calendar of the community of Qumran, while others relate the calendar to the (six year) cycle of duties ascribed to various priestly ranks in the temple (cf. Lk. 1:5,8–9). Others still serve to establish the data related to religious feasts within the aforementioned cycle or to register that of speciﬁc historical events within the system provided by alternative calendars. Distinction ought to be made with respect to the three astrological texts that have been discovered between a brontologion (4Q318), in which the astrological signs are employed to determine future events,88 and two horoscopes (4Q186 and 4Q561), which relate the characteristic qualities of a person with the star sign under which he or she was born.89 12. The Copper Scroll Brief mention deserves to be made of the Copper Scroll discovered in Cave 3 (3Q15),90 which belongs among the most mysterious of the documents found at Qumran. Written in a script that diﬀers signiﬁcantly from that of all the other Qumran documents and in a language reminiscent of Mishnaic Hebrew, the Copper Scroll contains a list of places in which treasures are said to have been located. Some scholars consider the scroll to be a folkloristic legend while others take it to be a genuine description of a number of locations in which treasures are to be found. 87

See further F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 679ﬀ. Cf. M. O. Wise, Thunder in Gemini ( JSP Supplement Series 15), Sheﬃeld 1994. Cf. DJD XXXVI, 2000. English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 676–679. 89 English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 380–383, 1116–1119. 90 J. T. Milik, “Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15)”, in: DJD III, pp. 199–302, 314–317; B. Pixner, “Unravelling the Copper Scroll Code. A Study of the Topography of 3Q15”, Revue de Qumrân 11 (1982–1984), 326–366; P. Muchowski, “Bibliography of the Copper Scroll”, Folia Orientalia 26 (1989), 65–70; A. Wolters, “The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew”, Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989–1990), 483–495; id., “Literary Analysis and the Copper Scroll”, in: Z. J. Kapera (ed.), Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik, Cracow 1992, pp. 239–252; id., The Copper Scroll. Overview, Text and Translation, Sheﬃeld 1997; J. K. Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll 3Q15: A Reevaluation. A New Reading, Translation, and Commentary (STDJ 25), Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2000 (lit.!). English translation in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, op. cit., pp. 232–239. 88

692

chapter fourteen b. The manuscripts of Chirbet Mird

On the site of the Hasmonean fortress Hyrcanium, roughly 14 km south east of Jerusalem, Saint Sabas founded the monastery of Castellion (Syriac: Marda) in 492. In 1952, Bedouins discovered the remains of a number of documents close to the ruins of the monastery, later identiﬁed by a Belgian expedition under the leadership of the Leuven professor De Langhe as Greek, Christian-Palestinian and Arabic manuscripts dating from the late Byzantine and early Arabic periods together with a fragment of Euripides’ Andromache.91 While the present author oﬀers no further discussion of the discoveries in question he nevertheless considers it necessary to mention them in order to avoid any confusion with the Qumran manuscripts that stem from a much earlier period.

c. The discoveries at Wadi Murabba"at and the valleys to the south of the Judean Desert Texts representing disparate content, written in several diﬀerent languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic) and dating from a variety of periods (ﬁrst century CE to the early middle ages) were discovered by Bedouins and a scientiﬁc expedition led by Roland de Vaux and Lancaster Harding (1952) in a number of caves in the Wadi Murabba"at, roughly 20 km south of Qumran. The majority of the discoveries date from the period prior to the two Jewish revolts against the Romans (132–135 CE) and contain, among other things, letters with the signature of the pseudo-messianic leader Simon ben Koseba (Simon bar Kochba).92 The substantial remains of a scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets found among the discovered documents are of particular importance because they provide a Hebrew consonantal text that more or less agrees with that of medieval biblical manuscripts.93 91 R. de Langhe, “Oude handschriften in de woestijn van Juda”, Onze alma mater 7 (1953), 14–19; id., “De Leuvense expeditie naar de woestijn van Juda”, ibid. 8 (1954), 3–5; G. R. H. Wright, “The Archaeological Remains at El Mird in the Wilderness of Judaea”, Biblica 42 (1961), 1–27. 92 P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabba"at (DJD II), Oxford 1961. 93 Cf. op. cit., pp. 50, 181–205.

the dead sea scrolls

693

In 1952, Bedouins presented 24 fragments of a Greek scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets to the Palestinian Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem. It later appeared that the discoveries were actually found on Israeli territory in Nachal Chever, between Engedi and Masada. During the Israeli expeditions of 1960 and 1961, carried out in Nahal Hever, Nahal Tse"elim94 and Nahal Mishmar, segments of the same manuscript were discovered together with a number of other documents. The most abundant discoveries stem from the “Cave of Letters”95 in Nahal Hever, which, in addition to Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic documents from the time of bar Kochba, also yielded a number of biblical fragments from the personal archives of a certain Babata, daughter of Simon, and her kin, dating from between 93 and 132 CE.96 Written in Aramaic, Greek and Nabatean, the archive also includes Babata’s marriage contract. The aforementioned Greek scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets (8HevXIIgr) brings us into contact with a recension of the Septuagint that represents a stage in the process of adapting the text to the Hebrew Bible.97

d. The discoveries at Masada In the course of the excavations carried out between 1963 and 1965 at Masada several fragments of the Book of Jesus Sirach,98 a scrap

94

A. Yardeni, ‘Nahal Tse’elim’ Documents ( Judean Desert Studies) Jerusalem 1995. Y. Yadin, “Expedition D—The Cave of Letters”, IEJ 12 (1962), 226–257; id., The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters ( Judaean Desert Studies I), Jerusalem 1963; id., Bar-Kokhba, Jerusalem-New York 1971; The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period: Greek Papyri, edited by N. Lewis, Aramaic and Nabatean Signatures and Subscriptions, edited by Y. Yadin and J. C. Greenﬁeld ( Judean Desert Studies) Jerusalem 1989; H. Cotton – A. Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Hahal Hever and Other Sites (DJD 27), Oxford 1997; A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabatean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material, Jerusalem 2000. 96 N. Lewis, R. Katzoﬀ and J. C. Greenﬁeld, “Papyrus Yadin 18”, IEJ 37 (1987), 229–250; Y. Yadin, J. C. Greenﬁeld and Ada Yardeni, Babatha’s Ketubba, IEJ 44 (1994), 75–101; M. A. Friedman, “Babatha’s Ketubba: Some Preliminary Observations”, IEJ 46 (1996), 55–76. Cf. H. Cotton and Ada Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever (DJD XXVII), Oxford 1999. 97 E. Tov with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft and a contribution by P. J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (DJD VIII), Oxford 1990. See also D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (SVT 10), Leiden 1963. 98 Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, Jerusalem 1965 (Hebrew text, introduction, translation and commentary). See, in addition, J. Strugnell, “Notes and 95

694

chapter fourteen

of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacriﬁce99 (see above under a. 9 Liturgical texts) and other Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts were discovered100 (together with portions of Genesis, Leviticus and the Psalms, more than 200 inscribed potsherds and a number of Latin papyri left by the Romans). Given the fact that Masada served as the last pocket of resistance during the ﬁrst Jewish revolt and fell to the Romans in 73 (or 74) CE,101 the manuscripts discovered there date from more or less the same period as the youngest of the Qumran scrolls.

Queries on ‘The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada’”, Eretz-Israel 9 (1969), 109–119. For the Hebrew text see also P. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (SVT 68), Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997, pp. 113–121. 99 C. A. Newsom and Y. Yadin, “The Masada Fragment of the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacriﬁce”, IEJ 34 (1984), 2–3, 77–88; C. Newsom, “MasShirot 'Olat HaShabbat”, in E. Eshel e.a., Qumran Cave 4. VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part I (DJD 11), Oxford 1998, 239–252. 100 Published in The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports. Masada I: The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions. The Coins from Masada, by Y. Yadin, J. Nave, J. Meshorer, Jerusalem 1989; Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents, by H. M. Cotton e.a., Jerusalem 1989; Masada VI: The Hebrew and Aramaic Documents, by S. Talmon e.a., Jerusalem 1999. 101 Y. Yadin, Masada: Herodes’ burcht en het laatste bolwerk der Joden, Bussum 1971.

INTRODUCTIONS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT AND OTHER REFERENCE WORKS

The most prominent introductions to the Old Testament published in the twentieth century include the following: G. Ch. Aalders, Oud-Testamentische Kanoniek, Kampen 1952; G. W. Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament, London 1959, 19727; A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament I–II, Copenhagen 1948, 19584; H. Cazelles (ed.), Introduction à la Bible II. Introduction critique à l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1973; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London 1979; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluß der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumrân-Schriften, Tübingen 1934, 19643 (1976); G. Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Heidelberg 197912; N. K. Gottwald, A Light to the Nations. An Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 1959; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament with a Comprehensive Review of Old Testament Studies and a Special Supplement on the Apocrypha, Grand Rapids 1969 (1982); J. Hempel, Die althebräische Literatur und ihr hellenistisch-jüdisches Nachleben, WildparkPotsdam 1930–1934, 19682; O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Eine Einführung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme, Gütersloh 1969, completely revised edition 19845; dez., Grundriß der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments I–III, Gütersloh 1992 and 1994. C. Kuhl, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, Munich 1953, 19602 (uitgegeven door G. Fohrer); A. Lods, Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive depuis les origines jusqu’à la ruine de l’état juif (135 après J.-C.), Paris 1950. R. Mayer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament I–II, Munich 1965–1967; W. O. E. Oesterley and Th. W. Robinson, An Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament, London 1934 (1958); R. H. Pfeiﬀer, Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 1941 (1957); R. Rendtorﬀ, Das Alte Testament. Eine Einführung, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1983, 19924; A. Robert et A. Feuillet, Introduction à la Bible I. Introduction générale. Ancien Testament par P. Auvray e.a., Tournay 1957, 19592; W. H. Schmidt, Einführung in das Alte Testament (De Gruyter Lehrbuch), Berlin-New York 1978, 19952; E. Sellin, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Leipzig 1910, 19357; R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft I), Stuttgart 1978, 19894; J. A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, London 1976, 19893; C. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, Tübingen 1912; A. Weiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart 1939; Göttingen 19666; E. Zenger e.a., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart-Berlin-Cologne 1995, 19983 (the last edition includes substantial additions).

696

introductions to the old testament

Older Dutch language introductions: A. Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds I–III, Leiden 1861–1865, 1887–18932; G. Wildeboer, De letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds naar de tijdsorde van haar ontstaan, Groningen 1893. General surveys of the problems surrounding the study of the Old Testament: H. F. Hahn, The Old Testament in Modern Research, London 1956; G. W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation, Oxford 1979; D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Chico CA 1985. H. H. Rowley (ed.), The Old Testament and Modern Study. A Generation of Discovery and Research, Oxford 1951 (1961); A. S. van der Woude (red.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986; History of research into the Old Testament: The Cambridge History of the Bible I, From the Beginnings to Jerome, edited by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, Cambridge 1970 (1976); II, The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, edited by G. W. H. Lampe, Cambridge 1969 (1976); III, The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, edited by S. L. Greenslade, Cambridge 1963 (1976,1978); R. E. Clements, A Century of Old Testament Studies, Guildford and London 1976. E. G. Kraeling, The Old Testament since the Reformation, Londen 1955; H. J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, Neukirchen 1956; Encyclopædias and reference works: A. van den Born e.a., Bijbels Woordenboek, Roermond-Maaseik 1954–1957; D. N. Freedman e.a., The Anchor Bible Dictionary I–VI, New York-London-TorontoSydney-Auckland 1992 (one of the best reference works available). K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon, Tübingen 1937, 19772; W. H. Gispen e.a., Bijbelse Encyclopedie, Kampen 1950 (1975); The Interpreter’s Dictionary to the Bible I–IV, Nashville-New York 1962. Supplementary Volume 1976; H. Mulder, Klein Lexicon van bijbelse namen, Kampen 1982; B. Reicke and L. Rost, Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch, Göttingen 1962–1979; Theological dictionaries (knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic required): G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, H. J. Fabry (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart etc. 1973– (multi-volume work). E. Jenni und C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament I 1971, II 1976, Munich and Zurich; Concordances: Concordantie op de bijbel in de Nieuwe vertaling van het Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap, Kampen 1983; H. N. Ridderbos and W. van der Meer (ﬁnal redaction), Handwijzer op de grondtekst van de bijbel, Kampen 1993. Concordances of the basic text of the Old Testament: G. Lisowsky, Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testament, Stuttgart 19582. S. Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae, Graz 1955 (unedited reprint of the 1937 edition);

introductions to the old testament

697

Concordances of the Septuagint: E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), Graz 1954 (overanderde herdruk van de uitgave van 1897). Concordances of the Pseudepigrapha transmitted in Greek: A. M. Denis avec la collaboration d’Yvonne Janssens, Concordance grecque des Pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament, Louvain-la-Neuve 1987. Concordances of the Vulgate: B. Fischer, Novae Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrorum iuxta Vulgatam Versionem critice editam, Stuttgart 1977. Commentary series: (virtually all are incomplete) AB Anchor Bible, Garden City NY ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Göttingen BK Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn BOT De Boeken van het Oude Testament, Roermond and Maaseik CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament, Neuchâtel CB Century Bible, London-Edinburgh CNEB The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, Cambridge UK COT Commentaar op het Oude Testament, Kampen EB Echter Bibel, Würzburg EHAT Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Münster Westf. FOTL The Forms of Old Testament Literature, Grand Rapid HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Tübingen HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, Göttingen Herm Hermeneia, Philadelphia HSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, Bonn IB The Interpreter’s Bible, New York and Nashville/Tenn. ICC The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament, originally Leipzig, later Gütersloh KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, Tübingen KV Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift, Kampen NCB New Century Bible, Grand Rapids MI and London NEB Neue Echter Bibel, Würzburg NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids MI OTL The Old Testament Library, London POT De Prediking van het Oude Testament, Nijkerk, thereafter Baarn, thereafter Kampen TT Tekst en Toelichting, Kampen TU Tekst en Uitleg, Groningen-Den Haag-Batavia WBC Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, thereafter Dallas, Texas ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare, Zurich

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES

a) Kings of Judah and Israel Given the abundance of diﬃculties surrounding the establishment of accurate dates, those provided in the following tables must remain approximations. David Solomon

1011–972 972–931

Judah Rehoboam Abijam Asa

931–914 914–912 912–870

Jehosaphat Joram Ahaziah

870–848 848–841 841

Israel Jeroboam I Nadab Baasha Elah Zimri Omri Ahab Ahaziah Joram

931–910 910–909 909–886 886–885 885 885–874 874–853 853–852 852–841

Athaliah

841–835

Jehu

841–813

Joash Amaziah

835–795 795–789

Jehoahaz Joash

813–797 797–780

Azariah

789–749

Jeroboam II

780–751

Jotham

749–734

Zechariah Menahem Pekahiah Pekah

751–750 750–739 739–737 737–731

Hoshea

731–722

Achaz

734–718

Hezekiah Manasseh Amon Josiah Joahaz Jehoiakim Jehoiakin Zedekiah

718–698 698–642 642–640 640–609 609 609–598 598–597 597–587

b) Kings of Assyria from 781 BCE Shalmaneser IV Ashur-Dan III Ashur-nirari V Tiglath-Pileser III Shalmaneser V Sargon II Sennacherib Esarhaddon

781–772 771–754 753–746 745–727 727–722 722–705 705–681 681–669

chronological tables Ashurbanipal Ashur-etil-ilani Sin-shar-ishkun

669–625 625–621 621–612 c) Kings of the neo-Babylonian Empire

Nabopolassar Nebuchadnezzar II Awil-Marduk Nergal-shar-usur Nabonidus

625–605 605–562 562–560 560–556 556–539 d) Kings of the Persian Empire

Cyrus Cambysses Darius I Xerxes I Artaxerxes I Xerxes II Darius II Artaxerxes II Artaxerxes III Arses Darius III

550–529 529–522 522–486 486–465 465–424 423 423–404 404–358 358–338 338–336 336–331 e) Rulers of the Kingdom of the Ptolemies

Ptolemy I Ptolemy II Ptolemy III Ptolemy IV Ptolemy V Ptolemy VI Ptolemy VII Ptolemy VIII Ptolemy IX Ptolemy X Ptolemy IX Ptolemy XI Ptolemy XII Cleopatra VI Berenice Ptolemy XII Ptolemy XIII Ptolemy XIV Ptolemy XV

323–283 283–246 246–221 221–205 204–180 180–145 145 145–116 116–107 107–88 88–81 80 80–59 58–57 59–55 55–51 51–47 (Cleopatra VII co-regent) 47–44 (Cleopatra VII co-regent) 44–30 (Cleopatra VII co-regent) f ) Rulers of the Kingdom of the Seleucids

Seleucus I Antiochus I

312–281 281–261

699

chronological tables

700 Antiochus II Seleucus II Seleucus III Antiochus III Seleucus IV Antiochus IV Antiochus V Demetrius I Alexander Balas Demetrius II Antiochus VI Tryphon Antiochus VII Demetrius II Alexander II Seleucus V Antiochus VIII Antiochus IX Antiochus VIII

261–246 246–226 226–223 223–187 187–175 175–164 164–162 162–150 150–145 145–139 145–142 142–138 138–128 128–125 128–122 (?) 125 125–113 113–95 111–96

In the years that followed a struggle for the throne ensued between the ﬁve sons of Antiochus VIII and the son of Antiochus IX. In 83 the Armenian king Tigranes took possession of the empire which he ruled for 69 years. g) High Priests in Jerusalem from the end of the Babylonian exile to the arrival of the Romans Jeshua Joiakim Eliashib Joiada Johanan Jaddua (?) Jochanan (?) Jaddua Onias I Simon I Eleazar Manasseh Onias II Simon II Onias III Jason Menelaus Alcimus Inter-sacerdotium Jonathan Simon John Hyrcanus Aristobulus I Alexander Janneuss Hyrcanus II Aristobulus II

?–? 510 ? 510–? 480 ? 480–? 440 ? 440–? 425 ? 425–? 390 ? 390–? 370 ? 370–? 340 ? 340–? 320 ? 320–? 300 ? 300–? 285 ? 285–? 270 ? 270–? 260 ? 260–? 220 ? 220–? 190 ? 190–174 174–172 172–163 162–160/159 159–153/152 153/2–143/2 143/2–135 135–104 104–103 103–76 76–67 67–63

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR ACEBT AfO AG(A)JU AJSL ALGHJ AnBibl ANEP ANET AnOr ANRW AO AOAT ARW ASOR ASTI AT ATANT ATSAT Aug BBB BiAr BAR BASOR BEThL BFchTh BHT(h) BiOr BIOSCS BJRL BN BSt BThS BWANT BZ BZAW BZNW CBQ Charles COS

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese en bijbelse theologie Archiv für Orientforschung Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litertures Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Analecta Biblica Ancient Near East in Pictures, Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton 19692 Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton 19692 Analecta orientalia Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, Berlin 1972– Der Alte Orient Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archiv für Religionswissenschaft American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Altes Testament Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Augustinianum Bonner biblische Beiträge The Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica et Orientalia Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Biblische Notizen Biblische Studien Biblisch Theologische Studien Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beiheft ZAW Beiheft ZNW Catholic Biblical Quarterly The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, edited in conjunction with many scholars by R. H. Charles I–II, Oxford 1913 The Context of Scripture, ed. W. H. Hallo, part I, Leiden-BostonCologne 1997

702 CRINT CThM DBAT Denis, Introd.

list of abbreviations

Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Calwer Theologische Monographien Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament A. M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancient Terstament, Leiden 1970 Denis, Fragm. A. M. Denis, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graece una cum historicorum et auctorum judaeorum hellenistarum fragmenta, Leiden 1970 diss. dissertation DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan) DSD Dead Sea Discoveries DTT Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift e.a. and others ed. editor EdF Erträge der Forschung eds. editors EThL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FB Forschung zur Bibel FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FS Festschrift FThSt Freibuger Theologische Studien FzB Forschung zur Bibel GCS Die griechisch christlichen Schrifsteller der ersten (drei) Jahrhunderte GTA Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten GTT Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift HAR Hebrew Annual Review Hebr. Hebrew text HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HTS(t) Hervormde Teologiese Studies HT(h)R Harvard Theological Review HThS Harvard Theological Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ibid. ibidem (in the same place) id. the same author IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAL Jewish Apocryphal Literature JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBTh Journal of Biblical Theology JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEOL Jaarbericht Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex Oriente Lux JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNS(W)L Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JQR The Jewish Quarterly Review JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism

list of abbreviations JSP JSS JThS KAI

703

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies H. Donner – W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften I–III, Wiesbaden 1962–1964 Kautzsch Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, herausgegeben von E. Kautzsch I–II, Tübingen 1900 KBS Bijbelvertaling van de Katholieke Bijbelstichting KNAW Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen KuD Kerygma und Dogma LAB Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum LUÅ Lunds Universitets Årsskrift lxx Septuagint Mon. Monograph MSU Mitteilugen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens MT Masoretic text n. footnote NBG Bijbelvertaling van het Nederlandsch Bijbelgenootschap NF Neue Folge NKZ Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift NovTest Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament Studies NThS Nieuwe Theologische Studiën NTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis op. cit. opere citato (cited work) OT Old Testament OTL Old Testament Library OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I–II, ed. J. Charlesworth, Garden City NY 1983–1987 OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën OTWSA Outestamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association PJ(B) Palästina-Jahrbuch PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece, ediderunt A. M. Denis et M. de Jonge PWCJS Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Rahlfs Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta lxx Interpretes, edidit A. Rahlfs I–II, Stuttgart 1935 RB Revue Biblique REJ Revue des études juives Riessler P. Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel, Heidelberg 1928 (reprint Darmstadt 1966) RHPhR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RS(c)R Recherches de science religieuse RThL Revue théologique de Louvain RThP Revue de théologie et de philosophie SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

704 SBM SBT(h) SC SCS s.d. SEÅ SJLA SJOT SNVAO SOTS SSN STDJ S(t)UNT Suppl. SVT SVTP T(h)B T(h)LZ ThR ThSt TU TUAT ThViat TTZ TZ UUÅ UF V VT Syriace VT VuF WdF Weber WMANT WUNT ZAH ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZNW ZPE ZThK ZRGG

list of abbreviations Stuttgater biblische Monographien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources chrétiennes Septuagint and Cognate Studies sine dato (year unknown) Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps Akademi i Oslo Society for Old Testament Study Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Supplement Supplement Vetus Testamentum Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Theologische Bücherei Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Rundschau Theologische Studien Texte und Untersuchungen Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments Theologia Viatorum Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Theologische Zeitschrift, Basel Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift Ugarit-Forschungen Vulgate Vetus Testamentum Syriace iuxta simplicem Syrorum versionem ex auctoritate societatis ad studia librorum Veteris Testamenti provehenda edidit Institutum Peshittonianum Leidense Vetus Testamentum Verkündigung und Forschung Wege der Forschung R. Weber (ed.), Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem I–II, Stuttgart 1969 Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

Aaronic blessing 17 Abimelech 641 Abimelech of Gerar 185–86, 208 Abimelech of Shechem 281 Abisha scroll 78 Abraham as an astrologer 654–55 Apocalypse of 637, 645 cycles 207–208 history of 165, 186, 208 Josephus on 657 journeys of 579, 656, 670 narratives 184–86, 201–203, 205, 208, 670 promises made to 211, 273 prophetic references to 209–10 Testament of 607, 635–36, 642–43 accession to the throne Feast of YHWH’s 118, 236, 421 Psalms of 117–18, 134 Solomon’s 124, 298, 300 Achior 509, 527 acrostics 43, 105, 388, 463, 465, 573 Adam and Eve, Life of 629, 631–32 fall of 613, 621 history of 578–79 Adon, Letter of 16–17 Adonijah 288 agricultural calendar, of Gezer 8 Ahab 298–99, 382, 698 Ahaziah 12, 698 Ahijah, prophecies of 7, 299, 301 Ahikar, story of 508–509, 523 Aleppo, Codex 72, 76 Alexander Polyhistor 651, 653, 655, 657–58 allegorical exegesis 453–54, 456, 658 allegories of the eagles and the vine 348 shepherd 412 alliteration 104, 106–107 el-Amarna letters 29–30, 41 n1, 123, 420 Amenemope, proverbs of 444 Amos 68, 70, 353, 364, 367 expulsion from Bethel 131

lament of 113 prophecies of 48, 368, 371 Amsterdam school 133, 167–68, 195 Anat 31–32 Anathoth 288, 336 Angelology, book of see Book of Watchers animal cults 654 annals 26, 47, 122, 283, 388, 441, 469 Assyrian 38–39 announcements 338 of curse 258 of death 631 of destruction of Jerusalem 383, 618 of doom 110, 310, 385, 389 of the fall of Judah 339 of judgement 302–303, 310, 321, 328, 358, 363, 368–69, 373, 378, 381 n94, 383–84, 389, 393, 398 of the Messiah 410 prophetic 125 of salvation 310, 328, 333, 348, 358 anonymity of authorship 44 of Old Testament documents 129 Antiochus IV Ephiphanes 476, 478, 480–82, 528, 536, 549, 556, 559, 589, 608 Antipas 607 antithetical parallelism 103 aphorisms 460, 537 numerical 114, 443 prophetic 112 apocalypse of Abraham 637, 645 Aramaic 689 of Baruch 618, 621–23, 641 of Elijah 647 of Ezra see 4 Ezra of Isaiah 322, 324, 503 of John 615 n66 Messianic 682 of Moses 577, 630 of Sedrach 647

706

index of names and subjects

Ten Week 599, 601 of Zephaniah 647–48 apocalyptic literature 362, 410, 475, 481, 568, 570, 595, 621, 687 Jewish 605, 611, 623 apocalyptic movements 60 n5 apocrypha 55, 57, 60, 84, 503–505, 512, 563 at Qumran 666, 670, 679–81, 684 in Decretum Gelasianum 602 early Judaism’s rejection of 570 Greek 647 in Hebrew Bible 68 laments 684 Psalms 423, 586, 679–81 and pseudepigrapha 566–67 in Septuagint 67–68, 515 apodictic law 120–21, 236, 239–40 apodictic style 238 Apollonius 510, 589 Aqhat Legend 32, 43 n6 Aquila 81–83, 86, 89, 92 Arad 15 Ostraca 12, 14 Aramaic apocalypse 689 Aramaic language 87, 130, 508 Testament of Levi in 627–28 texts in 9, 14–16, 54, 84, 86, 480, 482, 487–88, 507, 521, 524, 526, 546, 549–50, 553, 669 in Qumran 596, 599, 601–602, 670–71, 689–90, 693–94 Aramaic papyri 507, 509 Aramaisms 130–31, 377, 436, 451, 456, 460 archaeological discoveries 8, 12, 21–22, 24, 153, 158, 162, 166, 200, 510 Archelaus 607 archives of Babata 693 of Eliashib 15 family 506, 509 of the pharaohs 29 temple 191, 198 Aristeas 658 letter of 63, 79–81, 562, 571, 575, 652, 657 Aristobulus 657–58, 700 ark 118, 242, 287, 295, 655 of the covenant 234, 241, 267, 273 Noah’s 192

Artapanus 654 Artaxerxes I 60, 487–89, 491, 493–94, 545, 699 Artaxerxes III 364, 528 n31, 699 Asaph Psalms 424 Ascensio Isaiae see ascension of Isaiah ascension of Enoch 597, 604 of Isaiah 316, 581, 584 Asenath, and Joseph 638–39, 645–46 Asher 627, 646 testament of 626 n77 Asherah 17–19, 33, 307 Ashurbanipal 36, 38, 387–88, 699 assonance 106–107 Assumptio Mosis see assumption of Moses assumption of Moses 605, 609 Assyrian annals 38–39 Astronomical Book 597, 600–601 Astronomical Enoch 690 astronomical texts, in Qumran 690–91 Atonement Day of 38, 149, 245, 425 prayers of 333, 540–41 rituals 38, 150, 249 Atrahasis Epic 28, 45 Augustine 86, 352, 520 authorship anonymity of 44 of Baruch 342 of Deuteronomy 142–43, 263, 275, 280 divine 43 of Hosea 359 of Isaiah 322 of Jeremiah 464–65 of the Pentateuch 47, 131, 138, 142–43, 269–70, 273, 356 autobiographical style 44, 48, 368 autobiographies 128 autographa 72 Azariah, prayer of 515–16, 549, 698 Azazel 602 Baal 19, 31–32, 125, 216, 307, 356, 360 myth 42, 43 n6 prophets of 308 Baal-Anat cycle 31 Babata, archives of 693 Babel-Bibel-Streit 23

index of names and subjects Babylonian Chronicle 39 Babylonian Theodicy 43, 115, 431–32 Baruch 344, 641 apocalypse of 618, 621–23, 641 authorship of 342 and Jeremiah 19, 48, 128, 338, 341–42, 346, 540, 619 letter of 620–21 memoirs of 340 scroll 340 1 Baruch (Book of Baruch) 67, 69–70, 513, 515, 538, 542, 618 n67 2 Baruch (Syriac Baruch) 616, 621, 623–24, 641 3 Baruch (Greek Baruch) 618 n67, 622, 624 4 Baruch 618 n67, 623, 640 see also Paralipomena Jeremiae beatitudes 114–15, 682, 685, 687 Bel, priests of 550–51 Bel and the Dragon 69, 475, 512, 515–16, 548, 551 Belial (Devil) 583, 668, 689 Ben Asher 76 Ben Naphtali 76 Benedictions, Rule of (Collection of ) 674, 685–86 Bethel 125–26, 186–87, 209, 279 n236 Amos’ expulsion from 131 sanctuary of 8, 58, 206, 227, 261, 302, 367 Bible commentaries, from Qumran 665, 669, 686, 690 manuscripts 574, 621, 680 translations 67, 78–79, 87, 98, 101, 503 Dutch 3, 272 n225, 562 English 68–69 Ethiopic 577–78, 582, 596 Greek 5, 62–63, 79, 84, 183, 254, 468, 475, 526, 540, 545–46, 553, 573–74, 577, 582, 645, 653, 657, 665 Latin 56, 85, 519, 530, 612, 640 by Luther 471–72, 513–15, 517 n5, 521, 543, 552 n71, 562 modern 72, 439, 447, 449, 474, 498, 504 Slavonic 604 Syriac 84–85

707

Vulgate 55–57, 61, 66–69, 79, 82, 85, 85–86, 86, 91, 93, 287, 352, 423, 439, 447, 449, 463, 474, 484, 497 n103, 498, 513–15, 517, 521, 526, 536, 540, 543, 545, 549–50, 552–53, 562, 589, 611 n51, 612, 680, 697, 704 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) 3, 72 Biblical research critical 137 historical-critical 63, 128, 142–43, 194–95, 256, 504 literary-critical 150–51, 191, 225, 228, 269, 350 modern xii structuralism 167–68, 195 synchronic 168, 170–71, 182, 194–95, 230 text-critical 78, 81, 100, 664 Bildreden 347–48 Bileam 9, 176 text 10–11 biographies 128 Bisutun inscription 508 blessing Aaronic 17 and curse formulations 36, 260, 672 earthly 437 of Jacob 132, 186, 188, 201, 204 for keeping the commandments 225, 246, 258, 301 of Moses 255, 260–61 paradisiacal 363 priestly 251 Psalms of 422 blood 107–108, 193, 247, 249–50 blood feud 127 Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel 6–7, 298 Book of the Covenant 38, 63, 120–21, 132, 154, 214, 216, 226–27, 229, 231, 234, 237, 240, 249, 254, 259, 262 Book of Dream Visions 599–601 Book of Eldad and Medad 647 Book of Exhortations 599 Book of Giants 601–602 Book of the History of Solomon 6, 297–98, 300, 498 Book of Jannes and Jambres 647

708

index of names and subjects

Book of Mysteries 684 Book of the Righteous 4–5 Book of the Secrets of Enoch see 2 Enoch Book of the Wars of YHWH 5 Book of Watchers 596, 660 Brontologion 691 Cairo, Ezra synagogue in 73, 76, 536, 567 n2, 627, 675 calendars 690–91 agricultural, of Gezer 8 cultic 239, 691 festival 250, 672 lunar 691 solar 579–80, 598, 691 Canaanite hymns 426 Canaanites 205–206, 236, 273, 280 Canon formation 64 Catholic 86, 514–15, 517 n5 Hebrew 309, 471, 513–15 Old Testament as 53, 70 casuistic law 121, 239 categorical prohibitive 120 Catholic Canon formation 86, 514–15, 517 n5 celebrations, cultic 236, 275, 422, 454 centralisation, cultic 133–34, 149, 177, 249, 258 chariot heavenly 643–44, 685 of the sun 623–24 charters 123 Chester Beatty papyri 80, 474 chiasm 106–107 Chokmatic literature see wisdom literature Christian liturgy 318–19, 419, 465, 514, 552, 560 Chronicles book of 7, 61, 67–69, 122, 131, 483–84, 495, 495, 500, 498 of Jerachmeel 640 n91 Chronist 47, 499–500, 518 Chronistic history 138, 483, 485, 495, 519 church fathers 84–85, 471, 513, 542, 551, 590, 611, 647 Clement VIII (Pope) 86 Clement of Alexandria 55, 233 n155, 651, 652 n117, 653, 654 n118, 655, 657–58 climactic parallelism 103 cloud from the sea, vision of 620

Codex Aleppo 72, 76 Codex Alexandrinus 80, 540 n54, 543, 552, 558 n81 Codex Ambrosianus 85, 611 n56, 618 n68 Codex Chisianus 474 Codex Colbertianus 519 Codex of Hammurabi 37–38, 120 Codex Leningradensis (L) 61, 72, 76, 449 Codex Sinaiticus 80, 521 n13, 540 n54, 555 n75 Codex Vaticanus 79 n19, 80, 540 n54, 543 codices legal 36–37, 80 penitential 676 priestly see P colophons 42 commentaries on the Bible, from Qumran 665, 669, 686, 690 community at Qumran 73, 75, 96–97, 395, 471, 580–81, 583, 598, 601, 629, 659, 671–72 cultic 116, 334, 415–16, 488, 497, 499 hymns of the 385, 422 rule of the 673–76, 685–86 comparisons 97, 106, 114, 455–56 Complaint of Mesad Hashavyahu 12, 15 complaints against Moses and Aaron 215 of prophets 339, 358 songs of 464 to YHWH 184, 392, 395, 433 complementary parallelism 103 conceptual rhyme 104 Concerning the Resurrection (4Q ) 682, 687 Confessiones 339 confessions of guilt 553 of Jeremiah 331 congregation, rule of the 674 contracts 162, 507 conversion, call to 310, 325, 347, 362, 398, 407, 415, 436, 569 Copper Scroll 691–92 council of Trent 86, 513, 553 court annals 122, 388 court prophecy 308 court scribes 42, 44, 47, 263 covenant of Abraham and YHWH 185

index of names and subjects ark of 234 Book of 38, 63, 120–21, 132, 154, 214, 216, 226–27, 229, 231, 234, 237, 240, 249, 254, 259, 262 of Noah and YHWH 193 Sinai 138, 148, 160, 214, 216, 225, 239, 577, 677 creation narrative 124, 183, 189–93, 196, 208, 232, 578–79 Atrahasis Epic 28, 45 Babylonian (Enuma Elish) 27, 45, 154, 191 creator, hymn to 681 critical Biblical research 137 criticism, textual 97 cryptic script 690 cultic calendars 239, 691 cultic celebrations 236, 275, 422, 454 cultic centralisation 133–34, 149, 177, 249, 258 cultic community 116, 334, 415–16, 488, 497, 499 cultic Decalogue 229, 236–37 cultic festivals 454 cultic functionaries 150, 311, 400 cultic institutions 485, 498 cultic law 121, 145, 150, 244, 350 cultic legends 295 cultic locations 149, 499 cultic meals 215, 224 cultic poetry 116, 391, 421 cultic practices 108 n10, 239, 243, 248, 328, 369 n83 cultic prophecy 308, 310, 328, 362, 367, 372, 388, 391 cultic purity 244, 248, 261 cultic reforms 145, 304, 337, 397 cultic sacriﬁce 65, 605, 674 cultic symbols 18 cultic-mythological explanations 454 cults animal 654 at Dan 284 at Shechem 158 of Baal 356 of the Canaanites 280 of Israel 46–47, 59, 116, 118, 149, 151, 179–80, 217, 224–25, 234, 236, 248, 258, 262, 271, 310–11, 328, 343, 347, 362, 421–22, 483, 485, 677, 688 pagan 455, 543 of the Patriarchs 166

709

temple 300, 316, 425, 484, 605, 608, 674, 687 curse announcements of 258 and blessing formulations 36, 260, 672 cursing formulae 37 Cyrus (Kores, King of Persia) 327–28, 400, 550, 699 edict of 487–88 D 37, 63, 67–69, 121, 128, 133, 138–39, 141, 144–46, 148–49, 151, 153, 161, 163–65, 170–74, 176–78, 180, 179, 181, 213–14, 216–17, 229–30, 234–36, 238, 249, 252, 264, 266–67, 275, 280, 343, 356, 498, 677 Dagon 31 Daily Prayers (4Q ) 685 Damascus Document 567 n2, 577, 580–81, 663, 673, 675–76 Dan 8, 58, 227, 302 cult at 284 sanctuary at 279, 302 Dan’el 347, 482 Daniel 32, 550–51 Book of 62, 67, 69, 126, 132, 135, 309, 312, 474, 483, 519, 548, 550, 600–601 Additions to 512–13, 515, 546–47, 553, 562 dating, questions of 28, 45, 129–30, 135, 146, 150, 154–55, 166, 168, 174, 179, 196, 203, 235, 240, 242, 328, 362, 381 n99, 384 n103, 392, 411, 414, 419–20, 426, 444, 447, 451, 462 n62, 481–82, 494–95, 528, 536, 541, 551 n70, 583–84, 599–601 David family history of (succession narrative) 127–28, 131, 174, 208–209, 289–90, 292, 298, 450–51 house of 339 lament of 289 Nathan’s chastisement of 26, 235 Psalms of 48, 134, 424–25, 427, 667, 681 reign of 42, 132, 134, 287–88, 483, 485, 498 songs by 110, 680 Davidic Psalter 424–25

710

index of names and subjects

Day of Atonement 38, 149, 245, 425 dead grateful 523–24 kingdom of 377, 420 lament over the 113 prayers for 560 resurrection of 323, 479, 560, 581, 584, 613, 619–20 Dead Sea Scrolls 8, 62, 73, 77–78, 81, 86, 88, 99, 116, 287, 471, 474, 516, 524, 560, 567, 602, 659, 694 discoveries of 24, 87, 99, 395, 475, 504, 536, 543, 578, 601, 627–28, 659 see also Qumran death, announcements of 631 Deborah, Song of 5, 107, 109, 132, 281 Decalogue (Ten Commandments) 36, 72, 121, 132, 216, 225–27, 231, 237, 235 blessing for keeping the commandments 225, 246, 258, 301 children’s 250 cultic 229, 236–37 ethical 229, 237 Decretum Gelasianum 602 deipnosophistic style 573 Deir 'Alla 9, 307 Demetrius I Soter 655, 700 Demetrius of Phaleron (the chronographer) 573–74, 653 Denkschrift, of Isaiah 312, 318–19 Deutero-Canonical books see Apocrypha Deutero-Isaiah 310, 313, 316, 324–25, 332–34, 398, 541, 598, 666 Deutero-Micah 382, 384 Deutero-Zechariah 403, 408, 412 Deuteronomist (Dtr.) 131, 138–41, 293 Deuteronomistic history 127, 138–41, 161, 165, 180–81, 256–57, 269–70, 283, 299 Deuteronomistic style 141, 170–72, 295, 343, 407 Deuteronomy see D Diadochen kingdoms 556 dialectus poeticus 106 dialogue form 115 Diatribè 589 didactic poems 115, 118, 423–24, 426–27, 516

dietary laws 527, 573, 575 dirge songs (mourning songs) 155, 310, 464 discipline, manual of 673 disputes 310 dittography 98 divine names xiii, 100, 143, 145, 151, 163, 164, 170, 172, 176, 193, 206, 218, 545 divine oracles 112, 388–89, 392 documentary hypothesis 144–47, 152, 163–64, 170–72, 225, 283 Dodekapropheton see Twelve Prophets, book of doom, announcements of 110, 310, 385, 389 doublets (double narratives) 164, 170, 172, 175, 189, 206, 218, 221, 225, 247–48, 259, 272, 289 doxologies 198 n106, 394, 424, 553 drama Greek 115, 652 Song of Songs as 454 dream visions, Book of 599–601 Dtr see Deuteronomist Dutch Authorised Version (Statenvertaling, Bible translation) 143, 503, 514–15, 562, 612 E (Elohist) 47, 133, 143–45, 148, 150–53, 156, 159–60, 163, 165, 170–71, 176, 179–80, 202–206, 208–209, 211, 217–20, 222–23, 225, 227, 229–30, 237–38, 262–63, 270, 272–73, 275, 279, 293, 356 eagles and the vine, allegories of 348 vision of the 614, 616 earthly blessings 437 Ebla (Tell Mardich) 24, 38 Ecclesiastes see Qoheleth Ecclesiasticus see Jesus Sirach edict of Cyrus 487–88 El 10, 17–19, 32–33, 145, 166, 172, 185, 187, 218, 282 El Shaddai 172, 218 Eldad and Medad 112, 647 Eleazar (High Priest) 81, 573 Eleazar (martyr) 559–60, 583, 589 Elephantine Papyri 506, 509, 523 Eliashib, archives of 15 Elihu, speeches 434, 436, 644 Elijah 262–63, 303, 307, 416 apocalypse of 647

index of names and subjects and Elisha narratives 7, 126, 175, 298, 300 Elisha 303 cycle 298 and Elijah narratives 7, 126, 175, 298, 300 Elohist see E Elohistic Psalter 424 English translations, of the Bible 68–69 Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 28 Enoch ascension of 597, 604 astronomical 690 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) 55, 58, 483, 582, 592, 602, 605, 666, 670, 690 2 Enoch (Slavonic Enoch) 595, 603, 605, 623, 631 3 Enoch (Hebrew Book of Enoch) 595 Enuma Elish Epic 27, 45, 154, 191 epic literature 24–25, 43–44, 123–24, 133, 167, 186, 264, 651 Epic Philo 650–51 epic style 25 Epistula Baruch see Letter of Baruch Epistula Jeremia see Letter of Jeremiah Erra and Ishum, poem of 43 Erzählkrans hypothesis 163 Esarhaddon 36, 38, 41 n1, 508, 523, 698 Eschatological Midrashim (4Q) 668–69 eschatological-apocalyptic texts 363 1 Esdras (Esdras A) see 3 Ezra 2 Esdras see Ezra-Nehemiah; 4 Ezra 3 Esdras 68, 70, 611 n51 4 Esdras 61, 68, 70, 611 n51 Essenes 58, 580, 583, 609, 628–29, 646, 660, 676, 678 Esther Book of 58, 68–69, 73, 446–47, 450, 466, 472, 545–46, 548, 664 Additions to 513, 515, 545–46, 553 Etana Legend 33 ethical Decalogue 229, 237 Ethiopic Enoch see 1 Enoch Eupolemos 655–56 Eusebius 650–56, 658, 674 Eve, and Adam, Life of 629, 631–32 evil spirits, hymns against 681 exegesis, allegorical 453–54, 456, 658 exhortations, book of 599

711

exhortatory style 255 Exodus 68–69, 120, 140–41, 154, 156, 158, 160, 165, 173, 175–76, 188, 210–11, 217, 229–30, 242, 248, 251, 259, 263, 271, 295, 321, 470, 579, 640, 652, 677 Scroll 661 tradition 157 n50, 174, 356, 382, 484 Ezekiel 149, 198, 249, 312, 337 apocryphon of 647 Book of 248, 344, 351 Ezra 61, 64, 69, 143, 508, 519, 612, 614–16 apocalypse of see 4 Ezra apocryphal 423, 517 Books of see Ezra-Nehemiah legend 615 memoirs of 128, 490, 495 penitential Psalms of 118 prayer of, see also Oratio Esrae regulations against mixed marriages 414, 451, 490 Ezra-Nehemiah 178, 483–85, 495, 500, 518, 648, 664 1 Ezra 484, 517 see also Ezra-Nehemiah 2 Ezra 484, 517 see also Ezra-Nehemiah 3 Ezra 484, 514, 516, 520 4 Ezra 60, 467, 483, 514–15, 567, 609, 616, 618, 621, 640, 647, 690 5 Ezra 611 6 Ezra 611 fables 44, 127 false prophecies 412 false prophets 59, 339, 348, 383, 583 family archives 506, 509 farewell discourse of Joshua 266–67, 275 of Moses 254, 607 of Tobias 522 of Tobit 523 feminist aproaches 194–95 Festival of accession to the throne 118, 236, 421 festival calendars 250, 672 festival days 407, 469–70, 579–80 festival legends 217, 236, 467 festival meals 323 festival prayers 685 festival scrolls 67 festival songs 108

712

index of names and subjects

Festival of Weeks 579 festivals cultic 454 of liberation 469 First-Isaiah see Proto-Isaiah Flavius Josephus 60–61, 474, 506 n3, 519, 555–56, 589, 631, 651, 654–55, 657, 660 ﬂood of Assyria 319 humanity destroyed by 599 judgement of 197 narratives of 23, 28, 154, 183, 190, 193, 196 n103 Florilegium (Q4) 474, 669 forest and the vine, vision of 619 form criticism 155, 158, 200, 350, 369, 402 Former Prophets 54, 61, 64, 67–68, 103, 137, 139, 179, 255, 308, 312 Formgeschichte 157 Fragmentary hypothesis 146, 163, 480 Fragmentary Targum ( Jerushalmi II) 88, 95 funeral lament 310 Gad 287, 627, 646 history of 7 tribe of 75 n10, 267 Gattungen (literary genres) 155, 421 Gelasius Cyzicenus 607 Gezer, agricultural calendar of 8 giants birth of 126, 193, 596 Book of 601–602 surviving the ﬂood 656 Gideon 25, 41, 280–82 Gilgal, sanctuary at 271 Gilgamesh Epic 23, 27–28, 43, 45, 115, 154 Glory song 109 Goliath 25, 124, 287, 680 grateful dead 523–24 Greek Baruch see 3 Baruch Greek drama 115, 652 Greek language Apocalypse of Ezra in see 3 Ezra apocrypha in 647 translations into of the Bible 5, 62–63, 79, 84, 183, 254, 468, 475, 526, 540, 545–46, 553, 573–74, 577, 582, 645, 653, 657, 665

of the Torah 62, 81, 573–74, 589 Greekisms 130 guilt 119, 127, 206, 208, 324, 560, 613 confessions of 553 oﬀerings 149–50, 243–44 Habakkuk 551 Book of 68–70, 353, 390, 395 commentaries 668 Haggadic material 88, 567, 626, 632, 639, 641, 644, 652 Haggadic traditions 578 Haggai 68–70, 111, 353, 399, 402 Hallel 424–25 Haman 468–69, 472, 544, 546 Hammurabi, Codex of 37–38, 120 Hannah prayer of 287 Song of 289, 423 Hapiru 30 haplography 98 harvest songs 107–108 Hazael of Damascus 12 heavenly chariot 643–44, 685 heavenly journeys to 568, 604, 623, 643 Heber 6, 281 Hebraica veritas 85 Hebrew Canon 513–15, 309.471 Hebrew Enoch see 3 Enoch Hebrew inscriptions 130 Hebrew language, closeness to Aramaic 130 Hebrew poetry 103 Hebrew Testament of Naphtali 628 Hebrews, letter to 56, 583 Hecetaeus of Abdera 657 Heliodorus 559–60, 562, 589 hell, journeys to 568 Hermopolis papyri 509 hero saga 127 Herod the Great 587, 607–608 Hesychius 83 hexametric style 591 Hexapla 77, 81–83 Syro 474, 536, 549 n66 Hexateuch 137, 148, 152, 158–59, 163, 169–70, 173 Hezekiah 9, 39, 63, 179, 263, 303, 320, 324, 380, 397, 583, 698 oﬃcials of 443–44

index of names and subjects prayer of 299, 324, 423 testament of 583 historical Psalms 118, 422 historical-critical Biblical research 63, 128, 142–43, 194–95, 256, 504 historiography 11, 25–26, 127, 132, 568, 653 history Chronistic 138, 483, 485, 495, 519 Deuteronomistic 127, 138–41, 161, 165, 180–81, 256–57, 269–70, 283, 299 of the Pentateuch 58, 66, 133–34, 169, 182 primeval 159, 164, 173, 176, 178, 183–84, 188, 198–99, 202–203 redaction 360, 385 tradition 46, 157 n50, 456 transmission 83, 99, 157 n50 History of the Kings of Israel 7, 301 Hodayot Scroll (Hymn Scroll) 678, 686 Holiness Code 145, 231, 246, 250, 491 Homoioarkton 98 Homoioteleuton 98 horoscopes 690–91 Hosea 48, 68, 70, 113, 125, 179, 209, 211, 257, 262–63, 294, 311, 315, 337, 352 n59, 353, 360, 382, 397 Hymn Scroll 678, 686 hymns 60, 328, 422, 425, 537, 673, 680–81, 685 Canaanite 426 of the community 385, 422 of praise 118, 644, 679 sun 421 to YHWH 388, 538, 549–50, 553 see also Psalms; songs Hyrcanium 692 Hyrcanus, John 556, 651–52, 656, 700 Iddo name of 404 visions of 7 Idrimi, stele of 44 incantation texts 25, 44 individual lament 110, 433, 464, 552 inscriptions xii, 26, 38, 39 Aramaic 9 at Tell Atchana 44

713

Bisitun 508 Hebrew 130 memorial 17–18 Mesha 11 on seal of Shema 19 self-aggrandisement 24–25 Siloam 9 Tel Dan 11–12 institutions, cultic 485, 498 Isaac narrative of 124, 183, 185–86, 205, 208 testament of 648 Isaiah 68–69, 300, 303, 311–12, 334, 362, 380, 398 apocalypse of 322, 324, 503 ascension of 316, 581, 584 authorship of 322 Denkschrift of 312, 318–19 First see Proto-Isaiah scrolls 73 n6, 661, 664 Second see Deutero-Isaiah Third see Trito-Isaiah Israel cults of 46–47, 59, 116, 118, 149, 151, 179–80, 217, 224–25, 234, 236, 248, 258, 262, 271, 310–11, 328, 343, 347, 362, 421–22, 483, 485, 677, 688 kings of, history of 7, 301 liberation of 208, 217, 219–20, 224 liturgy of 115, 149, 224, 244, 261, 264, 276, 283, 358, 389, 419, 446, 498, 669 Umwelt of 23, 26, 42, 155, 201, 240, 420 Israel Stela, of Pharaoh Mer-ne-Ptah 34 "Izbet Sartah 8 J (Yahwist) 47, 133, 140, 143–46, 148, 150–53, 156, 158–60, 163–64, 166, 170, 176, 180, 191, 192 n99, 193–95, 197, 201–204, 206–207, 209–11, 217–20, 222, 225, 229–30, 237, 270, 272–73, 279, 283 Jacob 125, 211 blessing of 132, 186, 188, 201, 204 cycle 197, 201, 206, 208, 210 narratives 183–84, 186, 188, 201–202, 208–209, 579 sons of 199–200, 202, 205, 626 testament of 648

714

index of names and subjects

Jael 6, 281 James, Proto-Evangelium of 584 Jamnia, synod of 59–60 Jannes and Jambres, Book of 647 JE 140, 148–49, 153, 161–62, 176–77, 179–81, 260, 271–72 Jebusites 204 Jehu 12, 299, 357, 698 Jephta 25, 282–84 Jeremiah 112, 304, 309, 463–65, 641, 655 authorship of 464–65 and Baruch 19, 48, 128, 246, 338, 341–42, 540, 619 book of 48, 68–70, 99, 309, 334, 344 confessions of 331 lament of 463 letter of 67, 69, 512–13, 515, 542, 544, 566, 666 prophecies of 478 see also Baruch Jerome 55–56, 61–62, 82–86, 352–53, 359, 371, 388, 513, 515, 521, 526, 536, 556 Jerusalem description of future 688 fall of 13, 39, 59–61, 63, 74, 110, 139, 180, 300, 304, 316, 324, 338, 341, 346–47, 373, 392, 464–66, 498, 615–16, 621, 659, 684 prophecies of 346, 348, 383, 410, 478, 522–23, 618, 620, 641 lament over 463 liberation of 127, 324 return of exiles to 381 n94, 406, 518, 641 Roman conquest of 587 sanctuary at 59, 333, 372, 488, 560, 677 (re)construction of 401–402, 485, 489 synod of 514 temple in 5, 7, 178, 191, 243, 261, 295, 478, 480, 499, 519, 556, 560, 631, 674, 677, 684–85 restoration of 401–402, 404, 407 worship in 133, 248–49 Jerushalmi I Targum (Pseudo-Jonathan) 87–88, 90–91, 94–95

Jerushalmi II Targum (Fragmentary) 88, 95 Jesus Sirach 62, 64, 68–69, 352, 427, 514, 532, 538 Jewish-Hellenistic diaspora 55, 624 Jewish-Hellenistic works 568, 648, 658 Joash 16 n23, 698 Job book of 58, 65, 67–69, 103, 115, 427, 438–40, 443, 616, 640, 658 Targum of 87 n43, 88, 96–97, 434–35, 669 testament of 636–37, 643–44 Joel 68, 70, 353, 360, 364 John, apocalypse of 615 n66 John Hyrcanus I see Hyrcanus, John Jonah 68, 70, 125, 309, 353, 374, 378, 523 Jonathan 292, 294 David’s lament over 4–6 Targum 87–88 Joram 12, 698 Joseph 276 and Asenath 638–39, 645–46 cycle 201 history of 173–74, 188, 197, 210–11 narrative 34, 183, 201, 206, 450, 627 Testament of 628–29, 670 Josephus, Flavius 60–61, 474, 506 n3, 519, 555–56, 589, 631, 651, 654–55, 657, 660 Joshua 216, 223, 229, 401, 404, 408, 412 n129, 607 book of 68–69, 122, 140–41, 143, 146, 148, 158, 171, 181, 264, 276, 279–80 farewell discourse of 266–67, 275 Psalms of 670, 689 Josiah 16 n25, 63, 133, 139–40, 144–46, 149, 153, 176, 180, 249, 261, 263, 304, 337–38, 343, 397, 463, 519, 620, 698 Jotham Fable 282 journeys of Abraham 579, 656, 670 heavenly 568, 604, 623, 643 to hell 568 Jubilee year 38, 250, 577 Jubilees 55, 524, 575, 581, 598, 601, 607, 670, 676 Judah, announcement of fall of 339

index of names and subjects Judaism, early, literature of 58, 116, 453, 460, 482, 503, 506, 566, 570, 630, 679 Judas Maccabaeus 481, 556–57, 559–60, 599, 655 judgement announcements of 302–303, 310, 321, 328, 358, 363, 368–69, 373, 378, 381 n94, 383–84, 389, 393, 398 of God 193–94, 227, 318, 324–25, 331, 334, 353, 357, 360, 362–63, 368, 370, 373–74, 398, 415, 425, 461, 465, 569, 587, 599, 643–44 preaching 356, 367, 369, 382 prophecies of 308, 319, 321, 337, 348, 351, 358, 369–70, 380–81, 383, 597–98, 613, 616, 619 speeches 310 Judges 68–69, 137, 181, 270, 272, 276, 284 Judith 67–69, 450, 509, 524, 528 Kades Barnea 18 kaige-Theodotion 82 Kehat, testament of 670 Kenites 127, 224 Keret Legend 32–33, 43 n6 Ketef Hinnom 17 ketib 100 Ketubîm see Writings Khirbet Beit Lei 20 Khirbet el-Kôm 17–18 Khirbet Mird 659, 692 kingdom, of the dead 377, 420 Kings 7, 68–69, 122, 135, 141, 177, 181, 287, 296, 300, 304, 499 of Israel, history of 7, 301 Sumerian, list of 28 kingship David’s 290 divine 33 Saul’s 292–93 theme of 282 of YHWH 117–18, 412, 422, 485 Kuntillet 'Ajrûd 16 n23, 18 L (lay source) 152, 191 Lachish, letters found at 13 Lamentations 61, 69–70, 110, 417, 447, 462, 466, 684 laments of Amos 113 apocryphal 484

715

of David 289 funeral 310 individual 110, 433, 464, 552 of Jeremiah 463 over the dead 113 Laodiceans, letter to 514 Latin translations 56, 85, 519, 530, 612, 640 Latter Prophets 54, 62, 67–68, 209, 309 Law of Moses 57, 62, 64, 267, 276, 304, 416, 491, 658, 674, 677 laws 120–21, 153, 164, 177, 230, 252, 254, 579, 677 apodictic 120–21, 236, 238–40 casuistic 121, 239 cultic 121, 145, 150, 244, 350 of Deuteronomy 255–59 dietary 527, 573, 575 patriarchal 63 priestly 230, 250, 252 of purity 528, 579 sacriﬁcial 231, 242, 244 legal codices 36–37, 80 legal disputes 310 Legend of Aqhat 32, 43 n6 Legend of Etana 33 Legend of Keret (Kirtu) 32–33, 43 n6 Legend of Sargon 35 legends 78–79, 126, 194, 516, 562, 612, 640, 642, 687, 691 cultic 295 festival 217, 236, 467 of martyrs 126, 583 prophetic 7, 126, 309 legislation Mosaic 179, 192 n99, 299 religious 121, 346 tabernacle 216, 231, 240, 242 Leontopolis 80 n22, 575 Leptogenesis (Little Genesis) 577 Letter of Aristeas 63, 79–81, 562, 571, 575, 652, 657 letters of Adon 16–17 el-Amarna 29–30, 41 n1, 123, 420 at Lachish 13 of Baruch 620–21 of Jeremiah 67, 69, 512–13, 515, 542, 544, 566, 666 Mari 28–29, 307 to Hebrews 56, 583 to Laodiceans 514

716

index of names and subjects

Levi priesthood of 627 Testament of 626 n76, 652, 670 Aramaic 627–28 tribe of 269, 579, 608 Leviathan 32, 126, 323, 436, 602 Levites, and priests 150, 177, 252, 404, 487, 493, 687 Leviticus 68–69, 121, 214, 216, 230, 252, 250, 677 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 616, 632, 634, 639–40 Liber Sapientiae see Wisdom of Solomon liberation festival of 469 Israel’s 208, 217, 219–20, 224 of Jerusalem 127, 324 theology 194–95 Life of Adam and Eve 629, 631–32 List of the Nations 194 lists 41, 122, 191, 202, 230, 269, 283–84, 289, 404, 490, 493, 498 of kings 28, 202 of names 8, 13, 15, 17, 122, 507 of place names 122, 273–74, 691 of returnees 488 literary-critical Biblical research 150–51, 191, 225, 228, 269, 350 literary-historical approach xii, 155, 156, 162, 164, 274, 283, 516, 567 literature ancient Near Eastern 22–23, 131–32, 455 apocalyptic 362, 410, 475, 481, 568, 570, 595, 621, 687 Jewish 605, 611, 623 of early Judaism 58, 116, 453, 460, 482, 503, 506, 566, 570, 630, 679 epic 24–25, 43–44, 123–24, 133, 167, 186, 264, 651 narrative 123, 128 omen 24–25 para-biblical 670–71 Rabbinic 463, 506 n3, 538, 566, 567 n2, 595 wisdom 41, 46, 59, 65, 115, 134, 263, 430, 439–40, 442–45, 462, 516, 532, 541, 568, 586, 644 liturgical poetry 420 liturgical prayer 128 liturgical Psalms 131–32, 422

liturgical songs 454 liturgical texts, from Qumran 684, 686 liturgy 117–18 Christian 318–19, 419, 465, 514, 552, 560 Israel’s 115, 149, 224, 244, 261, 264, 276, 283, 358, 389, 419, 446, 498, 669 prophetic 324, 384, 394 of Qumran community 684 sacriﬁcial 119, 684 temple (sanctuary) 116, 134, 321, 351, 425–26, 460, 465, 519, 685 Lives of the Prophets 338, 551 n69, 566–67, 635, 641 logos 542 love poetry 107, 454–55 Lucianus 83 Ludlul bel nemeqi 431 Luminaries, words of 685 lunar calendar 691 Luther, Martin 453–54, 459 Bible translation by 471–72, 513–15, 517 n5, 521, 543, 552 n71, 562 macarism (beatitudes) 114–15, 682, 685, 687 1 Maccabees 68, 70, 554, 557 2 Maccabees 68, 70, 543, 557, 560, 562, 653 3 Maccabees 68, 561, 563, 653 4 Maccabees 68, 560, 587, 590 Major Prophets 67, 312, 351–52 Malachi 68–70, 310, 312, 353, 412, 416, 503 Manasseh 179, 267, 269, 583, 681, 698, 700 prayer of 68, 70, 515, 551, 553 Manetho 653 Mani 601–602 Manual of Discipline 673 manuscripts, of the Bible 574, 621, 680 Marduk 27, 45, 432 Mari letters 28–29, 307 martyrium of Isaiah see ascension of Isaiah martyrs, legends of 126, 583 Masada 74, 659, 685, 693–94 mashal 111, 114 see also proverbs

index of names and subjects Masoretic text 77–78, 81–82, 88–89, 91, 96, 98–99, 161, 344, 435, 444, 446, 471, 475, 518, 545 Masoretic traditions 77–78, 81, 242, 287, 343, 427, 474, 549, 664–65, 689 meals, cultic 215, 224 megillot 67, 446–47, 449 see also scrolls Melchizedek 184, 204, 604, 656 11Q 668, 687, 690 Melito of Sardis 55 memoirs of Baruch 340 of Ezra 128, 490, 495 of Nehemiah 484, 491–93, 518 memorandum 123, 318 memorial inscriptions 17–18 memorial oﬀerings 425 memorial stones 255, 260 Mer-ne-Ptah (Pharaoh), Israel Stela of 34 Merkabah mysticism 646 Mesa stone 11 Mesad Hashavyahu, Complaint of 12, 15 messenger formula 309–10 Messiah, announcements of 410 Messianic apocalypse 682 metaphors 106 meter (metre) 105–107, 110, 464, 652 Micah 68, 70, 353, 378, 386, 397 Second see Deutero-Micah Michael 479, 607, 642–43 midrashim 247, 252, 528 n32, 645 eschatological (4Q ) 668–69 Milchama see War scroll Minor Prophets (Twelve) 61, 64, 312, 351, 416, 692–93 scroll of 80, 82, 84, 352 Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah (4QMMT) 662, 672, 677 Mischgattungen (mixed genres) 420 Mishnah 446 mocking songs 109, 113, 321, 389 Mordecai 468, 471–72, 545–46 Mosaic legislation 179, 192 n99, 299 Mosaic Psalter 424 Moses 121, 139, 142, 147–48, 160, 257, 643 apocalypse of 577, 630 assumption of (testament of ) 605, 609

717

authorship of 60, 137, 143–44, 179–80 blessing of 255, 260–61 farewell discourse of 254, 607 Law of 57, 62, 64, 267, 276, 304, 416, 491, 658, 674, 677 narratives 35, 214, 230, 242, 245, 255, 259–60, 578–79, 654–55 song of 220, 260 Mot 32 Mount Gerezim, sanctuary at 652, 656 mourning songs (dirge) 155, 310, 464 Murabba’at, documents from 17, 74, 659, 692 mysticism, Merkabah 646 mythical explanations 200 mythical representations 347 myths 24–25, 32, 43–44, 126, 194, 370, 454, 623–24, 656 of Atrahasis 45 of Baal 42, 43 n6 Nabonidus, prayer of (4Q ) 479, 671 Nachal Chever 693 Naherwartung 402, 569 Nahum, Book of 68, 70, 107, 353, 386, 390 names divine xiii, 100, 143, 145, 151, 163, 164, 170, 172, 176, 193, 206, 218, 545 lists of 8, 13, 15, 17, 122, 507 Naphtali 627 Hebrew Testament of 628 tribe of 523 narration 123, 128, 140, 172 narrative literature 123, 128 narratives creation 27–28, 45, 124, 154, 183, 189–93, 196, 208, 232, 578–79 of the ﬂood 23, 28, 154, 183, 190, 193, 196 n103 paradise 183 of the three pages 518–19 Nash papyrus 72 Nathan, chastisment of David 26, 235 nature sagas 126 Near Eastern literature, ancient 22–23, 131–32, 455 Nebi’im (prophets) 57 Nebuchadnezzar I 194

718

index of names and subjects

Nebuchadnezzar II 304, 338, 340–41, 346, 392, 476, 479, 481, 488, 526–28, 540, 543, 549, 623, 640 n91, 668, 671, 699 Nehemiah memoirs of 484, 491–93, 518 see also Ezra-Nehemia Neoﬁti I, Targum of 90–91, 94 newer documentary hypothesis 145, 146 n21 Noah 194, 579, 670 ark of 192 Babylonian 28 book of 593, 596, 600–601, 670 covenant with God 193 sons of 196 n103 Nova Vulgata 86 novella 377, 434 n21, 523 Numbers 67–69, 161–62, 211, 217, 229, 252, 254, 677 numerical aphorisms 114, 443 Obadiah 68, 70, 353, 371, 374, 681 Odes (Odae) 68, 79, 515, 552 Odes of Solomon 585, 648 oﬀerings 34, 149–50, 243–45, 251, 269, 400, 415, 425, 480, 492, 499 Old Testament see Canon omen literature 24–25 On the Jews (Aristeas) 658 Onias III 412 n129, 559, 589, 700 onomatopoeia 106–107 Onqelos Targum 87–90, 93–94 Ophel 19 oracles 162 consultation of 111 divine 112, 388–89, 392 priestly 121 of salvation 117, 328–29 Sibylline 590, 592 oral traditions 7, 43 n11, 156–57, 162–63, 165, 168, 171, 174, 191, 196, 200, 289, 299 oral transmission 76, 157 n50, 161–62 Oratio Esrae 613 Origen 83, 555, 624 ostraca 19 at Arad 12, 14 Samaria 12–13 Oxyrhyunchus papyri 521 n13, 531 n33, 611 n55, 618

P (Priestly codex) 47, 131, 133–34, 144–46, 148–49, 153, 156, 159–61, 164–65, 167, 170–74, 177, 180–81, 191, 198, 202–203, 205–208, 211, 218–20, 222, 225–26, 229–30, 241, 247, 270, 272–74, 283, 346, 485, 491 pagan cults 455, 543 Palestinian Targum 87 palimpsest 17, 606 papyri 8, 80, 506, 694 Aramaic 507, 509 Chester Beatty 80, 474 Elephantine 506, 509, 523 Hermopolis 509 Nash 72 Oxyrhyunchus 521 n13, 531 n33, 611 n55, 618 Samaritan 509–10 Saqqara 16 Wadi ed-Daliyeh 509–10 Zenon 510–11 para-biblical literature 670–71 paradise narrative 183 paradisiacal blessing 363 Paralipomena Jeremiae 618 n67, 623, 634–35 parallelism 103 parallelismus membrorum 103–104, 124 Parseeisms 460, 470 Passover Feast see Pesach Passover Papyrus 507–508 patriarchal laws 63 patriarchs 127, 211 cult of 166 narratives of 164–65, 167, 173, 183–84, 186, 197, 199–200, 202, 578 promises to 207, 411 n127 Testaments of the Twelve 567–68, 624, 629 Paul 55–56, 184, 395, 532 Paul of Tella 474 penitential codex 676 penitential preaching 347 penitential psalms 117–18 penitential songs 116 Pentateuch 63–64, 103, 136–37, 213, 224, 270–72, 276, 492 authorship of 47, 131, 138, 142–43, 269–70, 273, 356

index of names and subjects Greek translation of 79–80 history/origins of 58, 66, 133–34, 169, 182 laws of 231 research 141, 169 reworked/revised 670 Samaritan (Samaritanus) 74, 77–78, 81, 89, 91, 665, 689 see also Torah Pesach (Passover) 215, 217–19, 251, 268, 424, 446, 470, 487, 489, 494, 519, 578–79 pesher (commentary) 661, 667–68 Peshitta 79, 84, 85 n38, 90–91, 93, 552, 589 Peter 353 n61, 364 pharaohs, archives of 29 Pharisees 58, 74, 580, 672 Philo, Epic 650–51 Philo of Alexandria 506 n3, 639, 660 Phoenix 623–24, 652 Pilgrim songs 118 Pirke "Abot 567 n2 place names, lists of 122, 273–74, 691 Poem of Erra and Ishum 43 poetry 6, 102, 119, 124, 281, 516, 540–41, 646, 651, 679 cultic 116, 391, 421 didactic 115, 118, 423–24, 426–27, 516 Hebrew 103 liturgical 420 love 107, 454–55 profane 107, 111, 115, 454–56 Qumran 678, 684 religious 107, 111, 119 praise hymns of 118, 644, 679 Psalms of 423–25 songs of 116–18, 456, 522, 537, 553, 589, 685 vows of 117 prayers of atonement 333, 540–41 of Azariah 515–16, 549, 698 for the dead 560 of Ezra, see also Oratio Ezrae festival 685 of Hannah 287 of Hezekiah 299, 324, 423 liturgical 128

719

of Manasseh 68, 70, 515, 551, 553 of Nabonidus (4Q ) 479, 671 priestly 688 of thanksgiving 288 preaching 177, 248, 255, 262–63, 295, 495, 566 judgement 356, 367, 369, 382 penitential 347 priestly 343 prophetic 59, 113, 115, 128, 134, 148, 180, 194, 210–11, 235–36, 307–308, 310, 312, 356, 441, 642 salvation 337 texts 128 priestly blessing 251 priestly codex see P priestly laws 230, 250, 252 priestly messiah 674, 686, 689 priestly oracles 121 priestly prayers 688 priestly preaching 343 priestly proverbs 111 priestly scribes 42 priestly source see P priestly style 450 priestly teaching 114, 155, 310 priestly theology 242 priestly torah 59, 111–12, 121 priests 245, 250, 362, 415, 608, 656 of Bel 550–51 and Levites 150, 177, 252, 404, 487, 493, 687 and prophets 46, 112–13, 128, 441 primeval history 159, 164, 173–74, 176, 183–84, 188, 198–99, 202–203 primitive scroll 341–42 profane poetry 107, 111, 115, 454–56 profane slaughter 149 prophecies of Ahijah 7, 299, 301 of Amos 48, 368, 371 court 308 cultic 308, 310, 328, 362, 367, 372, 388, 391 false 412 of Hosea 179 of Jeremiah 478 of judgement 308, 319, 321, 337, 348, 351, 358, 369–70, 380–81, 383, 597–98, 613, 616, 619 of salvation 117, 307–308, 311, 319, 323–24, 328–29, 339–42,

720

index of names and subjects

351, 359, 368, 370, 380–81, 384, 398, 407 see also announcements of salvation of Shemaiah 299 Propheta Baruch see 1 Baruch prophetic announcements 125 prophetic aphorisms 112 prophetic liturgy 324, 384, 394 prophetic preaching 59, 113, 115, 128, 134, 148, 180, 194, 210–11, 235–36, 307–308, 310, 312, 356, 441, 642 prophetic style 383, 392 prophetic texts 26, 107, 125, 307, 310, 667 prophets 26, 48, 60, 64, 111, 128, 147–49, 210, 234–35, 569, 642, 667 of Baal 308 books of 63, 307 complaints of 339, 358 court 308 false 59, 339, 348, 383, 583 Former 54, 61, 64, 67–68, 103, 137, 139, 179, 255, 308, 312 Latter 54, 62, 67–68, 209, 309 legends of 7, 126, 309 Lives of 338, 551 n69, 566–67, 635, 641 Major 67, 312, 351–52 Minor 61, 64, 80, 82, 84, 312, 351, 416, 692–93 narratives of 302 preaching of 59, 236, 308, 310 and priests 46, 112–13, 128, 441 writing 64, 112–13, 307–308, 310, 312, 390 see also Nebi’im prose 102, 111–12, 119, 128, 133, 281, 308, 342–43, 350, 373, 433, 540–41, 549, 559, 680, 683 proto-Decalogue 234 proto-Deuteronomy 176 Proto-Esther 671 Proto-Evangelium of James 584 Proto-Isaiah 313, 325, 331–32 Proto-Masoretic text 344, 574, 665 Proto-Samaritan text 78, 80 n21, 665 Proto-Septuagint 665 proto-Theodotion 82 proverbs 45, 65, 110–11, 115, 132, 134, 204, 230, 417, 453, 460 of Amenemope 444 book of 68–69, 103, 110, 134, 438, 446, 532

against false prophets 339 mashal 111, 114 priestly 111 of Solomon 63, 300, 444 tribal 261 Psalm Scroll, from Qumran 11, 427 Psalmody 371, 420, 433, 586 Psalms 44, 116, 119, 680 of accession to the throne 117–18, 134 apocryphal 423, 586, 679–81 Asaph 424 of blessing 422 book of 48, 68–69, 104, 131, 155, 417, 427, 498, 552, 667 Canaanite 134 of David 48, 134, 424–25, 427, 667, 681 historical 118, 422 of Joshua 670, 689 liturgical 131–32, 422 penitential 117–18 of praise 423–25 royal 426 of Solomon 67, 116, 420, 512, 515, 541, 584, 587 Syriac 680 Thanksgiving 537 see also hymns; songs Psalter 424–25 pseudepigrapha 350, 397 n117, 503–505, 512, 515–16, 552 n71, 566–67, 570–71, 639, 647–48, 657, 666 and apocrypha 566–67 Pseudo-Daniel 670–71, 689 Pseudo-Eupolemos 655 Pseudo-Ezekiel 670 Pseudo-Hecataeus 657 Pseudo-Jeremiah 670 Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum 87, 90–91 Pseudo-Philo 621 n75 Pseudo-Phocylides 639, 646 Pseudo-Samuel 670 Ptolemies 699 Ptolemy I 574, 657, 699 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 62, 81, 573–74, 699 Ptolemy IV Philopater 562, 653, 699 Ptolemy VI Philometer 657, 699 Ptolemy VII Euergetes II 536, 699 Ptolemy XII 546, 651, 699 Purim Feast 446, 467, 470–71, 664 purity

index of names and subjects cultic 244, 248, 261 laws 528, 579 ritual 677, 688 qere 100 qinah pattern 464 Qoheleth 59, 65, 68–69, 103, 115, 135, 439–40, 443, 446, 457, 462 Qumran apocrypha at 666, 670, 679–81, 684 Aramaic texts at 596, 599, 601 astronomical texts in 690–91 Bible commentaries 665, 669, 686, 690 community 73, 75, 96–97, 395, 471, 580–81, 583, 598, 601, 629, 659, 671–72 discoveries at 60 n6, 73–74, 77, 96, 343–44, 420, 425, 427, 434–35, 461 n62, 479, 482, 492, 521, 524 n21, 543, 567, 596, 598–601, 627, 629, 659–60, 694 liturgical texts 684, 686 poetry 678, 684 rules of order/legislative literature 671, 678 see also Dead Sea Scrolls Rabbinic Judaism 55, 570–71 Rabbinic literature 463, 506 n3, 538, 566, 567 n2, 595 Rabbinic period 75, 669 Rabbinic traditions 463, 631 Rahab 267, 273 Ras Shamra see Ugarit reason supremacy of 143, 589 see also 4 Maccabees redaction history 360, 385 redactors 49, 138, 144, 146, 152 n36, 164, 171, 178, 195–96, 206, 227, 270, 299, 322, 331, 336 n29, 397, 434, 461, 491 refrain 105, 319, 549 religious poetry 107, 111, 119 religious-historical research 150–51, 153, 157 Remainder of the Words of Baruch see 4 Baruch; Philomena Jeremiae repetitive parallelism 103 resurrection, of the dead 323, 479, 560, 581, 584, 613, 619–20 revenge, song of 108 rhyme 104

721

riddle 111, 115 ritual purity 677, 688 ritual slaughter 249 ritual texts 38 rituals 44, 422 of atonement 38, 150, 249 of blessing and curse 260 of exclusion 676 of exorcism 681 of puriﬁcation 685 royal annals see annals royal psalms 426 Ruben 210, 267, 579, 626 Rule of Benedictions 674, 685–86 Rule of the Community 673–76, 685–86 Rule of the Congregation 674 rules of order, Qumran 671, 678 Ruth 61, 68–69, 124, 137, 417, 446–47, 451 rythm 105–106 sabbath 198, 250, 425, 579 celebration of 156, 351, 493 commandment 232–33, 235, 251 sacriﬁce, songs of 685, 694 year 38 sacriﬁce cultic 65, 605, 674 sabbath, songs of 685, 694 sacriﬁcial laws 231, 242, 244 sacriﬁcial liturgy 119, 684 Sadducees 58, 60 n6, 672–73 sagas 126–27, 155–56, 200, 270–71, 435, 551 tribal 126–27, 206 salvation announcements of 310, 328, 333, 348, 358 oracles of 117, 328–29 preaching 337 prophecies of 117, 307–308, 311, 319, 323–24, 328–29, 339–42, 351, 359, 368, 370, 380–81, 384, 398, 407 Samaria ostraca 12–13 Samaritan papyri 509, 511 Samaritan Pentateuch (Samaritanus) 74, 77–78, 81, 89, 91, 665, 689 Samson 25, 111, 127, 282–84 Samuel books of 47, 61, 68–69, 81, 166, 181, 284, 295, 300, 498 history of 7 sanctuaries 47, 126, 149, 200

722

index of names and subjects

of Bethel 8, 58, 206, 227, 261, 302, 367 at Dan 279, 302 at Gilgal 271 at Jerusalem 59, 333, 372, 488, 560, 677 (re)construction of 401–402, 485, 489 laws of 349, 677 of Mount Gerezim 656 at Shechem 177, 356 tent 242 wilderness 241 sanctuary liturgy 425 see also Temple liturgy Sapientia Salomonis see Wisdom of Solomon Saqqara papyri 16 Sargon Legend 35 satire 282, 377 Saul and David 289, 291–92 David’s lament over 4–6, 110, 289 history of 127, 287–88, 292–94 scribes 41, 74, 99–100, 134, 441–42, 676, 678 court 42, 44, 47, 263 priestly 42 scripts, cryptic 690 scrolls 446, 483 Baruch 340 copper Exodus, from Qumran 661 festival 67 Hymn 678, 686 Isaiah 73 n6, 661, 664 of the Minor (Twelve) Prophets 80, 82, 84, 352 primitive 341–42 Psalm, from Qumran 11, 427 Temple 492 of the war of the Children of Light against the Children of Darkness 687 Second-Isaiah see Deutero-Isaiah Sedrach, Apocalypse of 647 Seleucids 394, 478, 699–700 self-aggrandisement inscriptions 24–25 Sennacherib 38–39, 303, 316, 322, 324, 380, 508, 522, 698 Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 639, 646 Septuagint 5, 55–57, 61, 66–68, 73, 77–78, 81, 83–85, 89, 91–92, 96–99, 143, 242, 254, 287, 339–40,

343–44, 351–53, 414, 423, 439, 444, 446, 449, 463, 482, 484, 497–98, 513, 515, 517, 519, 545, 548, 550, 552, 567, 574, 589, 604, 642–43, 645–46, 652–53, 655, 665, 680, 693 apocrypha in 515 Sèrèk ha-Milchamah see War Scroll Sèrèk ha-Yahad see Rule of the Community Sermon on the Mount 682 El Shaddai 172, 218 Shaddai-gods 10 Shalmaneser III 38 Shalmaneser V 521, 523, 698 Shamsh 10 Shechem 187, 275, 651–52 cult at 158 renewal feast at 225, 227 sanctuary at 177, 356 Shechemites 187, 205, 652 Shema, seal of 19 Shemaiah 7, 14, 299 shepherd allegory 412 Shishak (Pharaoh) 38 Sibylline oracles 590, 592 Siloam inscription 9 Similitudes, book of 597–98, 689 Simon 556, 589, 651, 700 Simon II 536–37, 700 Simon bar Koseba (Kochba) 641, 659, 692 Simon the Maccabean 105 n6, 412 n129 Sinai 18, 217 covenant 138, 148, 160, 214, 216, 225, 239, 577, 677 God of 224 idolatry at 228 narratives 164, 221, 229 pericope 236 traditions 159–60, 224–25, 227, 236, 240 Sinaiticus 80, 521 n13, 540 n54, 555 n75 Sirach see Jesus of Sirach Sitz im Leben 120, 155, 157, 167, 224, 421–22, 516 slaughter profane 149 ritual 249 Slavic Enoch see 2 Enoch Slavonic translations 604 solar calendar 579–80, 598

index of names and subjects Solomon accession to the throne 124, 298, 300 Book of the History of 6, 297–98, 300, 498 Odes of 585, 648 proverbs of 63, 300, 444 Psalms of 67, 116, 420, 512, 515, 541, 584, 587 testament of 648 wisdom of 67–69, 512–16, 529, 532, 537–38 Song of Deborah 5, 107, 109, 132, 281 Song of Hannah 289, 423 Song of Moses 220, 260 Song of Revenge 108 Song of Songs 59, 68–69, 103, 107, 446–47, 451, 456 Song of the Springs 5 Song of the Three Men in the Fiery Furnace 547–49 songs of complaints 464 of David 110, 680 festival 108 harvest 107–108 liturgical 454 mocking 109, 113, 321, 389 mourning (dirge) 155, 310, 464 penitential 116 pilgrim 118 of praise 116–18, 456, 522, 537, 553, 589, 685 religious 115 of sabbath sacriﬁce 685, 694 of the Servant 328–29, 331 of Thanksgiving 116–17, 155, 288–89, 323, 377, 422–23, 527, 537, 674, 678 of victory 109, 422, 556 see also hymns; Psalms source theory 144, 167–68, 228 speeches of Elihu 434, 436, 644 judgement 310 Stele Israel 34 of King Idrimi of Alalach 44 of King Zakir of Hamat 308 Stromata (Clement of Alexandria) 651, 653, 654 n118, 655, 657 strophes 104–105 structuralism 167

723

structuralist, Biblical research 167–68, 195 style ﬁgures 103, 172, 482 style-critical research 155, 158 styles 130–31, 139, 143, 155, 167, 464 apodictic 238 autobiographical 44, 48, 368 deipnosophistic 573 Deuteronomistic 141, 170–72, 295, 343, 407 epic 25 exhortatory 255 hexametric 591 liturgical 422 narrative 123–24, 190–91, 194, 217, 280, 528 poetic 124, 131, 436 priestly 450 prophetic 383, 392 prose 131, 133, 342 Succoth 41, 446–47, 487, 490, 494, 559, 579 Sumerian king list 28 sun chariot 623–24 God 10 hymns 421 Susa 37, 468–69 Susanna 69, 475, 549–50 symbolic acts 339–40, 348, 408 symbols, cultic 18 Symmachus 56, 81–83, 86, 89, 92 synagogue in Aleppo 72 in Cairo 73, 76, 536, 567 n2, 627, 675 synchronic-literary, Biblical research 168, 170–71, 182, 194–95, 230 syncope 105 synod of Jamnia 59–60 of Jerusalem 514 synonymous parallelism 103 Syriac, translations 84–85 Syriac Baruch see 2 Baruch Syriac Bible manuscript 621 Syriac Psalms 680 Syro-Hexapla 474, 536, 549 n66 tabernacle legislation 242 Targum 86

216, 231, 240,

724

index of names and subjects

Jerushalmi I (Pseudo-Jonathan) 87–88, 90–91, 94–95 Jerushalmi (Fragmentary) II 88, 95 of Job 87 n43, 88, 96–97, 434–35, 669 Jonathan 87–88 Neoﬁti I 90–91, 94 Onqelos 87–90, 93–94 Palestinian 87 traditions 85 Teacher of Righteousness 75, 583, 660, 667–68, 673, 676, 678–79 teachings 58, 110–11, 114–15, 121, 128, 162, 443, 514, 516, 537, 566 Tel Dan inscription 11–12 Tel Hazor 19, 122 n27 Tel Qasile 19 Tell Atchana, inscriptions 44 Tell Mardich (Ebla) 24 Temple annals 122 archives 191, 198 cult 300, 316, 425, 484, 605, 608, 674, 687 liturgy (sanctuary) 116, 134, 321, 351, 425–26, 460, 465, 519, 685 Scroll 492 Ten Commandments see Decalogue Ten Week Apocalypse 599, 601 tent sanctuary 242 testaments of Abraham 607, 635–36, 642–43 of Asher 626 n77 of Hezekiah 583 of Isaac 648 of Jacob 648 of Job 636–37, 643–44 of Joseph 628–29, 670 of Kehat 670 of Levi 626 n76, 652, 670 Aramaic 627–28 of Moses see assumption of Moses of Naphtali 628 of Solomon 648 of the Twelve Patriarchs 567–68, 624, 629 Testimonia (4Q) 665, 686, 689 Tetrateuch 137, 163, 165, 169, 181 text-critical Biblical research 78, 81, 100, 664 textual criticism 97 textual transmission 65, 73–74, 96, 99, 360, 427, 526, 651 n114, 660 textus receptus 99

thanksgiving prayers of 288 Psalms 537 songs of 116–17, 155, 288–89, 323, 377, 422–23, 527, 537, 674, 678 theodicy 430, 569, 616 Babylonian 43, 115, 431–32 Theodotion 81–83, 86, 92, 474, 548–50 Theodotus epicus 650–51 theology, of liberation 194–95 Third Isaiah see Trito-Isaiah three pages, narrative of 518–19 Thummim, and Urim 111–12 Tiberian vocalisation systems 76–77 Tiglath-Pileser III tiqqunne soferîm 100 Tirzah 456 Tobias 510, 515, 521, 523, 522 Tobit 67–69, 450, 508, 514–16, 520, 524, 523, 666 Torah 54, 60 n6, 62, 64, 67–68, 100, 111, 119, 167, 179, 255, 329, 425, 491, 573 priestly 59, 111–12, 121 translation into Greek 62, 81, 573–74, 589 tradition history 46, 157 n50, 456 translations 67, 87, 98, 101, 503, 78079 Dutch 3, 272 n225, 562 see also Dutch Authorised Version English 68–69 Greek 5, 62–63, 79, 84, 183, 254, 468, 475, 526, 540, 545–46, 553, 573–74, 577, 582, 645, 653, 657, 665 Latin 56, 85, 519, 530, 612, 640 Slavonic 604 Syriac 84–85 transmission history 83, 99, 157 n50 oral 76, 157 n50, 161–62 textual 65, 73–74, 96, 99, 360, 427, 526, 651 n114, 660 treaty texts 37, 123, 225 Trent, council of 86, 513, 553 tribal proverbs 261 tribal sagas 126–27, 206 Trito-Isaiah 313, 332, 334 Trito-Zechariah 410 Twelve Prophets, book of 80, 82, 84, 352–53

index of names and subjects Überlieferungsgeschichte 138, 156–57, 160, 164 Ugarit 17, 23–24, 30, 32, 34, 38, 103, 123, 150, 154 Umwelt, Israel’s 23, 26, 42, 155, 201, 240, 420 Uriah 14, 235, 337 Uriel 598, 612, 614 Urim, and Thummim 111–12 vaticinia ex eventu 569 Vetus Latina 56, 79, 85, 549 n66 victory, songs of 109, 422, 556 vine allegories of 348 and forest, visions of 619 visions 112, 309, 339, 568 of Amos 48, 367–68 of the cloud from the sea 620 of Daniel 475, 478, 481 of the eagle 614, 616 of Ezekiel 347, 350 of Ezra 612, 615–16 of the forest and the vine 619 of Iddo the seer 7 of Zechariah (nocturnal) 404, 407 Vita Adae et Evae see Life of Adam and Eve Vitae prophetarum see Lives of the Prophets vocalisation systems, Tiberian 76–77 Vulgate 55–57, 61, 66–69, 79, 82, 85–86, 91, 93, 287, 352, 423, 439, 447, 449, 463, 474, 484, 497 n103, 498, 513–15, 517, 521, 526, 536, 540, 543, 545, 549–50, 552–53, 562, 589, 611 n51, 612, 680, 697, 704

725

Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri 509–10 Wadi Murabba’at 17, 74, 659, 692 war of the Children of Light against the Children of Darkness scroll (War Scroll) 687 Weeks, Feast of 579 wilderness sanctuary 241 The Wiles of the Wicked Woman 681 wisdom hymn to 680 literature 41, 46, 59, 65, 115, 134, 263, 430, 439–40, 442–45, 462, 516, 532, 541, 568, 586, 644 Wisdom of Solomon 445, 515 Wisdom Text with Beatitudes 682 woe sayings 310, 317, 319, 321, 339 Word of God (dabar) 64, 111, 113 word rhyme 104 word-play 125, 393, 550 Words of the Luminaries 685 writing prophets 64, 112–13, 307–308, 310, 312, 390 Writings (Ketubîm) 54, 57, 59, 61–62, 64, 67–68, 137, 309, 312, 417, 447, 474 Yahwism 18, 24–25, 27, 148 Yahwist see J Zadokite documents 567 n2, 675 Zakir (king), stele of 308 Zecharia 64, 68–70, 353, 402, 408, 410, 698 Second see Deutero-Zechariah Zenon papyri 510–11 Zephaniah, Apocalypse of 647–48 Zion hymn to 681 vision (4 Ezra) 614

INDEX OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES

A. Bible Genesis 1 1:1–2:3 1:1–2:4 1:1–2:4a 1:1–6 1:2 1:8 1:26–28 1:28–30 1–3 1–11

2:2–3 2:4a 2:4b 2:4b–3:24 2:4b–3:26 2:4b–4:26 2:7 2:8b 2:9 2:15 2:17 2:18–25 2:25 2–3 2–11 3 3:1–7 3:3 3:11 3:22 3:23 3:24 4 4:11 4:20–22

66, 124, 145, 177, 192, 196 191 156, 170 183, 190–91, 232 182 126, 192 182 190 190 640 27, 152 n36, 155, 164, 173, 176, 182, 188–98, 208 193, 197 183 172 190, 193 170 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 125 25, 66, 156, 183, 190, 196 153 195 172 190 190 191 190 124, 190–91 127, 183, 190 125 190

4:20–23 4:23 4:23–24 4:26 5 5:1–2 5:24 5:29 5:32 6:1–4 6:1–9:17 6:1ﬀ 6:4 6:5 6:9–22 6:11–13 6:13 6–8 6–9 7:6 7:10b 7:11 7:13–16b 7:17 7:19–22 7:24 8:1–5 8:13a 8:14–19 8:21 9:1 9:1–7 9:1–17 9:3–6 9:6a 9:8–17 9:18–10:32 9:18b 9:21–27 9:22 9:25–27 9:28–29

440 104 108 176 28, 78, 183, 190–91, 196 190 595 190, 195 196 126, 193, 596 183 25 601 196, 197 193 193 193 28 23, 28, 182, 192 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193, 196–97 194 190 193 193 107 193 184 190 190 190 175 193

index of textual references 9:29 10 10:1–7 10:1ﬀ 10:5 10:5–6 10:8–19 10:11 10:20 10:21 10:22 10:22–23 10:23 10:24–30 10:31 10:31–32 11 11:1–9 11:9 11:10 11:10–32 11:10ﬀ 11:26 11:27–30 11:27a 11:27ﬀ 11:31–32 11:32 12 12:1–3 12:1–7 12:1–25:18 12:2 12:2–3 12:3 12:4b-5 12:7 12:8 12:10–20 12–13 12–25 12–36 12–50 13 13:6 13:11b 13:12ab 13:14–15 13:14–17 13:16

122, 196 190, 194 190 191 190 209 190 190 190 190 190, 196 190 430 190 190 190 28, 184, 195 28, 78, 190, 194, 196, 623 124, 125 196 190 191 197 197, 207 197 202 197 182 211, 656 159, 173–74, 197, 207 184 201 207 207 207 178, 203 207 206, 209 170, 175, 184, 206 207 182 153, 171, 184 155, 164, 198–211 184 178, 203 178, 203 178, 203 207 207 207

13:17 14 14:18–20 15 15:4 15:4–6 15:5 15:6 15:7–21 15:9 15:13 16 16:1 16:1a 16:3 16:10 16:11 16:15–16 17 17:4–6 17:5 17:6 17:8 17:15 17:16 17:17 18:1–15 18:12–15 18:22 18–19 19:26 19:29 19:30–38 20 20:1 20:1–18 20:7 20:11 21:1–2 21:1–7 21:1b-5 21:6–7 21:8–21 21:8–34 21:13 21:18 21:22 21:25

727 207 145 n19, 171, 173, 184, 203, 204, 656 656, 668 29, 199, 203, 204–205, 207–208, 645 207 32 207 205 207 645 613 175, 184–85, 206–207 202 178, 203 178, 203 207 111, 207 178, 203 145, 178, 203 207 202 203 207 202 207 211 32, 207 211 100, 208 126, 207 126 178, 203 127 175–76, 186, 206, 208, 211 175 170 176 176, 211 207 208 178, 203 207 175, 206 176, 208 207 207 175 211

728 22 22:1 22:1–14 22:12 22:17 22:19 22:20–24 22:21 22–23 23 23:2 24 24:7 24:10 25:1–6 25:7–11a 25:8 25:12–17 25:12–18 25:14 25:19–20 25:19–28 25:19–36:43 25:19f 25:20 25:22–23 25:26b 26 26:3–4 26:5 26:7–11 26:23 26:28 26:34–35 27 27:36 27:40b 27:45 27:46–28:9 28 28:10–16 28:11–22 28:13 28:13–15 28:14 28:17–22 28:18 28:18–22 29 29:15–30 29:24 29:28b 29:29

index of textual references 208, 651 124 176 176 173, 207 175–76 197 430 175 178, 203 125 124, 171, 205, 450 207 29 657 178, 203 429 178, 203 202 445 178, 202–203 205 201 202 209 111 178, 203 186, 205 207 205 175 171 224 178, 203 171, 201, 205 125, 186 175 209 178, 203 187 209 176 207 186 207 211 176 206 209 187 178, 203 178, 203 178, 203

29:31 29:31–30:24 29–31 30 30:24 30:24–31:3 30:25 31 31:2 31:4–16 31:4ﬀ 31:13 31:18a 32:1–2 32:2–3 32:4–33 32:9 32:10 32:12 32:14b-22 32:22–32 32:32 32–33 33 33:1–16 33:5 33:10–11 33:18a 33:18b 33:19 33–44 34 34:14b–22 35:1–4 35:1–5 35:1–22 35:1ﬀ 35:6–15 35:6a 35:7 35:7–8 35:9–13 35:9–15 35:11 35:12 35:15 35:16–20 35:18 35:22 35:22c-26 35:23–26 35:23–29 35:23b–26 35:23ﬀ

176 176 201 187 176 209 187 176, 176 176 211 176 178, 186 176 209 171 173 207 176 186 127 187 174 209 176 176 178 203 429 188 205, 176 175 176 209 211 187 178, 19 176 178, 203 203 207 178 187 125 626 203 187 178 202 202

211

203

652

203 203

index of textual references 35:27–29 35:29 36 36:1–5 36:6–8 36:9–14 36:31 36:31–39 36:33 36:43 37:1 37:1–2 37:2 37:2a 37:12–36 37:19–21 37:22–25a 37:25b–27 37:28a, c 37:28b 37:29–31 37:32–33 37:34a 37:34b–35 37:36 37–50 38 39 39:1–41:36 39:11–20 41 41:37–59 41:45 41:46a 41:50–52 42 42:18 42:24 43–44 45 45:7 46:1–47:12 46:3 46:3–4 46:6–7 46:6–27 46:8–27 46:20 47:5b 47:5b–6 47:6 47:6a–11

203 429 178, 202 203 202 175 202 643, 182 203 178 203, 202 188 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 153, 201, 171, 627 627 188 34 578 188 645 178, 645 188, 176 627 188 188 201 188 171 171 178, 211 188, 645 203, 178 203 211

187, 202

658

211

174, 197, 210 205, 578,

203, 211 578

203 202 211

47:7–11 47:27b–28 48:3–7 48:4 49 49:1–28 49:1a 49:4 49:10–12 49:10–12:54 49:15 49:21 49:27 49:28b–33 50:12–13 50:20 50:20b 50:24 50:24–25 Exodus 1 1:1–5 1:1–10:29 1:7a 1:13–14 1:15–21 1:17 1–15 1–24 2 2:1–10 2:11–22 2:15 2:18 2:21 2:23–25 3 3:1 3:1b 3:4b 3:6 3:11–15 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16 3–6 4:1–17 4:5

729 178, 178, 178, 207 111, 173, 261 188 178, 626 96 91 627 627 627 178, 178, 173, 211 171, 272

203 203, 211 203, 211 132, 171, 203–204, 203, 211

203, 211 203, 211 201, 471 173, 207

214 178 211 178 178 176 176 217, 652 217 214 35 35, 218 223 176, 223 223 178 215 n130, 217, 218 176, 223 176 176 171, 176 176 224 171 176, 357 171 171 218 214 171

730 4:10 4:10–17 4:19 4:24–26 4:25 4:27–28 4:30a 6:1–11 6:2–12 6:3 6:7 6:11 6:29 7:1–7 7:8–13 7:11ﬀ 7:14–12:30 7:19 7:19–20a 7:20a 7:21b 7:21b–22 7:22 8:1–3 8:11a 8:11b 8:12–15 9:8–12 9:16 9:22 9:23a 9:35 9:35b 10:12 10:13a 10:20 10:21–22 10:27 11:9–10 12 12:1–20 12:1–28 12:12 12:24–27a 12:28 12:29–34 12:35–36 12:37–39 12:40–41 13:3–16 13:5 13:17–14:31 13:17–19 13:18

index of textual references 218 176 176, 218 223 273 176 176 218 178 172 247 218 218 178, 219 178, 219 440 218 178 219 178 178 219 178 178, 219 178 219 178, 219 178, 219 219 178 178 178 219 178 178 178 178 178 178, 219 578 178, 219 218 247 219, 221 178 219 219 219 178 219, 221 171 219–20 176 220

13:19 14 14:1–4 14:5 14:8 14:9a 14:10a 14:15–18 14:21 14:21a–23 14:21b–22 14:26–27a 14:27 14:28–29 14:29 15 15:1–21 15:4 15:21 15:22 15:22–19:1 15:22–25 15:22–27 15:22a 15:25b–26 15:27 15:32–36 15–18 16 16:1–3 16:6–7 16:9–27 16:30 16:35a 17:1–7 17:1a 17:6 17:14 17:16 18 18:1 18:13–26 18:21 19:1 19:1–2a 19:1–20:21 19:3–8 19:3a 19:3b–6 19:3b–8 19:10 19:16 19:16b

276 176, 178, 272 n226 178 219 178 178 178 178 220 178 220 178 220 178 220 220 217 220 109, 116 221 224 221 222, 653 178 221 178, 652 230 221 221, 222 178 178 178 178 178 221–22, 229 178 176 472 472 176, 223–24 176 223 176 225 178 225–26 37, 141 176, 225 221 226 267 225 176

index of textual references 19:17 19:18 19:19 19:20b 19:22–24 19–24 20 20:1 20:1–7 20:2 20:2–3–23:33 20:2–6 20:2–17 20:8 20:14 20:18–21 20:20 20:21 20:21b 20:22 20:22–29 20:23 20:23–23:19 20:23–23:33 20:23ﬀ 20:24 20:24–26 20–23 21:1 21:2 21:12 21:15–17 21–23 22:1 22:2 22:7–8 22:18 22:19 22:20 22:21–22 22:26–27 22:28–31 22:29 23:1–3 23:6–9 23:11 23:12 23:13 23:13b-19 23:14–19

176 225 176, 234 225 225 158, 224–25 36, 132, 229, 234, 236 128, 227 234 220 231 233 72, 121, 227, 229, 231–32 77 78 176, 234 234 225, 227 689 234, 240 229 229 238 237 237 262 247 121 226, 227 340 120 120 38, 120, 132, 154, 226, 254, 259, 262 229 240 240 120 120 120 120 15 120 240 120 120 240 229, 237 125 229, 237 149

23:17 23:19 23:20–33 23:20ﬀ 24:1 24:1–2 24:3 24:3–4a 24:3–8 24:5 24:7 24:9–11 24:12 24:12–15a 24:15b–18 24:15b–18a 24:18b 24:25–29 24:40 25:1–31:17 25:6–18 25:9 25:16 25:22 25:26 25:40 25–31 26:30 27:1–11 27:8 27:12–23 27:31 28:30 29:9–11 29:42 29:46 30:6 30:36 31:15b 31:18 32 32:10–14 32:11–13 32:11–14 32:12–17 32:13 32:15 32:15–16 32:16 32:19 32:25–29

731 240 240 221, 238–39 141, 246 240 226 226, 227 37 141, 221, 225, 227 91 227, 238 88, 176, 226 234 227 178 226 227 178 178 226 229 242 234 242 229 242 231, 241–42, 248 242 229–30 242 229 229 111 232 242 247 242 242 120 234 175, 178, 216, 227–28 227, 230 267 227 228 171 234 227 234 228 228

732 32:30–34 32:34 32–34 33 33:1–3a 33:1–6 33:1–49 33:2 33:3 33:6 33:7 33:7–11 33:11 33:12–17 33:18–23 33:19 33:50–34:29 34 34:1 34:1–9 34:4 34:6 34:6ﬀ 34:8–9 34:9 34:10–26 34:11–16 34:11–26 34:11ﬀ 34:14 34:18–26 34:28 34:28–29 34:29–35 34:35 34:36 35:30ﬀ 35–39 35–40 40:20 40:33b Leviticus 1:1–7:38 1:2–17 1–7 2:1–16 2:13 3:1–17 4:1–5:13 4:1ﬀ 5:11–31

index of textual references 227 227, 228 158, 165, 217, 224, 227 216, 228 171 228 229 228 227 176 241 228, 241–42 228 227 228 227 229 175, 228–29 227, 234 228 227 227–28 26 227 227 236, 239 221 229, 237 229 227 149 232, 234 227 229 229 230 440 242 231, 241 234 177 231 243 121, 231, 242–44, 248 243 243 243 243 251 250

6:1–7 6:8–13 6:9 6:14 6:14–23 6:24–30 6:25 7:11–21 7:23–30 7:28–34 7:37–38 8–9 9 9:24 11 11:1 11:2ﬀ 11:9ﬀ 11:44 11:45 11:46 11–15 11–16 11–22 12 12:1 12:7b 13 13:1 13:1–46 13:47–59 13:59 14:1 14:1–32 14:32 14:33 14:33–57 14:54ﬀ 15:1 15:32–33 16 17 17:1–9 17:1–16 17:3–7 17:3–9 17:7 17–26 18 18:2 18:4 18:5 18:6 18:7–17

250 243, 492 243 243 243 243 243 243 121 243 243 231, 240–41 178 177 245 245 121 121 247 247 245 245 231, 244–45 248 245 245 245 250 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 38, 245 247–49 241, 249 249 149 249 249 231, 246–50 121, 247, 249 247 247 247 247 120

index of textual references 19 19:3–4 19:5–10 19:11–12 19:13–18 19:31 20 20:2 20:2–6 20:9–13 20:14 20:15–16 20:17 20:21 20:27 23 23:1–44 23:26–32 23–36 24:10–16 24:17 24:17–22 25 25:10 26 26:4–13 26:40–45 27 27:29

121 121, 247 247 121, 247 121, 247 25 247 120 248 120 358 120 358 358 120 150, 248 149 245 247 248 120 250 248, 250, 577 38 37, 248–50, 260 248 137 231, 246, 250 120

10 10:1–5 10:1–10 10:10 10:11 10:11–15:41 10:11–28 10:11ﬀ 10:29 10:29–14:45 10:35–36 11 11:1–3 11:4–35 11:24–29 11:26–29 13:1–17a 13:21 13:25–26 13:32–33 13–14 13f 14 14:1–3 14:5–10 14:8a 14:11–25 14:24 14:26–38 15

Numbers 1 1:1–10:10 1–4 1–20 2 3:13 3:41 3:45 5 5:1–4 5:5–10 5:11–31 5–6 6:1–21 6:22–27 6:24–26 7 8:1–4 8:4 8–10 9:1–14 9:15–23

13 n17, 250 216 149, 178 212 250 247 247 247 251 n133 250 250 250, 251 n133 231, 250 251 251, 251 n135 17, 251 n185 251 251 242 231, 250 251 178, 251

15:1–16 15:17–21 15:22–31 15:32–36 15:37–40 15:41 16 17 18 18–19 19 19:1–10a 20 20:1 20:2 20:2–13 20:3b 20:4 20:6–7 20:8a 20:10 20:11b 20:12

733 13 n17 91 251 247 216 212 178, 229 224 171, 176 229 118 13 n17, 165 222 221 112 647 178 178 178 178 165, 216 229 13 n17 178 178 172 230 171 178 13 n17, 231, 250 251 251 251 229, 247, 251 251 247 216, 229 229 252 231, 250 13 n17, 252 252 n186 526 216 178 221 178 178 178 178 178 178 178

734 20:14–16 20:14–21 20:22–29 20:22b-29 20–27 21 21:4–9 21:4–10 21:4a 21:14–15 21:17–18 21:18b 21:21–35 21:27–30 22 22:1 22:2–24 22:28–30 22–24 24:5–17 24:7–9 24:17–19 25:1 25:1–18 26 26:29–34 27:1–11 27:8–11 27:12–23 27:12–29 27:18–23 27–30 28–29 29:7–11 30 31 32 33–36 34 35 36 Deuteronomy 1:1 1:1–3:11 1:1–4:43 1:1b-3 1:5 1:6 1:9–17 1:19–2:15 1–3 1–4

index of textual references 171 216 216 178 229 13 n17 216 222 178 5 5, 108 107 216 109 13 n17 178, 254 216 127 9, 176, 230, 307 689 175 175 171, 273 216 178, 250, 252 13 n15 252 451 178, 216 273 171 231, 250 149, 252 245 252 229 172, 229, 267 229 178 178 252 254 252 138–39, 255 230 254 259 223 257 256 257

2:10–12 2:16–3:21 2:20–23 3:9 3:13–14 3:13b-14 4:1–22 4:13 4:23–31 4:41–43 4:44–11:32 4:44–30:20 5 5:6 5:6–21 5:12 5:12–15 5:14–15 5:18 5:22 5:28–29 5–11 6:4 6:4–5 6:5 6:6–9 6:10–19 6:16 6:20–25 7:1–6 7:7–10 7:7–11 7:7ﬀ 7:8 7:17–26 9:4–6 9:7–10:11 9:7a 9:7b-10:5 9:22 9:25 10:4 10:6–7 10:12–11:32 11:2–32 11:29–30 12 12:1–16:17 12:5–7 12:9 12:10 12:11–12 12:14

254, 257 257 254, 257 254, 257 254 257 257 232, 234 257 254 255, 258 139 263 220 72, 121, 231–32 77 232 262 78 234 689 256, 257–58 64, 258 72 258, 262 258 258 222 258 258 263 258 264 258 258 258 258 258 258 222 267 232, 234 254 258 258 260 262 258 259 177 258 259 258

index of textual references 12:15–17 12:20–25 12:21 12:26 12–26 14:3–21 14:22 14:22–29 15:1–11 15:12 15:19–23 16:1–17 16:18–18:22 16:18–20 16:21 16:21–17:7 17:6 17:8–13 17:14–20 17:18 18:1–8 18:6–8 18:18–19 19:1–26:15 19–26 22:1–4 22:12 23:1ﬀ 23:3 23:7 23:9–10 23:15–16 23:19–20 24:2 24:6–22 24:12–13 25:9–13 25:13–16 25:15–16 25:17–19 25:17ﬀ 26:5b-9 27 27:1–8 27:1ﬀ 27:4 27:12–26 27:15–26 28 28–30 29:2 29:22–28

259 259 258 258 254–55, 257–60 245 177 258 38 340 258 149, 258 258 259 18 259 550, 643 258–59 677 254 258 149 689 258 259 262 252 267 451 177 262 262 262 42 262 15 223 262 223 223, 472 177 158 254–55, 257, 259–60 275 270 78 262 120 255, 259–60 257 260 139

29–30 30:1–10 30:1ﬀ 30:11–16 30:20 31 31:1ﬀ 31:10–13 31:14–15 31:14–17 31:19 31:21 31:23 31:24–26 31–34 32:1–43 32:8 32:10ﬀ 32:48–52 33 33:8 33:8–11 34 34:1 34:1a 34:4 34:6 34:7–9 34:7ﬀ 34:9 34:10–12 Joshua 1 1:1 1:3–5 1:7 1:7–9a 1:8 1:13 1–12 2 2:1 2:10 2:10–11 2–9 2–11 3:1 3:1–4:1 3:5 4:8 4:9 4:10

735 255, 259–60 138 177, 180 260 n199 267 254 267 234 176 273 261 261 171, 176, 273 63 255, 260 260 n200 75 221 254 111, 261 111–12 228, 689 254, 261 254 178 171 261 177–78 230 171 261 270 266 276 267 276 267 267 267, 270–71, 276 273 171, 273 272 n226 270 271–73 270–73 171, 273 272 267 272 271 n223, 272 267

736 4:10–11 4:14 4:19 4:20 4:20–21 4:20–24 4:21–24 4:23 5:1–12 5:2–3 5:9 5:10–12 5:13–15 6 6:22–25 7:1–8:29 7:6–9 7:13 8:3 8:12 8:28 8:30–31 8:30–35 8:31 8:32 8:34 9:1–2 9:14 9:17–21 9:21 9:27 10:10–14 10:12b–13a 10:26 10:37 10:38–39 10–11 11:1–15 11:15 11:15–23 11:16–12:24 11:16–23 13:1–7 13:8–33 13:8ﬀ 13:14 13:15–32 13:33 13–21 14:1–5 14:6–15 14:6ﬀ 14–19

index of textual references 272 269 270 272 271 271 270 272 n226 268 273 271 n223 270 268 272 271, 273 268 267 267 272 272 271 267 270, 275 267 254 267 270 273 270 271 n223 271 n223, 492 273 4 272 272 272 271 281 267 270 269 276 269, 273, 276 269 267 269 274 269 267, 270, 273, 274 274 274 171 269

15:13–19 15:15–17 15:21–62 15:33 15:60 15:63 15–22 16:10 17:1 17:1–3 17:11–13 17:12 17:14–18 18:1 18:1–10 18:8 18:9 18:21–28 18:28 19:2–8 19:41 19:47 19:49–51 19:51 20 21 21:43–22:6 21:43–45 22 22–24 23 23:1ﬀ 23:6–7 23:12–13 24 24:23 24:28–31 24:29–30 24:31 24:32 24:33 Judges 1 1:1–2:5 1:1–26 1:11–13 1:11–15 1:12–15 1:13 1:19b 1:21 1:23–26

270, 274, 279 272 274 274 274 270, 276, 279 274 270, 276, 279 267 13 n15 270, 276 279 273 242 273 242 242 274 274 274 274 270 273 177 269, 273–74 269, 273–74 270 276 275 267, 269, 274–75 270, 275–76 267 276 276 270, 275 175 279, 283 275 276 276 276 270, 272 173, 279, 283 278 272 270 279 640 280 270, 279 279

index of textual references 1:27–28 1:27–36 1:29 1:34–35 1–2 2 2:1–5 2:6–3:6 2:6–9 2:6–10 2:6–16:31 2:7 2:8 2:8–9 2:11–3:6 2:11–19 2:20–3:6 3:5–11 3:7 3:7–11 3:7–16:31 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:12–9:55 3:12–15a 3:12–20 3:12–30 3:15 3:15b–25 3:30 3:31 3–8 4 4:1 4:1a 4:2 4:2a 4:3 4:3a 4:4 4:17ﬀ 4:21 4:23 4:23–24 4–5 5 5:2–11 5:5 5:6 5:12–30

270 278, 280 270 270 312 139 279 279 181, 279 283 280 276 279 n237 275 284 280 280 278 280 280, 282, 284 279, 283 280 280, 282 278 n234 280 280 284 280 278 280–81 280 281 280 278, 283 283 281 280 280 280 280 280 280 278 n234 6 527 280 280 278, 280 5, 107, 109, 131–32, 281 281 224 278 n235 281

5:12b 5:22 5:27–30 5:28–30 5:31 5:31b 6:1 6:1–2a 6:6 6:6b 6:7–10 6–8 8:14 8:23 8:28 8:33–35 9 9:8–15 9:8–15f 9:27 10:1–2 10:1–5 10:2 10:3 10:3–5 10:6 10:6–12:6 10:6–12:7 10:6–16 10:7 10:10 11:33 11:33b 12:7 12:7–15 12:8 12:8–10 12:9 12:11 12:11–12 12:13 12:13–15 12:14 13 13:1 13:2–5 13:3 13:7 13–16 14:12–18 14:14 14:18 14–15

737 107 107 109 6 280–81 280 280 280 280 280 75 n10, 280 278, 280–81 41 282 280 280 281–82 282 127 107 278 282–83 278 n234 278 n234 278 280 282 278 280, 282 280 280 280 280 278 n234 282, 283 278 n234 278 278 n234 278 n234 278 278 n234 278 278 n234 283 280 207 n125 111 111 5, 127, 278, 282 111 107 107 283

738 15:20 16 16:23 16:24 16:31 17:6 17–18 17–21 18:1 18:1a 19:1 19:1a 19–21 21:21 21:25 1 Samuel 1 1:15–18 1–3 1–4 1–15 2 2:1–10 2:10 2:27–36 4–6 5:2ﬀ 7 7:2–8:22 7:13–14 7–12 8 8:1–22 8:6–9 8:6–22 8:11–18 8:19–22 9 9:1–10:16 9:6–10 9:9 9:16 9–15 10 10:1–16 10:5 10:7–27 10:8 10:17–27 10:17ﬀ 11

index of textual references 278 n234 283 31 104 278 n234 284 279, 284 208, 283–84 284 284 284 284 279, 284 107 284 207 n125 111 287, 295 242 287 423 117, 287, 289 289 295 287, 295 31 289, 293–94, 295 292 293 282, 287, 292, 295 289, 294 293 294 293 294 294 292–93 292, 294 112, 308 308 293 292 289, 292 293 293 293 292 292–94 294 75 n10, 294

11:1–11 11:1–15 11:12–14 11:15 12 12:1–25 12:3–4 13:1 13:2–5 13:3b 13:4 13:6ﬀ 13:7f 13:13–14 13:14 13:16–14:46 13–14 13–15 14:3 15 15:8–9 15:22 15:23–26 15:28 16 16:14–23 16:14ﬀ 16–18 16ﬀ 17 17:5–7 17:55–58 18:7 18:9ﬀ 18–20 21–27 22:3 23:3b 23:9–12 24 25:1 26 28 29–30 30:1–2 31 2 Samuel 1 1:17–27 1:19 1:19–27

294 292 293–94 294 139, 289, 293–95 292 294 98 292, 294 293 293 293 292 289 292 292, 294 292 287, 293 112 223, 292–94 472 65, 293 289 292 287 289 292 99 291–92 25, 124, 287, 289 124 289 109 289 124, 288 124, 288 451 25 111 291 287 291 124, 288 124, 288 223 287, 288 287–88, 427 289 463 n63 4

index of textual references 1:19–29 1:26 2:8ﬀ 2–4 3:2–5 3:33–34 5 5:13–16 6 6:16 6:17 6:20–23 7 7:9 7:11b 7:16 8 8:1–14 8:12 8:16–18 8:17 9 9–1 9–20 9ﬀ 10 11 11:1 11:27 11–12 12 12:1 12:1–14 12:15 12:24–25 13:3–5 13–14 14:17 14:20 14:24 15:27 15:32–37 15–19 16:5–14 17:3 17:14 20 20:22 20:23–26 20:24 21 21:15–22

110 107 125 288, 291 289 110, 289 288, 291 289 287, 291, 295 291 242 291 288, 289, 293 159 n57, 174 291 291 47, 132, 174, 288–89 122 223 122, 289 42 288 209 131–32, 174, 288–89 291 288 288 82 290 290 235, 288 290 26 290 290 291 288 441 441 124 290 290 288 288 384 n102 290 288 291 289 42 288 25, 289

21:19 21–24 22 23 23:1–7 23:8–23 23:8–39 23:10 23:12 24 24:11 1 Kings 1 1:20 1:27 1–2 1–7 1–11 1–16 2 2:5–6 2:11 2:13–46 2:15 2:26–27 2:27 2:35b 2:46 3 3:4–15 3:16–28 4:1–20 4:3 4:5 4:21–28 4:29–31 4:29–34 4:32 4:32–33 4:32–34 5–7 5–8 6 6:1 6–8 7 8 8:12–13 8:22–53 8:22ﬀ 8:23–24

739 289 208, 287–88 46, 76, 288–89, 423 288 289 25 122, 289 25 25 288 308 124, 290 290 290 131–32, 174, 288–89, 298 296 297, 300 296 173 291 82 289 290 336 295 295 124 441 300 7, 300 122 42 290 300 444 134, 300 453 444 134 300 300 299 139, 141 122 299 117, 139, 173 5 300 128 302

740 8:53 9:1–9 9:10–28 9:15 9:17–19 10:1 10:1–13 10:14–29 11:1–8 11:9–13 11:14–22 11:23–25 11:26–28 11:29–39 11:41 12 12:21–24 12:25–32 12:33–13:34 14:1–18 14:7–11 14:19 14:19–20:31 14:25 14:25–26 14:29 15:1 15:6 15:7 15:9 15:11ﬀ 15:13 15:16ﬀ 15:23 15:25 15:26 15:29 15:31 15:33 15:34 16:8 16:12 16:15 16:21–28 17:1–24 17:18 17:24 17–19 18:3 18:19 18:19f 18:39 20

index of textual references 304 301 122, 300 122 n27 300 115 7, 300 300 301 301 175, 301 301 301 299, 301 6, 298 173, 227–28 299 302 299 299 303 298 302 173 38 298 301 302 298, 302 301 302 18 302 298 301 302 303 298 301, 456 302 456 303 456 302 296 308 308 298 372 n89 307 308 26 299

20:35–43 21 21:20b–24 22 22:1–2 22:1–38 22:5–28 22:5ﬀ 22:28c 22:38 22:43 22:45 2 Kings 1–2 2–8 3:4ﬀ 3:15 4:23 8 8:1–6 8:7–15 8:20 8:20–24 8:25–26 8:28–29 9:1ﬀ 9:6–10 9:11 9:16–29 9:36 9ﬀ 10:15 10:17 10:23 11:21–12:1 12:2 12:10 12:16 13 13:10–13 13:14–19 14:3 14:7 14:9 14:25 15:3ﬀ 15:5 15:8–30 15:10 15:14 15:19–20 15:25

299 298 303 308 82 299 299 112 98 303 302 302 298 298 11 112 198 373 451 12, 303 177 373 302 12 303 303 112 12 303 299, 357 356 303 356 302 302 42 150 298 16 n23 303 302 177 127 377 302 302 384 302 302 302 302

index of textual references 15:29 15:30 15:31 15:34 15:37 16:3 16:5 16:6 16:19 17 17:7–23 17:7ﬀ 17:17 18:1–20:21 18:3–6 18:13 18:13–20:19 18:14–16 18:17–19:9a 18:17–20:19 18:18 18:37 18–19 18–25 19:9b–35 19:15–19 20:1–11 20:12–19 21:1–17 21:6 21:7 21:23–24 22:1 22:2 22:3 22:3ﬀ 22:9 22–23 23 23:3 23:4–20 23:5 23:7 23:10 23:34 24:2 24:17 24:18–25:30 25:4–6 25:21

302, 302 6 302 302 248 356 177 6 298 303 139 248 303 302 324 299 299, n20 303 324 42 42 39 298 303 303 303 303 583 248 18 302 397 302 42 42 42 139, 180, 304 117 63 261 302 18 248 125 392 125 339, 451 304

523

303, 324

25:22–26 25:27–30 Isaiah 1 1:1 1:2 1:2–2:5 1:2–3 1:3 1:4 1:4a 1:10 1:10–17 1:12–15 1:16 1:21 1:27–28 1:29–31 1–12 1–39

144, 146, 261–62,

341

2:1 2:1–5 2:2–4 2:2–5 2:5 2:6–4:1 2:6–4:6 2:10–11 2:12 2:18 2:20–22 2–11 3:10–11 3:18–23 4:2–6 5:1–4 5:1–7 5:7c 5:8–10:3 5:8–24 5:11–12 5:11–17 5:15–16 5:18–19 5:19 5:20 5:24 5:25–29(30) 5:25ﬀ 5:30

741 304 137, 138, 304 320–21 315, 320 325 321 310 320 316 107 325 65 311 310, 321 463 n63 320 320 314, 317, 320, 321 313, 317, 324, 327, 331 320 320 380, 383 317, 320–21 332 n27 317 321 320 399 320 320 320 320 320 320 107 317, 323 125 319 317, 319, 321 108 113 320 325 316 310 316, 325 319, 321 319 320, 332 n27

742 6 6:1–8:18 6:1–9:6 6:1ﬀ 6:3 6:9–10 6:12–13 6:36–37 7 7:3 7:8b 7:9 7:9b 7:14 7:15 7:21–22 7:21–25 7:23–24 7:25 8:1 8:1–4 8:1ﬀ 8:3 8:3–4 8:5–10 8:8b 8:9–10 8:11–15 8:16 8:16–18 8:18 8:19–23a 8:21–23a 8:23b–9:6 8:32–35 9:2 9:5–6 9:5a 9:7–20 10:1–3(4) 10:4 10:5–9 10:5–11:16 10:10–12 10:13–15a 10:16–19 10:16–27a 10:20 10:20–21 10:20–23 10:24–27 10:27b–34 10:33–34

index of textual references 128, 315, 324 48, 312, 318 321 317 318 313 318, 320 325 309, 316, 318, 324 316 318, 320 313, 323 125, 318 111, 316, 318 318, 320 318 317, 320 318 318 162 319 317 316 316 319 320 317 319 380 319 325 319 332 n27 317, 319 330 107 311 319 319, 321 317, 319, 321 319 n11, 320 319 321 320 319 317 320 316 316 317 317 319 317, 321

11:1 11:1–9 11:1–10 11:4 11:10–16 11:11–16 12 12:1–6 13:1 13:1–14:23 13–23 13–39 14 14:1–4a 14:4–21 14:12–15 14:12ﬀ 14:22–23 14:24–27 14:28–31 14:32 16:10 17:1–6 17:10 17:10–11 17:12–14 18:1–6 19:1–4 19:11–14 19:16–25 19:18 20 20:2–5 21:1–10 22:1–14 22:13 22:15–19 24 24–27 25:1–5 25:6–10a 25:10b-12 26:1–6 26:7–18 26:7–21 26:19 26:20–21 27 27:1 27:2–5

317 311, 317, 319, 321 310 615 320 321, 332 n27 320–21, 332 n27 320 332 n27 321 317, 321 317 113 332 n27 109 321 126 332 n27 317, 322 322 325, 380 107 322 325 322 317, 322 322 322 322 322 28 309 322 322 322 108 322 323 317, 322, 324, 503 323 323 323 323 323 323 323 323 323 32, 126, 323, 602 323

index of textual references 27:6–11 27:10 27:12–13 28:1–6 28:15 28:23–29 28:29 28–31 28–33 28–35 29:1–8 29:5 29:5–8 29:14 29:17–24 29:22 30:8 30:9–11 30:11 30:15 30:18 30:18–26 30:27–33 31:5 31:8–9 32:1–5 32:6–8 32:9–14 32:15–20 32:20 32–35 33 34–35 35 36:1–37:9a 36:3 36:11 36:22 36–37 36–39 37:5–7 37:9b-36 37:14–20 37:15–20 37:21–35 37:37–38 38:1–8 38:9–20 38:10–19 38–39 39:3–8 40:1 40:2

323 323 323 323 110 317 325 323 320 317, 323 311 316 317 325 323 209 323 325 316 323, 325 115 323 317 317 317 317, 323 323 323 317, 323 115 323 324, 332 n27 324 332 n27 324 n20 42 42 42 324 299, 309, 317, 324 316 324 n20 299 423 316 324 n20 316 324 117 324 316 325, 328 330

40:3–9 40:19–20 40–48 40–55 41:2–3 41:6–7 41:8 41:14 41:16 41:20 41:25 42:1–4 42:5–7 42:5–9 42:10–13 42:17 42:22 43:3 43:14 43:22–28 44:9–20 44:23 44:26 45:1 45:1ﬀ 45:8 45:16–17 45:20b 46 46:5–8 46–47 47 48:20 48:20–21 48:22 49:1–6 49:3 49:5–6 49:6a 49:6b 49:13 49–55 50:1 50:4–9 51:2 51:3 51:9 52:8–9 52:10b–13 52:13–15 52:13–53:12 53

743 328 328 328 313, 324, 327–28, 331 327 328 209 316 316 316, 438 327 329 329 329 328 328 327 316 316 330 328, 543 328 327 327 327 328 328 328 327 328 328 107 327 328 328 329 330 330 330 330 328 328 42 329–30 209 327 25, 126 108 330 330 125, 329–30 125, 331, 412 n129

744 53:4–6 53:5 53:7–9 55 55–66 56 56:1–8 56:2 56–66 57:7–10 59 60:1 60:13 60–62 61:1 63:1–6 63:7–64:12 63:16 65:1–66:14 66 66:15–24 Jeremiah 1 1:1 1:1–2:34 1:1–3 1:2 1:4–10 1:5 1:10 1:11–19 1:12–13 1:13ﬀ 1:14–15 1:15a 1–6 1–20 1–25 1–51 2:1–3 2:1–6:26 2:2f 2:4ﬀ 2:5ﬀ 2:18 2:29 2–3 3 3:6 3:21–4:2 3:22 3:23–25

index of textual references 330 412 n129 331 333–34 333 333 334 115 313 328 334 332 333 333–34 682 334 333 209 334 321 334 128 336 334 339 337–38 339 331 331, 337 339 126 405 338 98 339 334 338–39, 342–43 344 221 342 357 310 357 464 310 339, 343 113, 338 338 113 310 117

4:6 4–6 6:1 7 7:1–15 7:9 7:12 7:14 7:29 8:4–9:1 8:8–9 8:8–12 8:11 8:18–9:22 8–20 9:1 9:4 9:10–26 10:1–16 10:3–5a 10:9 10:11 10:17–25 11 11:18–20 11:18–23 12:1–2 12:1–4 12:6 12:7–17 13:1–11 13:12–17 13:20–27 13:23 14:7–9 15:5–9 15:10 15:10–18 15:10–21 15:10a 15:15–18 16:1–9 17:9–10 17:12–18 18 18:7 18:7–8 18:7–10 18:18 18:18–23 18:19–23 18–19 19

338 339, 343 338 128, 342 339–40 235 242 242 342 342 442 113 58 339 339 463 186 342 543 109 16 n25 54 n1 339 342 331 337 437 339 337 342 339 342 342 310, 357 117 342 339 336 331 107 339 337 196 339 342 377 378 499 46, 113, 337, 441 331 336, 339 339 342

index of textual references 20 20:1–6 20:7 20:7–9 20:7–18 20:14–18 21 21:1–10 21:11–22:9 21:11–23:8 21–22 21–24 21–25 22:10–30 23 23:5–6 23:5–8 23:9–40 23:23ﬀ 23–24 24 25 25:1–11 25:1–13 25:3 25:11 25:12–14 25:13 25:13a 25:15–29 26 26:6 26:9 26:11 26:14–15 26:18 26:20–23 26:24 26–29 26–35 26–45 27 27:12–15 28 29 29:1–23 29:10 30:9 30:18ﬀ 30–31 31:29 31:31

342 337 334, 369 336 339 336 342 339 339 342 343 340 339 339 343 311 339 339, 342 310 113 339 339, 342 339 342 337 478 339 342 343–44 342 128, 337, 339, 340 242 242 337 331 380 14, 337 337 342 338, 340 128, 343 340 464 112, 309, 340 122, 340, 543 162 340, 478 311 357 338, 340, 342–43 110 55

31:31–34 31:35 32 32:9ﬀ 32:10–14 32:11 32:13–15 32–33 32–45 33:26 33–39 34 34:1–7 34:7 34:8–22 35 36 36:1–4 36:2 36:4 36:12 36:20 36:26 36:32 36–43 36–45 37:5–10 37:11–16 37:15 37:17 37:17–21 37:20 37–38 38:1–13 38:7–13 38:14–28 38:28 39:1–40:6 39:16–18 40 40:1–6 40:7–43:7 40–44 42:7 43:8–44:30 44 45 45:1 46–49 46–51 47:3a 47:17

745 56, 310 198 n106 342 162 42 123 311 340 342 209 542 342 340 13 340 340, 342 162, 337, 340, 342 341 337–38 42 42, 442 42 340 n33 48, 312, 341, 346 342 309, 338, 340 464 337 42 464 337 42 340 337 641 n94 337 464 341 641 n94 304 331 341 338 309 341 342 341 42 343 339, 341–43 107 463 n63

746 48 49:7–22 49:9 49:14–16 50–54 51:31–35 51:59 51:59–64 52 52:27 52:28–30 52:30 Ezekiel 1:1–3:27 1:2 1:3 1–3 1–19 1–24 1–37 4:4–8 4–5 8:3 8–11 10:18–22 12:1–20 12:23–29 13 14:1–11 14:14 14:20 16 17 18 18:2 18:23 18:32 19 20:12 20:13 20:16 20:20 20:21 20:24 20:39–44 20–48 22:8 22:23–31 22:26 23 23:38

index of textual references 341 341 373 373 542 344 340 n33 344 304, 339, 341 304 304, 341, 488 304 348 346 346, 348 128 344 344, 348 344 331 348 551 348 349 348 348 348 248 32, 347, 430, 482 430 347, 348 348 347–48, 437, 499 110 344, 378 378 347 351 351 351 351 351 351 311 344 351 398 311, 351 347–48 351

24:1–24 24:16ﬀ 24:24 25 25:12ﬀ 25–32 25–35 25–48 26:1–28:19 27 28:3 28:11–19 28:12–19 28:12ﬀ 28:20–26 29:17 29–32 31 33 33:21–22 33:24 33–34 34 34:25–31 35 35:1ﬀ 36 36–48 37 37:1–14 37:15–28 38–39 40–42 40–48 43 44:10–14 44:24 44–46 46:3 47:1–12 47:13–48:35 Hosea 1 1:1 1:2a 1:4–5 1:6 1:7 1:9 1:10–12 1–3 2

348 346 348 348 373 348 348 344 348 348 482 196 347 25, 126 348 346 348 347 349, 351, 437 347 209 348 349 248 349 373 349 348–49 347 349 311, 348–49 348 349 349 349 149 351 349 351 349 349 209, 357–58 315, 355 353 357 357 359 357 359 358 356, 358, 382 n98

index of textual references 2:1–14 2:6 2:7f 2:12 2:14 2:15 3 3:1–4 3:1–5 3:2 3:4 4:1 4:1–3 4:1f 4:2 4:4–5:7 4:4–10 4:4–19 4:6 4:8 4:10 4:15 4–11 5:1–7 5:2 5:4 5:5 5:8 5:8–6:6 5:8–9:9 5:8–17:16 5:13 5:14 6:1–3 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:11 6:11f 6:14 6:15 7:2 7:3–7 7:7 7:8–12 8:1 8:1–13 8:4 8:14b 9:1–9 9:7 9:9 9:10–11:6 9:10–11:11

360 357 382 n98 356–57 221, 357 356 48, 357–58 360 311 358 112 382 n98 310, 358 382 n98 235 358 311, 356 358 356 150 382 n98 125, 359 358 358 382 n98 357 359 125 359 n66 359 358 356, 360 360 113 356, 382 n98 356, 382 n98 257, 356 359 382 n98 382 n98 382 n98 382 n98 356 382 n98 356 257, 356 358 311 359 358 112, 356 284 358 359

10:5 10:5–6 10:9 11:1 11:1f 11:7–11 11:8–11 12 12:1b 12:2a 12:4 12:4–6 12:8f 12:10 12:11 12:13 12:14 12–14 13:1–14:1 13:4 13:7–8 14:2–9 14:5–9 14:9 14:10 Joel 1 1:1 1:1–2:27 2 2:1–17 2:15–17 2:18–27 2:20 2:21–27 2:23–27 2:25 2:28 2:28–3:21 2:28–32 2:30–31 3 3:1–3 3:2–3 3:4–8 3:9–17 3:15–16a 3:16 3:16b

747 125 209 284 220, 356 382 n98 358, 360 356 209, 211, 359 359 107 125, 186 356 382 n98 220–21, 382 n98 356 356 224, 356, 382 n98 358, 359 359 220–21, 356, 382 n98 360 113, 359 356 359 n68, 382 n98 359 362–63 361 363–64 363 362 117 362 363 363 363 362 n71 360 363 363–64 363 363 364 362 364 364 364 353 364

748 3:18 3:18–21 Amos 1:1 1:2 1–2 2:6–16 2:8 3:1–2 3:1b 3:2 3:3–6 3:7 3:8 3:9–6:14 3:9–11 3–6 4:1–3 4:4 4:4–5 4:13 5:2 5:2a 5:3 5:5 5:5b 5:6 5:8–9 5:13 5:14–15 5:17 5:18 5:18–20 5:21–23 5:21–24 5:21ﬀ 5:23 5:24 5:25–26 6:3–7 6:5 6:9–10 6:12 7 7:1–3 7:1–9 7:1ﬀ 7:4 7:4–6 7:7–9 7:10–17

index of textual references 363 364 367, 371 353, 371 368 369 15 208, 369–70 371 207, 311 310 371 310, 369 369 310 368–69 310 209 47, 310–11 370 110, 113, 310 106 113 47, 126, 175, 209, 370 107 370 370 371 370 107 310 370, 398 311 65 369 115, 426 364 371 108 n10 427 371 98 128 367 48 405 98 367 367 131, 309, 366–67

7:12 7:14 7:14–15 8:1–3 8:2 8:3 8:4–14 8:5 8:14 9:1–4 9:1–6 9:3 9:5–6 9:7 9:7–10 9:8b 9:11–12 9:11–15 9:11ﬀ 9:13–15

308 112, 367 367 48, 368 370 371 368–69, 371 198 175 368 48 126 370 311, 370 368–69 371 311, 368, 370 371 310 364, 368, 370

Obadiah 1–10 1–14 1b-5 2ﬀ 10–14 11 11–14 15a 15b 16–18 17a 17b 19–20 19–21 21

373 373 373 373 372 373 373 374 373–74 373–74 374 373 373 373 373

Jonah 1:5 1:10 1:16 1–2 2 2:2 2:2–9 2:3–10 3:3 3:4 3:6–9 3–4 4:4 4:4–9 4:5

377 377 377 378 117, 423 377 377 377 n93 377 376 377 378 376 376 376

index of textual references 4:5–9 4:10–11 4:11 Micah 1 1:1 1:2–4 1:2a 1:5 1:5–7 1:7 1:8–12 1:9 1:13–16 1–3 1–5 2:1–3 2:1–5 2:6–11b 2:9 2:11 2:11c-13 2:12–13 2:12f 2–5 3:1 3:1–12 3:3 3:5 3:8 3:9 3:11 3:12 4:1–3 4:1–5 4:1ﬀ 4:5 4:6–7 4:6f 4:8 4:8–9 4:9–10 4:10 4:11–13 4:14 4:14–5:3 4–5 5:1 5:1–3 5:3 5:4 5:4–5

377 377 124, 378 380, 383 380 383 98 385 383 385 383 385 383 380–81 382 310 383 383 385 381 383 381, 383 385 380–81, 383 381–82 383 385 385 381 382 112, 308, 311, 382–83 380 380 320, 383 385 381 383 385 385 383 381 n94 384, 385 384, 385 381 n94, 385 384 380, 381 311, 386 311, 386 385 381 381 n94, 384

5:6 5:7–8 5:9–14 6:1–7:6 6:1–7:7 6:1–8 6:1f 6:1ﬀ 6:4 6:4–5 6:5 6:8 6:9 6:9–7:7 6:9–16 6:11f 6:14 6:15 6:16 6–7 7:1–7 7:2 7:3 7:7 7:7–20 7:8 7:8–10 7:8–14 7:8–17 7:8–20 7:11–13 7:14 7:14–17 7:15 7:18–20 Nahum 1:1a 1:1b 1:2–8 1:2–14 1:3b–5 1:4b 1:9–11 1:12 1:12–13 1:14 1:15 1:15–2:13 2 2:1–2 2:3–10

749 384–85 384 384–85 381 n94 381 384 382 n98 310 224, 382 n98 382 382 382 n98, 384 382 381 381, 384 382 n98 382 n98 382 n98 98, 382, 384, 385 381–82, 385 384 382 n98 382 382 n98 381 n94 385 384 381 385 384 381 n94, 384, 385 382 385 382 385 387 388 105 n5, 388 388 390 388 388 387 389 389 389 389 107, 389–90 389 389

750 2:8 2:11–13 2:13 3 3:1–7 3:1–19 3:4 3:8 3:8–10 3:8–17 3:14f 3:18–19

index of textual references 388 389 387 389–90 389 389 388 387 387 389 388 389

Habakkuk 1:1 1:2–4 1:4 1:5–11 1:6 1:12 1:12–17 1:13 1–2 2 2:1 2:1–5 2:1–20 2:2 2:4 2:5 2:6–20 2:8 2:10b 2:12–14 2:13–14 2:17–18 2:18–20 2:19b 2:20 3 3:1 3:1–19 3:2 3:3–7 3:8–12 3:13 3:13–15 3:16 3:17–19

391–92 392, 395 394 392, 394 392 395 392–94 394 392 394 391 393–94 392 162 390, 394–95 394 393–94 394 394 393 394 394 393 394 394 392–94 391 392 391, 393 394 394 394 394 391–93 394

Zephaniah 1:1 1:2–2:3

396–97 398

1:4 1:4–5 1:8–9 1:9 1:10–11 1:12–13 1:14–16 2:3 2:4–7 2:4–15 2:8–10 2:13–15 3:1–8 3:3 3:3–4 3:4 3:9 3:9–20 3:12 3:14–20 3:20

397 397–98 397 398 397 398 398 395 398 398 398 397 398 398 398 398 399 398 399 398 398

Haggai 1:1 1:4 1:4–11 1:5 1:8 1:9 1:12 1:12–2:1a 2:1a 2:1b–10 2:2 2:5 2:11–20 2:12–14 2:15 2:16 2:16–20 2:19 2:20 2:21–24

400 399 401 402 401 401 400 401 402 401 400 402 402 112 402 402 401–402 488 401 401

Zechariah 1:1 1:1–6 1:2–6 1:4 1:7 1:7–6:15 1:7–8 1:8–17

404 404 407 64 404 404 405 406

index of textual references 1:13ﬀ 1:14–17 1:16 1:16–17 1:18–21 1–8 2:1–13 2:4–5 2:5–17 2:6–13 2:8 2:9 2:11 3 3:1ﬀ 3:8ﬀ 4:1–14 4:6 4:6a–10a 4:9 4:9b 4:14 5:1–4 5:5–11 6:1–15 6:1ﬀ 6:8 6:9 6:9–14 6:9–15 6:11b–13 6:11ﬀ 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:15a 6:15b 7 7:1 7:1–8:23 7:1ﬀ 7:5 8 8:2–8 8:8–13 9 9:1 9:1–8 9:1–10:2 9:1–11:3 9:9 9:9–10

405 406 404 405–406 406 402–405, 409–10 406 410 406 405–406 406 406–407 407 438 404 404 406 403, 407 405–407 404, 406, 488 407 404, 408, 410 406 406 406 410 407 488 408 405–407 408 408 404, 408, 410 408 406 407 407 407 404 405 405 465 407 406 407 410 308, 410 410, 411 n127 411 411 408 311, 410

9:13 9:13–15 9:14 9–10 9–11 9–14 10 10:3–5 10:3–11:3 10:3ﬀ 11 11:4–17 11:8 12 12:1 12:1–13:6 12–14

751

13:7 13:7–9 13:8 13:9 14 14:1–2 14:10

411 410 410 411 410–11, 414 403, 408–10 410 410 411 410 411 412 411 411 410 412 362, 410–12, 414 410 412 410 410 410, 412 410–11 410–11

Malachi 1:1 1:2–5 1:6–2:9 1:11 2:1–9 2:7 2:10–16 2:12 2:15 2:17 2:17–3:5 3:1 3:5 3:6–12 3:8–10 3:11 3:13–4:3 3:13–15 3:14 3:18 4:1 4:4–6

414 415 415 416 311 75 415 416 416 415 415 412, 414–15 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415–16

Psalms 1 1:1

425 115

752 1:3–4 1–8 1–41 2 2:12 3 3–5 3–41 4 5 5:4b 6 6:9–11 7 7:1 8:1 8:10 9 9:1 9–10 10 10–112 11–113 14 15 16 18 19 19:1–7 19:6–7 19:8–15 19:8ﬀ 20 20–21 21 22 22:1 22:23–32 23:1ﬀ 24 24:1–6 24:3–5 24:7–10 28 28:6 29 29:1 30 31:20ﬀ 32 32:1

index of textual references 106 423 424 117, 422, 425–26 115 117, 422 425 424 426 117, 422, 426 117 117, 422, 426 117 117 426 125 125 105, 422–24 426 423 105, 423–24 423 423 46, 118, 424 111, 118, 244 426 46, 76, 109, 134, 289, 422–23 118 424 106 424 422 117, 422, 425 426 117, 422, 425 117, 422 426 117 106 118, 244 103, 424 111 424 117, 422 117 134, 420, 426 104 117, 426 117 422, 426 115

33 33:2–3 34 35 37 37:16–17 38 39 40:14–18 41 42 42:2 42:5 42:6 42:12 42–43 42–49 42–72 42–83 43 43:3–4 43:5 44 44–45 45 45:1 46 47 47:9 49 50 50:16–20 51 51:16–17 51:18–19 51–71 52–55 53 56:11 56–60 57:8–12 60 60:7–14 61 65 65:10–14 66 67 68 68:9 69 70

422, 424 116 425 425 437 104 422, 425 422 424 424 424, 426 106 118 105 105 105, 422 424 424 424 424 118 105 117, 422 426 117, 422 426 422 117, 422 118 437 47, 234, 424–25 236 117, 119, 422, 425, 553 104 65 424 426 46, 118, 424 117 426 424 117, 422 76, 424 422 422 106 422 422 109, 422, 426 224 117, 422 425

index of textual references 70:2–6 72 72:20 73 73–83 73–89 74 74:13–14 74:14 76 78 79 80 81 81:7–17 81:9–10 81:11 83 84 84–85 84–89 86 87–88 88 88–89 89 89:11 90 90:1 90:15 90–106 90–118 91 92 93 93–99 95:7b–11 96 96:11–13 96–99 98:1 98:4–8 98:5–6 98:8 98:9 100 101 102 103 104 105 105:1–15 105:40

424 117, 422, 424, 426 425 437 424 424 117, 422, 426 126 32 422 128, 422, 426 117, 422 47, 117, 422 47, 234 115 236 220 422 118, 422 424 424 422, 424 424 422 426 424 25, 126 422 424 613 n64 424 424 681 425 117, 422 424 115 423 106 117, 422 116 116 116 106 116 118, 422, 425 424 422, 426 422, 424 191, 421–22 422 423 222

106 107 107:8 107:15 107:21 107:31 107–150 108:2–14 108:7–14 108–110 110 111:10 113 113–118 114 114–115 115 116 116:1–9 116–145 117 117–146 118 118:1–4 119 120–134 124 126 129 130 130:1–6 130:6 132 132:8 134 135 135:1–3 135–136 136 137 137:7 138–145 139:8 140:13 140–143 142 145 145–150 146 146–150 147 147:1–11

753 422, 424 117 105 105 105 105 424 424 76 424 105 n6, 117, 134, 204 n115, 422, 426 114 422–23 424 106, 422–23 423 423 117, 422–23 423 423 116, 422 423 116 116 105, 118, 422 118, 422, 424 422 426 422 117, 422 118 108 422 118 422 116, 422 116 424 116, 422, 549 420, 422, 426 373 425 420 117 422 426 116 422 423, 682 425 116, 423 423

754 147:7 147:12–20 148 148–150 149:3 150 151 151:6–7 151–155 154–155 Job 1:1 1:1–2:10 1:1–2:13 1:3 1:6–12 1:21 2:1–7 2:10 3 4–5 4–14 6:4 7:12 8 8:4 9:15 9:17–18 9:22–24 11 11:7–9 12:9b 15 15:8 15–21 16:9–14 16:18–22 16:19 16:19–21 18 19:25 19:25–27 20 22 22–27 24:1–15 24:18–25 25 25:2–6 26:5–14 26:12 27:2

index of textual references 116 423 116, 549 423 116 116, 424 423, 427, 514, 680 680 680 427 430 434 n21 433 430 435 432–33 435 427, 432–33 433 433 433 431 431 433 435 432 431 430, 432 433 432 438 433 432 433 431 431 432 432 433 432 431–32 433 433 433 434 433 433 433 434 25 430

27:7–10 27:7–23 27:11–12 27:13–23 28 28:1–28 28:28 29:1–31:40 29–31 31 32:1–6a 32:6b–22 32–37 32ﬀ 33 33:4 34 35 36:1–37:24 36:8–10 38 38:1–39:33 38:1–39:35 38–41 38ﬀ 39:1–33 39:34–38 39:36–39 40:1–9 40:1–41:25 40:2–9 40:5 40:10–19 40:20–41:25 42 42:1–6 42:3 42:5 42:6 42:7 42:7–9 42:7–17 42:10–17 42:12–17 Proverbs 1:1 1:1–7 1:2–7 1:6 1:7 1:7a 1:8

433 434 434 433 434–35, 541 432 114, 435 434 436 433, 436 434 434 436 436 434 192 434 434 434 436 434, 436 437 437 107, 434 431, 436 437 434 437 437 437 437 96 n63 436 436 437 96, 434–35, 437 97, 431, 435 431 431, 435 432 435 433–34 437 435 444 443 445 115 114 446 442

index of textual references 1:8–9:18 1:8–19 1:10 1:15 1:20–33 1–9 2 3:13 3:13–20 3:21–35 4:1 4:1–9 6:1–19 6:16–19 7:6ﬀ 8 8:22–31 8:30 8:32 8:34 9 9:10 9:10a 10:1–22:16 10ﬀ 11:1 11:7 12:24 14:7 14:21b 16:9 16:10 16:12–13 16:20b 20:8 20:26 20:28 21:1 22:11 22:17–24:22 22:17ﬀ 24:23–34 24:30–34 25:1 25:2–7 25–29 25ﬀ 26:7–9 27:1 28:14a 29:18b 30:1 30:1–14 30:15–33

443 445 442 442 445 115, 445, 682 445 115 445 445 442 445 445 114 115 445 532 445 115 115 445 114, 438 446 443 444–45 444 114 114 114 115 446 444 444 115 444 444 444 444 444 443–45 442, 444 443–44 115 63, 162, 444 444 443–45 444 114 115 115 115 445 443–45 443–44

30:21–23 31:1 31:1–9 31:10–31

755 114 445 443–45 443–45

Ruth 1:1 1:16 1:20 2:12 4:3 4:7–8 4:10 4:12 4:17 4:17b 4:18 4:18–22 4:18–23

449 449 125 450 451 450 449 450 n41 124 450, 451 450 n41 450, 451 450 n41

Song of Songs 1:1 1:2–2:6 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:12 1:16 2:7 2:7–3:5 3:5 3:6–5:1 3:6–11 3:7 3:9 3:10 3:11 4:13 5:2–6:3 5:8 5:16 6:4 6:4–7 6:4–8:3 6:13 8:4 8:4–14 8:6 8:11–12

453 455 453 n48, 454 456 454 453 n48, 454 454 456 455 456 455 455 453 453, 456 n57 456 453, 454 456 n56 455 456 456 456 456 455 454 456 455 451 453

Qoheleth 1:1 1:2 1:3

459, 461 460–61 457

756 1:3–3:15 1:3–11 1:12 1:12–2:26 2:5 2:11 3:1–4:16 3:14 3:17a 4:17 5:6 5:9–6:9 6:10–8:1 8:2–4 8:5 8:10–9:12 8:11 9:2 11:9–12:7 11:9b 12:2–7 12:8 12:9–11 12:10 12:11 12:12–14

index of textual references 460 460 459 459–60 460 n60 459 460 462 461 460 462 461 461 459 461 461 460 n60 460 460–61 461 106 460–61 461 461 114 461

Lamentations 1 1:1 1–4 2 2:1 2:5 2:14 2:17 2–4 3 3:25–39 3:29 3:31–33 3:40–47 4 4:1 4:17 4:19 4:20 4:21 5 5:7 5:21

464–65 463 105 464 463 462, 465 465 465 465 464 464 465 465 464 464 463 464 464 463–64 373, 430 n13 463–65 464–65 465

Esther 1 1:1

468, 545 469

1:4 1:5–6 1:9 1:14 1:22 2:1–18 2:5 2:6 2:19–23 3 3:1 3:7 3:13 4 4:14 4:16 4:17 5 5:6 6 6:1ﬀ 7 8 8:8 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:17 9:11ﬀ 9:17 9:19 9:20–10:3 9:24 9:26 9–10 10:3 10:4–16:24 Daniel 1 1:1–2:4a 1:5 1:7 1:18 1–3 1–6 2 2:1 2:4a 2:4b–7:28 2:4b–49 2:20 2:23 2:34

470 469 470 469 470 468 472 469 468 468 472, 546 470 469, 545 468 471 468 545 469 468 469 471 469 469 470 469 472 545 471 470 470 470 470 470 470 469, 471 545 545 476, 479, 549 480–81 479 125, 549, 647 479 480 475, 479–80 476, 478, 480, 482, 668, 690 479 481 54 n1 480 519 n12 519 n12 476

index of textual references 2:37 2:47 2:48 2–6 2–7 3 3:23 3:24 3:25–45 3:31–4:34 3:38 3:52–90 3–6 4 4:1–24 4:25–30 4:30 4:31–34 4:49–60 4–6 5 5:1–30 5:11 5:12 5:25 6 6:1–29 6:6 7 7:1–28 7:7–8 7:13 7:27a 7–8 7–12 8 8:14 8–12 9 9:4–19 9:5–19 9–12 10:1–12:3 10:21 11 11:32 11:40–45 11:45 12 12:1–3

519 n12 479 479 479 480 476, 479, 549, 550 549 549 549 671 74 n8 549 480 476–77 480 480 476 480 519 n12 475 475, 477, 479, 668 480 540 n56 115 477 n79 475, 551 480 562 475, 478–79, 480–83, 598, 689–90 480 615 483, 615 472 480 475, 480 475, 475 n74, 480 479, 481 479–81 478 118, 541 541 n58 480 478 478 475 n74 479 482 481 479, 549 479

12:11–12 13 14 Ezra 1:1 1:1–3a 1:2–4 1:3b–11 1:9–11 1:11 1–2 1–6 2 2:1–2 2:1–67 2:63 3 3:1ﬀ 3:2 3:3 3–14 4:1–3 4:1–5 4:6 4:6–23 4:7–6:12 4:7–23 4:7–24 4:8–6:18 4:9–16 4:17–22 4:24–6:18 4–5 5:1 5:1–10:44 5:7–17 5:13–15 6:3–5 6:3–12 6:14 6:18 6:19–22 7:1–26 7:6 7:8 7:9 7:10 7:11 7:12 7:12–26 7:14 7:21 7:26

757 479, 481 549 549, 551 n70 494 483, 518 n6 123, 488 518 n6 488 488 n91 488 487–88, 494 122 488 n91 488 112 488 400 612 494 611 489 489 488, 518 489 489 488 518 n6, 519 54 n1, 487 488 488 489 122 400, 404 518 n6 488 488 123, 488 488 400, 404 491–92 489 490 143 n13 489–90 490 491 491 489 54 n1, 487, 488–89, 491 491 489 492

758 7:27–9:15 7:28–29 7–10 7ﬀ 8 8:1–14 8:9 8:15 8:17 8:24–30 8:31 8:32–34 9:1–5 9:6–15 9:6–37 9:37–55 9–10 10 10:1–44 10:9 10:13 10:18–43 12:32 Nehemiah 1:5–11 1–2 1–3 1–6 1–7 2:8 2:10 2:19 2:19–20 3 3:35 4:1 4:1–3 4:1ﬀ 4:4–5 4:7–8 4–5 4–6 4–7 5:1–5 5:14 5:19 6 6:1 6:1–14 6:14 6:16 6:17–19

index of textual references 490 690 487, 489, 491, 494 128 490–91 490–91 372 n89 491 491 491 490 491 490 118 490 518 n6 490–91 490 490 490–91 491 490 690 118 128, 492 493 494 487, 518 494 493–94, 510 510 494 122, 492 510 510 494 493 493 494 493 492 128 415 493 493 493 492 n101 495 493 493 495

6:19 7 7:1–5 7:6–68 7:6–72 7:72–8:13a 7:72–8:14a 8 8:1 8:1–13 8:2 8:10a 8:13 8:18 8:19 8–9 8–10 8–13 9 9:6–37 9:15 10 10:5 10:30 10:31a 10:31b 10:34 11:1–2 11:3–20 11–13 12:1–5 12:1–26 12:3–43 12:4 12:10–11 12:16 12:25 12:26 12:27–30 12:31–43 12:33 12:36 12:44–13:3 13 13:1 13:4–31 13:6 13:6–9 13:10–13 13:14 13:14–22 13:22b 13:23–25

493 122, 488 492 488 492 n102 518 n6 518 484, 488, 490–91, 518 490 64 143 n13, 491 490 n96 143 n13 484 64 485 487 494 490–91 118 222 492 372 n89 492 492 492 492 493 493 487 404 493 493 404 500 404 372 n89 490 n96 493 492, 493 490 n96 490 n96 493 128 491 492–93 493 493 493 493 493 493 491

index of textual references 13:23ﬀ 13:28 13:29 13:31

493 493 493 493

1 Chronicles 1 1–9 2:3–15 2:5–15 3:17–24 4:43 9 9:1 10–29 13–17 16:8–22 16:23–33 17:1–15 20:5 22–29 24:20 27:1–15 28:5 28:19 29:29 30:26 33 34:25 35–36

191 122 450 n41 450 500 177 493 7 498 485 423 423 499 7, 289 485 16 n24 499 485 485 7, 287 484 552 463 517

2 Chronicles 1–9 9:29 10–36 11:5–12

498 7 498 499

11:13–17 12:15 13:3 16:1–6 16:11 17:7 20:3ﬀ 20:34 21:16f 24:20–22 24:27 25:4 25:26 27:7 28:26 30:5ﬀ 30:10–12 30:18 30:24 30:26 32:30 32:32 33:12–13 33:18 33:18–19 33:19 34:3–7 34:33 35:1–19 35:8 35:18 35:20–36:21 35:25 35:27 36:8 36:22–23

759 498 7 499 499 7 372 n89 117 7 373 412 n129 7 143 n13 7 7 7 499 499 499 499 484 9, 499 7 518 n6, 553 7 518 n6 553 499 499 518 n6 16 n24 484 518 n6 463 7 7 483, 518 n6

B. Apocrypha III Ezra 1:1–20 1:21–22 1:21f 1:23–55 2:1–4:5 2:1–5a 2:5b-14 2:15–25 2:16–30 3:1–5:6 4:7–24 4:13 4:41

518 n6 518, 519 519 n10 518 n6 518 n6 518 n6 518 n6 518 n6 519 518 519 518 520

5:7–70 6:1–9:36 Tobit 1:2 1:15 1:21–22 1–4 2:10 4 5:17–21 5–12 6:1 11:19

518 n6 518 n6 523 523 509, 523 521 523 523 524 521 523 523

760 13–14 14:2b 14:5 14:10

index of textual references 521 520 408 n124 523

Judith 3:7 3:8 4:8 6:2 8:8 11:14 15:12–13

528 528 528 527–28 524 528 528

Wisdom of Solomon 1:1–6:21 1:1–15 1:15 1:16–2:20 2:21–4:19 4:20–5:23 6:22–10:2 8:7 10:1–21 11:15–12:22 11–19 13–15

531 531 529 531 531 531 531 532 531 531 531 531

Jesus Sirach 1:1–20 1–42 4:11–19 4:20–15:8 24 24:25 24:30–34 27ﬀ 31(34):9–12 39:4 42:15–43:33 42:15–49:16 44–49 50 50:1–24 50:22–24 50:27 51:1–12 51:12 51:13–19 51:13–20 51:13–30 51:23 51:30

537 537 537 537 537–38, 541 532 535 536 535 535 537 537 62, 537 536 537 538 535 537 537 681 537 n50 537 535 537 n50

I Baruch 1:1–14 1:15–2:5 1:15–2:19 1:15–3:8 1:22 2:6–30 2:26 2:31–35 3:1–8 3:8 3:9–4:4 3:9–5:9 3:37–38 4:5–5:9

540 540 n57 541 540 538 540 n57 541 540 n57 540 n57 541 540, 541 540 542 540–41

Letter of Jeremiah 2 5b 42–43

543 542 543

Additions to the Book of Esther A1–11 (11:2–12 Vulgate) 545 A12–17 (12:1–6a Vulgate) 545 B1–7 (12:6b-13:7 Vulgate) 545 C1–11 (13:8–18 Vulgate) 545 C12–30 (14:1–19 Vulgate) 545–46 D1–16 (15:4–19 Vulgate) 545 E1–24 (16:1–24 Vulgate) 545 F1–10 (10:4–13 Vulgate) 545 F11 (11:1 Vulgate) 545 1 Maccabees 1:1–10 1:11–64 1–7 2 2:4 3:1–9:22 3:60 4:36–61 4:46 5:62 6:55–63 7:43–50 8 8:17–18 9:23–12:53 9:27 13:1–16:17 14:41 16:18–24

556 556 559 556 556 556 557 556–57 74 n8 554, 556 556 528 556 655 556 74 n8 556 74 n8 556

index of textual references 2 Maccabees 1:1–10a 1:105–2:18 2:1–2 2:19–32 2:28 3 3:1–10:9 3:7–34 4 5 5:10 5–15 6:12 6:12–16 6:18–7:42 6:18–31 6–7 7 7:9

559 559 543 559 559 559 560 589 559 559 560 559 560 560 589 559 560, 583 559 560

7:14 7:18 7:23 7:28 7:29 7:33 9:6 9:28 10:1–9 10:10–15:37 12:43–45 13:8 15:12–16 15:36(37) 3 Maccabees 1:1–2:24 2:25–3:30 4:1–6:21 6:6 6:22–7:23

761 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 471, 560 562 562 562 562 562

C. Pseudepigrapha Letter of Aristeas 12–27 30 31 33–51a 51b-82 83–120 121–171 132ﬀ 187–300 193ﬀ 310 312–316

573 574 657 573 573 573 573 652 573 652 574 652

Jubilees 1 1:14 1:17 1:24 2–4 4:17–19 4:17f 5–10 6:34–38 11:1–23:9 23 23:31 24–29 27:13–18

577 581 408 n124 581 578 601 598 579 581 579 579 581 579 524

30:6–7 37:1–34:14 47–48 49–50

652 578 579 579

Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 1:2b–6a 584 1:7 584 1:11–3:12 583 1:13 584 2:4–4:4 582 3:13–4:22 583–84 4:2b–4a 583 5:1–16 583 6–11 582, 584 11:14 584 Psalms of Solomon 2 2:26–27 8:14ﬀ 11 11:2–7 17 17:7 17:12 17:22ﬀ 18 18:7

587 587 587 541 541 587 587 587 587 587 587

762

index of textual references

IV Maccabees 1:1–12 1:11 1:13–3:18 3:19–4:14 3:19–18:24 4:15–26 5:1–7:24 6:28–29 8:1–17:6 9:22 14:5–6 16:13 17:7–18:5 17:12 17:21–22 18:6–23 18:23

589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589 589

Sibylline Oracles 1 1–8 2 3 3:1–96 3:97–349 3:155–161 3:191–193 3:350–380 3:350–488 3:381–387 3:388–400 3:401–488 3:489–829 3:827 3–5 4 5 6 7 9 10 11–14

592 591 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 591 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 592

2 Enoch 1–2 3–21 22–35 36–38 51:3 59:1–3 61:4 62:1 67 68–73

604 604 604 604 605 605 605 605 604 604

1 Enoch 1–5 1–36 6–11 12–16 17–36 37 37–71 38–44 45:3ﬀ

596 596 596 596–97 597 597 597 597 597

Assumption of Moses 1 1:6 1:14 1:15 2–10 3:13 5 6 6:1

607 607 607 607 607 607 608 608 608

45–57 46:3 46:3ﬀ 48:2 48:2–3:10 48:4 48:6 48:10 52:4 52:6 55:4 56:6 58–71 62:1 62:7 62:9 69:29 71 72–82 83–84 83–90 90:9 90:28f 91:12–17 91:13 91–105 93 105 106 106–107 108

597 597 597 597 689 597 597 597 597, 690 597 597 598 n32 597 597 597 597 597 597–98 598, 690 599 599 599 408 n124 599, 601 408 n124 599 599, 601 601 670 600–601 600

index of textual references 6:2 6:6 6:7 6–7 7 8 9 9:1 10 10:8a 10:14 11 12

607 607 607 608 608 608 607–608 608 608 605 607 607 607

IV Ezra 1–2 3:1 3:1–5:20 3–14 5:21–6:34 6:35–9:25 7:25 7:28–12:32 7:118 8:20–36 9:26–10:59 11–12 12:11–12 12:28 13 13:3 14 14:49–50 15:57–59 15–16

611–12 612, 615 612 611 612 613 609 690 613, 621 613 614 614 615 616 615 615 615 615 611 n55 611–12

II Baruch 1–9 10–12 13:1–21:1 21:2–34:1 35–47 48–77 54:19 61:7 76:3 78–87 85:3

618 619 619 619 619 620 621 621 n74 623 620 616

III Baruch 2 2–16 3 4:15

623 623 623 624

4f 6–8 9 10 11–16 13:4 15:4 17 18 Testament of Levi 5:1–5 6:8 6:11

763 623 623 623 623 623 624 624 623

652 652 652

Life of Adam and Eve 1–17 631 8–24 631 25–29 631 30–44 631 45–46 631 46–47 631 48 631 49–51 631 Apocalypse of Moses 1–5 5–14 15–30 31–32 33–36 37 38–39 40–42 42–43

631 631 631 631 631 631 631 631 631

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 6 640 6:3–18 640 8:8 640 9:13 640 22:8 640 25–28 640 32:3 640 Paralipomena Ieremiae 1 641 3 641 5 641 6–7 641 8 641 9 641

764

index of textual references

Lives of the Prophets, 2:4

642

Testament of Abraham A A 11–13 A 13:6 B

642 643 643 642

Testament of Job 1:2–3 1:6

644 644

Apocalypse of Abraham 1–8 7 9–16 9–32 15

645 645 645 645 645

17 18 19 20:5 21 22:5 23 24–25 27 29–30 31–32 Joseph and Asenath 1–21 22–29

645 645 645 645 645 645 645 645 645 645 645 646 646

Sentences of Pseudo-Phocyclides, 103–104 646

D. Dead Sea Scrolls Damascus Document, XVI:3–4

577

Genesis Apocryphon (1QGenAp) 2 670 12 670 19–22 670 20:1ﬀ 670 21:15–19 670

Rule of the Community I:1–15 673 I:16–III:12 673 III:13–IV:26 674 V–VII 674 VIII–IX 674 X–XI 674

E. Flavius Josephus Contra Apionem 1:37–43 1:38–41 1:40–41 1:183–204 1:216 1:218 2:43

60 474 74 n8 657 657 651 657

Jewish Antiquities 1: 18–26 1:159a 1:240–241 2:201–349 4:326 10:78 10:266ﬀ 11:297ﬀ

142 n13 657 657 654 142 n13 463 474 412 n129

F. New Testament Matthew 2:6 5 5:17 7:13–14

386 682 57 643

11:4–5 11:14 12:38–41 17:11–12 23:35

682 416 378 416 61, 412 n129

index of textual references 24:15 26:28 26:30 26:61

474 55 424 408 n124

Mark 9:11–13 14:24 14:26

416 55 424

Luke 1 1:5 1:8–9 1:17 1:32 1:35 7:22–23 11:29–30:32 16:16 22:20 24:27 24:44

116 691 691 416 690 690 682 378 57 55 57 57

John 12:34

57

Acts of the Apostles 2:17–21 8:32–35 17:2 17:11

364 330 57 57

Romans 1:2 1:17 4:3

57 395 184

4:9 4:22

765 184 184

1 Corinthians 9:16b 11:25 14:21

369 55 57

2 Corinthians 3:14 3:14–16

55–56 57 n4

Galatians 3:6 3:8 3:11 3:22 6:16

184 57 395 57 58

Colossians 2 2:3

670 597

Timothy 3:8 3:15

647 57

Hebrews 7:1–3 8:13 9:1 9:3 9:10 9:15 9:18 10:38 11:37

668 56, 57 n4 56 186 357 56 56 395 316, 583

G. Rabbinic Literature Mishnah Yadayim, 3:5

60

Tosefta Sanhedrin XII:10

453 n49

b. Baba Bathra 14b 15a

58, 61, 142 n13, 446, 463 463

H. Early Christian Literature and Church Fathers Acta Petri 24

584

De Civitate Dei (Augustine) 18:29 18:36

352 520

Stromata (Clement of Alexandria) 1:23 654 n118 1:141, 1–2 653 1:141, 3 651 1:141, 4–5 655

766 1:154, 2–3 5:85, 1 5:113, 1–2

index of textual references 654 n118 55 657

Historia Ecclesiastica (Gelasius Cyzicenus) II 17, 17 607 17, 27 607 21, 7 607 VII 32, 16–18 658 Praeparatio Evangelica (Eusebius) VIII 10:1–17 658 IX 17:2–9 655 18:1 653 18:2 655 19:4 653 20:1 651 20:2–4 657 21:1–3 653 21:1–19 653

21:15 21:16c 22:1–11 23:1–4 25:1–4 26:1 27:1–37 28–29 30:1–34 30:18 31:4–34:3 34:19 34:20 39:2–5 XIII 12:1–2 12:3–8 12:9–16

653 653 651 654 658 655 654 652 655 655 655 656 655 655 658 658 658

De Principiis (Origen) II 3:6

624

I. Papyri Chester Beatty papyri

80, 474

Oxyrhynchus papyri

521 n13, 611 n55, 618

Papyrus Bodmer XXIV

80

Papyrus Fouad 266

80

Greek Papyrus 458 ( John Rylands Library) 80