JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
388
Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University and Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge
Founding Editors David J.A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn
Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller
This page intentionally left blank
God's Word for Our World Volume I Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries
edited by J. Harold Ellens, Deborah L. Ellens, Rolf P. Knierim and Isaac Kalimi
T &.T CLARK INTERNATIONAL A Continuum imprint LONDON
•
NEW YORK
Copyright © 2004 T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint Published by T&T Clark International The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 15 East 26th Street, Suite 1703, New York, NY 10010 www.tandtclark.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset and edited for Continuum by Forthcoming Publications Ltd www.forthcomingpublications.com Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd
ISBN 0-8264-6974-4
CONTENTS Foreword by Rolf P. Knierim Abbreviations List of Contributors
ix xii xv
J. HAROLD ELLENS Introduction: Biblical Theology and Text-Critical Studies
1
BRIAN R. MCCARTHY The Characterization of YHWH, the God of Israel, in Exodus 1-15
6
JOHN WILLIAM WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
21
DAVID ROLPH SEELY The Image of the Hand of God in the Book of Exodus
38
DEBORAH L. ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
55
RONALD E. CLEMENTS The Former Prophets and Deuteronomy— A Re-Examination
83
AMIRA MEIR On the Study of Pentateuchal Poetry
96
J. KENNETH KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment in Biblical Poetry, With Special Reference to Prophetic Discourse
114
vi
God's Word for Our World
JOHN D. W. WATTS Two Studies in Isaiah
135
HYUN CHUL PAUL KIM The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1-43) in Isaiah 40-55
147
SIMON J. DE VRIES John Calvin's Contribution to an Understanding of the Book of Isaiah
172
W. EUGENE MARCH Guess Who is Coming to Dinner! Jeremiah 29.1-9 as an Invitation to Radical Social Change
200
SIMON J. DE VRIES The Interface between Prophecy as Narrative and Prophecy as Proclamation
211
WON W. LEE Balak: The Forgotten Character in Numbers 22—24
247
YITZHAK (ITZIK) PELEG 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown' (Jonah 3.4): Two Readings (shtei krie 'of) of the Book of Jonah
262
KENNETH E. POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David in Amos 9.11
275
ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR 'Old What's-His-Name': Why the King in 1 Kings 22 Has No Name
294
MARVIN A. SWEENEY The Portrayal of YHWH'S Deliverance in Micah 2.12-13 Reconsidered
315
Contents
vii
NAOMI STEINBERG Romancing the Widow: The Economic Distinctions between the 'almand, the 'issd- 'almdnd and the 'eset-hammet
327
ISAAC KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
347
The Work of Simon John De Vries
372
Index of References Index of Authors
380 399
This page intentionally left blank
FOREWORD Rolf P. Knierim
This work is a celebration of the career of Professor Simon John De Vries. His colleagues present the chapters in this commemorative volume with honor and esteem, on the occasion of his eighty-second birthday, 20 December 2003. This is not the place to write Professor De Vries' biography. However, it affords an opportunity to mention the illustrious stages of his Curriculum Vitae. This list alone gives cause for much thought and appreciation: his military service as a Lieutenant in the US Marine Corps from 1942 to 1946, his marriage to Betty Marie Schouten in 1942, his education at Calvin College and Theological Seminary and at Union Theological Seminary in New York where he earned his STM and ThD, his postdoctoral studies at Leiden and Tubingen, his positions as pastor during the 1950s, and as Professor of Old Testament at various institutions thereafter. Professor De Vries spent his life's career, 1962—88, as Professor of Old Testament at the Methodist Theological School in Ohio and is now Professor Emeritus. He continues his work as guest lecturer, research professor, and member of a number of learned societies in the USA and abroad. He is internationally recognized for his grace and wisdom, and for his meticulously researched and written published works. These phases of a rich career point to a life, filled to capacity, of vocational and professional involvement, of deep devotion and high achievement, in both the church and the academy, a life which deserves particular attention, admiration, and respect. Even so, the additional fact of his works published in print is nothing less than astounding. It belongs to a level of literary productivity reached by few anywhere. There is a list of constant publication starting with 1951 and continuing all the way until 2003, with the exception of the years 1974, 1984,1994, and up to the moment of this writing. These important works appeared in approximately equal numbers in each of those fifty years.
x
God's Word for Our World
Their total number exceeds 180, including seven major books and about 50 major research articles. He is, at this moment, in the process of preparing for publication three more books and three major articles. Striking in De Vries' published work is not only the quantity of his productivity, with its wide range of discussed issues and topics, but also its sustained high scholarly quality, especially noticeable in his exegetical biblical studies. Whatever his generally stated ideas or theories have been, which are by no means secondary for him, they are always developed from or backed by specifically studied aspects including full usage of the technical apparatus in exegesis. The same is true for his reviews of scholarly publications. Wherever he agrees or differs from the original author, he demonstrates the result of a circumspect and reliable study of what he is reviewing, combined with his own solid knowledge of the subject under discussion. To be sure, Professor De Vries has, throughout his scholarly life, above all been an heir to the legacy of the classical literary-critical, transmissionhistorical, and tradition-historical school. Whether more or less in the center, this legacy remains indispensable. It continues, fortunately, to be carried on by a solid segment in biblical scholarship, including his contributions. As late as 1995, his massive book From Old Revelation to New demonstrates once more his painstakingly diligent labor in persistently progressing from detailed analysis to synthesis, and so consistently throughout the work. It is, again, the fruit of an ethos of personal discipline sustained throughout years and decades, and regardless of the degrees of popularity. What an example! More than 35 years ago, while still in Heidelberg, I read a review article by a scholar named Simon J. De Vries, who was then unknown to me. It was a critique of a book on a subject with which I was familiar. I was struck by the exegetical competence, balance, and incisiveness of that article. From then on, the name of that reviewer was in the store of my memory as that of one of the most important scholars in our field of Hebrew Bible studies. I consider it as one of the fortunate and enriching events in my life that my path has lead me into the path of his life, and that we have become mutually respectful personal friends, as well as collegial scholarly collaborators.. It would be preposterous were I to imply that I am the one, at least more than others, who is best equipped to write this encomium as a Foreword to this volume of studies. All of the authors contribute here to honor Simon John De Vries as the very senior scholar, teacher, and pastor that he is.
KNIERIM Foreword
xi
There are many who would have their own version of an encomium. I just happened to be one who participated in suggesting the idea of a celebratory volume in his honor. The merit for having taken up the idea belongs solely to Dr J. Harold Ellens. He carried it out and secured the publication of the volume, inviting the participants, processing the organization of the work, and seeing it through the complex publishing process. He belongs to the group of scholars, together with Dr Deborah L. Ellens and Dr Isaac Kalimi, who deserve the credit for the editorial work. I believe no one will object when, in conclusion, I speak in the name of all our contributors to this volume, expressing to Professor Simon John De Vries our indebtedness and admiration for his life's well done effort, and wishing for him and his wife Betty happiness, energy, and contentment as long as life is granted them.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB ABD AKM ANEP
ANET AOAT ArOr AThANT BBB BBET BOB
BHS Bib BIOSCS BJS BKAT
BO BSOAS BWANT BZ BZAW BZNW CBQ CBSC CHANE ConBOT CRBS EBib EJL EncJud EvTh FAT FOTL FRLANT
Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954) James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archiv orientdlni Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Bonner biblische Beitrage Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Biblica Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bibtiotheca orientalis Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African) Studies Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift BeiheftezurZ4ff Beihefte zur ZNW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Culture and history of the ancient Near East Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Etudes bibliques Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and its Literature Encyclopaedia Judaica Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
Abbreviations GKB GKC
HAL AT HAT
HA WAT HCOT HSM
HTR HUCA ICC
IDE IDBSup Int JAAR JAOS JARCE JBL JESHO JEOL JNES JNSL JPS JPSV
JQR JSHRZ JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup KAT KB KHAT KJV LCL LSJ LXX MT
NCBC NEB
NICOT NIV NRSV NTS
OBT
OIP OIL
OTP
Xlll
Wilhelm Gesenius, E. Kautzsch and Gotthelf Bergstrasser, Hebrdische Grammatik (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 28th edn, 1962) Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch, revised and trans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910) Ludwig Koehler et al. (eds.), Hebrdisches und aramaisches Lexikon zumAlten Testament (5 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967-1995) Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hebrdisches und aramaisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament Historical commentary on the Old Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) IDB, Supplementary Volume Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of The Economic and Social History Of The Orient Jaarbericht.. .ex oriente lux Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Jewish Publication Society Version Jewish Quarterly Review Judische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Kommentar zum Alten Testament Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (eds.), Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1953) Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament King James Version Loeb Classical Library H.G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn, 1968). Septuagint Masoretic text New Century Bible Commentary New English Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Version New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies Overtures to Biblical theology Oriental Institute Publications Old Testament Library James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
XIV
PMLA RB RevQ RIA RSR RSV
SAA SBL SBLDS SBLMS SNT SO AW
TDNT.
TDOT THAT.
ThWAT. TOTC TRE TS UF VT VTSup WBC WMANT WO ZA ZAW
God's Word for Our World Proceedings of the Modern Language Association of America Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Real Lexicon der Assyriologie Recherches de science religieuse Revised Standard Version State archives of Assyria Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964—) G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 197176) G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970-) Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Realenzyklopadie Theological Studies Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Veins Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Die Welt des Orients Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Ronald E. Clements, a renowned scholar in the field of Old Testament, resides in Cambridge, England Simon J. De Vries, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at the Methodist Theological School in Ohio, resides in Grand Rapids, MI, USA Deborah L. Ellens, an independent scholar specializing in the sociology of biblical law, resides in Claremont, CA, USA J. Harold Ellens, a distinguished New Testament scholar, minister and clinical psychologist who integrates biblical tradition with analytical psychology, resides in Farmington Hills, MI, USA Robert L. Hubbard, Jr, is on the faculty at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL, USA Isaac Kalimi, a renowned Old Testament scholar who integrates biblical analysis with Jewish lore, teaches at Case Western Reserve University, and resides in Cleveland, OH, USA Hyun Chul Paul Kim teaches Old Testament at the Methodist Theological School in Ohio, Delaware, OH, USA J. Kenneth Kuntz, a recognized authority on the Psalmodic literature, teaches in the School of Religion at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA Won W. Lee teaches Old Testament in the Department of Religion and Theology at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA W. Eugene March is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, USA
xvi
God's Word for Our World
Brian R. McCarthy is an independent scholar residing in Madison, WI, USA Amira Meir teaches at Beit Berl College, Beit Berl, Israel Yitzhak (Itzik) Peleg teaches at Beit Berl College, Beit Berl, Israel Kenneth E. Pomykala teaches New Testament in the Department of Religion and Theology at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA Naomi Steinberg teaches in the Department of Religious Studies at De Paul University, Chicago, IL, USA Marvin A. Sweeney, a leading Old Testament scholar, teaches at the Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, CA, USA John D. W. Watts, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Louisville Baptist Theological Seminary, currently resides in Penney Farms, FL, USA John William Wevers, a foremost authority on the Greek Septuagint and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto, currently resides in Toronto, ON, Canada
INTRODUCTION: BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND TEXT-CRITICAL STUDIES J. Harold Ellens
Brevard S. Childs brought out his first volume on the primacy of a canonical approach to biblical studies in 1979. It was entitled Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.' In that volume he wrestled with the developing problem of the time, the viability of Biblical Theology as a discipline. In his Preface he set forth the problem as he saw it: Two decades of teaching have brought many changes in my perspective. Having experienced the demise of the Biblical Theology movement in America, the dissolution of the broad European consensus in which I was trained, and a widespread confusion regarding theological reflection in general, I began to realize that there was something fundamentally wrong with the foundation of the biblical discipline. It was not a question of improving on a source analysis, of discovering some unrecognized new genre, or of bringing a redactional layer into sharper focus. Rather, the crucial issue turned on one's whole concept of the study of the Bible itself I am now convinced that the relation between the historical critical study of the Bible and its theological use as religious literature within a community of faith and practice needs to be completely rethought. Minor adjustments are not only inadequate, but also conceal the extent of the dry rot. (p. 15)
Childs emphasized in this work that he wished to create a new model for doing Hebrew Bible studies. His model 'seeks to describe the form and function of the Hebrew Bible in its role as sacred scripture for Israel. It argues the case that the biblical literature has not been correctly understood or interpreted because its role as religious literature has not been correctly assessed' (p. 16). Five years later Childs produced a similar treatment of the New Testament and in 1985 a follow-up study of his former work on the Old Testament.2 Significantly, he entitled this last volume in the set of 1. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). 2. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
2
God's Word for Our World
three, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context.3 His focus upon canonics as the proper method of doing a textual and theological study of the two testaments had matured. The important thing for him seems to have been theological reflection upon the Bible as canonical writings, not as a set of narratives about events or experiences reported by the practitioners of ancient Israelite religion or of the post-Easter Church. It is interesting that, whereas in the first of these three volumes he observed upon the death of the American Biblical Theology movement, in the third of these volumes he came round to an attempt at formulating an Old Testament Theology. When I first became aware of Childs' approach to biblical studies I was in conversation with Bruce M. Metzger at the 1979 convention of the Society of Biblical Literature. I had occasion to observe, in that dialogue, that if the quest for a theological and religio-historical understanding of the Judaic and Christian scriptures were to shift as radically as Childs proposed, from text-critical studies to canonics, students of the disciplines of scriptural studies would leave the fields of excruciatingly and meticulously careful linguistic text-analysis; choosing instead the linguistically less demanding, and more broadly conceptual, and philosophico-theological approach of canonics. I expressed the fear that in two generations of biblical scholars, the mastery of the exquisite skills and apparatus of literary, historical, form-critical, and redaction analysis, worked out so painstakingly over the last century, would be lost. Metzger seemed to affirm this sentiment, and the concern behind it. These fears now seem generally to have been warranted and the predicted state of affairs has come true. When we compare the popularity of work like the rather simple narrative studies and theological analysis of Walter Brueggemann, on the one hand, with the less popular but immensely more critical and crucially fruitful approaches of Form-Geschichte and Redaction-Criticism in the work of Rolf P. Knierim, David J.A. Clines, and Simon John De Vries, on the other, it is clear that the retiring generation is taking with it those finely honed skills; and the more popularized world of contemporary biblical study has been seized and trivialized by the canonics approach. Childs' personal address to the texts of the canon did not in itself completely devalue text-critical study. In his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture he emphasized the fruits such study had produced but 3. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
ELLENS Introduction
3
relegated it to a lesser role than it had had for half a century. However, by the arrival on the scene of his Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, six years later, he had moved away from an emphasis upon the text-critical disciplines as the foundation of biblical studies, and strongly towards the perspective that theological analysis of the scripture as canon was the proper source for understanding the documents of the two testaments. This approach has increasingly become the method and perspective of biblical scholars, with the exception of those trained in the generation in which Childs himself was trained, in the 1940s and 1950s, and who continue to produce works which employ the full range of text-critical disciplines. Among these latter scholars, the work of Simon John De Vries stands out as a pinnacle of achievement in the world of traditional-historical, redaction-critical, and literary-exegetical scholarship. De Vries is the author of a series of book-length studies that demonstrate this in a remarkable way. In 1975 he published Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Time and History in the Old Testament? Three years later he wrote Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (I Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition:1 By 1983 his comprehensive volume, The Achievements of Biblical Religion: Prolegomenon to the Old Testament Theology, was ready for publication.6 From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction arrived on the scene in 1995.7 In the meantime he had also produced exegetical-hermeneutical commentaries on I Kings* in the Word Biblical Commentaries series, and 1 and 2 Chronicles9 in the Forms of the Old Testament Literature series. Childs' canonical perspective reflected his priority of interest in the role of the final form of the Hebrew Bible and LXX in shaping Rabbinic and Patristic literature. That shifted his focus from a critical assessment of the 4. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Time and History in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: SPCK, 1975). 5. Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (I Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). 6. Achievements of Biblical Religion: Prolegomenon to the Old Testament Theology (Washington: University Press of America, 1983). 7. From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). 8. 1 Kings (WBC, 12; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985). 9. 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).
4
God's Word for Our World
narratives and textual products of the ancient Israelite religion, the main subject of the Hebrew Bible, to the role of the finally redacted canon in the formation of Rabbinic Judaism and nascent Christianity, in the second to the sixth centuries CE. De Vries' works stands in marked contrast to the perspective proposed by Childs. De Vries has a deep appreciation for the role of the Bible in the life of the church and in the formulation of the theological confession of the church. He also has a high regard for the function of the Bible as canon. However, his view and practice of biblical studies is focused upon the cruciality of a critical analysis of specific biblical themes and textual pericopes, with a view to understanding their roots and origins, their interpretation in terms of those roots and origins, their function in ancient Israelite religion, and the import of the manner in which they were redacted at various times, particularly during and after the Babylonian exile. Out of this he draws an integrated view of the meaning of the texts. De Vries seems always to be answering the question: 'What did the ancient Israelites think about how God was present in their history and what meaning did they derive from the perceptions that question afforded them?' For De Vries, this is a canonical question only after it has been a question put carefully and critically to each facet of the greatly varied and disparate fabric of the separate narratives that make up the total text of the Bible. Each of De Vries' published works, which Knierim in the Preface to this work indicated run into the hundreds, is a meticulous text-critical analysis of the specific texts in the Hebrew Bible which set forth and control a major theme of ancient Israelite religion. Thus they afford us a carefully developed foundation for conclusions regarding cultural and theological themes that reigned in and shaped that religion. Since Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as we know them today, all find their roots, themes, metaphors, and grounding in the literature of that ancient Israelite religion, De Vries has done us a great service in understanding not only the contours of that ancient world, but also the shapes and forces of our world today. De Vries' work stands boldly in the worthy tradition of linguistic analysis, and thematic interpretation. He is a consummate master of exegesis and hermeneutics. For this De Vries will be known and honored in the history of biblical interpretation. His type and style are hard to find any longer. He will be greatly praised for the kind and quality of work that he does. The direct relevance of and interest in his publications and methodology will last for centuries to come. Thus the products of his scholarship will have profound and sustained currency. He will continue to be praised
ELLENS Introduction
5
for the heroic stance in biblical analysis that he championed, modeled, and refused to give up, even when the tides of scholarly preference were turning in a different and less profound direction. As long as there remains even a minor interest in what the text of the Bible originally said and meant, where it came from, how it got that way, and why and what that means, honest and serious scholars will find it necessary and delightful to consult his works. They are a standard for method, and a paragon of scholarly achievement. It is this dimension and quality of the scholarly legacy of Simon John De Vries that has prompted so many scholars to join in creating this substantive series of studies in his honor.
THE CHARACTERIZATION OF YHWH, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, IN EXODUS 1-15"
Brian R. McCarthy
The approach taken in this investigation focuses not on the developments that gave rise to the Exodus text, nor on the equally important question of 'what really happened', but on the text itself as it is encountered by users and students of the Bible, taken simply as a given, with the shape it happened to have when the biblical collection was sacralized and its texts 'frozen'. Among the various possible text-focused approaches the present one is distinctive in that its primary purpose is to bring out the implications of the story, with its plagues and its destruction of the Egyptian army, for the character of YHWH the God of Israel. The NRSV translation is used, with the exception that 'Lord' is replaced by the tetragrammaton and/or the expressions, 'the God of Israel' and 'this God'. The traditional 'Lord' is a title and hence an inappropriate substitute for a name. Further it is a weak word with a fluid spectrum of meanings. The traditional Christian name 'Old Testament' is avoided. 'Original Testimonies' would be better, but would probably be a distraction, and this is not the place to argue for it; and so 'Hebrew Scriptures', favored by the NRSV, is used. The Character of the Narrative The narrative of Exodus 1-15 is generally read as a major episode in a national epic, a story where Israel sees who and what it is, and why its continued existence is of the greatest significance, given that this corresponds to the will of the great God YHWH; an identity story which has played a major role in the survival of the Israelites/Jews as a distinct people * This study takes up one of the points noted as problematic in the brief programmatic piece, 'Response: Brueggemann and Hanson on God in the Hebrew Scriptures', JAAR 3 (2000), pp. 615-20.
MCCARTHY The Characterization of YHWH..
.7
from perhaps the time of King Josiah down to the present.1 It also gives the appearance of being a strongly ethical narrative. As this study proceeds the answer to the question of the validity of this perception will progressively emerge. Here the grounds for it can be briefly sketched. Simply stated, this appears to be a story of wrongs suffered by YHWH'S people and how they move him to intervene on their behalf. This theme begins to emerge already in the introduction to the story in 1.8-22, which speaks of the oppression of the Israelites, in the form of ever more burdensome forced labor. There is also here the story of the killing of the male Israelite infants which prepares for the story of the infant Moses but then drops out of the picture.2 The theme can be found, secondly, in the characterization of the young Moses through an account of three interventions in each of which he does not simply help kinsfolk, or act to make peace, but takes the side of the one who is wronged (2.11-17). This, along with his upbringing within the Egyptian power circle, introduces him as the right sort of person to serve as the instrument of YHWH'S liberating intervention. It is fully articulated in the accounts of the commissioning of Moses (2.23-4.17 and 6.2-7.7), where what moves YHWH to action is the will to deliver his people—the covenanted descendants of 'Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' (2.24; 6.2-5)—from the burden under which they groan and 'cry out', the same language that is found in the story of the first murder in Gen. 4.10. Three Questions Three questions may help us come to grips with what is theologically and ethically significant in the text. First of all there are many brief references in the Hebrew Scriptures to the intervention of YHWH, the God of Israel, to deliver his people from oppression in Egypt. Its unique importance is implied by the fact that both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 have YHWH 1. For a recent statement of this view of the Hebrew Scriptures from the angle of archaeology, see the Epilogue of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed (New York: Free Press, 2001). The Epilogue closes with the words, '.. .this single most influential literary and spiritual creation in the history of humanity'. 2. If this story of deliverance is ethical in character, the ethic in question primarily concerns a fundamental aspect of the human condition, work as a response to the reality of constant material need, and the right of humans to work for themselves and their families rather than have work extorted from them for the advantage of another; in a word, one basic form of oppression.
8
God's Word for Our World
initiate his covenant-making with Israel by introducing himself precisely as the author of this deliverance, thereby asserting a claim to Israel's wholehearted service; this service being characterized in the first place as obedience to the Decalogue with its fundamental ethics. Further, in quite a few places this example of divine deliverance is made the grounds for an embryonic ethic of social justice that goes beyond the Decalogue, 'Remember that you once were a stranger/slave in the land of Egypt, therefore...' (see, e.g., Exod. 22.20-23; Lev. 19.33-34; Deut. 5.15; 10.18-19; 15.12-15; 24.17-18). And so the first question is: If we approach the narrative of Exodus. 1-15 from these texts, do we find what we expect to find? The answer has to be: yes and no. For one thing, if—if!—YHWH is going to use violence, we might expect him to do so with some precision, using a carefully focused minimum. Given that this is a 'top-down' situation where the power-figure, anonymous Pharaoh, and he alone, makes decisions, we might expect to find some severe but temporary infliction of pain on him alone; followed when he finally yields by the application of some balm of Gilead. But this is not at all what we do find. Instead we hear of often brutal collective punishments which afflict the whole people of Egypt, a long series of them. And, we must ask: In this narrative, what have they done to merit such harsh treatment?. Secondly, although this may not be immediately evident, it will turn out that to understand this narrative one useful move is to come to see one of its most characteristic features—the plagues (wonders, signs)—as a problem. To start with, their number. From a purely narrative point of view would not three, in a purposeful escalation, have been preferable? And the first nine do not seem to go anywhere, do not seem to advance the story. They look like a shapeless sprawl. Correspondingly, is there not a sharp contrast between the YHWH of the first nine, cooperating with Moses (and Aaron) in a series that looks like it might go on indefinitely, and, on the other hand, the YHWH of the final one, acting on his own and showing himself a purposeful and resolute killer (12.29)? We can note at this point that this seems to be a story of slow learners. Pharaoh never seems to realize that he is in big trouble. Disaster after disaster strikes Egypt, and he may yield for a moment but soon he is back on track, saying 'no', thereby provoking the next one; on and on. And Moses is pretty slow. No less than four times he sees Pharaoh agree to let the people go, only to change his mind when the pressure is off. But Moses continues to trust him and to beseech YHWH to cut short affliction after affliction, each time before the people have been able to get away. He
MCCARTHY The Characterization ofYHWH...
.9
seems to be about the only personage of the ancient Near East who does not know how to drive a bargain. And YHWH seems just as slow as Moses, given that each time he answers Moses' request and removes the affliction! This, at least, is the surface impression. The third question arises from the fact that even a rapid viewing of the narrative reveals not simply references to the hardness of Pharaoh's heart, or to him hardening his own heart, but also explicit statements that Israel's God hardens his heart.3 And this suggests the question: Why not a narrative of the God of Israel delivering his people through softening+Pharaoh's heart? The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart When we read the narrative more closely we discover that it does not simply contain some incidental references to YHWH hardening Pharaoh's heart. This tale of repeated collective punishments is prolonged because YHWH is continually hardening Pharaoh's heart to assure that after each affliction he finally refuses to let the people go, so that the stage is set for yet another one. The series is as long or as short as YHWH wants it to be. It reaches its successful conclusion when and how he decides that it should. The hidden key is that, throughout, the apparently godlike power-figure Pharaoh is in reality a puppet in the hands of the God of Israel. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart is explicitly attributed to YHWH in connection with each of signs 6, 8, 9 and, with a delay, 10; but not in connection with signs 1-5 and 7. Concerning 1, 3 and 5 we simply read that Pharaoh's heart is hardened; and concerning 2, 4, and 7 that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. With regard to the tenth sign, YHWH does not harden Pharaoh's heart immediately, but only after he has let the people go. The purpose of this delay is so that Pharaoh and his army will have to go after them and thus walk into a trap. Here YHWH is playing with the Egyptians. But decisive for our narrative are those texts which assert that it is YHWH who hardens Pharaoh's heart: 4.21; 7.3; 10.1-2; 11.10.4 The first and last 3. This problematic idea of God determining someone to do evil is picked up by Paul (see Rom. 9.14-18), which was enough to assure it a long history in Christian theology. 4. Alternatively they might be read as meaning that YHWH is always watchful so that, if Pharaoh's natural obduracy is about to fail, he is there to assure the hardening. It amounts to the same thing.
10
God's Word for Our World
of these, made before and towards the end of the series of strikes, can be seen as bracketing statements: And YHWH said to Moses, 'When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go'. (4.21) Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; but YHWH hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land. (11.10)
This ability to determine Pharaoh's decisions worsens the problem of the multiplication of ineffective signs of power. YHWH could have effected the deliverance at any time, via even the least lethal of the plagues, or through a short, escalating series of minor ones. Even more clearly there is no need for the meandering nine. However, as we read this narrative we discover that, besides the deliverance of his people, YHWH has a second purpose, and perhaps this can make more sense of its at least apparent prolixity. Before going on to this second purpose it may be noted that the story can be read in two ways: either with the focus on the ongoing struggle between the two human protagonists, Moses and Pharaoh, and on the series of extensively narrated signs, or on YHWH, who in reality is the chief protagonist, masterminding it, controlling everything that happens. Between the two there is considerable tension.5 Of these two ways of reading (or hearing) the text, the former has a certain value, as far as it goes, given that it focuses attention on the materiality of the long series of afflictions; but finally only the latter is adequate. YHWH's Further Purpose As we read this narrative we learn that, besides delivering his people from oppression, YHWH has a more fundamental purpose, and perhaps this may 5. Users of this narrative, as distinguished from students of it, typically templegoers and church-goers, who mostly have heard it recited and who above all remember it, with all the selectiveness that characterizes memory, are likely to get caught up in the struggle between the two visible protagonists and the series of afflictions that eventuate from that struggle. In comparison with this drama, and with these graphically described public events, the hidden mental events where YHWH determines Pharaoh's decisions are unlikely to get or retain the attention necessary for them to be seen as the key to the whole story. (There is no indication that Pharaoh himself is ever aware of the divine agency.) Only a consciously God-focused reading or hearing of the narrative will keep users aware of the degree to which YHWH is the principal protagonist, present and determinatively active in its every moment.
MCCARTHY The Characterization of YHWH..
11
give shape and meaning to the ten-plague series: he also wants them, and the Egyptians, to know him. Already in 5.2 Pharaoh says: 'Who is YHWH? I do not know YHWH. ' It is safe to say that, by the time the story is told, this is no longer Pharaoh's problem. And then, in the second commissioning text we read, Say therefore to the Israelites, '...You shall know that I am YHWH your God who has freed you from the burdens of the Egyptians'. (6.7)
And, a little later: The Egyptians shall know that I am YHWH when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them. (7.5)
For the 'that you may know' motif, see also 8.10; 9.14; 10.2b; 11.7; 14.4, 18. Secondly, what YHWH wants Israelites and Egyptians alike to know is not his wisdom or justice or intelligence, but his power. The 'plagues' (11.1) are 'signs' (7.3 etc.) in the sense of demonstrations of power. And here we do not have to rely on interpreting the divine actions—because we also have YHWH'S own words. Having told Pharaoh that he could as well have killed the whole lot of them, he explains why he did not, For this time I will send all my plagues upon you yourself.. .and upon your people, so that you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth... But this is why I have let you live: to show you my power, and to make my name resound through all the earth. (9.14-16)
Like the Egyptians, the rest of the world is about to know YHWH not as a benefactor, but as a power figure who does not hesitate to afflict without purpose or with no other purpose than to make himself known for the sort of god he is. Thirdly, we learn that YHWH wants it to be known that he 'makes a distinction' between his people, Israel, and the Egyptians (8.23; 9.4); and that this is the reason why all the firstborn of the latter will die, Every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die.. .so that you may know that YHWH make a distinction between Egypt and Israel. (11.7)
This further specifies YHWH'S second purpose. Egyptians and Israelites alike must acknowledge not only his power, but also his sovereign freedom to choose whom he will choose; and they must recognize that by his choice he is Israel's God and Israel his people, and that he is not Egypt's God and the Egyptians are not his people. The full significance of this choice will become clear below.
12
God's Word for Our World
Finally, when we compare this second purpose of making himself known with the first one, we can see that it offers a larger scope into which the deliverance of his people can be fitted. This is how in fact YHWH'S envisaging of things is stated in several places. This is stated twice in the story of the deliverance of the people from Pharaoh's army, where the deliverance via the latter's destruction is an occasion for YHWH to gain glory and to be known by the Egyptians, I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and his army; and the Egyptians shall know that I am YHWH. (14.4; cf. 14.18)6
By this consideration, 9.14-16 gains special significance. It is the only place in this whole narrative where YHWH'S relation to his people Israel is placed in the wider context of his relation to humankind. Here we are afforded a unique glimpse of the worldwide scope of the purposes of YHWH and a clear view on the fact that, ultimately, he is concerned with his renown If YHWH wants to be known through all the world in his power and in his freedom to favor whom he will, then his drawn-out violent intervention to deliver the people whom he has chosen from the power of godlike Pharaoh is a very appropriate occasion for achieving this purpose. YHWH shows that he can take care of his people and can prevent Pharaoh from taking care of his people, humiliating him in the process. But, even in relation to this second purpose, the problem remains: there still seems to be an excess of punitive but ineffective signs and wonders. Is it possible the author felt that only such a succession of signs would make a permanent imprint on the collective memory of Pharaoh and the Egyptians? Before addressing this question, it is appropriate to examine the affliction which is finally effective in allowing the people to go free and in having them insistently invited to leave (12.29-33). The Killing of the Egyptian Firstborn The killing of the firstborn is the sign of power which leads to the deliverance of the Israelites, and it does so because YHWH decides that it should and because this time he does not harden Pharaoh's heart, or rather, only 6. This language of gaining glory' suggests that here, as in the reading of Deuteronomy as modeled on the Overlord-Vassal treaty, YHWH is modeled on the all too human power-figures of the ancient Near East.
MCCARTHY The Characterization of YHWH..
13
hardens it after they have left. It is mentioned in two bracketing texts already referred to, 4.21-23 and ch. 11.7 In the latter (vv. 4-7) Moses tells Pharaoh, Thus says YHWH: 'About midnight I will go out through Egypt. Every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the hand mill, and all the firstborn of the livestock...so that you may know that YHWH makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.'
In 12.29 YHWH is reported as carrying out this mass killing, At midnight YHWH struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.
We are told in 11.7 that this mass killing has the purpose of imposing on Pharaoh the recognition that YHWH, the God of Israel, makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel but this has already been said to him in 8.23 and 9.4. After nine collective punishments he surely knows it already. He has seen not only that this God is moved to action by the oppression of his people, but also that he has not the least concern for Egypt or its people. So this is not the full explanation of the killing, or perhaps this killing brings out more fully the implications of this distinction. At this point the narrative does not tell us all we want to know about the mind of YHWH, but only what he does, and so the best we can do is make some inferences from what is distinctive about this plague, and to imagine how, coming after all the previous afflictions, it would have been experienced by its victims. As we do so we need to remember that, in view of what has been said about YHWH'S ability to harden the heart, the question is not one of intrinsic efficacy in delivering the people. Rather it is one of the final impression that he wants to make on the memories of his two witnesses, the Egyptians 7. The comparison of these two texts reveals a flaw in the narrative. In the first it is a question only of the killing of Pharaoh's firstborn, and YHWH instructs Moses to let Pharaoh know that Israel is YHWH'S firstborn, 'Then you shall say to Pharaoh, "Thus says YHWH: Israel is my firstborn son. I said to you: 'Let my son go that he may worship me'.But you refused to let him go: so now I will kill your firstborn son".' Inch. 11 it is a question of killing all the firstborn of Egypt; and neither there nor elsewhere does Moses tell Pharaoh that YHWH considers Israel to be his firstborn. This latter idea is rarely mentioned in the Scriptures and its omission in ch. 11 suggests that perhaps it was taken up to create the contrast—'my firstborn, your firstborn'—but is then abandoned as the plague that is to be decisive is given the same all-Egypt scope as the previous ones.
14
God's Word for Our World
and the Israelites. Hardening the heart and determining particular decisions is one thing, creating enduring memories is another. There is no substitute for actual experiences. We note the following aspects of the narrative: 1. It is a story of directly intended mass killing. 2. Many of those killed must be infants and children. In fact those killed may typically be envisaged as infants and children. 3. The killing is done by YHWH, the God of Israel, in person and immediately, not mediated through the manipulation of natural phenomena. 4. Though it is a mass killing, it is not a localized massacre. It is spread throughout Egypt, affecting every family or at least every one that has a male child; extending even to the slave girl working at the mill and the prisoner in the dungeon. 5. Firstborn sons are uniquely precious to a family. 6. The massacre is thrown in Pharaoh's face by a Moses who seems positively strutting with chauvinism: 'But not a dog will growl at any of the Israelites—not at people, not at animals—so that you may know that the God of Israel makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel!' Apparently even the animals of the Israelites are more precious in the eyes of their god than are the Egyptian firstborn. How Moses gets away with talking like this to Pharaoh is not explained. 7. When this is compared with the destruction of Pharaoh's army that it leads to we can note a major difference. The killing of the army is in some sense rational—they are out to recapture or kill the escaping Israelites—and this stands even if they have been lured by this god into a trap. But the killing of the firstborn is gratuitous because they do not present a threat to anyone. 8. Finally it must be repeated that, unlike Pharaoh, the people who suffer this bitter affliction have done nothing to deserve it. They have to experience it as gratuitous, unmerited. We can imagine some alternatives that set in relief this Scriptural narrative of the death of the Egyptian firstborn. As was noted above, YHWH could and might well have destroyed Pharaoh and the whole Egyptian people (9.15). In contrast, the killing of the firstborn seems almost moderate! But we need to remember that if he did not kill the whole people, it was apparently because he wanted them to be unwilling witnesses to his incomparable power 'through all the earth', and not out of any consideration for their wellbeing.
MCCARTHY The Characterization of YHWH..
15
This story of the killing of the firstborn can be further set in relief by two contrasting scenarios. On the one hand the firstborn, instead of being killed, might have been inflicted with some grievous illness that threatened their lives and then, as soon as the Israelites are set free, must have been restored to perfect health—perhaps even those who previously had been sickly. On the other hand, instead of dying instantaneously, as our text suggests (see the 'about/at midnight' of 11.4 and 12.29), they could have died in prolonged agony.8 The surgical precision of the killing of the firstborn shows that this is not the YHWH who can barely control his wrath that Brueggemann and others have helped us to discover in the Scriptures. On the contrary, this is a very cool, precise and chillingly ruthless powerfigure. The significance of this perception will be expressed in the second of my two conclusions. Interpretation: The Characterization of YHWH We are now in a position to summarize how this narrative characterizes YHWH. We will first of all interpret it in its visible, incomplete form; and only then bring in the hidden dimension, known only to Moses, where YHWH consistently controls Pharaoh's decisions—'hardens his heart'—to see what difference this makes. We begin by considering the plagues, and the destruction of Pharaoh's army, in relation to his initially revealed purpose of freeing his people. Here we see (1) that YHWH frees one oppressed people by afflicting and oppressing another, and (2) that his oppression of the Egyptian people is extreme both quantitatively and qualitatively—with a long series of punitive strikes, climaxing in the death of the firstborn, which is followed by the destruction of Pharaoh's army, lured into a death trap.
8. If the author of Revelation had written the narrative of the exodus this agony might have lasted for months, and have been such that they would have wished to die (see 9.5). Revelation is one of the few biblical writings that picks up the theme of the 'plagues' (see also the Wisdom of Solomon chs. 11-19) and enlarges it to what it saw as the cosmic level (see the seven plagues of 15.5-16.21). If the exodus narrative is problematic, Revelation is much more so. Its Christ-figure is in some ways unique, but in others he is a typical apocalyptic figure. His mentality is quite remote from that of Jesus of Nazareth. Its God is much more cruel than the YHWH of Exodus. (And, of course, its intrinsic significance is greatly increased by its place as the last book in the Christian Bible, in which the great drama that originated with Genesis is brought to, if not exactly a 'happy ending', at least a victorious conclusion.)
16
God's Word for Our World
The conclusion is that if liberation were YHWH'S only purpose, and the series of afflictions simply the means to this end, he would have to be characterized as someone who achieves a worthy purpose through the unnecessary and unmerited infliction of great suffering. We have seen, however, that he has a second and larger purpose and we need to relate the plagues to it. YHWH seeks to make himself known to both the Israelites and the Egyptians, and he does so not by words and proclamations, but by actions which give his words their real meaning and their weight. This is a distinctive mode of revelation. The Egyptians receive the revelation directly, through a series of afflictions that they experience in their flesh; and the Israelites indirectly, as they witness the suffering of the Egyptians and contrast it with their own favorable treatment. Focusing on the Egyptians, we may ask: How would people who had been through such an experience envisage YHWH, the god of the Israelites, whom they knew to be its cause?9 Obviously, they would be convinced intimately of his power. But, conscious as they were that in their 'top-down' world Pharaoh and Pharaoh alone made the decision to retain or release the Israelites, their suffering would have been intensified immeasurably by the awareness that these repeated afflictions, bizarre and cruel in themselves, were also gratuitous, without cause, totally misplaced.10 Consequently, even more than YHWH'S power, it is his freedom of action that would have impressed itself on them. They would have known him as someone who favors whom he will favor, sparing his people the 'plagues' and finally freeing them and delivering them from Pharaoh's army; and also as someone who feels free to afflict and kill whom he will afflict and kill, visiting on them whatever he chooses to, without any 9. Either we are supposed to understand that the transactions between Moses and Pharaoh have generally been known from the start or, if not, we can see them becoming known with the fourth, fifth and seventh plagues: the fourth, where YHWH makes a distinction and Goshen and the Israelites are spared the flies; the fifth, where he again makes a distinction and the livestock of the Israelites are spared (9.4-7); the seventh where the actions of some of Pharaoh's officials to save their slaves and livestock from the hail make the transactions public (9.20). (What proportion of the people are we supposed to understand to have died in this plague?) 10. There is no reason to think that they know of the 'loathsome soars' inflicted on Job from head to toe, but surely they understand that such a powerful god could easily have come up with some form of progressively intensified sufferings for Pharaoh that would have been as effective in moving him to let Israel go as the spectacle of his people afflicted and his country devastated.
MCCARTHY The Characterization of YHWH..
.17
particular reason or justification; even the precisely targeted mass killing of their firstborn. Now they know the real meaning of the distinction he makes between Israel and Egypt. Now they know him as a god whose freedom of action seems to know no limits. Elsewhere the logic of the affirmation of the full divinity of Israel's God leads to the attribution to him of such qualities as justice, wisdom and goodness, but not here. Such putative divine qualities are incompatible with the affirmation of that sovereign freedom of action which in this narrative is, along with incomparable power, his defining characteristic. This has far-reaching implications. First, to show the Egyptians that their great and unjustified suffering is without significance for him is to show them that they are without significance for him. We may consider two further implications: if their humanity does not protect them from his afflictions, then no human being is protected from them; and, if their humanity alone gives them no significance in his eyes, then no human being has significance in his eyes. Or, rather, the only ones who do are those to whom he freely imputes it, such as the Israelites, when he chooses them as his people. Election can be to service or to privilege. In this narrative election seems to be to privilege in the radical sense of having value in this god's eyes, which only those have on whom he decides to bestow it. But even here there are disturbing implications that may have escaped its author(s): if YHWH is free to elect and to bestow significance, then he is also free to reject or withdraw significance, at any time and without any particular reason. How does the revelation to Moses of YHWH'S power to harden Pharaoh's heart affect the conclusions already drawn concerning this narrative's characterization of YHWH? His incomparable power has already been revealed in his ability to mobilize and shape natural processes to create afflictions. Now we see that he can reach into the deepest core of human personhood, the region where free and responsible decisions and actions originate and determine what will be decided, and can do so without the persons in question even being aware of what is happening, leaving them with the mistaken illusion of self-determination. Regarding the other defining characteristic of this portrait of YHWH, his sovereign freedom of action vis-a-vis human beings, the revelation of not merely his ability but his readiness to harden changes things considerably. Already the insignificance of human beings in his eyes has been amply
18
God's Word for Our World
manifested in his readiness to visit on them without cause manifold and grievous afflictions. Now, however, this insignificance is even more radically manifested in his readiness not merely to determine human decisions, but to determine them for evil. This apparent encroachment is perhaps even more expressive of his sovereign disregard for the value and dignity of human beings. His freedom of action with regard to human beings seems to be absolute. Answers to Two Questions Concerning the Character of the Narrative We are now in a position to revisit the question posed at the start of this study concerning the character of this narrative: Is the narration of Exodus 1-15, besides being a chapter in ancient Israel's identity story, also the ethical tale it appears to be? (See the section, 'The Character of the Narrative', above.) In view of what has been concluded in the previous section, the answer can be brief. If it is correct to see the divinity of this YHWH as characterized not only by incomparable power, but also by absolute freedom of action unformed by any orientation to the good, then this YHWH is essentially un- or anethical. And so, if he is the principal, all-determining protagonist of this story, then it too is un- or anethical. Further, if he were to make use of even the most benign means of making himself known in his power and sovereign freedom to the Egyptians—and through them to the Israelites and to the whole world—this would still be ethically worthless because it would have no use or value to humans. When he uses misplaced, gratuitous violence to achieve this purpose, this is not simply ethically worthless, but intolerably unethical, especially in view of the powerlessness of his victims. It is, moreover, entirely appropriate as revelation. The afflictions are not merely a message about him. He in his power and freedom of action is immanent in them, just as a human being who tortures another is immanent in his actions. The conclusion seems unavoidable that, despite its appearance of being an ethical tale promoting ethical values, this way of evaluating it needs to be abandoned. It should be seen instead as having a certain integrity as a tale of power and towering wilfulness. On the other hand, however, its appearance of being ethical does require an ethical critique. We may also answer a second question concerning the narrative, the one posed by its apparent shapelessness, with its nine assorted plagues that do
MCCARTHY The Characterization of YHWH..
19
not seem to go anywhere, followed late in the day by one which is decisive. (See the second question in the section above, 'Three Questions'.) The proposal can now be made that the series of plagues makes good sense when viewed as a 'program of affliction' whereby YHWH makes himself known to the Egyptians. Their apparent endlessness and haphazard nature contribute to their effectiveness, and the desired revelation is completed by the incisive final strike. In this hypothesis there is obviously no need that the preparatory afflictions be nine in number. And there is no need that they be precisely these ones in this order. All that is necessary is that they constitute a long, incoherent sequence, like successive bombing raids on a city. This very shapelessness contributes to their effect: one bizarre and ugly affliction after another, progressively building their effect, disconcerting people, wearing them down, leaving them with no resources to meet the final, devastating strike. In this narrative, if YHWH'S repeated afflictions of the innocent are not superfluous, it is precisely because through them he shows what sort of god he is.11 Concerning the slowness of Moses—and YHWH!—to learn, this is no more than appearance. YHWH wants Pharaoh to refuse to let the Israelites go so that the Egyptian people can be afflicted again and again. In fact he will assure that he does refuse, through hardening his heart. And Moses knows this. Neither is deceived. They seem to be playing with Pharaoh. Postscript One When I was growing up in Dublin a long time ago there was a popular saying. I did not realize it at the time, but it put into my hands a valuable key for unlocking much of the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. The saying ran: 'Jam—the kind you put on your bread—jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, never jam today'. That was ancient Israel's situation through most of its history as a small, vulnerable people, living in a dangerous area. The exodus narrative—often seen as the central focus of the faith of Israel—including its characterization of YHWH, asks to be read in this light. It has all the appearances of a compensatory projection+into the indefinite past, crafted for a people 11. If the proposal is accepted of the appropriateness of this prolix-seeming narrative to YHWH'S purpose of making himself known, this is a further confirmation that this purpose, and not simply the liberation of his people, is his larger and more essential one.
20
God's Word for Our World
who have been badly hurt time and again and who are acutely conscious of their vulnerability; and whose God has suffered drastic demotion and humiliation. It is a story about power written for a powerless people who too often have paid a grievous price for their powerlessness. Today, in the light of our common experience and, above all, in the light of the Shoah, the understanding of God as all-powerful gives rise to bewildering problems. What if we suspect that this idea emerged in the Bible simply as a function of the 'logic' of compensatory projection as manifested in narratives such as that of the exodus? Postscript Two Even if we leave aside the deeper, invisible level of this narrative, in which YHWH determines Pharaoh's choices, and compare equal with equal, we may say: 1. The YHWH of Exodus compares unfavorably with the God of the story that now precedes it in the Bible, the story of Joseph, where, in a crisis situation, everyone—Egyptians and Israelites alike— profits from Elohim's quiet transformation of him from being a spoiled brat into someone of maturity, integrity and great competence. He even knows how to forgive. 2. This god would not qualify as the 'Judge of all the world' of Gen. 18.25, who must act justly and make a distinction between the righteous and the wicked. This god only cares to make a 'tribal' distinction between one people and another. This god cannot be the prototypical liberator, the hope of all oppressed peoples everywhere. He is not intolerant of oppression, but liberates one people by oppressing another. 3. This god seems a total stranger to the Elohim of Genesis 1, who makes humankind in his image and likeness. What would be the point of being made in the image and likeness of this God? One would then be powerful, arbitrary and cruel, like him. However, the good news is that this God, YHWH, can grow and mature as in Proverbs 8 and 9, where he is the gracious, life-giving benefactor of all, perhaps due to the good influence of Lady Wisdom, whose company he is now keeping.
Two REFLECTIONS ON THE GREEK EXODUS John William Wevers
1. Practical Reflections on the Use of the LXX As someone who has spent most of his life in the study of the LXX, and more intensively for the last thirty-five years on the Greek Pentateuch (the original LXX), I have constantly been perplexed by the irrational ignorance, disregard, and misuse by many biblical scholars of what on the surface would appear to be the earliest extant commentary on the Hebrew Bible by the Hebrews themselves. So I make no apology for challenging the reader at a basic level, namely, a close examination of a piece of text to see whether it can help in understanding that text more clearly. I realize that for many this is preaching to the persuaded, and I plead for their forbearance, since my experience suggests that it would not be amiss to illustrate in the simplest possible way how one can benefit from a serious examination of this earliest exegetical source we have, written neither in Aramaic nor German, but in Greek. Since not all readers will have studied Greek, I suggest that one might take any English translation of the Hebrew text, or preferably the Hebrew text itself. I shall translate everything into English, and compare the Greek text1 with the Hebrew, that is, the consonantal text of the MT, usingBHS. For this study it does not much matter what piece of text one uses, so I have arbitrarily chosen ch. 1 of Exodus, simply because it is the beginning of the book. The book begins in Hebrew with 'and' but not so in the Greek. The Greek book of Exodus is an independent book with an independent translator. It is not attached to the book of Genesis, but has a separate name 'Exodus' in contrast to MT where it is simply part of the Pentateuch, and only for convenience is known by moderns by the first word or words appearing in the book. The intelligence of the translator is 1. The text followed is the Gottingen text: SEPTUAGINTA Vetus Testamentum GraecumAuct. Acad. Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 11,1 Exodus edititJohn William Wevers, adiuvante U. Quasi (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
22
God's Word for Our World
immediately apparent from his rendering of the participle 'those coming' (NRSV 'who came') by a perfect participle, 'those who had come' thereby showing that not only had they come, but within the narrative were still there. The term 'sons of Israel' occurs many times in the Old Testament both in the MT and in the LXX and almost invariably means 'the Israelites'. So too in Exodus. But here it does not; it means 'sons of a man named Israel'. This is clear in the Hebrew as well with its 'They came with Jacob', but the LXX makes this completely obvious by adding 'their father', leaving no room for misunderstanding. This is further emphasized by rendering 'each with his household' rather incongruously by 'each with their household' —this grammatical incongruity makes it conspicuously clear that this is the actual household of Jacob their father, and of his sons, that is, each of them with their household. On the names of the patriarchs in vv. 2-4 no relevant comment need be made except in two cases. Judah appears here not as' Iou5a as one might have expected but rather with the Hellenized ending,' louSas.This serves to differentiate between Judah as clan father, as individual, and that of Judah as the tribe. The tribe is always called'louSa by the translator. This distinction is purely LXX; the Hebrew always has nTliT. The other name is that of Naphthali. This appears quite correctly in the LXX, but most readers of the text in Byzantine times would read Naphthalim, which is the Hebrew plural ending. How this developed among the Greek copyists is not known, but it must have originated in the time of bilingual copyists who also knew Hebrew, since only such would have been tempted to add the 'w' at the end. It is not a real plural at all, since in Hebrew the Naphthalites are always called 'sons of Naphthali'. Verse 5 has two parts which the LXX transposes. The second part states that Joseph was already in Egypt. To the translator Joseph belonged to the list of the sons of Israel even though he had come to Egypt much earlier. It is only after that fact is given that the translator gives the total number belonging to Jacob, a statement that comes first in Hebrew. That number is given in Hebrew as being a total of seventy people. This would agree with the sixty-six souls of Gen. 46.26 to which four, namely, Jacob himself, Joseph and his two sons are added to make a total of seventy. But the LXX makes it seventy-five people. This is based on the Greek of Gen. 46.27 where it is said that Joseph had nine sons, thereby making the total number, by excluding Jacob and Joseph, seventy-five people. Clearly the Exodus translator wanted to be consistent with the Greek Genesis.
WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
23
He or she had good reason. After all, the Greek Pentateuch was an authoritative rendering of the Hebrew Bible for the Alexandrian community. That the Greek Pentateuch was also regarded as canonical is clear from the legendary Letter of Aristeas, in which there is a description of what happened after the translators from Jerusalem had finished their work. It was then read to the synagogue leaders who immediately declared it perfect, and called for a curse on anyone who would add or detract from or change anything in the translation for all times, a typical declaration that the document is the Word of God, as we know from the New Testament. And so the impulse to make it consistent with the earlier book is easily understandable. Now for those interested in the niceties of Greek grammar I might point out the fine use of SE vs. KCU as conjunctions used to render the Hebrew 'and'. Both clauses in v. 5 begin with 'and' in Hebrew, but LXX uses 6e because both show a change of subject. The subject of the first clause is Joseph, but of the second it is 'all the persons (souls)'; then v. 6 changes the subject again to Joseph and so the translator again uses S'E. Verse 7 illustrates this perfectly. The first changes the subject to 'the Israelites', and the next three clauses keep the same subject. Accordingly S'E is used for the first clause, but KOH for the next three. It would seem then that the use of these conjunctions is not completely arbitrary but is dependent on the context. In v. 7 the growth of the Israelite population is shown by four coordinate verbs in Hebrew: 'became fruitful, swarmed, became many' and 'became strong'. The Greek shows this growth rather differently; it has 'increased, became many, became common', and 'were becoming strong'. In Hebrew the verbs are all of one type—aorist or simple past. The Greek has the first three in the aorist as well, but the last one is in the imperfect, since this was understood as involving a gradual process of becoming strong; it was a steady growth in strength. The Greek also orders the verbal ideas somewhat differently; to the translator 'increasing' logically leads to 'becoming many' which in turn makes the people 'common' throughout the land, all of which results in the people becoming more and more of a force within the land. With v. 8 the emphasis in the narrative shifts to the protagonist who will remain throughout the first third of the book the figure of evil, over against God and his servant Moses: 'Another king arose over Egypt'. The LXX here idiomatically renders the Hebrew's 'new king' by 'another king'— ftaoiAeus irepos. In the following verse the word for 'people', DU, occurs
24
God's Word for Our World
twice in the MT, but the translator uses different words: for Pharaoh's own people the LXX uses e'Gvei ('people'), but the people of the Israelites are called y'evos, that is, 'race' rather than 'people'. The term ysvos- is probably used here to indicate a foreign people, since the Israelites were foreigners in the land of Egypt. Pharaoh's complaint is that they are H~l, that is, 'many', as well as DlliJJ, or 'strong'. The LXX has a somewhat different statement. The first one becomes 'a great many', and the second one occurs as a present tense verb 'be strong', probably understanding the Hebrew 01KI? as aparticiple rather than an adjective, which is fully possible in an unvocalized text. So the Greek reads 'the race of the Israelites is a great many and is stronger than us'. In v. 10 Pharaoh presents his plan for containing this foreign tribe. Here too the LXX shows real exegetical skill by introducing the particle ouv thereby showing the logical reaction to v. 9: 'the people are getting to be numerous and strong, so come, let us deal shrewdly with them, that is, outsmart them'. In the Hebrew the references to D# are all in the singular, that is, it takes 'people' as a collective noun. The Greek translates these throughout by the plural except for mT ('become many'), which it renders by the singular. This is not a mistake, but shows intelligent reflection on the part of the translator. One can outsmart them, they can join the enemy, they can engage in war, and they can leave the country. But persons do not become many, only the people can do so. The plural denotes the Israelites; the singular refers to the people as a whole. In the carrying out of Pharaoh's plan the MT has them, the Egyptians, appointing supervisors of labors over the Israelites. The Greek makes the verb singular; after all, Pharaoh is the one to make such government appointments, not the people. The LXX focuses on the actual oppressor, on Pharaoh, rather than on the Egyptians. The Hebrew distinguishes between two kinds of labors, the 'corvee' or conscription labor, and the supervisors who oversee these conscription labors. These supervisors in turn oppress the people with 'heavy burdens' or 'labors'. To the translator these are both work, and he uses the common word for 'works' in both cases. To the translator the distinction was purely academic. According to the Hebrew the people built cities of storage; at least the Hebrew word niDDQ is usually rendered in this way, thus 'storage cities, magazines for provender'. But the LXX never understood the word in this way, but always translated it by oxupocs, using the common collocation 'strong', or 'fortified cities'. They were to the translator cities built up
WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
25
for strong defence against possible attack rather than places for storing commodities. The Hebrew names two cities built by Israelite slave labor, Pithom and Raamses. The LXX also has these but adds a third one as 'On, which is Heliopolis'. The identification of 'On' as being Heliopolis is again based on the Greek Genesis. In Genesis (41.45, 50) Joseph's father-in-law is identified as being 'priest of On', which the LXX glossed by the interpreting gloss 'which is Heliopolis', exactly as is done here. Why the LXX added this third city is not clear; possibly it reflects some local Alexandrian Jewish tradition of Heliopolis having been built by ancestral slave labor. We simply don't know. Now it must never be forgotten that the Greek is a translation document, and the Greek must often be seen through Hebrew eyes. In fact, at times this translation character is betrayed by pure Hebraisms which would sound uncouth in places like Athens or Sparta.2 The MT has it here that the oppression through corvee work was a failure; the Israelite population kept growing in spite of the hard labors imposed. The reaction of the Egyptians is stated in the Hebrew as 'And they felt a loathing from the face of the Israelites', that is, because of the Israelites. The translator rendered this literalistically using CCITO to translate the Hebrew "]Stt; thus the Egyptians felt a loathing 'from the Israelites'; this doesn't make much sense in Greek, but of course what is meant is that the loathing was due to, was because of, the Israelites. In the Hebrew the subject is not expressly stated, though it is obvious that the people of Egypt are intended. The Greek expressly states it, adding 'the Egyptians'. In the following verse the term 'the Egyptians' is also used. The MT says that 'Egypt made the people serve with severity', which the LXX renders by the statement that 'the Egyptians oppressed them severely'. The verb is indeed more graphic in Greek than the rather colorless 'made to work' or 'serve' of the Hebrew. In the Greek 'the Egyptians' is used rather than 'Egypt'. Now the Hebrew name D'HiJQ can by extension also refer to its people, just as we use the name of a country to designate the people of that country. Actually, the consonantal name for Egypt can also be vocalized to mean 'Egyptians'. The name is pronounced misrayim whereas the word is pronounced as misrim when it means 2. This translation character has been explained cogently by my colleague, Albert Pietersma as following an interlinear mode, which constitutes a dominant pattern characterizing the LXX translation in general. See his forthcoming 'Psalms' in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford University Press).
26
God's Word for Our World
'Egyptians'. The latter word is extremely rare, however, in the Old Testament, occurring only five times in this plural form, and it never occurs in Exodus. The translator translates the word in either way, that is, either as Egypt or as Egyptians, distinguishing rather carefully between Egypt as a people and Egypt as a land or nation. Indeed, he uses 'the Egyptians' sixty-six times in Exodus, and 'Egypt' 106 times. When the reference is geographic, such as in 'land of, waters or, midst of, borders of he uses Egypt, but with such popular expressions as 'hand of, eyes of, hearts of, camps of he uses Egyptians. The LXX is thus somewhat more precise than is the Hebrew. Another exegetical insight which the Greek betrays in this verse as well as in v. 14 is in the use of the tenses. The MT simply uses the preterite or aorist form of the verbs: 'made to serve, made bitter', and then 'served'. The translator used the imperfect throughout here, in this way stressing the continuous nature of the imposition; he said: 'they were oppressing, they were hurting, they were enslaving'. Notice also the choice of verbs which differs considerably from the Hebrew. For the Hebrew 'made bitter' the LXX used a rare word which means 'to inflict pain' thus stressing the physical rather than the emotional result of the oppression. For the last verb where the Hebrew had used the same root as that of v. 13 (though a different stem), the Greek uses an entirely different verb so as to emphasize the servant or slave character of the labors which were being forced upon the Israelites. The last section of the chapter describes a further tactic on Pharaoh's part to decrease the population growth of the Israelites. Here the king of Egypt appears in the LXX as the 'king of the Egyptians', that is, as king of the people. The addressees are called 'Hebrew midwives', and the translator balances the two neatly by translating the adjective as a genitive noun, namely, 'of the Hebrews'. This sets up the contrast clearly between Egyptians and Hebrews, which is fully legitimate from the point of view of the first fourteen chapters of the book, even though the Hebrew does not make that distinction here. One oddity in the Greek Exodus is the fact that the translator gave the same name to the first midwife as that of Moses' wife, namely, lETr4>copa. The Masoretes distinguished between the two as mSE? sipra and mSH sippora. In my edition of the Greek Exodus I differentiate beween the two by giving an ultimate accent on Shiphra but a penultimate stress on the name of Moses' wife, namely, Zipporah. For Zipporah the -a ending is treated at 2.21 and 18.2 as a first declension ending, and the Hellenistic
WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
27
accentuation might be considered validated by it. The name Shiphra occurs only here in the Old Testament and the accent distinction, though admittedly arbitrary is useful. In v. 16 Pharaoh gives his brutish instructions to the two midwives. Precisely what the origin is of the figurative Hebrew phrase 'you shall see them on the double stones' is not clear, but the translator certainly understood what it meant by his 'and they should be at the point of giving birth'. Note that the preposition irpos is here used classically with the dative in the sense of 'near to'. The dative is used with this preposition only infrequently in Hellenistic Greek, later on losing out entirely to the accusative. The Greek also makes a fine distinction in the contrasting construction: 'if it's a male, kill it, but if it's a female keep it alive'. The first imperative is perforce an aorist command, but the second one is sensitively put into the present imperative. Preservation is an ongoing affair; killing is a single act. Incidentally the Hebrew is somewhat odd for the last verb. It is the verb meaning 'to live' and it appears to be in the third masculine singular. But its subject can only be the word PQ, meaning 'daughter', which is feminine, the Hebrew having son and daughter rather than the Greek 'male and female'.3 The Greek makes good sense by making the verb transitive and in the plural imperative with an added 'it' as object, that is, 'keep it alive'. The Samaritan text4 solves the apparent difficulty in the Hebrew by making the verb feminine—'it (the daughter) shall live'. The Greek is stylistically the finer solution, since it makes the statement fully parallel to that on the male child. It is characteristic of the Greek Exodus that though not bound by the language of the parent text it does try to reflect the sense of it. In the midwives' reaction the Hebrew says 'the midwives feared God and did not act as the king of Egypt had said to them'. Of course, when the Egyptian king says something it's an order, and the LXX calls a spade a spade; it says 'as the king had commanded them'. And yet it can reflect in interesting ways changes in the Hebrew. In v. 17 the MT had the peculiar form 'keep it alive'. Here the same verb occurs but in the transitive or piel stem. But the LXX had already made that verb transitive, so to show that the Hebrew had changed the translator here used an entirely different Greek verb meaning roughly the same thing 'preserve alive'. 3. But this need not be the case. See, e.g., C. Houtman, Exodus (4 vols.; Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1986), I, p. 242, for a more likely analysis. 4. A. von Gall, Der hebryauische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1918).
28
God's Word for Our World
It is no surprise that the evil king then called the midwives in to explain their actions. 'Why...have you preserved alive the male children?' The Hebrew here introduces a new word, D'H'T, which is the regular word for children; it is a word that can be inflected as masculine or as feminine. Here the masculine form naturally reflects the male offspring, but the translator simply used the word 'males' as he had done earlier in the case of 'son' in the MT. After all, that was the whole point of Pharaoh's orders. By eliminating all Hebrew males eventually a pure Hebrew stock would entirely disappear. For the midwives' reply the translator found the last clause in the Hebrew, 'and they give birth', difficult, and so he recast the entire reply. The MT begins with a causal particle 'for'. The LXX disregarded this, simply beginning with 'Not like the women of Egypt are the Hebrew women'. The Hebrew then continues with another causal clause: 'for they are healthy; before the midwives arrive they give birth'. The Greek removes the implied criticism of Egyptian women by substituting for 'they are healthy' the verb 'they give birth'. The causal clause then reads: 'for they give birth before the midwives arrive'. But this now leaves the last clause 'and they give birth' as a kind of useless appendage, which problem the LXX more or less solves by changing the tense to the imperfect. So the whole reply in the Greek reads: 'Not like the women of Egypt are the Hebrew women; for they are bearing before the midwives arrive, and were already giving birth'. Verse 20 also illustrates the care with which the translator interpreted his text. The Hebrew verbs are all in the preterite tense: 'and he prospered, and it (i.e. the people) multiplied' and 'they became strong'. Since 'the people' are obviously the subject of the last two verbs, once as a singular collective, and then as a plural concept, the Greek makes both verbs singular. But of greater interest is the fact that these preterite verbs are all rendered by the imperfect. So God was (continually) prospering the midwives, and the people were (constantly) increasing, and becoming (much) stronger. That is what the LXX says. Verse 21 illustrates another way in which this translator deals with the Hebrew. The MT begins with TH ('and it happened'). This is an extremely common introduction in Hebrew narrative, and it used to be translated in the KJV by 'and it came to pass that', which is much better Hebrew than English. In the Greek Exodus this is never rendered except when it designates either time or place; for example, 'and it happened on the next day that'. So here too it is tastefully omitted, and the Greek simply begins with 'Since the midwives feared God'. But then in the apodosis the Greek
WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
29
changes the sense of the MT entirely. The MT says: 'he (i.e. God) made for them (i.e. the people) households'. In other words, the verse is considered to be a commentary on the preceding verse where God's prospering of the midwives consisted of the people's growth. This apparently did not fit what the translator thought the passage really meant to be saying. The verb is made plural so that the midwives become the subject; 'for them' becomes a feminine reflexive pronoun, eotuTois; what the Greek then means is 'they (the midwives) made for themselves households'. So the verse really means that the fear of God produces offspring. In other words, being a good religious person means prosperity—a typical wisdom idea. In the final verse of the chapter Pharaoh enters a new stage of oppression. Now all his people are to take part in the slaughter of Hebrew newborn males; they are to be thrown into the river. The MT does not have the word 'Hebrew', though, of course, that is what Pharaoh meant. It seems to me that this detailed exercise has taught us a number of things, not only about the Greek but also about Exodus ch 1. As I said at the beginning of this study the LXX is the earliest commentary that we have on the Old Testament. Here is reflected what the Alexandrian Jewish translator thought the Hebrew text to mean, and for anyone who is really serious about wanting to understand the Old Testament I commend the use of the LXX as probably the most valuable tool that we have for understanding the Hebrew text. I suggest that this tool is a far better one than any modern commentary that you can buy, because it is a primary document born to fill the needs of a third-century BCE Jewish community who like us needed help to understand what the Hebrew scriptures meant. At times the LXX gives us insights which clarify not only, but even go beyond the Hebrew. One thing seems to me clear. These ancients were no fools who made all kinds of silly mistakes; they knew what they were doing; they made sense even when their parent text was difficult to interpret. They may have been wrong, but they did not write gibberish. And may I suggest that before we brand their insights to be wrong we humbly recognize two things: the Alexandrian Jew spoke Hellenistic Greek fluently; he knew it better than we do, even better than the modern Classics professor does. And, second, he was much closer to Classical Hebrew as a living language than we are. When the translator seems to be translating a difficult word quite differently from BDB or KB or GKB, maybe, just maybe, they knew their Hebrew better than modern lexicographers—even though they didn't know proto-Hebrew, much less proto-Semitic; they didn't have the advantage of knowing Assyrian, Babylonian, much less Ugaritic or Eblaitic, but they
30
God's Word for Our World
spoke Hebrew; they knew words in Hebrew that we have never heard of— and it could be that it would not be a bad idea to take seriously what the LXX has to say. Theological Reflections on the Greek Exodus In this essay I intend to probe aspects of the theological points of view of the Greek Exodus. I shall omit from consideration the section dealing with the tabernacle which constitutes a separate problem altogether.5 Methodologically speaking the approach taken is that which was exemplified in the first section, that is, to examine only differences++between th Hebrew text and that of the Greek. Passages in which the two fully agree yield no distinctiveness for the Greek; it is only where the two differ that the theological prejudices of the translator might betray themselves. 1. Such points of view might well appear in how the translator deals with divine names. As is well known, Kupios ('Lord') is used as a substitute for the tetragrammaton throughout the LXX. But it can also serve to render a human master. In contexts where the two occur in proximity as, for example, in the Covenant Code, the translator tends to substitute 6 0eos for the divine name, and in 23.17 where God is referred to as pNi"! m!T ('Yahweh the lord') he substitutes the Lord your God—Kup'iou TOU GEOU aou. In fact, only where there seems to be some good reason for distinguishing between the names miT and DTT^K is he careful in his choice. In other words, one usually cannot use these renderings for text-critical purposes at all. Thus in ch. 19 in the description of the theophany the translator seems to be reluctant to use Kupios, and many cases of the tetragrammaton become GEOS in Greek. In the Hebrew text miT occurs eighteen times and QTT^N only three times, but in the Greek Kupios is used only nine times but b BEOS- occurs thirteen times. The trend must be intentional. If one then compares ch. 24, where the theophany is also described, the trend appears once again. In fact, all references to mm have been changed to 'God' except where his actions are involved, that is, when he speaks, or makes a covenant with Israel, as well as in v. 17, where the mm "TOD remains 56£n$- Kup'iou, 5. I have dealt with this difficult problem in Text History of the Greek Exodus (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. Philologisch Historische Klasse, 3, Folge, 192; Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 21; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), Chapter 6, 'The Composition of Exod 35 to 40'(pp. 117-46).
WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
31
which is rather odd since in v. 16 it had been amended to f| 561; ex TOU 0£ou. There is thus an avoidance of describing the divine revelation, the actual theophany in terms of a revelation of Yahweh—'Lord', in favor of a revelation of God. The Greek shares with Hebrew thought the notion that a name is not a separate entity from the one named. This notion is stressed at 34.14 where the Hebrew says: 'Yahweh, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God'; the LXX speaks of the Lord God as 'a jealous name, a jealous God'. By using ^nAcoTov bvoya, an adjectival phrase, the jealous name becomes the same as the jealous God. Probably the best known passage is the one about which more nonsense has been written than about any other; this is 3.14 where the translator was faced with the difficult statement THN ~\W, rrriK ('I am that I am'). It was easy enough to translate the first word simply by syco siyi, but what to do with the relative clause? At first blush one might consider something like os syco eiyi, but that would be gibberish to a Greek-speaking audience, particularly since in the very next clause the MT orders Moses to proclaim TTTIK has sent me to you'. In other words, rrrifc serves both as a relative clause and as subject of a verbal sentence. The only thing that would make sense would be a participle; only a participle could be used in both cases. The rendering b cov does not reflect the influence of Greek philosophy on the LXX whatsoever; it simply shows the translator proceeding rationally in dealing with a difficult translation problem. This solution may also have influenced him at 6.3 as well in the rendering of the name *Htt) ^N. In Genesis that name had always been rendered by BEOS plus a pronoun, so that here it would have become b SEOS CXUTCOV, but the statement is intended to contrast with the second part 'and my name Lord I did not show them'. It is, however, the same God who is speaking, and this is neatly shown by incorporating the participle cov as in 3.14. The contrast is then between b cov and 6ebs cov aurcov—these are different but God is one and the same. 2. A second point that can be made about the translator's point of view is that at times he tones down what might to pious Jewish ears sound offensive. At 4.16 it is said that 'he will become (nnin) a mouth for you, and you will become a god for him'. The translator renders the nmn construction by the future of the verb 'to be' but avoids the notion that Moses would become Aaron's God by rendering 'God' by 'the matters that pertain to God', a clear avoidance of the crass figure of the MT.
32
God's Word for Our World
In the Song of Moses the translator also avoids crass figures which define the Lord in human terms. In 15.3, the MT speaks of Yahweh as 'a man of war'; this is toned down to 'the Lord shatters wars', that is, he is victorious in battle. So too at v. 10 the MT'S 'you (i.e. God) blew with your wind (mi)'. This is interpreted as 'you sent your wind'. The winds become God's servants, rather than 'his breath'. At times divine actions apparently seemed overly harsh, and the translator found ways to soften the description. At 5.3, the MT says lest he (i.e. Yahweh) should overtake us with pestilence or the sword. But in the Greek Savccros r| 4>6vos (literally 'death or slaughter') becomes the impersonal subject of the verb and the Lord is not even mentioned; the LXX has 'lest death or slaughter should overtake us'. At 19.22 the MT has the threat 'lest Yahweh break through (i.e. in violence) against them'. The ^"la"1 is toned down considerably by aTraAAa^n, that is, the Greek simply says 'lest the Lord depart from them'. The translator found God's breaking out violently against his own priests somewhat strong. On the other hand, this is not done consistently. At v. 24 the same phrase is rendered by 'lest he destroy them'. And finally at 24.11 the translator avoids God's active killing of the chieftains. For the MT'S 'and on the chieftains of the Israelites he did not lay his hand', the LXX has 'and of the chosen men of Israel not even one was lacking'. God's part in the affair is here completely missing. 3. A further point that can be made is that in God's relations with men, or more particularly with his people, subtle differences may betray the translator's theological beliefs. Thus at 11.3 the phrase D#il )n ('favor of the people') is correctly understood as an objective genitival relation. In the MT the clause states 'And Yahweh gave the people favor in the sight of Egypt'. The LXX understood this fully but rendered 'the people' by TOD Aacp aujou ('to his people'), thus subtly stressing the relation between the Lord and Israel. In the golden calf episode of ch. 32 Yahweh says to Moses in v. 9 'I have seen that this people is stifmecked'. But to the Alexandrian it was not the stiffneckedness of Israel that was the ground for God's decision to destroy Israel and start all over again with Moses; it was rather their enormous sin of attributing the great act of redemption from Egypt to other gods. 'These', they had said, 'are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt'. And so the translator simply omitted the Hebrew verse entirely.
WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
33
In Moses' intercessory prayer at 34.9 he asks God to pardon our iniquity and our sin 'and take us for your inheritance'. The Greek is much clearer; the point of God's taking us for his inheritance is that 'we shall be yours'. And at 23.21 reference is made to God's angel, and Israel is enjoined to obey him as God's agent. In the MT this is motivated by the statement 'for he will not forgive your transgression'. In the Greek this becomes 'for he will not withdraw from you', that is, refrain from judging you (UTTOOTE'IAnTou as). Since only God can forgive sins, the idea that God's angel can also forgive sins is in this way avoided by the translator. 4. This leads us to another aspect of the Alexandrian's theology, namely, the central importance of the notion of God's sovereignty, as is clear from his view of the covenant relation. At 2.24 God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; in the Greek the preposition is not 'with' but TTpo?—'towards'. The divine covenant is towards the patriarchs; it is unidirectional, from God towards man, an emphasis well known from the translation of rr~Q by 6ia0f|Kr| rather than by auv0f|Kn. This establishment of the divine covenant 'towards' rather than 'with' man is already apparent in Genesis; at 6.18, in the covenant with Noah, as well as at 17.19, 21, in the one with Isaac, the covenant is also made by God towards, though at 17.4, in the covenant with Abraham, the preposition JJETQ is used. At 6.5 the phrase TT~Q flK is translated by T?IS Sia0f|Kr|s uycov. The LXX usually interprets suffixes with ff ~Q as objective genitives (with very few exceptions). This tendency which began already in Genesis was to view the divine covenant in terms of the recipients. This is then put into a proper perspective in v. 7 where the LXX adds a seemingly gratuitous eyo'i after Aaov. The opening clause already reads 'I will take you to myself as a people', but an extra spo'i intentionally places the accent on the divine impulse: 'I will take you to myself as my own people'. Sometimes God's sovereignty is assured by making him the subject of a clause. At 15.5 the Hebrew's 'the depths cover them' is changed to 'with the sea he covered them', thus making God the active agent in the drowning of the Egyptians. At 11.9 God says that Pharaoh won't listen 'so that my wonders may abound in the land of Egypt'. The LXX makes God the subject with its 'so that I may multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt'. The drama centers in the conflict between God and Pharaoh, and the LXX tends to reflect this somewhat more carefully than the MT does. At 34.22 God orders the observance of the great feasts by the words ~[L? rrorn ('observe for yourself) but LXX makes it Troifioeis not ('observe
34
God's Word for Our World
for me'). The festivals are to be observed for God's sake, not for one's own sake. This is consistent with 23.14 where the Hebrew also has a first person reference. At 8.11 (Eng. v. 7) the LXX puts God at the center; the Hebrew has the neutral promise 'and the frogs shall turn away from you', but the Greek interprets the verb by a future passive 'shall be removed'. This presupposes a divine agent, and emphasizes the 'sign' character of the plagues' being brought to an end. And then at 18.19 Jethro gives Moses good advice which he ends with a precative: 'May God be with you'. But the Greek makes this a positive promise: 'God will be with you'. 5. Reference has already been made to God's angel. God's angel and God himself are carefully distinguished in the Greek. In 23.22 the MT might be misunderstood as presupposing the identity of the angel and Yahweh himself. It says: 'You are to listen to his voice (i.e. the voice of the angel) and do everything which I (i.e. Yahweh) say'. The LXX changes this to: 'you are to listen to my voice and do everything which I say'. The angel is but an intermediary to lead the people on God's behalf through the wilderness into the land of promise; God reserves for himself the voice that must be obeyed if the Israelites are to prosper. And then at 4.24 an angel of the Lord becomes an intermediary for an entirely different purpose. It concerns the difficult story of Yahweh's encounter with Moses on his way to Egypt. There the MT says that Yahweh met him and sought to kill him. But the LXX changes this to 'an angel of the Lord met him and sought to kill him', thereby at least somewhat mitigating the harshness of the story. After all, in the Balaam story God also used an angel in a similar fashion. 6. It should also be observed that central to Israel's faith was a clear monotheism. To the Alexandrian the Hebrew statement at 8.10 (Eng. v. 6) 'there is no one like Yahweh our God' was somehow inadequate. True, Yahweh is incomprehensible, but the LXX makes it stronger by 'there is no one else besides the Lord'. This is thus an absolute statement; the Alexandrian insists on recognition by Pharaoh that Israel's monotheistic faith was correct. Note that the Greek even omits the limiting phrase 'our God', offering instead just the straightforward statement 'there is no one else besides the Lord'. This may also be at the basis of 8.22 (Eng. v. 18) where Pharaoh is told that the purpose of the plague of the swarms of flies was that 'you may
WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
35
know that I am Yahweh in the midst of the land'. The translator also absolutizes this statement by making it 'you may know that I am the Lord, the lord of all the land'. This is clearly an intentional change by which the word H~lpD ('in the midst of) is changed to 'master, ruler, lord'. Actually, Targum Onqelos has a similar statement; it adds the word CD^E? ('ruler') and reads 'I am Yahweh the ruler in the midst of the land'. One is here reminded of 9.14 where the MT's 'there is none like me (in all the land)' becomes 'there is no one other like me'. The Greek gloss aAAoc brings out the uniqueness of Israel's God even more strongly. That Yahweh is the divine lawgiver is stressed at 24.12. The Hebrew states that the purpose of Yahweh's writing the Ten Words on the stone tablets was Drmnb, that is, 'to teach them'. But centuries had passed by and the Alexandrian realized that the Ten Words had a more formal purpose. The LXX accordingly substituted vono0£Tr|oai—God wrote the Ten Words in order to frame, or enshrine the vopos, the Torah, the law, and the Ten Words provide a framework for it. 7. And then in the world of the translator it was abundantly clear that over against the true faith stood the world of the non-gods. In the Ten Words there is introduced for the first time at 20.4 the term ^DS ('a graven image'), for which eventually the term YÀUTTTOV would become a standard and fully correct equivalent. The word occurs only here in Exodus, and though one suspects that the translator knew exactly what it meant, he translated it by siocoAov, thereby stressing the irreality or phantom-like character of the ^DS. It should not be forgotten that the Alexandrian Jew lived in a context of paganism, and the reality of Yahweh in his mind stood in stark contrast to the idols of his neighbours. At 22.28 (Eng. v. 27) this context may also be reflected. There Israel is warned 'Do not revile God (DTI^N), nor curse a ruler (fcVEE) of your people'. The word D n n ^N can of course refer to God or to the gods, though the parallel wordfcVEJ]is only singular. But 'reviling God' is an unthinkable crime, and the translator makes both nouns plural, 'gods' and 'rulers', which can hardly have been intended by the Hebrew. Incidentally, at 32.5 illegitimate cult is referred to in a most subtle way. At 10.9 and 13.6 legitimate feasts of Yahweh are translated by Eoprr) Kup'iou. This accords with the translator's practice not to articulate Kup'iou when it is used for the tetragrammaton. But at 32.5 Aaron proclaims the following day as a feast of Yahweh. In the context of the golden calf story this was clearly not a legitimate feast. And the translator is aware of it, and
36
God's Word for Our World
so renders the phrase by sopTr) TOÛ Kup'iou, that is, with an article. A subtle distinction indeed! 8. A further characteristic of Judaism as it was developing in the centuries after the exile was a strong emphasis on divine transcendence. So too the LXX at times places a greater distance between God and man than the MT does. Thus at 32.11 it is said of Moses that 'he besought the face of Yahweh'. To the translator this was an overly direct confrontation and the direct object is made into a preposition phrase in the unusual use of èôef)0r) with KctTEvcxvTi Toû Kup'iou, that is, 'he begged over against the Lord'. But ÔÉOMCU is otherwise not used absolutely as here, and to the Greek reader this would place a gulf between the Lord and Moses. In the following verse Moses prays inter alia 'repent (D!"[]D niphal) concerning the evil towards your people'. The LXX avoids any notion that God might repent both here and in v. 14 where God hears Moses ' prayer; rather he uses a positive notion: 'be gracious over against the evil—and he was gracious'. At 34.29 the MT states that Moses was unaware of the fact that 'the skin of his face was shining'. The Greek interpreted the unusual verb pp by a passive, ÔEÔoÇacrrcci ('was effulgent'). But only God can really be effulgent, that is, be radiant with ôoÇa, and so the translator rendered 'the skin of his face' both here and in the next verse by f| ovpiç TOÛ xpcovpos TOÛ TTpoocÔTTou ccÙTou ('the appearance of the skin of his face'). But then in v. 35 the MT says that 'the Israelites saw the face of Moses that the skin of the face of Moses was effulgent'. Here, oddly enough, the LXX omits 'the skin of the face of Moses', that is, in contradiction to the impulse to avoid attributing the radiance of glory to Moses' face. And at 17.6 God is pictured as standing before Moses on the rock at Horeb. This is a good example of the way in which the translator wrestled with difficult notions such as this one, that is, of God actually standing before Moses instead of the other way around. The Alexandrian changed the first part of the line, that is, 'Behold I am standing', to 'Here I did stand', that is, it becomes a reference to God's earlier presence on Horeb. Then the LXX continues the line with 'before you came on to the rock at Horeb'. The statement is now quite innocuous. 9. And finally, there remains the important statement of 33.20 that 'No man can see my face and live'. This fact, or this faith, created difficulty for the translator in a few cases. Thus at 3.6, where God reveals himself at the
WEVERS Two Reflections on the Greek Exodus
37
burning bush episode, it is said that 'Moses hid his face.. .because he was afraid to look at God'. The idea of 'looking at God' is completely voided by the positive statement in the Greek: Moses turned aside his face, for he was careful to look down before God. Moses adopted a reverent pose in the presence of God, a posture appropriate in the presence of royalty. This avoidance of the notion of seeing God is especially apparent in the description of the theophany in ch. 24. In v. 10 the Hebrew says 'And they saw the God of Israel'. Immediately thereafter MT has the expression 'and under his feet', which expression the translator rendered by 'and the things (ra) under his feet'. This probably promoted the solution to the problematic statement 'they saw the God of Israel', which the LXX interprets as 'and they saw the place where the God of Israel stood'. An extension of this kind of meticulous care in describing a theophany is also apparent where the verse continues with comparing that which was under his feet as being like 'the very heavens for purity'. The LXX expands this simile by 'like the appearance of the aTEpEconaroç of heaven for purity'. Not heaven itself but only the firmament of heaven can actually appear to the human eye.. Then in the following verse the Hebrew says 'And they beheld God'. The verb is now a different one, HIP! rather than ilK"), thereby promoting a somewhat different rendering of this clause. Here the LXX uses a passive verb, KCÙ co4>0r|aav ('And they appeared'), followed by the words 'in the place of God'. So, beholding God really means 'appearing in the place where God was'. Little needs to be said in concluding this essay, since the many examples given speak for themselves. The differences between the LXX and the Hebrew reflect a view of God befitting the Jewry of the third century BCE. God is transcendent; he is one. He demands a pure cult and total recognition by everyone as the only God. He is to be spoken of in reverent terms, since he is the only one who is, a jealous name who alone may be recognized as the Lord of the universe, even in the environment of Alexandria itself.
THE IMAGE OF THE HAND OF GOD IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS David Rolph Seely
Introduction The hand of God is a central theme of the book of Exodus, and indeed of the Exodus narratives throughout the Hebrew Bible, as a metaphor of God's power to intervene in history.1 The imagery of the hand of God is rich and varied and is expressed with seven terms for hand, arm, right hand, and fingers2 conjoined with many different verbs and adjectives to create a constellation of different visual images. There are many studies on the language describing the hand and arm and of specific passages and issues involving hand imagery throughout the Bible,3 and there are several important studies about specific hand of God imagery in the Exodus narratives,4 1. The image of the hand of God occurs a total of 2155 times in the Hebrew Bible. 345 of these occurrences are found in the Exodus narratives. For a statistical review of the hand of God in the Hebrew Bible see my doctoral dissertation, 'The Image of the Hand of God in the Exodus Narratives' (University of Michigan, 1990), pp. 37-45. 2. The Hebrew hand/arm/fingers vocabulary isyad ('hand/arm'), zeroa ' ('arm'), yamin ('right hand'), kap ('palm/hand'), 'etsba' ('finger'), sem'ol ('left hand'), and sho 'al ('hollow of hand'). 3. Comprehensive articles on the language of the 'hand' and 'arm' with useful bibliographies can be found in J. Bergman, J. W. von Soden and P. R. Ackroyd,+'yad\ in TDOT, V, pp. 393-426, and H.J. Helfmeyer, 'zeroa", in TDOT, IV, pp. 131-40. 4. Brevard S. Childs, 'Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions', in B. Hartmann, E. Jenni and E.Y. Kutscher (eds.), Hebraische Wortforschung. Festschrift zum 80. Geburstag von Walter Baumgartner (VTSup, 16; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967), pp. 30-39; B. Couroyer, 'Le "doigt de dieu" (Exode, VIII, 15)', RB 63 (1956), pp. 481-95; James K. Hoffmeier, 'The Arm of God Versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives', Bib 67 (1986), pp. 378-87; Paul Humbert, 'Etendre la main', VT 12 (1962), pp. 383-95; Gerald A. Klingbeil, 'The Finger ofGodinthe Old Testament', ZAW\\2 (2000), pp. 409-15; C.J. Labuschagne, 'Meaning ofbeyadrama+in the Old Testament',^0^7211 (1982), pp. 143-48; J.J.M. Roberts, 'TheHandofYahweh', VT 21 (1971), pp. 244-51.
SEELY The Image of the Hand of God
39
but there are few studies that examine and analyze a set of imagery within a single narrative or book of the Bible.5 Many commentators have noted in passing the various images of the hand of God in Exodus, but only recently has a commentator noted that the hand/arm/right hand of God is one of the major themes in the book of Exodus.6 This study will survey the occurrences of the hand of God imagery in the book of Exodus as a central theme of the book, provide brief analysis of the meaning of each occurrence, and discuss the significance of this imagery in light of the Hebrew Bible as a whole. In the book of Exodus the image of the hand of God occurs 27 times.7 The Lord 'delivers' and 'leads out' his people by his 'strong hand' (3.19; 6.1; 13.3, 9, 14, 16; 32.11) and by his 'outstretched arm' (6.6). He 'stretches out' his hand and 'strikes' Egypt with the plagues (3.20; 7.4, 5; 9.3,15; 14.31) and he swears an oath by raising his hand (6.8). Pharaoh's magicians admit that it is the 'finger of God' that is responsible for the plague of gnats (8.15 [Eng. 19]). By the 'might' of his hand and arm the Lord defeats Pharaoh at the Reed Sea (14.31; 15.16). In the Song of the Sea (Exod. 15) the Lord 'shatters' the Egyptians with his right hand (15.6), when he 'stretches out' his right hand the enemy is swallowed up (15.12), and finally he leads his people to the sanctuary that he 'establishes' with his hands (15.17). The 'hand' of God is recognized as the power to take life or to preserve it (16.3; 24.11). On Mt Sinai the Lord writes the law on the tablets of stone with his finger (31.18) and, in a theophany, the protecting palm/hand of God covers and uncovers Moses, allowing him to experience the presence of God (33.22, 23). Throughout the narrative in Exodus there is a delightful interaction between the Lord's hands and those of the humans Moses and Aaron, and most notably the hand of Pharaoh and his magician. The contest between God and his messengers and Pharaoh and his magicians is often played out with hand gestures. Often it is the hands of Moses and Aaron that 5. A notable exception is the literary and theological study of the hand of God in the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel by Patrick D. Miller, Jr, and J.J.M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the 'Ark Narrative ' of I Samuel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). 6. William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (AB, 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), pp. 36, 502, 528-29. 7. The 27 occurrences are: 18 occurrences ofyad(3.\9,20; 6.1 [twice], 8; 7.4, 5; 9.3, 15; 13.3,9, 14, 16; 14.31; 15.17; 16.3; 24.11; 32.11); two occurrences of zeroa' (6.6; 15.16); three occurrences ofyamin (15.6 [twice], 12); two occurrences of kap (33.22, 23); two occurrences of 'etsba' (8.15 [Eng. 19]; 31.18).
40
God's Word for Our World
represent the hand of God. Moses and Aaron use hand gestures in exercising the divine power of the plagues and the magicians counter. Hand gestures performed by Moses and Aaron, usually with the rod, demonstrate how the hand of the Lord intervenes by means of, or simultaneously with, the hands of his messengers. On a more subtle level there is the theme of God accomplishing his purposes 'by the hand of (beyad) his messengers the prophets. For example, God speaks to his people 'through' (beyad) Moses (Exod. 9.35) and delivers the law 'through' (beyad)+Moses (Lev. 26.46). The hand of God occurs in seven narratives in the book of Exodus: the call of Moses in Exodus 3-4, the plagues in chs. 5-13, the Reed Sea in chs. 14-15, the wilderness in ch. 16; the giving of the law in chs. 24 and 31, and the account of the theophany in ch. 33. We will deal with the image of the hand of God in each narrative unit. The Call of Moses: Exodus 3-4 There is an extended play on hand imagery between the hands of God and the hands of humans in the narrative of Moses' prophetic calling. At the burning bush the Lord tells Moses: 'I have come down to deliver them [Israel] from the hand of the Egyptians (miyyadmitsrayimy (3.8; see also 18.10). The Lord goes on to say that Pharaoh will not let the Israelites go 'unless compelled by a mighty hand (welo ' beyad khazaqah)' (3.19)8 and then informs Moses whose hand it will be: 'So I will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt (weshalakhti 'et-yadi wehiketi) with all the wonders I will do in it; after that he (Pharaoh) will let you go' (3.20). Presumably these 'wonders' are the plagues that will be a result of the hand of God. Two of the signs given to the hesitant Moses are directed at his hands: 'put out your hand' to take the rod-serpent (4.1 -5) and 'put your hand into your bosom'—to see it change from clean to leprous and back (4.6-7). However, after these two demonstrations of divine power Moses makes a plea that the Lord should find someone else for this prophetic mission with another phrase that involves a hand: 'Send, I pray, some other person' (shalakh-na ' beyad-tishlakh, 4.13). Literally this phrase means 'send by the hand of whomever you would send', which implies that the Lord can
8. Literally 'and not by a strong hand' (Heb, Gk, Vg). The phrase lo ' beyad khazaqah is generally read here as an idiom meaning 'unless' or 'except by a strong hand (force)'.
SEELY The Image of the Hand of God
41
send anyone he wishes. The fact that the Lord becomes angry shows that Moses is suggesting that the Lord send someone other than himself. So, while Moses has been given the means to exercise the power of God through his own hands, he asks that the Lord send 'by the hand' of someone else. The Lord, in response, promises to send Aaron to help. So, the power of the 'hand of God' will be made manifest by the hands of Moses and Aaron, who will represent the 'hand of God', and yet at the Reed Sea it will be the 'right hand' of God alone that will deliver the people and destroy the Egyptians. The staff becomes the symbol of this power of representing God—the Lord told Moses, 'Take in your hand this staff, with which you shall perform the signs' (4.17). Moses will later use this staff to 'smite the waters of the Nile' (7.17) and eventually to part the waters of the Reed Sea (14.16-29). Moses and Aaron and Pharaoh: Exodus 5-13 In the narrative of the plagues the image of the hand of God occurs thirteen times—mostly in phrases that metaphorically refer to the power of God: 'by the strong hand', 'by the strength of hand/arm', and 'the hand/ arm outstretched' against Egypt. After Moses' and Aaron's initial failure to persuade Pharaoh, which only resulted in 'heavier burdens' (Exod. 5), the Lord reassured them saying, 'Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for with a strong hand (beyad khazaqah) he will send them out yea, with a strong hand+(beyad khazaqah) he will drive them out of his land' (6.1). It is not clear whether the yad khazaqah in this passage belongs to Pharaoh or to God. The translation of the preposition 'with' (be-)+is the key to the problem. It can be taken as 'with', denoting the disposition or circumstances under which Pharaoh would drive them out, or it can be taken as 'by' or 'with', indicating that it was only because of the strong coercion of the hand of the Lord that Pharaoh would let them go. Since Pharaoh is the subject of the sentence, the most obvious reading (which is followed by many English translations) is that it is Pharaoh's hand, perhaps representing military force, that will drive Israel out of Egypt. If this is correct it would set up a striking juxtaposition and confrontation of the 'strong hand of God' with the 'strong hand of Pharaoh'. However, the phrase yad khazaqah in Exodus and elsewhere almost always refers to God. Of the thirty times khazaqah appears with yad+(in any form) in the Bible only twice (besides the two occurrences here) does it refer to someone other than God (Num. 20.20 and Deut. 34.12). The
42
God's Word for Our World
passage in Num. 20.20 'and Edom came out against them with many men, and with a strong force (webeyad khazaqah)"—most likely a reference to a mighty army—is the most likely candidate for providing a suitable metaphor that would explain Pharaoh's 'strong hand' in 6.1. But the biblical traditions all speak of Pharaoh asking Israel to leave and then pursuing them, not 'driving them out with his army'. Deuteronomy 34.12 refers to the 'mighty power (yadkhazaqah) and the great and terrible deeds which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel' and might be a deliberate attempt to associate with Moses vocabulary usually attributed only to God. The JPSV translation interprets both as belonging to God rendering 'You shall soon see what I will do to Pharaoh: he shall let them go because of a greater might; indeed, because of a greater might he shall drive them from his land' (Exod. 6.1). In part because of the usual association of yad khazaqah with the Lord, but mostly because it makes more sense in the surrounding narrative I have chosen to count both as references to the hand of God. Cassuto, following Rashi, finds a compromise. He concludes that the first beyad khazaqah refers to God and the second to Pharaoh, reading 'you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; you shall see that by a strong hand—on account of My strong hand—shall he let them go; nay more, by a strong hand—namely, of Pharaoh and his people—shall he drive them out of his land'. 9 One of the most common formulas involving hand of God imagery associated with the Exodus is the phrase 'with a strong hand and outstretched arm (beyadkhazaqah ubizroa 'netuyahy+(Deut. 4.34; 5.15; 26.8; Jer. 32.21; Ezek. 20.33, 34; Ps. 136.12). Oddly enough, while the 'strong hand' is found several times in the book of Exodus (3.19; 6.1; 13.9; 32.11) and the 'outstretched arm' once (6.6) this formula is not found in the book of Exodus. Likely this is a Deuteronomic formula.10 Both images have many Near Eastern parallels. Semantic equivalents of the 'strong hand' are found in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Amarna Letters, and Egyptian1! and equivalents of the 'outstretched hand/arm' in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Egyptian.12 Both images are probably military ones—the strong hand representing military strength and the outstretched hand/arm a hostile gesture against an enemy.13 9. Press, 10. 11. 12. 13.
Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes 1983). Childs, 'Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions', pp. 32-34. Seely, 'The Image of the Hand of God', pp. 142-46. Seely, The Image of the Hand of God', pp. 127-29. Humbert, ' Etendre la main '.
SEELY The Image of the Hand of God
43
The image of God raising his hand in an oath occurs in 6.8: 'I will bring you into the land that I swore (nasa 'ti 'et-yadty. The image of God raising his hand in an oath occurs thirteen times in the Hebrew Bible (Num. 14.30; Deut. 32.40; Ezek. 20.5-6,15,28,42; etc.), ten times promising land and three times swearing vengeance. Presumably the image has its origins in a symbolic gesture made in connection with a solemn oath.14 The plagues in Egypt are often referred to with the image of God 'stretching out his hand or arm' (shalakh, natakh, and natari) to 'smite' (hikkah) Egypt (3.20; 7.4,5; 9.3,15; 14.31) or simply with the phrase 'the hand of the Lord was upon (yadyhwh hayah be-)' (Exod. 9.3). And yet it is the hands of Moses and Aaron that actually bring the plagues about throughout the plague narratives.15 They, with a staff, 'strike' the Nile and 'stretch out' their hands over its waters, turning it to blood (Exod. 7.17, 19). And it is Aaron who 'stretched out' his hand to bring forth frogs (Exod. 8.6) and who 'stretched out his hand with his staff and struck the dust of the earth' to bring forth the gnats. Later, Moses would lift up his staff and 'stretch out' his hand to divide the waters of the Reed Sea (Exod. 14.15)— where the 'outstretched arm' of the Lord will destroy the Egyptians. The language of the 'strong hand', 'stretching out' one's hand, or 'striking' and 'smiting' presents a vivid image probably derived from battle and is a well-known feature of ancient Near Eastern warrior gods as well as of Yahweh the Divine Warrior. In the Exodus narrative the metaphor seems to be played out by humans stretching out their hands and striking in order to release the divine power. Pharaoh's magicians, after unsuccessfully trying to duplicate the plague of gnats, finally acknowledge that 'this is the finger of God ( 'etsba ' 'elohim hu ')' (8.15 [Eng. 19]). The hand and arm are the usual metaphors for the power of God in the Bible, but the image of the 'finger' or 'fingers' of God occur only in Exod. 31.18 and Deut. 9.10, where they refer to the writing on the tablets, and in Ps. 8.4 (Eng. 3), where the heavens are said to be the 'work of God's fingers'. The image may suggest that God's power is so great that he can do all this with only his finger. Clearly the intent of the exclamation of the magicians is to acknowledge a power with which they can no longer compete. B. Couroyer has argued from linguistic parallels 14. David Rolph Seely, 'The Raised Hand of God as a Covenant Oath Gesture', in Astrid B. Beck, Andrew H. Bartelt, Paul R. Raabe and Chris Franke (eds.), Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 411-21. 15. See Exod. 7.19-20; 8.1-2 (Eng. 5-6); 8.12-13 (Eng. 16-17); 10.12-13, 20-21.
44
God's Word for Our World
for an Egyptian origin of this phrase.16 It is likely that this passage is the source for Jesus' assertion in Lk. 11.20 that it was not by the power of Beelzebul that he cast out demons but by the 'finger of God'. In the course of the plagues the Lord tells Moses to tell Pharaoh 'For if you refuse to let them go and still hold them, the hand of the Lord will strike (yadyhwh hay ah bemiqneka) your cattle with a deadly pestilence' (Exod. 9.3). Literally, the image is 'the hand of the Lord will be upon' the livestock to afflict them with a plague. The image of the hand of God 'being upon someone' in this context is a negative one with many Near Eastern parallels of the hand of deity being 'upon' someone bringing about sickness or disease.17 The exact intent of the image is difficult to ascertain but most likely it is God reaching out his hand to touch the cattle. See, for example, Job 1.1 land 2.5 where Satan's gesture to stretch out his hand to Job is followed by the verb 'to touch'. In Moses' speech connecting the consecration of the firstborn to the deliverance from Egypt the phrase 'by the strength of his hand (bekhozeq yad)+the Lord has brought you out of Egypt' appears repeatedly (Exod. 13.3,14,16). These are the only occurrences in the Bible of this particular phrase but it is probably the semantic equivalent ioyadkhazaqah in Exod. 13.9. In two passages the phrase 'with a strong hand' is found in conjunction with the Lord's command to Israel 'it shall serve as a sign on your hand' (Exod. 13.9,16). In Jewish interpretation these are connected: 'We observe that the binding of the sign upon the hand is understood as our token of acknowledgement for the momentous strength of hand by which the Lord performed wonders for us'.18 The Reed Sea: Exodus 14-15 There are two accounts of the events at the Reed Sea in Exodus: one prose (ch. 14) and one poetry (ch. 15). In the prose account, just as in the plague narratives, there is significant hand imagery relating to Moses. Twice the Lord commands Moses to 'stretch out' (root n-t-h) his hand holding the 16. Couroyer, 'Le "doigt de dieu" (Exode, VIII, 15)'. See also the more recent study by Klingbeil, 'The Finger of God in the Old Testament'. 17. These have been collected and discussed in Roberts, 'The Hand of Yahweh', and Miller and Roberts, The Hand of the Lord. 18. Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Shemot: Exodus (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organisation, 1981), p. 221. See also Cassuto,+A Commentary on the Book of Exodus p. 152.
SEELY The Image of the Hand of God
45
rod over the waters—once to divide them (14.16) and once to bring them together again (14.26). Moses fulfils both injunctions to the letter by 'stretching out his hand' (14.21, 27). So, while in the poetic description the Lord 'stretches out his hand against Pharaoh' (15.12), in the prose account it is Moses. Just as in the plagues, the gestures of Moses represent the same gesture made by the Lord. Thus the gestures made by prophets may in fact be efficacious because they reflect the same gesture performed at the divine level. A similar phenomenon of mortal and divine hand gestures occurs in Ezek. 21.18-22 (Eng. 14-17) where Ezekiel is commanded to clap his hands as a sign the destruction of Jerusalem is at the same time the Lord claps his hands. This is reminiscent of the images in Assyrian royal art where the god Assur is depicted in the heavens performing the same gestures, making war or peace, as the Assyrian king depicted below on earth.19 The final summary of the prose account of the deliverance at the Reed Sea acknowledges the hand of God—although it is not explicitly mentioned in the prose account itself: 'Thus the Lord saved Israel that day from the hand (miyyad}+of the Egyptians... Israel saw the great work+(hayyad haggedolah) which the Lord did against the Egyptians' (14.30-31). This is the only time in the Bible that yad occurs with gedolah and the phrase seems to be a metaphor for the power of God in the plagues. This verse forms a nice inclusio with the beginning of this story in 3.8 where the Lord told Moses, 'I have come down to deliver them out of the hand (miyyad} of the Egyptians' even though it uses different verbs (14.30 'saved', and 3.8 'delivered'). The fact that the Lord gets the credit, even though in ch. 14 it is Moses' hand and his rod that at the Lord's command stretches over the sea to divide it for the Israelites and close it on the Egyptians (14.16, 21, 26), indicates that the gestures of Moses mirror the operation of a divine action. The poem in Exod. 15.1-18 is often referred to as the Song of the Sea. Most scholars believe this poem to be one of the earliest texts from the Bible—some dating the poem from the time of Moses. In this poem there are five occurrences of the image of the hand of God: once yad+(15.17), once zeroa '(15.16), and three timesyamin (15.6 [twice], 12). There have 19. See the reliefs of Assur-nasir-pal II, British Museum #124540, #124555, and #124551. These depictions are discussed by Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Harmondsworth: Pelican, 1954), pp. 157-61, and George E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), pp. 44-54.
46
God's Word for Our World
been many important studies of this poem20 but few have noted the prominent role the image of the hand of God plays in the event described in this poem and the unifying effect hand of God imagery exerts in the very structure of the poem itself.21 Whereas the imagery of the hand of God is a significant part of the victory hymn in the Song of the Sea, it is conspicuously absent in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5), an otherwise similar victory hymn and roughly from the same period celebrating a military victory in the time of the Conquest. This same dissimilarity is also found in the respective prose accounts of Exodus 14 and Judges 4. The power of the Lord is acknowledged in the accounts of both events, but the vivid image of the hand of God is an early and distinctive feature of the Exodus—especially in the poetry. The image of the hand of God is found seven times in the archaic poetry in Deuteronomy 32 (vv. 39, 40, 41) and 33 (w. 2, 3, 7, 27). The poem is difficult to analyze as it does not present the events of the Reed Sea in chronological order. The poem can and has been divided in many different ways. Most scholars divide the poem into two parts: Part I in vv. 1-11 (Freedman) or 1-12 (Cross) describing the victory of the Lord over the Egyptians, and Part II in vv. 12-18 (Freedman) or 13-18 (Cross) describing the trek through the wilderness to Sinai (Freedman), or culminating in the entry into Canaan (Cross). Most recently Propp has divided the poem according to its content into three parts: vv. 1-7, 8-12, and 13-18. He describes the first stanza as giving an overview of the events, the second stanza as focusing on what actually happened at the Reed Sea, and the third stanza as recounting the future trip across the wilderness to the holy mount.22 The image of the hand of God appears in vv. 6,12,16, and 17—according to any proposed division of the text at the important junctures. The poem can logically be divided according to the imagery of the hand of God into three stanzas—very close to Propp's division—in which each stanza 20. The classic study was the joint dissertation by Frank Moore Cross, Jr, and David Noel Freedman in 1950 and reprinted in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). See also Cross's 'The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth', in his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 112-44, and Freedman's 'Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15', in his Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), pp. 187-228; also Michael P. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980). 21. But see Propp, Exodus 1-18, pp. 36, 502, 528-29. 22. Propp, Exodus 1-18, p. 505
SEELY The Image of the Hand of God.
.47
is summarized or concluded with an image of the hand of God. Thus the first stanza in vv. 1 -6 (50 words) recounts the victory in general terms and concludes noting that it is the 'right hand' of the Lord which brought victory (15.6); the second stanza in vv. 7-12 (56 words) gives more detail as to the events at the Reed Sea and summarizes again that the victory was won by the right hand of God (15.12); and the third stanza in vv. 13 -18 (62 words) carries the story forward from the Reed Sea with Israel going forth into the wilderness and concludes that with both hands God will build a sanctuary for Israel (15.17). In the first stanza (15.1-6) the poet praises the Lord for his triumph. He describes the Lord in military language: 'my strength and my might', 'my salvation', 'my God', 'my father's God' (v. 2), and 'a warrior' (v. 3). The poet describes the victory at the Reed Sea in terms of a military victory: 'horse and rider he has thrown into the sea' (v. 1), 'Pharaoh's chariots and his army he cast into the sea; his picked officers were sunk in the Reed Sea' (v. 4), 'the floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone' (v. 5). The poet then summarizes and ascribes this might of God to the right hand: Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power— Your right hand, O Lord shattered the enemy. (15.6)
This is the image of the Divine Warrior fighting Israel's battles with his right hand—the hand that would have held weapons. The right hand 'glorious in power' (ne 'dari bakkoakh) conquering 'right hand' (yamiri) of God is here described with a form of the root '-d-r. This is the only time in the Bible that any form of 'hand' or 'arm' is used with this root. It does appear in 15.11 describing the Lord as 'majestic among the Holy Ones' and thus serves as a link between the two stanzas. The image of the right hand of God 'shattering' (tir'ats)+the enemy is interesting. The hand of God does not occur elsewhere in the Bible with the verb ra 'ats. In fact the verb only occurs one other time in Judg 10.8 where the Philistines 'crush' Israel. The image suggested here is certainly that of the Divine Warrior. The right hand symbolic of military power here is more likely to be visualized holding a weapon—perhaps a sword or bow which the Lord holds in his hand in another archaic poem (Deut. 32.42). Such imagery is attested in contemporary figurines.23 23. This suggestion is from Propp, Exodus 1-18,+p. 519, who cites N. Lohfink, The Christian Meaning of the Old Testament+(trans. R.A. Wilson; Milwaukee: Bruce
48
God's Word for Our World
It is also possible that the subject of both verb forms is the Lord instead of the hand of the Lord. Whereas the hand of God is never the subject of the verb '-d-r, the Lord is the subject of the root '-d-r in Exod. 15.11. The first colon could thus be rendered Thy right hand, O Lord, who art glorious in power'. The verbal form tir'ats is ambiguous and could either be third feminine singular or second masculine sing, but the poem as a whole has a preponderance of second masculine singular forms, as in v. 7 (tishlakh}. This interpretation would presume the omission of the preposition be- to indicate the dative of agency, and both cola could be rendered: 'With your right hand, O Lord, who art glorious in power // With your right hand, O Lord, you have shattered the enemy'. In either case the image of the hand of the Divine Warrior remains the same. In the second stanza (15.7-12) the poet describes the victory at the Reed Sea as a great wind from the divine nostrils: 'at the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up' (v. 8), 'You blew with your wind, the sea covered them, they sank like lead in the mighty waters' (v. 10). The poet praises the Lord 'In the greatness of your majesty you overthrew your adversaries' (v. 7) and 'Who is like you, among the gods?' (v. 11). As suggested by Propp, rather than this being a poetic description of the Divine Warrior, it is an account of the actual event at the Reed Sea—an event wherein the Egyptian army was lost in the waters. The poet summarizes the events at the Reed Sea in terms of hand of God imagery: You stretched out your right hand (natita yaminkd), the earth swallowed them. (15.12)
The use of the verb natah withyamin indicates a gesture of'extending the right hand' and is only found here (Exod. 15.12) in the Bible. The root natah occurs with a divine 'hand' (yad) indicating a hostile gesture—often against Israel and in the participle netuyah. It also appears with zeroa ' in the formula 'with a mighty hand and outstretched arm' which most often refers to the Lord's role in the Exodus. Once again this is most likely the image of the Divine Warrior. Neatly placed in the poem between the 'right hand of the Lord' in v. 6 and v. 12 is the confident boast of the mighty Pharaoh that 'his hand' will prevail: 1968), p. 76. Representative iconographie representations of figures with outstretched hands with and without weapons can be found in Helga Seeden, The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant (Munich: C.H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1986).
SEELY The Image of the Hand of God.
.49
I will pursue, I will overtake I will divide the spoil, will draw my sword, My hand shall destroy them.
This juxtaposition of the divine hand with the human hand concludes the deadly contest between Pharaoh and the Lord that began in the court of Egypt and continued through the plagues and finally ends at the Reed Sea where the Lord God of Israel destroys the might of the Egyptians. The final stanza, vv. 13-18, continues the drama from the victory at the Reed Sea into the future. The poet describes how 'in your steadfast love you led the people whom you redeemed' (v. 13) and describes the fear of the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, and Canaanites as 'terror and dread fell upon them: by the might of your arm (zeroa *), they became still as a stone' (v. 16). Thus the poet again refers to the might of the Lord symbolized by his arm. Freedman has noted that the image of 'terror and dread' that falls upon those who hear about the exploits of a conquering army, often attributed to its god or gods, 'is common to campaign oratory of the ancient Near Eastern and a cliche in the prose Assyrian annals' ,24 It is also referred to in Deut. 2.25: 'This day will I begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you'. The rootgadal appears often in parallel with the 'hand' or 'arm' of God in the Bible but only modifies zeroa ' here and in Ps. 79.11. At the end the poet describes what will occur after the Reed Sea: You brought them in and planted them on the mountain of your own possession, the place, O Lord, that you made your abode, the sanctuary (miqdash), O Lord, that your hands have established (konenuyadeykd).
The Lord culminates his work of delivering his people from Egypt by bringing them and 'planting' (nata*) them on 'the mount of the Lord's heritage', constructing his throne and his sanctuary (temple) which his 'hands established' (v. 17). There is considerable disagreement as to how 24. Freedman, 'Early Israelite History in Light of Early Israelite Poetry', in his Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, p. 135. See also Thomas W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), pp. 128-29.
50
God's Word for Our World
this passage should be interpreted in regards to the location of this mountain and sanctuary. Many (including Cross) argue that vv. 13-18 and the 'passing over of the people' in v. 16 refer to the early stages of the conquest and maintain that the 'mountain' here refers in a general sense to the hill country of Canaan and the sanctuary of Gilgal, Shechem, or Shiloh.25 Freedman, on the other hand, has argued (from the evidence for the early date of the poem, the structural unity, and the three requirements for the site: sacred mountain, earthly sanctuary and heavenly dwelling, etc.) for a straightforward reading of the whole poem that would put all of the narrative in vv. 13-18 in the wilderness and the sanctuary at Sinai.26 The image of God leading and planting his people in Exod. 15.13, 15 may be considered an implicit hand of God metaphor. It is found explicitly stated in Ps. 80.15-16 (Eng. 14-15), 'have regard for this vine, the stock which thy right hand planted', and in Isa. 60.21, 'the shoot of my planting (Israel), the work of my hands'. Freedman maintains that the leading and planting on the mount in the Song of the Sea seems logically to fit within the wilderness period, but in Ps. 80.9 (Eng. 8) the planting is interpreted as after the conquest: 'You brought a vine out of Egypt; you drove out the nations and planted it'. This is perhaps a later transition of the imagery to the post-conquest period. The passage in Isaiah has a future image also connected with the possession of the land. The hand of God only appears with the verbal root k-w-n ('to establish or found') in the polel here (|| to paal) and in Ps. 119.73 with reference to creation 'Your hands have made me ( 'asunî)+and fashioned me+(waykonenuniy. It does occur in the niphal in Ps. 89.22 (Eng. 21), 'my hand shall always remain with him [David]'. The fact that it is expressly stated that the sanctuary was founded by the hands of God (and not of man) is further evidence used by Freedman to argue for a distinction between this 'temple without hands' and the later temple on Mt Zion (the only other candidate in the Bible fulfilling the three requirements) that was an earthly one built 'with human hands' which 'displaces Sinai as the center of worship and the focal point of the religio-political entity'.27 Thus, the hand of God is a prominent and strategically placed image (mostly of the Divine Warrior) in this poem, with numerous later biblical 25. Cross, The Song of the Sea', pp. 141-43. 26. D.N. Freedman, 'Temple Without Hands', in A. Biran et al. (eds.), Temples and High Places in Biblical Times (Jerusalem: The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College, 1981), pp. 21-30. 27. Freedman, Temple Without Hands', pp. 21-22.
SEEL Y The Image of the Hand of God.
51
echoes, as a symbol that it was the Lord who conquered (and not the hands of mortals), that the Lord's power is greater than the boastings of the enemy, and that it was his hands (not those of mortals) that built his heavenly abode—of which the temple would later be a replica.28 The Wilderness and Sinai: Exodus 16—33 Departing from the Reed Sea Israel entered the wilderness, where they began to experience the trials of desert living and began to murmur. Juxtaposed with the mighty acts of the hand of God in chs. 14-15 is Israel's complaint, 'Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord+(beyadyhwh) in the land of Egypt' (16.3), dripping with irony. At Sinai the law is written on the stone tablets 'by the finger of God' (31.18; see also Deut. 9.10). According to Exod. 32.16 the tablets were made by the Lord as well—presumably with his hands. The only other example of God writing in the Bible is found in Dan. 5.5 (if this can be considered the hand of God at all) and in Isaiah where the Lord says, 'I have graven you (Israel) on the palms of my hands' (Isa. 49.16). The image at Sinai is that of the Lord making the tablets and inscribing on them the law with his finger in order to dramatize the divine origin of the law. It is interesting to note that Moses was instructed to make the second set of tablets but the Lord said he would write on them again (Exod. 34.1). Exodus 33 contains a story of a theophany on Mt Sinai. The Lord covers Moses with his palm/hand (kap) to protect him from his glory in the theophany in 33.22-23. The term kap refers to the palm or the whole of the hand, and occurs ten times as the palm/hand of God outside the narrative in Exodus. Several times it is used in the image of clapping hands together (Ezek. 21.22 [Eng. 17]; 22.13; Job 27.23). This theophany account contains several anthropomorphisms referring to the Lord's face (Exod. 33.11), back (33.23) and hand (33.22, 23). Most biblical commentators follow Maimonides in interpreting such anthropomorphisms metaphorically.29 28. Freedman, 'Temple Without Hands'. For Cross, this is 'at once the earthly sanctuary and the "cosmic mountain" of which the sanctuary is the duplicate and local manifestation—built, incidentally, by God's worshippers' ('The Song of the Sea', p. 142). 29. Maimonides, in the first seventy chapters of his Guide to the Perplexed, addresses the various anthropomorphisms in the Bible and explains how each can be read metaphorically in order to explain something important about the nature of God and his relationship with humans.
52
God's Word for Our World
One commentator has suggested, following rabbinic interpretation, that the kap here represents a 'cloud'.30 The Image of the Hand of God and the Exodus in the Bible A review of the image of the hand of God in the book of Exodus reveals this image to be integral to the story and theology of the book of Exodus. It is indeed one of the central themes and motifs of the book. On many occasions the image of the hand of God occurs in formulations that appear to be idioms for strength or power. But often the image occurs in passages of vivid imagery depicting the Lord as the Divine Warrior, stretching out his hand/arm and defeating the enemy with his right hand, writing the law with his finger, and covering Moses with his palm. One cannot help but note the very strong anthropomorphic depiction of God through this hand of God imagery. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the image of the hand of God is distinctively connected with the Exodus. In the Primary History (Genesis through to 2 Kings), hand of God imagery is concentrated in the Exodus narratives. The image of the hand of God does not play any significant role in the narratives either before or after the books of Exodus through to Deuteronomy. In Exodus the image of the hand of God occurs twenty-seven times and in Deuteronomy twenty-four times.3 ' But the hand of God only occurs one time in Genesis where the 'hands of the Mighty One of Jacob' strengthen the arms of Joseph (Gen. 49.24)32 and only three times in the conquest narratives in Joshua and Judges. While the image of the Divine Warrior occurs in Josh. 5.13-15, the image of the hand of God assisting Israel against its enemies is conspicuously absent from the narratives of the conquest in the Primary History.33 In Josh. 4.24 the hand of God is 30. Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1991), p. 215. 31. The hand of God does not occur in Leviticus. 1 have counted the wilderness narratives in Numbers as part of the Exodus narratives. In either case the image of the hand of God is not prominent in Numbers, occurring only twice in Num. 11.23, as a metaphor for power, and 14.30 in the gesture of the raised hand representing an oath. 32. Elsewhere in the Bible the acts of creation are described with hand of God imagery but not in Genesis. In the Psalms the heavens are described as the work of his fingers (Ps. 8.4 [Eng. 3]); Isaiah has the image of the foundation of his earth with his hand (Isa. 48.13). 33. Elsewhere in the Bible one notable exception is found in Ps. 44.3-4 (Eng. 2-3) where the hand of God is explicitly credited with the Conquest as opposed to the people winning the land with their own strength.
SEELY The Image of the Hand of God
53
associated with the miraculous crossing of the Jordan River—an event portrayed as mirroring the crossing of the Reed Sea. And in Josh. 22.31 and in Judg. 2.15 the hand of God is directed against Israel, instead of her enemies, because of her rebellion in the Promised Land. All of the instances of the intervention of the hand of God in the Exodus narratives are direct manifestations of divine power and are in no way connected with the efforts of mortals. In this sense they stand apart from many other examples of divine intervention in the Bible in which God strengthens or aids an individual or a people in their efforts. Thus the image of the hand of God represents a distinctive theology of God's power to intervene miraculously in the affairs of humans apart from earthly powers. It is an important motif in what has been termed by Hallo and van Dijk as the 'exaltation of Yahweh' defined as 'the emergence of Israel's God to an unchallenged supremacy in the eyes of his people' which occurs in the book of Exodus.34 Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses summarizes the contest, 'Blessed be the Lord, who has delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and the hand of Pharaoh. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods' (Exod. 18.10-11). This theological concept is dramatized in the Exodus narratives by the image of the hand of God in a contest against Pharaoh—who claimed divinity—and his magicians. It is a contest between the 'strong hand' of God who sends 'signs and wonders' to deliver his people 'from the hand (miyyad)' of the Egyptians and 'from the hand (miyyad) of Pharaoh (Exod. 18.10). And in the Exodus narratives the hand of God is depicted as being victorious by sending the plagues, parting the waters at the Reed Sea, and destroying the Egyptians. This contest is part of a larger theme in the Bible of the constant interplay and struggle between the 'mighty hand (or arm) of God' and the 'arm of flesh' (Jer. 17.5; Job 40.9). After the Exodus the next story in the Primary History in which the hand of God figures prominently is the Ark Narrative in 1 Samuel 4-7. Here again is a contest between the hand of God and the hands of the enemy. The Lord deliberately does not aid his people in battle so that they are defeated by the Philistines and their gods and the ark is captured—causing Israel to cry, 'Woe to us! Who can deliver us from the hands (miyyad)+of these mighty gods?' (1 Sam. 4.8). The ark is taken to Ashdod where the Lord in turn confronts the statue of Dagon—and the next morning Dagon 34. William W. Hallo and J.J.A. van Dijk, The Exaltation oflnnana (Yale Near Eastern Researches, 3; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 67-68. Mann develops this typology of exaltation at length although he does not discuss the image of the hand of God in his Divine Presence and Guidance.
54
God's Word for Our World
is found fallen on his face with his head and his hands cut off (1 Sam. 5.4). The 'hand of the Lord' then smites the Philistines with a plague and the ark is delivered from captivity, Samuel gathers the people together and they repent and go to battle and the Lord 'helps them' (1 Sam. 7.12) to defeat the Philistines. The text notes 'the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel' (1 Sam. 7.13). Here is a story shaped in the shadow of the Exodus story—the Ark Narrative is a contest between God and foreign powers and deities, the Lord's refusal to help his people, his demonstration of superiority reflected in the cut off hands of Dagon, the hand of the Lord inflicting a plague on the Philistines, and finally divine intervention on behalf of his repentant people. The story is similar to the story of the Exodus and yet it is different. In the Ark Narrative the intervention of the hand of God on behalf of his people is conditional, and while he has power to intervene on his own against Dagon and the Philistines, the Lord achieved victory over the enemy not as at the Reed Sea—where the hand of the Lord did all of the 'fighting'—but through divine assistance. Throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible the image of the hand of God is expressed in many contexts and in various ways—but all can be measured by the imagery of the hand of God in the Exodus. The hand of God delivered Israel 'from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh' (Exod. 18.10) and set them on their way to Sinai where they became God's people through the covenant. Jeremiah records how the story played out. When the Babylonians came up against Jerusalem, King Zedekiah sent to Jeremiah with the hope of receiving divine deliverance. The Lord responded through Jeremiah that he would not deliver his people who had broken the covenant, 'I myself will fight against you with outstretched hand and mighty arm' in anger, in fury, and in great wrath' (Jer. 21.5). Here the attributes in the Deuteronomic formula 'with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, well known from its many occurrences in Exodus, occur as a unique literary device emphasizing 'the reversal by which Yahweh now embarks upon holy war against his own people'.35 In Jeremiah's own words: 'You brought your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs, and wonders, with a strong hand and outstretched arm.. .but they did not obey your voice or follow your law.. .and the city, faced with sword, famine, and pestilence, has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans'(32.21-24). 35. William L. Holladay, Jeremiah. I. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 7-25 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 570.
NUMBERS 5.11-31: VALUING MALE SUSPICION Deborah L. Ellens
1. Introduction A husband drags his wife before the priest. The priest brings her before Yhwh. He prepares a potion, shaves her head, makes her swear an oath and drink the potion. He offers the minhah without oil and frankincense. The procedure effects a verdict: innocent or guilty. That verdict eradicates male suspicion and bestows male knowledge. God delivers the penalty. This is Num. 5.11-31. Its text describes the ritual prescription for a 'malady' called !Mp m~i, a 'spirit of jealousy' or a 'jealous rage' which overtakes a man who suspects his wife of infidelity. The ritual effectively rescues the husband from his malady. Verse 31 is the only interpolation of the pericope. The primary concern of the text, and therefore the ritual it describes, prior to this addition, is not to protect the woman from lynching. Nor is it to punish adultery. To say that the original concern is to preserve peace in the community; or to say that it protects the purity of the husband's progeny; or to say that it is a simple polygraph test, is half-truth which fails to hit the heart of the ritual. The heart of the ritual, in the original context, is suspicion triggering the condition called NDp rm. The original, primary concern of the ritual is to instruct the audience on the execution of a procedure, which has the power to rescue a single male from this condition. Nothing more. Any other result is incidental to this rescue. The subsequent addition of v. 31 extends the original intent in two directions. First, protecting the accusing husband, it bolsters the original intent, ensuring the ritual's efficacy. The husband incurs no punishment, whatever the verdict. Second, it reveals a recontextualization1++of the 1. See Knierim on the use of the terms 'recontextualization', 'transformation' and 'reconceptualization' used in this paragraph: Rolf P. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1.1-9: A Case in Exegetical Method (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), p. 1 n. 1.
56
God's Word for Our World
potential, guilty verdict. The redactor is aware that the guilty verdict transforms the focus of the threat, which the ritual addresses, from the individual to the collective. The redactor decides that the potential transformation is so dire that provision for it must stand within the ritual text of the ordeal itself. Originally, prior to the addition of v. 31, either this extension of the threat was not perceived, or a subsequent legal apparatus was relied upon to take care of it. The textual result of this recontextualization is a reconceptualization of the verdict. In its new context the original verdict transforms to both verdict and penalty. The original context and its subsequent transformation prompt a theoretical exploration concerning the social construction of male suspicion in ancient Israel. This exploration reveals interesting gender constellations which might otherwise remain hidden. 2. Discussion 2.1. Structure 2.1.1. Introduction The problems of Num. 5.11-31 concern both the ritual and the text that describes it. We are at a disadvantage. Our knowledge of both text and ritual comes through the text alone. The large number of scholars who have argued for several sources is testimony to the fact that the text does not deliver its prize easily. As Baruch Levine notes, at least three aspects of the ritual described in the text must be clarified: (1) its consequences; (2) the circumstances which prompt it; and (3) its phenomenology.2 Choices concerning these three aspects are enmeshed with choices concerning the structural problems of the passage. Many of these structural problems and many of the choices concerning the ritual have been satisfactorily argued since the 1970s.3 The review that follows is, therefore, cursory but to the point. 2. Baruch Levine, Numbers 1-20 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 200-201. 3. For bibliographic information see the following: Herbert Chanan Brichto, The Case of the sofa+and a Reconsideration of Biblical "Law"', HUCA 46 (1975), pp. 55-70 (55); Michael Fishbane, 'Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5.11-31', in Alice Bach (éd.), Women in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Routledge, 1999), pp. 487-502; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, 'The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers V 11-31)', FT 34.1 (1984), pp. 11-26 (12-13); Jacob Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress, Numbers 5.11-31: Redaction and Meaning', in R.E. Friedman (éd.), The Creation of Sacred Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 69-75.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
57
Prior to the '70s scholars attributed the repetitions, redundancies and disjunctions of this text to a piecemeal construction whereby one or more redactors interpolated portions of it. In the mid-'70s, however, Michael Fishbane and Herbert Chanan Brichto changed the course of the discussion by discovering ways to read the text as a whole. During the '80s W. McKane, Jacob Milgrom and Tikva Frymer-Kensky continued the trend, refining our skills in this direction. Baruch Levine followed the same course in his 1993 Numbers commentary. Milgrom and Frymer-Kensky have made the most significant contributions to the structural discussion since the '70s. Both use chiasm extensively to understand the text and the ritual it describes. Milgrom states that, with two minor exceptions, the text derives from a single source. Frymer-Kensky discovers, in addition to the inclusio signals of the chiasms, a set of signals which she calls 'incipits'. This set of signals suggests the most convincing structure offered, so far, for the text. However, Milgrom dismisses her schema on the grounds that it cannot account for the problems of v. 21.4 In what follows I will address Milgrom's criticism, offer a structure based on Frymer-Kensky's schema and discuss the implications of that structure for our understanding of the social construction of male suspicion. 2.1.2. Kensky and Milgrom The husband in Num. 5.11-31 is the object, if not the victim, of a fit of jealous rage, triggered by suspicion. The grammar itself reflects his status. In v. 14, he is twice the object of a preposition. The rage is subject. Verse 14 occurs within a pericope beginning at v. 12b. Fishbane describes vv. 12-14 as the protases of two distinct cases.5 He appeals to laws 131 and 132 of Codex Hammurapi to explain the relationship of the two biblical cases. As a result he divides them between vv. 13 and 14, according to a distinction between public and private accusation.6 Initially, Milgrom 4. Jacob Milgrom, 'On the Suspected Adulteress (Number V 11-31)', VT 35 (1985), pp. 368-69. 5. Fishbane, 'Accusations of Adultery', p. 489. For bibliographic notes on discussion preceding Fishbane see the following: Brichto, 'The Case of the sôtff,+p. 55 n. 1 ; Fishbane, 'Accusations of Adultery', p. 489; Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', pp. 12-13; G. Giesen, Die Wurzel IDE? 'schwôren' (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1981), p. 130; Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 69; idem, Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989), pp. 350-51. 6. Fishbane, 'Accusations of Adultery', pp. 492-94.
58
God's Word for Our World
follows his lead.7 However, his later, 1989 Numbers commentary reflects Frymer-Kensky's argument that the cases distinguish between innocence and guilt, rather than public and private accusation. Following FrymerKensky's lead, Milgrom abandons Fishbane's division between v. 13 and v. 14 and favors the division between 14a and 14b, corresponding to the division between 29b and 30a in the resumptive subscript.8 Frymer-Kensky relies upon inclusios to establish her reading of w. 12-14 and to establish the coherence of the text as a whole.9 She notes that redundancies and repetitions have been proven to be stylistic techniques in construction of many biblical texts.10 However, she does not stop with this latter observation nor with the inclusios. She discovers another interesting and convincing structure at work in the text, a structure which accounts for many of the most significant repetitions. She divides w. 12-31 into four main sections: Introduction (w. 12-14), Action (w. 15-28), Recapitulation (vv. 29-30) and Addendum-Resolution (v. 31). The Action section, itself, divides into four sections: Initiation (v. 15), Preparation (w. 16-18), Adjuration (vv. 19-23) and Execution (vv. 24-28). This is the section which describes the ritual. Frymer-Kensky suggests that these latter four sections, describing the ritual, each begin with a title, a keyword from the section itself. Her description is so apt that I must quote her in full: In each case the key word introduces the section and marks its prime act. It in effect serves as a heading or incipit of that section. Since there is more than one act in each stage of the ritual, and since the passage must detail all the actions to be performed, each section of the passage must include all the acts to be performed at that point. Each action section, therefore, first indicates the prime act of each stage and then describes the co-ordinate act to be performed at that stage: the preparation of the potion, the recitation of the promise of acquittal for the innocent, or the performance of the meal-offering. After the description of the relevant co-ordinate act, each section then returns to the prime act of each stage of the ritual, giving it a fuller exposition. It marks its return to the prime act by the inclusio device of repeating the passage with which the section opened.! ï.
When I exegeted Num. 5.11-31, before reading Frymer-Kensky's article, I too had the impression that the description of the ritual (w. 16-28) was 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Milgrom, 'On the Suspected Adulteress'. Milgrom, Numbers, p. 351; Frymer-Kensky, The Suspected Sotah', pp. 16-17. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', pp. 14-16. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', p. 12. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', p. 15.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
59
sectioned in the text and that each section was 'signalled'. What she calls 'incipits', I called 'programmatic statements'. I was delighted to find that she had worked the problem and described it succinctly. Milgrom, however, did not have the same impression and dismisses the entire schema on the basis of its inability to account for v. 21. He writes: Unfortunately, her proposal founders on the shoals of the second section (w. 19-23). The priest's adjuration of the wëhisbîa ' 'ôtâh hakkôhên (v. 19aa) is not limited to a promise of acquittal if she is innocent (v. 19) but also contains, before the repetition is reached (v. 18act [sz'c12]), the beginning (i.e., the protasis) of a promise of punishment if she is guilty (v. 20). The latter's ending (apodosis) occurs in v. 22. Thus, v. 21, containing the repeated adjuration, is an intrusion. It was placed there to emphasize that the imprecation derives its force not from the water but from the Lord.13
Indeed, Frymer-Kensky addresses the problem of v. 21 only obliquely by indicating that repetitions and disjunctions are not necessarily a sign of 'multiple origins or bad style', but rather 'a classic biblical technique used variously to unify compositions with complex structure, to resume narrative after a long hiatus.. .and to resume narrative after short digressions'.14 Milgrom has rightly targeted an unaddressed, niggling problem. The fact that the priest's adjuration (v. 19aa) rules over both a promise for acquittal if innocent and a promise for punishment if guilty does not argue against Frymer-Kensky's proposal; nor does Milgrom claim that it does. However, according to Milgrom, the intrusion of v. 21, where the repetition for this section occurs, does argue against it. Furthermore, Milgrom claims that the repetitions of the other two sections are easily explained without resorting to incipits. The question is: Can v. 21 be read as an integral part of the text? I think it can. 2.1.3. Structure Proper 2.1.3.1. Outline An examination of the structure of the text is necessary to solve this problem. The structure I offer below reveals many of the choices I have made in my understanding of the text and the ritual it describes. It demonstrates nothing less than a deliberate and meticulous, rather than haphazard, construction of Num. 5.11-31 by the author:
12. He means 21aa 13. Milgrom, 'On the Suspected Adulteress', p. 368. 14. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', pp. 12-13.
60
God's Word for Our World
I Introductory Formula II Yhwh Speech A. General Command B. Specific Commands: The Law of Jealousy 1. Introduction 2. The Speech Proper a. The case of jealousy delineated 1) subject of the case: K?8 ON 2) the conditional statement a) protasis ( 1 ) the husband of guilty woman (a) woman ' s situation 1 a condition #1 lp general 2p specific 2a condition #2 IP specific 2P general 3a condition #3 4a condition #4 (b) husband's situation la rage 2a context (2) husband of guiltless woman (a) rage (b) context b) apodosis (1) Husband's duty: the approach (a) bring the woman (b) bring her offering 1 a general statemen 2a specification 1 p requirements 1 y measure 2y preparation 10 no oil 26 no frankincense 2 P motivation ly general 2y specific
11 12-31 12aa 12a0-31 12ap 12b 12b-28 12ba 12b0-28 12b0-14 12b0-14a0 12bp~ 13 12bp-13aa 12bp 13aa 13ap 13api 13ap2 13ba 13bp 14a 14aa 14ap 14b 14ba 14bp 15-28 15 15aa 15ap-15b 15 ap 15aa-15b 1 Say-15bp 15 ay 15bct-15bp 15ba 15bp 15by 15bi 15by2
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion (2) Priest's duty: the++++++++++++++++++++++++(a) Part 1 : cause the woman to approach and 16-18 stand la programmatic statement 16 2a ritual proper 17-27 1 P preparing the water 17 2p preparing the woman 18a 1 y cause to stand++++++++++++++++++ 2y shave hair 18ap 3y put in her hand 18ay 3 p preparing the priest 18b (b) Part 2: cause the woman to swear 19-23 la programmatic statement 19aa 2a ritual proper 19ap-23 1P words spoken 19ap~22 1 y Priest's part 19ap-22a 10 introduction 19ap 20 words of ritual 19ay-22a 1s innocent 19ay-19b 1C protasis 19ay 2Ç apodosis 19b 2e guilty 20-22a 1C subject 20aa 2Ç conditional 20ap-22a lr| protasis 20ap-20b 30 parenthetical directive signal- 21 aa-p ling curse-oath 1 e secondary programmatic 21 aa signal 2e apodosis signal 2lap 2t| apodosis 2y woman's part 10 introduction 26 words of the ritual 2p words written and wiped (c) Part 3: cause the woman to drink la programmatic statement 1 p the act
21ay-22a 22b 22ba 22bp 23 24-28 24 24a
61
62
God's Word for Our World 2p the result 24b 2a ritual proper 25-28 lp the offering 25-26 ly bringing 25 2y burning 26 10 directive concerning+++f+++++++. 25 directive concerning sequence 26b 2P the waters 27-28 ly drinking 27aa 2y results 27ap-28 1 ô introduction 27ap 25 two possibilities 27ay-28 1+in context of defilement 27ap-27b 1C protasis 27ay-5 2Ç apodosis 27ae-27b 2e in context of non-defilement 28 1C protasis 28a 2Ç apodosis 28b b. Case of jealousy summarized 29-31 1) identifying clause 29a 2) case proper 29b-31 a) protasis 29b-30a ( 1 ) context # 1 : adulter 29b (2) context #2: jealousy 30a b) apodosis 30b-31 (1) part one: ritual 30ba-p (a) husband 30ba (b) priest 30bp (2) part two: consequence 31
2.1.3.2. Explanation 2.1.3.2.1. Introduction Once the preliminaries (vv. 1 l-12ap) are past and the subject of the case named (v. 12ba) by way of proleptic referent, the entire case, including the ritual, is presented in the form of a single conditional (w. 12bp-28).15 The formulation is clear and concise. This conditional is followed by what scholars call the 'resumptive subscript' (vv. 29-31), a summary of the case. 15. The proleptic referent may, of course, be read as part of the conditional. If so, then the conditional runs from 12ba-28.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
63
As scholars have observed, this resumptive subscript generally mirrors the structure of the case related in w. 12b(3-28. The protasis of the case sets out the conditions under which the ritual can be invoked, as described above. The apodosis consists of two parts. The first part pertains to the husband's actions. The second part pertains to the priest's actions. The ritual, which consists of three parts, occurs within the section where the priest acts. The author is painstakingly self-conscious in his attempt to translate actual ritual into a manual for ritual-execution. Clearly the text is not the recording of a ritual. It is instruction. As such, it contains directives, signals, appellations and other indicators beyond the ritual per se. With programmatic statements or incipits, the author facilitates the instruction by signalling each section of the text: the approach, the swearing, the drinking. Under each of these headings, the ritual is detailed. Verse 21, however, stands out in this well-ordered text as an anomaly. Like the rest of the text the anomaly is consciously constructed. In fact, its anomalous nature is required for the purpose the author intends. 2.1.3.2.2. Verse 21. As the outline above indicates, I read v. 21aa-p as a parenthetical directive. It consists of two parts. The first part (v. 21aa) is a secondary programmatic statement. The second part (v. 2lap) signals the apodosis that follows. This means that, within this section (w. 19-22), the priest's words are signalled no less than four times: (1) the priest shall cause her to swear (v. 19aa); (2) and he shall say (v. 19a(3); (3) and the priest shall cause the woman to swear by the oath of the curse (v. 21aa); (4) and the priest shall say (21 aa). The first signal (v. 19aa) is the programmatic statement of the section. It is repeated by v. 21aa. The last signal (v. 21ap) is the 'apodosis signal'. The apodosis itself follows. However, the level at which I have placed v. 21aa-p seems to indicate that no such lead-in and certainly no integral connection is possible between the signal and the apodosis. I have placed this unit at its 'unlikely' level, because what is constitutive for its placement is not the fact that it leads into or is connected to an apodosis, which it has split from a protasis. Rather, what is constitutive is the fact that it is a 'stage direction' in a manual for execution, a signal on the same level as the 'stage directions' or signals of vv. 19a[3 and 22ba. Its words are typologically identical to the words of these two latter units. The anomaly is that it is parenthetical and it behaves as such in the structure. It 'unexpectedly' interrupts a conditional. The interruption, however, need not be considered an interpolation.
64
God's Word for Our World
The 'secondary programmatic signal'16 alerts the priest, who is reading the manual, that here is the actual place, in the swearing section of the ritual, where the swearing that brings negative consequences occurs, namely the oath of the curse. The 'apodosis signal' alerts the priest, who is reading the manual, that here are the actual words, in the actual place of the swearing section of the ritual, which swear to negative consequences.17 The care with which these signals are placed, interrupting the conditional, indicates the power which this portion of the ritual holds. They demonstrate the author's belief in the efficacy of spoken words as instrument. As the above structure indicates, v. 2lay resumes the conditional begun in 20ap,18 subsequent to the parenthetical. This reading is different from Milgrom's. His belief that v. 21 is an interpolation leads him to the conclusion that the apodosis resumes at v. 22, 'for then the adjuration reads smoothly and lucidly'.19 However, the first apodosis under the adjuration, concerning the innocent (vv. 19ay-19b) begins without a conjunction or a preposition or any other connector. It begins simply with "'pSH, a niphal imperative. If the second apodosis begins at 2 lay instead of at 22a, then its beginning is grammatically parallel to the first apodosis. It begins with )FT, a qal jussive. Milgrom's arguments are more sophisticated, however, than the simple assertion that v. 22 provides smooth and lucid reading if it, rather than v. 21, follows v. 20. A review of his arguments is warranted. He provides at least two reasons for concluding that v. 21 is interpolation. First, the notice that the priest adjures the woman is repeated 'unnecessarily' and, second, the jump from 21b to 22a is awkward both in terms of content and grammar.20 He writes: Furthermore, even if the redundancies of 21 could be justified there is no way of harmonizing the jarring and abrasive juxtaposition of 22 to 21, which would imply that first her physical condition will make her a byword and then she will drink the water. However, it is clear that the sagging thigh and distended belly are not the cause but the effect of the water. Hence instead of the sequential verb ûbâ 'û, 'May [this water] enter' (22), one would have expected the infinitive construct b3bo', 'As [this water] enters', the 16. See the structure presented above. 17. 19ap also serves as an indicator that the actual words which have been signalled stand here in the text and ritual. 18. The proleptic referent HN may, of course, be rendered as part of the conditional. If so, the conditional begins at 20a. 19. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 71. 20. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 71; idem, Numbers, p. 353.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
65
same construction as the previous If têt, 'As [the Lord] causes' (21). However, ûbâ 'û follows both logically and grammatically after 20, for then the prescribed ordeal is a consequence of the accusation.21
However, as stated, if the two apodoses begin in parallel ways, we expect something like the imperative that begins the first apodosis. We find it in the middle of v. 21 itself, at 21ay: )fr. An adverbial clause follows at 21b. The next finite verb is a relative perfect.22 Thus, we have a. jussive + perfect+sequence. Waltke states: '+Weqataltimayexpress a consequent (logical and/or chronological) situation to a situation represented by a volitional form (cohortative, imperative, jussive; #1 b)'.23 My understanding of the relationship of v. 22 to v. 2lay runs counter to the possibility this statement describes. I propose that the waw beginning v. 22, despite the customary understanding of jussive + perfect sequence, carries an epexegetical force and that the situation described in v. 22 is not sequentially consequent upon v. 21 but rather 'appositional' to it. Verse 22 'clarifies or specifies the sense of the preceding clause' ,24 As was seen in vv. 12 and 13, where the hiddenness of the wife's crime was clarified in a variety of ways, in clause after clause, this author has a proclivity for this stylistic device. Furthermore, the epexegetical force of the clause serves a purpose. In v. 21, as Milgrom states, the source of the power of the water is named.25 The deity is invoked. The author moves from this 'unseen' but essential element in the ritual to what is seen and immediate: the waters. The waters are the instrument of the deity. The author wants the woman to become aware of Yhwh whose power effects the verdict; but he wants her to be equally aware of the real, immediate, seen, instrument, which Yhwh vests with power and which she will swallow. By naming Yhwh as the 'source' and moving to the waters as the 'seen', the author invokes the presence of the deity in a most terrifying way. By these words, Yhwh transfers from the unseen to the seen. A circumstantial preposition at the beginning of v. 22 would soften the force of the imagery the priest brings to the woman's attention. By means of the epexegetical waw he says to the woman, 'Look 21. Milgrom, The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', pp. 71 -72. 22. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 1990), p. 519. 23. Waltke and O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 529. See also Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons: 1971), p. 119. 24. Waltke and O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 652. 25. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 72.
66
God's Word for Our World
here now. These waters, which you see and swallow, will enter your body and effect what Yhwh causes.' Verses 21ay-22a might be translated as follows: 'May Yhwh make you a curse and an oath in the midst of your people, when Yhwh makes your thigh fall and your belly swell; look here, this means—these waters bringing the curse will enter your womb for swelling the belly and causing the thigh to fall'. Thus, the grammar and content of w. 21-22 serve the author's express purpose of vesting this portion of the ritual with tremendous power. However, more must be said about Milgrom's first reason for concluding that v. 21 is an interpolation, the problem of the 'unnecessarily' repeated notice of the priest's adjuration. The repetition occurs at 21aa-p. It is present because of the peculiar nature of the words which follow it. Words in w. 21-22 have a dual, generic function. All the words of the text convey the author's instruction. But some of the words are like water, dust, hair, offering and altar. They are instrument. Where they occur, instruction and instrument overlap. The instruction is all of w. 21-22 and the 'instrument', or the verba sacra,26 is w. 21aa-22a and 22bp. At 21ap-22a and 22bp, the manual of explanation for the ritual and the elements of the ritual coincide. For this reason, the incipit, The Priest Causes Her to Swear, occurs in 19aa and repeats immediately before the verba sacra. Instruction and instrument overlap. The 'notices' demonstrate that words are probably the most powerful of the instruments, which work in conjunction with one another in the ritual. The repetitions preserve nothing less than the potency of the ritual. Milgrom suggests that the verba sacra of the text have been appropriated from an ancient Near Eastern source. Their treatment in the text, including the 'unnecessary' repetition of the notice of adjuration, supports his suggestion. Concerning the formula of the oath, Milgrom writes: It may have been incorporated into the Israelite cult at local high places or shrines and converted into an oath by having the suspected adulteress respond 'amen' (22b). The priestly legislator, however, found the formula
26. Fishbane, 'Accusations of Adultery', p. 488. Fishbane writes: 'The combination of sacred act and sacred word is common among the recovered rituals of the ancient Near East; but there are regrettably few examples in the Hebrew Bible. Num. 5.11-31 is a notable exception; so is Deut. 21.1-9, which prescribes the praxis and oath of absolution in cases of unaccountable homicide. Otherwise, the verba sacra which accompanied ritual praxis have not been preserved. This situation is presumably due to the type and nature of the received texts themselves.'
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
67
unacceptable, since it ostensibly attributed the effect of the oath to the water itself. Since the formula was already accepted and in widespread use he would have incurred too much resistance had he attempted to alter its wording. Instead he followed the simple and more acceptable expedient by adding a statement affirming that the efficacy of the oath was due to the God of Israel (2 Ib). And to forestall the protest that no change in the text was necessary, since an oath implied the invocation of the Deity, he also added a new thought, namely, that the convicted adulteress would become a byword among her people (2la; cf. Jer 29.22).27
If Milgrom is right, the author, by his repeated notices of the priest's adjuration, calls attention to words which are formulaic in their potency and which, in other ancient Near Eastern contexts, had proven their potency. The repetition in 21 aa-21 a|3 constructs this unit as a parenthetical. It jumps the present level of the text to call attention to the instrument of the ritual. Thus, a presentation of the instrument—words—necessitates special attention in the form of interruption of the conditionally phrased instruction surrounding it. The repetitions cradle the potency of the ritual by holding the words in their proper place and by signalling to the priest that he must trifle with neither their precise articulation nor their placement. The transformation of the words from spoken to written to swallowed and the potency that transformation carries requires formulaic precision. Repetitions call attention to this necessity, signalling that the formula is inviolable. The author has effectively warded any inadvertent or intentional damage to this instrument. Some of Milgrom's own comments might be used to support the scenario I have described. He notes that vv. 21 and 22 were 'made to fit artistically and coherently with the rest of the oath formula'.28 He describes this effort in the text as follows: Thus the Lord will make (yitten,+v. 21) her a curse in response to+++++++ ing (va-yitteri) a man other than her husband to have carnal relations with her (v. 20b). Also the effect of the imprecation in verse 21b is given in the reverse order of verse 22a, the thigh preceding the belly, again providing a chiastic balance. Another chiasm was produced within verse 21 with the words shevu'ah, 'oath', and 'alah, 'imprecation'.29
27. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 72; idem, Numbers, p. 353. 28. Milgrom, Numbers, p. 354. 29. Milgrom, Numbers, p. 354.
68
God's Word for Our World
Furthermore, Milgrom admits that the interpolation of v. 21 must have been early because the content of 27b presumes 2la.30 I would say that the 'interpolation' must have been as early as the original composition of the text. However, Israel Knohl suggests that v. 27b is an addition as well. He writes: Milgrom claims that the interpolation was made in the early stages of the editing of the pericope, fQU "pro nuntobl n^N1? is repeated in vs. 7b... But perhaps v. 27b is an editorial addition as well! The two possible results of the ordeal of the suspected adulteress are adequately described in w. 27a, 28, which are edited as a chiastic parallel to w. 19,20,22. The editors were, apparently, sensitive to the right literary structure of the passage and thus added v. 27b to correspond to their addition in vs. 21.31
Knohl takes Num. 5.11-31 to be a priestly text of the 'P school' (PT) as opposed to the 'H school' (HT). God, as Yhwh, is never the agent of direct punishment in PT. Knohl notes that punishments in PT are impersonal where Yhwh is concerned.32 Knohl's larger theory, therefore, requires the interpolation. While he understands that H interpolated both v. 27b and v. 21, Milgrom understands that P interpolated both, early in the formation of the text.33 Milgrom argues, against Knohl, that v. 27b is an essential component to the resumptive subscript, since it is the exact counterbalance to the consequence of innocence given in v. 28b.34 If we understand v. 21 as an integral part of the text, then one of two scenarios may be true. We have an exception to Knohl's rule, that is, Yhwh metes punishment directly; or this ritual was not understood, originally, as supplying punishment, in the technical sense. I propose that the latter is the case. Before the addition of v. 31 this ritual did not supply punishment in the technical sense. It supplied only a verdict and the natural, rather than legal, consequences of such a verdict. To support this proposal two examinations are necessary. The first concerns the status of v. 31. The second concerns Frymer-Kensky's cross-cultural research on 'trial by ordeal'.
30. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 73; idem, Numbers, p. 354. 31. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress Press: 1995), pp. 88-89 n. 90. 32. Knohl, Sanctuary, p. 88. 33. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 1430. 34. Milgrom, Leviticus, p. 1430.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
69
2.1.3.2.3. The Question of Penalty 2.1.3.2.3.1. Verse 31. Most, if not all, scholars believe that punishment for the guilty woman is a part of this ritual, with or without interpolation. Frymer-Kensky states that the goal of the ritual is 'to punish adultery'.35 Milgrom states that her punishment is permanent sterility.36 She is protected from lynching in favor of this divine punishment.37 McKane suggests that she is pregnant and the punishment is miscarriage.38 Brichto's suggestion is unique. He states that the ritual protects the woman, since 'mores had stacked the deck' against her.39 He suggests that the effect of the potion is false pregnancy, a 'hysterical neurosis'. He concludes that the 'psychic phenomenon of the power of suggestion', by means of which the ritual works, has little or no effect on either an innocent or a guilty woman. Brichto assumes that the writer of the ancient text would share his own 'assessment of probability' concerning the effect of the potion. This means that the writer has knowingly described a test which the woman is unlikely to fail.40 In a rage, the husband might harm the woman who is disadvantaged in her subordination to him.41 For this reason a ritual which favors her, without appearing to do so, is necessary. Brichto's assessment, however, fails to take the text seriously on its own terms. The text gives no indication whatsoever of disbelieving the power of the potion, and the ritual as a whole to distinguish between innocent and guilty and to effect the guilty verdict. In fact, the ancient text gives every indication of unqualified trust in that power. Only our collective twenty-first century, 'scientific' sensibilities stand against the sincerity of the text. Verse 31 clearly states 'She shall carry her sin', a penalty formula indicating humans are to leave punishment to divine prerogative.42 Milgrom identifies it as an interpolation because it falls outside the min HNT formula
35. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', p. 11. 36. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 73. 37. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', pp. 73-74. 38. W. McKane, 'Poison, Trial by Ordeal and the Cup of Wrath', FT 30/4 (1980), pp. 474-92 (474). 39. Brichto, 'The Case of the sofa', pp. 55, 66-67. 40. Brichto, 'The Case of the sôtâ', p. 66. 41. Brichto, 'The Case of the sôtà\ p. 67. 42. D.W. Zimmerli, 'Die Eigenart derprophetischen Rede des Ezechiel', ZAW66 (1954), pp. 1-26 (8-12); Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 73; Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', p. 22.
70
God's Word for Our World
which concludes the law of jealousy.43 According to Milgrom its purpose is twofold. First, it ensures that the husband cannot be held liable for false accusation, or any other accusation, under any circumstance in the case. Second, it protects the woman from lynching by placing her punishment in God's hands.44 Paradoxically, if guilty, the woman has committed a deathpenalty crime but escapes that penalty because she is 'unapprehended by man'.45 Nevertheless, the divine punishment, Milgrom observes, is a form oftalionis: 'So the adulteress who acquiesced to receive forbidden seed is doomed to sterility for the rest of her life'.46 Thus, the last clause of v. 31, a penalty clause, contextualizes the results of the ritual given in vv. 21-22 and v. 27. In light of v. 31, no scholar can be faulted for concluding that these verses refer to penalties in the technical sense. Milgrom's explanation of v. 31 as an interpolation is convincing. His perceptions that it transforms other elements of the pericope is correct. However, cued by Frymer-Kensky's comments on trial by ordeal, I propose another explanation of its function. 2.1.3.2.3.2. Trial by Ordeal. If considering v. 31 to be an interpolation, we remove it; then the text goes through a slight transformation. Verse 31 's contextualizing properties vanish and suddenly the ritual seems more akin to 'trial by ordeal', as Frymer-Kenksy defines it. In fact, Frymer-Kensky states that this ritual cannot be considered 'trial by ordeal' since such trials, typically, do not deliver penalties, and since verdicts, which they do deliver, are rendered immediately.47 Across cultures, trials by ordeal 43. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 73. 'That it is a postscript and is not an organic part of the text is clear from the structure of the final section (29-30, A'). The section is encased by an inverted inclusionzo Y tarât...hattôrâh hazzô Y (cf. also 6.21). Thus, in thought and in form, the law of the suspected adulteress is finished and sealed by this concluding inclusion.' 44. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 74. 45. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', pp. 73-74; idem, Numbers, p. 354, 46. Milgrom, 'The Case of the Suspected Adulteress', p. 75; idem, Numbers, p. 350. 47. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', p. 24: 'It should be obvious that to call this procedure a "trial by ordeal" is unwarranted and misleading. Judicial ordeals are distinguished by two important and interrelated aspects: the god's decision is manifested immediately, and the result of the trial is not in itself the penalty for the offense. ' See also Frymer-Kensky, 'The Trial Before God of an Accused Adulteress', BRev 2/3 (1986), pp. 46-49.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
71
function as a kind of polygraph test.48 The penalty is executed after the ordeal, based upon the verdict. For example, a person who sinks to the bottom of the river, is hauled up and then penalized with execution. The 'falling thigh and swelling belly' are like sinking to the bottom of the river, scalds from plunging the hand in boiling water, burns from touching hot iron, vomiting after drinking a potion.49 While these consequences are 'punishing', they are not, according to Frymer-Kensky the punishment.50 In fact, dragging a woman before a priest, accusing her—whether she has done the act or not—'loosening' or 'shaving' her hair, and forcing her to hear, assent to and drink an oath/curse is punishing. The ritual of Num. 5.11-31 punishingly dispenses humiliation and distress on innocent and guilty alike. However, as punishing as a 'fallen thigh and swollen belly' may be, originally it may not have been the punishment. Originally verdict and penalty may have been separate. According to Frymer-Kensky, ordeals typically address a scenario which is difficult for the legal apparatus to handle, a situation of suspicion or unsubstantiated accusation. This latter qualification certainly fits the Num. 5.11 -30, as well as 5.11 -31 scenarios. Immediacy, however, fits neither scenario. Frymer-Kensky suggests that 'falling thigh and swelling belly' refers to a prolapsed uterus, an eventual rather than immediate result.5! Her reasoning is plausible. The least we can say is what she has also already said: 'The "falling" of the genitalia is obviously a sexual disfunction'.52 Even if we are unable to decide what precisely 'falling thigh and swelling belly' means, the text compels us to conclude that it must be eventual. What sexual dysfunction could occur such that it would be immediate and apparent to the priest and such that the author of the text would fail to make provision for 'cleaning up' afterward, especially if blood is involved? Thus, the eventuality of the results of drinking the potion runs counter to Frymer-Kensky's definition of trial by ordeal.53 48. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Trial Before God', p. 48. 49. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Trial Before God', pp. 47-48. 50. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Trial Before God', p. 47. 51. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', pp. 18-21. 52. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', p. 20. 53. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', pp. 21-22: 'There remains the question of the timing of the results. If the guilty woman was to suffer the collapse of her reproductive system, was this expected to happen as she stood before the Lord? Even if the anticipated result was abortion (which does not seem likely), was she expected to abort immediately? This is not an idle line of inquiry, for it is the key to the essential nature of the legal procedure. If the woman is expected to suffer the consequences
72
God's Word for Our World
However, while eventuality of the verdict may disqualify this ritual as a standard 'trial by ordeal', in the cross-cultural scope of such ordeals, it may represent Israel's variation. In Num. 5.11-31 a divine penalty is specified and we are led to believe that the penalty is the 'falling thigh and swelling belly' and 'becoming a byword'. That verdict and punishment are coterminous in this ritual seems likely. In Num. 5.11-30, however, we face the possibility that drinking the potion effects a verdict only and not a penalty. The motive of the interpolation of v. 31b, then, appears to be the addition of the penalty. In fact, v. 3 Ib is added precisely because penalty is not originally the province of the ritual. All of Milgrom's comments about the divine penalty addressing an unapprehended crime apply here. Even without v. 31, however, a secondary result is connected to the consequence of the 'thigh falling and belly swelling'. In v. 21 'She will become as a curse (n^N) and an oath (ninty) in the midst of her people'. In v. 27, as well, 'She will become a curse (n^N) in the midst of her people'. This result, definitely a consequence of the ritual, is not limited enough to serve as a verdict. But it need not be considered the penalty, in the technical sense. It is the natural consequence of the ritual's guilty verdict. No divine intervention beyond the verdict itself is necessary to manifest these natural consequences. The oath-curse names the natural consequence. The significance of this natural consequence is that her deed is public, her immediately, then any women who did not would be immediately exonerated, regardless of what might happen later. Indeed, if she could be proved guilty by immediate results (as would happen in an ordeal), then we would expect the court to punish her immediately with the penalty appropriate for adultery, which is death. Immediate results, however, are not indicated by the text. In the first place, the innocent woman is not only expected to be immune from any immediate catastrophe (v. 19), but is also expected to conceive (v. 28). Moreover, our passage, which so meticulously details the procedure to be followed from the time that the husband initiates the action, ends with the drinking of the potion. If a result were expected immediately, we would expect this descriptive-prescriptive ritual text to continue with the priest's obligation to lead the woman, if guilty, down from the altar and deliver her to the people or to their leaders. We might even expect the text to provide a ritual appropriate for the acquitted woman's readmission to the community, perhaps a washing and changing of clothes (cf., e.g., Lev. xvii 15), perhaps a rebinding of the hair, and possibly a statement that she is impure until evening. However, the text says nothing of the sort, but rather ends the procedure with the drinking itself. The text clearly signals the end of the ritual by the Torah-subscript which recapitulates the circumstances under which the procedure would be used.'
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
73
reputation among her people altered. Her husband's humiliation becomes her own. If Goerwitz is right about flK U~1S CN~n and the woman's head is shaved, then for several months she wears a reminder that the secrecy which made her husband a victim of suspicion is reversed.54 This, then, is the motive behind this clause in the oath-curse. The verdict gives knowledge. The knowledge is public and has natural, public consequences. 2.1.3.2.3.3. Conclusion. Thus, in ancient Israel, which puts the tasks of the ritual to a particular, narrow but necessary objective, perhaps we have something akin to trial by ordeal with delayed result, an anomaly among cross-cultural examples, but fitting the needs of ancient Israel precisely. Verse 31, by adding a penalty clause, transforms the verdict of the ritual so that it is understood as both divine verdict and divine penalty. 2.1.3.3. Conclusion The original, primary concern of Num. 5.11-30, and therefore the ritual, was to address the malady of jealous rage triggered by suspicion. Verse 31, which adds the penalty, expands the suspicion of the husband to the suspicion of the community. In the presence of the woman's confirmed guilty act, the safety of the community is suspect. A divine penalty remedies the suspicion. The individual remedy is the verdict. The communal remedy is the divine penalty. Without v. 31, the described ritual is a kind of medicinal remedy. With v. 31 the described ritual is a kind of legal remedy. 2.2. The Social Construction of Male Suspicion 2.2.1. Introduction That someone would go to the trouble to construct a 'medicinal remedy' for something as subjective and unsubstantial as an individual male's suspicion is remarkable. That someone else would transform this 'medicinal remedy' for an individual male's suspicion into a 'legal remedy' for the communal threat from his confirmed suspicion is revealing. Both prompt an exploration of the anatomy of male suspicion in ancient Israel. First, however, a list of signals, pointing to the husband, demonstrates the power that the malady of the jealous rage of suspicion in an individual male has to attract the concern not only of the author of the text, but also of the community behind him. 54. Richard L. Goerwitz, 'What Does the Priestly Source Mean by Win HN JTIS?', JQR 84/3-4, pp. 377-94.
74
God's Word for Our World
2.2.2. Structural Signals The text contains at least six sets of structural signals pointing to the welfare of the suspecting husband as the primary concern of the text: (1) The proleptic subject of the protasis, Efô £N, in v. 12ba, indicates that this law concerns the husband over whom passes N3p m~l. (2) The primary actor of the two protases of the single conditional comprising the case under discussion is the husband. Thus, the major sections are called The Husband of Guilty Woman and The Husband of Guiltless Woman. In the apodosis of the same conditional, the husband and the priest are the primary actors. The priest acts on the husband's behalf. The major sections are called The Husband's Duty and The Priest's Duty. Thus, the structure of the major sections highlights the fact that the husband and the priest are the actors in the ritual, both acting on behalf of the husband himself. The law concerns the husband. (3) The clauses in these two protases introduce the conditions that must hold for the ritual to be invoked. They describe two sets of conditions. The first set listed in the text are as follows: (a) there is a husband; (b) his wife turns aside; (c) she acts unfaithfully; (d) she has sexual intercourse with another man; (e) it is hidden from the eyes of the husband; (f) it is done in secret; (g) she is defiled; (h) there are no witnesses; (i) she is not apprehended; (j) a N3p m~l overtakes the husband; (k) he experiences a jealous rage concerning his wife, whom he suspects; (1) she really is defiled. The second set of conditions are as follows: (a) there is a husband; (b) atf]p mi overtakes him; (c) he experiences a jealous rage; (d) the wife is not defiled. The difference between the two cases is the guilt and the innocence of the woman. Two conditions are common to both cases. These two conditions comprise the motivation for the entire ritual: (1) there is a husband; (2) suspecting his wife of infidelity, a N]p mi overtakes him.55 In both cases, the ritual fails to proceed if the jealous rage of suspicion in the husband is absent, regardless of the actions of the wife. This jealous rage of suspicion, then, is the essential concern of the law. (4) The aim of vv. 19ay-22 is twofold. It clarifies to the woman herself what knowledge and what natural results will come through the consequences of the potion. And it invokes the divine power which effects these
55. In the first case this is specified over and over, hi the second case common sense precludes any mention of witnesses. Only someone, who watched the woman at every moment of every day of her life, could claim to be a witness for her innocence. Such a witness is impossible and therefore not specified.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
75
results and natural consequences. The results, from which the natural consequences follow, antidote suspicion's jealous rage. The law, thus, concerns the antidote to jealous rage. (5) The resumptive subscript explicitly names the subject of the text, nKlpn rnin. This is not the law of probable adultery. It is not the law of probable pregnancy. Nor is it the law of protection of the vulnerable woman. It is the law of jealousy. The husband is jealous. This is his law. (6) Verse 31 both bolsters and transforms the original intent of the ritual. It bolsters it by valuing a man's suspicion, protecting his right to act upon it with impunity. It transforms the ritual by diversifying it. The ritual becomes a vehicle for the penalty as well as the verdict. The penalty is no longer left to a subsequent and separate vehicle. The concern for a penalty indicates that male suspicion in this case is no longer conceptualized as an individual concern. The concept of individual male suspicion is extended. It is no longer driven by the question, 'Has she done it to me or not?' With the addition of v. 31, male suspicion becomes collective and is driven by two questions, 'Has she done it to him or not?' and 'Is the community safe or not?' The ritual verdict supplies the answer to the first question. The divine penalty supplies the answer to the second question. These six sets of structural signals indicate that jealous rage triggered by male suspicion is the primary concern. Originally, threat to the individual male was the sole concern. With the addition of v. 31, that concern recontextualizes to the threat to the collective. 2.2.3. Suspicion 2.2.3.1. Constructing Male Suspicion 2.2.3.1.1. Introduction. Having exegeted the text I enter more theoretical territory. 2.2.3.1.2. State-of-Mind.+To understand the remarkability of the procedure in the original context and its significance in the final context, we must notice that the ritual of Num. 5.11-30 addresses a state-of-mind+and not an act. It pulls that state-of-mind, sympathetically, into the public realm and attempts to alter it with the antidote of knowledge. The ritual of Num. 5.11-31, however, is able, additionally, to address an act, the transgression of the guilty woman. The state-of-mind, subjective and unsubstantial, is conceived as concrete enough to be addressed with public procedure. That the subjective and the unsubstantial might be concretized, that it might mobilize a public
76
God's Word for Our World
procedure and a text, means either that its effect or its source is conceived as threatening the fundamentals of a male world. In other words, either the effect or the source of the jealous rage is perceived to have the power to force or manifest concrete changes against the man. The effect is what the jealous man might do on his own to take care of his rage. The source is what the woman or the man's own imagination has done to generate it. While both the effect and the source might 'concretize' the state-of-mind enough to generate public procedure and a text, the sympathies of the text and the procedure suggest that the source rather than the effect is responsible. The ritual is like plugging the hole in the dike or shielding the Achilles heel. Suspicion is the one place where a woman can strike and succeed in wresting control of her sexuality from the male, thereby altering the fundamentals of his world. The ritual redresses this weakness in his system. In the presence of a guilty verdict the problem shifts from the individual male state-of-mind to the communal threat of an accomplished physical act. The divine penalty is invoked and v. 3la encourages the suspecting male not to hesitate. 2.2.3.1.3. Anatomy of Male Suspicion. This malady of suspicion, N]p m~l, might be said to consist of at least four components: the vagina, the womb, the community and the male perpetrator. An examination of these components reveals the fundamentals of the male world that are altered. The husband suspects that his exclusive right to intercourse with his wife has been compromised. He suspects that the purity of the womb belonging to him, and therefore the progeny which issues from it, has been compromised. He suspects that he is dishonored in his house and in the larger community. Finally, he suspects that another male has entered where only he should have gone. The ritual of Num. 5.11-30 addresses the first three components, on his behalf, without qualification. The fourth component remains entirely unaddressed. The omission is telling. The final form of the text expands the concept of suspicion to the community and addresses that expanded form with a penalty. If we cannot be certain what precise form a guilty verdict took, we can be certain, as noted above, that it is some kind of sexual dysfunction. Without more precise knowledge, we remain unsure as to how the first two components of suspicion, the vagina and the womb, were addressed. However, we can presume that they were addressed in some manner. Following a prolapsed uterus through the four components of suspicion is informative. The exercise, by demonstrating the way that at least one
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
77
sexual dysfunction might have addressed the issue of suspicion, points to ways in which other suggested results might have addressed the issue. The first component of suspicion is the vagina, the man's exclusive instrument of pleasure. In the more severe cases of prolapsed uterus, sexual intercourse is not possible, with either the husband or the lover. This means that the guilty woman is effectively stalled in her affair; and while the husband no longer has access, neither does another man. The husband's property rights are, thus, partially restored. If the woman is innocent, the man is given the knowledge that he never lost his pleasure-property in the first place. A prolapsed uterus would also prevent the woman from bearing children. It destroys a questionable womb. This womb is the second component of suspicion. While the womb fails as an avenue for the husband's child, so also does it fail as an avenue for any other man's child. Again, the husband's property rights are partially restored. In the case of the innocent woman, the man knows with certainty, because of the ritual, that the progeny is his own. Thus, under the first two components of suspicion the husband is in a position to know that no illicit progeny and no illicit sex will transpire; or that none ever has transpired. Two components of his suspicion are thus laid to rest. Addressing these two components leaves the innocent woman's vagina and womb intact and viable. She passes unscathed. The third component of suspicion, the community, is addressed in four ways. First, the ritual moves the husband's personal problem to a public sphere, presenting the problem to the priest, a person outside the family. The secrecy which has made him a victim of suspicion is reversed. The guilty woman's secret is public. The innocent woman's shame at being the object of her husband's suspicion is public, as well. Second, in this public realm, the husband's humiliation becomes the woman's humiliation. Reflecting this transference, the text transforms him from grammatical object to subject. On the other hand the wife-subject, 'who has turned aside', transforms to a grammatical object. She is caused to approach, stand, drink. The husband, as victim, begins his transformation the moment he brings the woman to the priest. From that point forward objecthood or 'victimhood' effectively transfers to the woman, who alone carries that burden. Third, she is transformed from the object of another man's actions, to the object of her husband's actions and the actions of the priest, who is allied with the husband.
78
God's Word for Our World
Fourth, Frymer-Kensky suggests that a suspicious husband might have been obligated to bring his wife to the priest in order to avoid defilement of the land.56 This aspect applies at the final form of the text. A guilty wife's actions might place the entire community in jeopardy. The ritual enables the husband and the community to address this major unsubstantiated concern, by handing the matter over to God.57 Under the four aspects of this third component of suspicion, the innocent woman, as well as the guilty woman, is affected. Both are objectified. Both accept the transfer of the husband's victimhood. Both suffer public humiliation. The innocent woman, 'free' as she may finally be, cannot escape the ritual's capacity to address the effects of this component. The community will remember, undoubtedly, that she was once suspect. The author of the text is, in all probability, unaware of the gender asymmetries of the social construction of adultery and of suspicion in ancient Israel. However, certainly he would have been able to imagine and understand the idea of the humiliation of an innocent woman bearing this ritual. He chooses, nevertheless, to sacrifice the innocent woman to the needs of the man, who must be rescued from suspicion. In other words, he is willing to err on the side of male suspicion, rather than on the side of female innocence.58 The ritual takes the malady of suspicion so seriously that the potential innocence of the woman is sacrificed to its 'violence'. This violence comes in the form of being suspected, accused, brought before the priest, shaved and administered a potentially devastating potion. Even the status of an innocent woman cannot remain unaltered. The weight of mi K]p compels the world, which begins to revolve around it, and possibilities 56. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', p. 18. Milgrom writes (Numbers, p. 351): The implication is clear: This kind of defilement is no less offensive to God and, if not punished, will lead to His abandonment of Israel'. 57. Frymer-Kensky, 'The Suspected Sotah', p. 49. 'In terms of human action, this means that Israel was not required to find out whether adultery had been committed. It could bring the case before God and then go on with its business, assured that Israel's legal system had done its job and that society would not be held responsible for the adultery in its midst. Israel could wait to find out what had actually happened: full proof of innocence would come with the pregnancy of the woman; full proof of guilt would come from the disaster, possibly uterine prolapse. Judgement would be held in abeyance until one thing or the other happened. ' 58. This view differs from Brichto who writes ('The Case of the sotff, pp. 65-66): 'To look at the matter from a somewhat different vantage-point: in the case of trial by ordeal the accused is guilty unless proven innocent; whereas in the case of the suspected Sofa, the accused is innocent unless proven guilty'.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
79
for the innocent plummet. The innocent woman cannot escape the author's choice. The fourth component of suspicion is the male perpetrator. This component remains entirely unaddressed in the ritual. Certainly, the author would have understood the concept of a 'male suspect', yet no ritual exists for mediating a husband's suspicions of another male. The husband cannot drag a suspected male perpetrator before the priest to discover the truth. The male suspect, while anonymously mentioned in the law, by way of description of the woman's possible misdeeds, is otherwise entirely absent. The woman is the vessel for the husband's seed, from which his progeny comes. He owns her sexuality. She is under his authority. Similar qualifications do not exist with respect to male colleagues. A male colleague has rights that the wife does not. One of those rights, evidently, is to escape the accusation of suspicion. Probable cause, greater than suspicion, must exist to bring him before the court or the priest or Yhwh. In the case of the wife, suspicion is probable cause. In addition, no ritual exists whereby the j ealous rage of a woman can be mediated. In fact, considering the social construction of adultery, the concept of 'jealous rage in a woman triggered by suspicion' can be said not to exist at all. This omission highlights, by way of contrast, the privilege this ritual affords the husband with respect to his wife. Thus the gender constellations of the social construction of suspicion, like the gender constellations of the social construction of adultery, protect the womb and the vagina as the exclusive property of the man. By extension, they protect the man's honor and identity. The reverse situation is non-existent. The ritual, antidoting suspicion, provides a vehicle through which the community can meet its responsibilities in support of suspicious husbands. Furthermore, the ritual protects the suspected male perpetrator, even if indirectly. He remains unnamed and outside the husband's reach. Thus, the ritual understands the need to protect the men of the community first of all. This group of men includes suspected male perpetrators as well as husbands caught in the throes of the jealous rage of suspicion. 2.2.3.2. Valuing Male Suspicion The suspicion that drives the husband is unqualified. It requires no reason but itself to invoke the ritual. It raises the sympathy of the author and other males in the community. They understand male suspicion. They recognize it. They know its needs. They are willing to go to the effort of antidoting it. Furthermore, they know that suspicion can rise up before innocence and
80
God's Word for Our World
they make the choice to value male suspicion rather than probable female innocence. They understand the power that threatens a suspicious man. Probable innocence must bend to its force. The power is this: if one party assumes authority over another, stripping the subordinate party, by cultural convention and legal apparatus, of the freedom to choose loyalties and commitments, the honor and identity of the party assuming authority naturally becomes contingent on the security of the forced arrangement. This is the existing, cultural scenario behind Num. 5.11-31. This scenario is home to the social construction of marriage, adultery, loyalties and 'commitments' between men and women in ancient Israel. In such a scenario, the party that is stripped of freedom (the woman) is, also, inadvertently and necessarily, given the power to destroy the controlling party (the man). The stripped-party need only break forced loyalties and commitments to subvert the control and steal a semblance of freedom. Evidently the men of ancient Israel believed that their women had the wherewithal to do this. The woman of ancient Israel had the power to destroy a man as no other power-entity in his world. She had potential to take back what he had taken from her. This is the source of the sympathy underlying the value given to suspicion. The ritual is a fail-safe for this 'weakness' in gender arrangements. It demonstrates extraordinary awareness of the power that woman possesses within those arrangements. Furthermore, and this is interesting, it must also demonstrate some kind of awareness, even if at an unconscious level, of what he has been taken from her. The fact that a procedure and a text are generated suggests that this state-of-mind is the rule rather than the exception. Certainly, it is understood universally and draws universal sympathy. Control of female sexuality is fundamental to its world. In fact, the level of control of female sexuality extends beyond verifiable facts to states-of-mind of individual males. The state-of-mind is one barometer of the level of control. The public apparatus mobilizes even at this most tenuous level. Prior to v. 31, the public apparatus was mobilized for the individual male. One might argue that its mobilization must also have been for the community. Even if no penalty was provided, the verdict would have been the precursor to a penalty delivered by a subsequent legal apparatus. But the addition of the divine penalty in v. 31 itself argues against this, at least m praxis. If such a subsequent legal apparatus and procedure existed and was actually used, addition of v. 31b would have been unnecessary.
ELLENS Numbers 5.11-31: Valuing Male Suspicion
81
Even the absence of the death penalty may have been engineered in the original context in deference to the husband, who might want to keep his faithless wife. The aim, again, is to leave the widest possible scope for the husband's welfare and interests with respect to the woman who belongs to him. However, at some point in the history of this text a redactor was bothered by the possibility that a woman, found guilty, might go unpunished when death is the expected penalty. Perhaps, too many women, once their hair grew back, appeared to get away scot-free, especially if the husband did not divorce, and if, in deference to 'his humiliation', not too much talk was made of her 'byword' status, even if it was known to everyone. This raises another reason in support of the idea that the consequence originally serves as a verdict only and not a penalty. If the woman had children prior to the ritual, then sterility or even sexual dysfunction, represented by 'fallen thigh and swollen belly', might have been perceived to lose much of its intended power as a penalty. Her life might normalize, at least publicly, as if the affair never happened. The redactor considers the omission glaring and adds the last clause, reasoning from the ritual itself. Since the verdict is a function of God's agency, so then is the penalty. To avoid the threat of normalization this penalty clause is added. Under such circumstances, the verdict and its natural consequences easily cloak themselves as the penalty. This concern for normalization is one of the components of the threat to community. The same redactor adds the first clause of v. 31 because he sees another glaring omission. The ritual can accomplish its purpose only if a husband caught in the jealous rage of suspicion actually brings his wife before the priest. Such an act, however, is radical in the sense that it is public and requires response by an official of the cult. The act has potential to alienate those males in sympathy with the woman, namely the males of her father's household. Verse 31 a assures the husband that he is protected from such consequences. Without such assurance, the man might never bring his case to the priest. He would remain a victim of the malady of Wp ni"l, the destructive power of which is described in Prov. 6.34-3S.59 This clause demonstrates the high value placed on the malady of suspicion.
59. McKane, 'Poison, Trial by Ordeal', p. 474. McKane describes the malady well: 'Yet jealousy and suspicion have become permanent conditions and he is never free from intolerable suspense and unhappiness. He must, at all costs, be released from such corroding thoughts and he submits his wife to trial by ordeal in order to secure this release.'
82
God's Word for Our World
2.2A. Conclusion The husband is rescued through this ritual by antidoting three of the four components of suspicion. The purpose of the ritual is to establish male knowledge. Its releases the husband from an uncertainty which constructs a liminality that in areas of sexuality in ancient Israel 'should be' the exclusive province of women, most notably virgins, betrothed or about to be betrothed. The unbearable liminalities which have been thrust upon him by his suspicion, are, by means of the ritual, banished. In other words, the world is righted, its categories and their contents properly ordered and secured. Subsequent to the results of the ritual, he knows if his suspicion is correct or not. In the case of a guilty wife, his vagina, his womb and his honor are partially restored. In the final form of the text, the expanded, confirmed threat to the community is addressed by God. 3. Conclusion Numbers 5.11-31 is from a single source with the exception of v. 31. The original, primary concern of the text, and therefore of the ritual, is to address the malady of jealous rage triggered by suspicion and nothing more. The original concern informs the transformation and recontextualization that v. 31 effects. Verse 31 expands the perceived threat from the husband to the community. Male suspicion is so valued that a ritual is constructed to antidote it and a text is written to instruct on the ritual. The existence of this ritual, the absence of a complementary ritual against a 'suspected husband', the absence of a complementary ritual against the suspected male perpetrator, the willingness to sacrifice female innocence, the later need to bolster the husband and penalize the guilty wife all demonstrate the impossibilities of the gender arrangements which lie behind the social construction of male suspicion in ancient Israel.
THE FORMER PROPHETS AND DEUTERONOMY—A RE-EXAMINATION Ronald E. Clements
As the literary problems of the Pentateuch and its sources provided the centerpiece for the nineteenth-century analysis of the Old Testament, so the question of the relationship between the historical books of the Former Prophets and the book of Deuteronomy emerged as a central pivot for twentieth-century biblical research. Martin Noth's thesis concerning the literary origin of the six historical books which go to make up the Former Prophets and their characterization as a 'Deuteronomistic History' was first put forward in 1943.1 Its appearance marked a significant turning point in the evaluation of the biblical writings that necessarily form the primary documents for the writing of a history of ancient Israel. Subsequent debate has increasingly shown that the very possibility of carrying out such a task rests to a remarkable extent upon the prior evaluation of the historical veracity and time of origin of these six books.2 In preparatory work for the writing of such a history, Noth's thesis aimed to look freshly at the fundamental literary sources on which the viability of such an undertaking rests. 1. Martin Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943). An English translation of the first part was published as The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 15: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1991). 2. Cf. now especially Thomas Rômer and Albert de Pury, 'Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues', in Albert de Pury, Thomas Rômer and Jean-Daniel Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup, 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 24-141 (original French edition Israël construit son histoire. L'historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes [Geneva: Labor et fides, 1996], pp. 9-120). A valuable survey of many of the major lines of criticism is presented in Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies in the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000).
84
God's Word for Our World 1. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic Literature
Few scholars today appear to be content to uphold Noth's contentions of 1943 in the form in which he originally presented them. This is fully borne out by the extensive secondary literature which they have spawned, and the continuing concern to re-affirm, revise and, when necessary, oppose Noth's proposals. Moreover, although the title 'Deuteronomistic' has generally remained attached to the six books which were more traditionally known as 'The Former Prophets', what exactly this implies has become increasingly open to question. What is 'Deuteronomistic' about the Former Prophets? The answer is not clear. Nevertheless, although claimants can be found for the view that some at least of these books once had an earlier and separate origin, Noth's thesis continues to provide a useful benchmark for scholarly consideration. These six books undoubtedly display a substantial number of features which point to the conclusion that, in their final form, they have been subjected to a revision which aligns them with the book of Deuteronomy. The purpose of this present study is to argue that the most significant of the features which warrants the use of the label 'Deuteronomistic' to define this link is to be found in the explicit references in the historical books to the existence of the law as written and embodied in a book. Such a suggestion is not new, since it has many points in common with the contention of R. Smend3 and the 'Gôttingen School' that the original draft of the Former Prophets was subjected to a 'nomistic' redaction. Nevertheless it is useful to look at the implications that such a thesis has for understanding the significance of the shift to a culture of literary authority in the Deuteronomic movement generally. The transition to a culture in which unique religious authority was vested in a book remains basic to the concept of a scriptural canon and inevitably carries with it a fundamental shift in the nature of religious leadership in directing religious life and practice.4 3. R. Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker: Bin Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff (éd.), Problème biblischer Théologie: G. von Radzum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 494-509 (English translation in Knoppers and McConville [eds.], Reconsidering Israel and Judah, pp. 95-110). For the proposals more generally, cf. Rômer and de Pury, 'Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH)', pp. 67-70 (original French edition pp. 50-53). 4. Cf. Philip R. Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), pp. 37-58; Stephen
CLEMENTS The Former Prophets and Deuteronomy
85
Consequently in looking at a stratum of editing where the unique authority of a written book is highlighted we are confronted with a point of fundamental change in the nature of ancient Israel as a religious community. Both the book of Deuteronomy and the six books which make up the Former Prophets have been subjected to additions, revisions and probable assimilations to other documents to make it necessary to abandon any assumption of single authorship for either of them. It is the minimizing of this feature in Noth's original presentation of his thesis about the so-called Deuteronomistic History, and the concern to emphasize the primary creative role of a single original author, that has encouraged retention of the use of the label 'Deuteronomistic'. In many respects it has been the continued use of this label that has made the thesis a singularly contentious one. With additions and expansions made to both writings over an extended period, which one should be labeled 'Deuteronomistic'? Or is this title to be reserved exclusively for the presumed 'original' author of the History? If so, it must be argued that it is inappropriate. The problems are increased once attempts are made to identify a 'Deuteronomistic' layer of revision in the law book itself. Deuteronomy is more than simply a law book of the type that is familiar from Mesopotamian law codes. There are indications that show that, in its extant form, it is the product of a movement which existed over a long period of time, certainly covering more than a century.5 During this period additions and revisions were made, shaping it to become a manual of religious and ethical instruction rather than a law book in the sense that applies to other ancient Near Eastern law codes. One of the reasons for introducing the label 'Deuteronomistic', in preference to the simpler 'Deuteronomic', has been to leave room for this recognition of a sequence of stages of literary growth. Essentially the same feature of revisions made to an established document are also evident in regard to the historical books of Joshua-2 Kings. The recognition that these display a connectedness and overarching thematic structure has to be set over against the indications that considerable expansions and additions appear to have been made to the original texts. In general it is evident that a complex process of revision was an intrinsic feature of the nature and circumstances surrounding B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets (FAT, 27; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2000), pp. 71-110. 5. For my views on the origin of the book of Deuteronomy see the Introduction to my commentary in Leander Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), II, pp. 269-90.
86
God's Word for Our World
the formation of most, if not all, the preserved biblical books. Like the law book to which it is related, the so-called Deuteronomistic History was enlarged and supplemented over a period of time. Arguments and debates have consequently followed as to the precise extent of the original book, with little indication that they are likely to be convincingly resolved. In light of this it is not difficult to see that there are good reasons why a growing level of dissatisfaction exists concerning the appropriateness of Noth's use of the label 'Deuteronomistic' to identify a central characteristic of the primary authorship of the six-volume History. Either it has to be understood loosely to apply to everything in the history, or more narrowly, either to those features that belonged to the earliest draft of the work or to those features which show the closest accord with the law book of Deuteronomy. The aim of the present essay is to explore the possibilities of what this latter position might entail. We could simply accord recognition to the feature that has remained the strongest basis of support for Noth's use of the title that lies in the fact that throughout the History it is assumed that Israel is a people living under the shadow of a divine law. It is a nation uniquely related to Yahweh its God who has placed them under obligation to obey a code of divinely given laws that were revealed at the moment when it was constituted as a nation. Failure to render such obedience is set out as the primary explanation for Israel's decline and fall. These laws are clearly those that, in their general emphasis and demands, relate closely to those that are set out in the book of Deuteronomy. Without reference back to the laws of the law book the reasons for the assumed providential ordering of events described in the History become invalid. The nation's downfall is then left without adequate explanation. Nevertheless it is noteworthy that the formal embodiment of these laws in a book is mentioned only relatively infrequently in the History. The general observation, that the historical books of the Former Prophets presume knowledge that Israel is a people who are set under divine law, is the basis for the conclusion that a fundamental connection exists between these six historical books and the book of Deuteronomy. However there is more than one way in which this connection can be understood and, when questions of plot, structure and overall perspective are taken into consideration, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that the concerns which gave shape and structure to the law book are all that closely identifiable with those that originally shaped the historical work. The understanding of Israel's existence and nationhood set out in the book of Deuteronomy cannot have been the same as that which provided the creative impulse for the planning, structuring and composition of the six books of history which
CLEMENTS The Former Prophets and Deuteronomy
87
we call the Former Prophets. These are through and through focused on monarchy as an institution. The story of the rise and decline of the royal house of David holds pride of place. In the former it is Moses who dominates the scene in a remarkable fashion, whereas in the latter it is David who is the ideal king, and who brings assurance of salvation. In the former it is kingship that poses the greatest danger to Israel by the potential to lead it away from its primary obedience to Yahweh. In the latter kingship, when focused on God's appointed king, is the institution that offers the promise of greatness to Israel. The concern to demonstrate the theme of salvation through a royal dynasty, both in the story of the origin of Israel's kingship and in its subsequent fortunes and misfortunes, provides the fundamental structure for the four books of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. The preparation for this theme in Joshua-Judges displays all the signs of being there to fill a historical gap, rather than because these books intrinsically serve the same general theme. The origin of the monarchy required to be linked up with the giving of the law through Moses. In the law book it is the covenant made with Israel through Moses on Mt Horeb which dominates everything (Deut. 5.1-21), whereas in the History it is the covenant made between Yahweh and the dynasty of David that occupies center stage (especially 2 Sam. 7.1-17). The relationship which binds the two works together through images of obedience and disobedience is largely secondary, and not primary. These fundamental observations are not intended to ignore the fact that the six historical books which comprise the Former Prophets make strong appeal to a divinely given law. The significant point is that this law is seldom explicitly linked to Moses and Mt Horeb and only rarely to its embodiment in a book. When such reference is made it is quite clearly as a secondary motif and with an evident eye to demonstrating that the law book, as a basis of authority, is superior to the authority of the king—even kings as great as David and Solomon! Far too much of the structural framework of the History rests on its expectations concerning the royal dynasty of David for the motif of disregard of a written book of law given by Moses to have been the primary impulse that initiated its composition. When considered as a comprehensive literary work, the Former Prophets show abundant signs of being a 'revisionist' history of Israel's rise and fall under the Davidic monarchy. So far as the original form of its central core is concerned, its expectations and fundamental assumptions must certainly have been significantly different from the perspective that now prevails. What the original beginning and ending of this document may have been,
88
God's Word for Our World
perhaps with the appearance of the prophet Samuel and the achievements of the king Hezekiah or Josiah, remains a subject of debate. So also, inevitably, uncertainty surrounds identification of the sequence of additions that were later made to it. Seen overall we must reject altogether the claim that the original royalist history, focused on the house of David, can usefully be described as 'Deuteronomistic' in anything like the way that Martin Noth claimed. It is the revision of this that more properly deserves to be called Deuteronomistic, not the original document. If this perspective is upheld, then it was as a feature of the revision and enlargement of the original pro-monarchic history document that established the correlation between this and the law book of Deuteronomy. The purpose of this study is to explore the level of connection between the two to which alone the label 'Deuteronomistic' proposed by Noth might usefully be applied. 2. Deuteronomy as a Book of Written Law The starting-point for such an investigation must be with the book of Deuteronomy itself. Here we note the fact that the final form of the book displays a marked consciousness of the shift from a social culture that was fundamentally oral in its nature to one that had become quite explicitly literary. From aiming to set out 'the words that Moses spoke to all Israel' (Deut. 1.1) Deuteronomy proceeds in its concluding admonitions to show a strong literary self-awareness.6 What to do with the book and how it was to be preserved, read and applied are introduced in passages that seem to reflect a late stage in its own composition. So it is noteworthy that, after the opening report that Moses had initially addressed Israel orally with the exhortations and admonitions concerning their commitment to Yahweh, the transition to written preservation of the laws becomes evident once the need for continued memorizing and reflection upon them is established (Deut. 6.6-9). The inscribing of the laws on two tablets of stone is mentioned in 10.1-5, but the incorporation of the contents of these laws to become part of a larger book is left unexplained. Not until the law of the king is set out in 17.14-20 does it become unmistakably clear that the whole of Deuteronomy comprises a book whose contents must have ranged far beyond those of two tables of law:
6. Cf. Jean-Pierre Sonnet, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (Biblical Interpretation, 14; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), especially pp. 235-62.
CLEMENTS The Former Prophets and Deuteronomy
89
When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes... (Deut. 17.18-19)
Further mention of this law book, with its strong affirmation that its authority is superior to that of the king, is itself strikingly significant. Further awareness of it as a unique authority appears again, rather surprisingly unannounced, in Deut. 29.20-21: ...All the curses written in this book will descend on them, and Yahweh will blot out their names from under heaven. Yahweh will single them out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this book of the law.
The examples of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim are then cited with the warning: ...so the anger of Yahweh was kindled against that land, bringing on it every curse written in this book. The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever, to observe all the words of this law. (Deut. 29.27-29)
Throughout these warnings the conjunction of the concepts of law and covenant with awareness that their content has been enshrined in a book is of paramount significance. A similar book-awareness is to be seen in Deut. 30.9-10: And Yahweh your God will make you abundantly prosperous.. .when you obey Yahweh your God by observing his commandments and decrees that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Where and by whom this book is to be preserved is then outlined: When Moses had finished writing down in a book the words of this law to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, saying, 'Take this book of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of Yahweh your God; let it remain there as a witness against you'. (Deut. 31.24-26)
By such references Deuteronomy displays a marked consciousness that it is a literary composition that is to remain in existence in perpetuity and that its contents are to shape the future life of the nation. It is to become a unique guidebook for the future health and survival of the nation at whose birth it was given. In line with this emphasis upon the uniqueness of
90
God's Word for Our World
Deuteronomy as a book, Moses is celebrated as a unique prophet greater than any other that had arisen, or could possibly arise in the future (Deut. 31.10-12). This concluding comment on the authority of Moses in the life of the nation stands in a noticeable level of tension with the status accorded to the whole succession of prophets who are expected to emerge at intervals according to the prescription of 18.15-22. At one level they may be prophets 'like Moses' (cf. 18.15), but at a deeper level they could never equal Moses nor usurp the authority of the book he had bequeathed the nation, any more than a future king could do this (cf. 17.20).7 By noting the importance attached to Deuteronomy's introduction of the conjunction of 'covenant law' and 'law book', we recognize that this marks a distinctive editorial strand within the book, almost certainly one that was introduced at a particular, and probably relatively late, stage in its composition. The reasons for such a shift can only be surmised, but it is not at all difficult to see that the political turmoil that followed the disasters of the early sixth century BCE provided the most likely context for such a change. This is not to deny that, in its original form, Deuteronomy was a written document, but that its own internal self-awareness of its literary character, and the implications this was to have for its preservation and use, represents a distinct stage in its own literary development. 3. The Written Law in the Former Prophets When we turn to the six books of the Former Prophets we discover that a closely comparable level of literary awareness appears in a relatively few, but highly significant, references to a written 'book of the law'. As soon as we take care to recognize that not every reference, either explicit or implicit, to the law of Yahweh carries with it a conscious awareness of its existence as a written text, we are in a position to note the particular 7. Cf. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets, pp. 200-201: 'Throughout the Deuteronomistic History both Mosaic law and mosaic prophecy are viewed as already-recognized authorities. In the earliest layers of the work, prophecy is already regarded as just as authoritative as Mosaic law (e.g. 1 Kg 17-19); later layers of the history increasingly refer both to the written character of the law and the collective character of the prophets. It is this collective aspect, especially when paralleled with written Mosaic law, which suggests an awareness of an emergent prophetic corpus of scripture. Increasingly the prophets are heard to speak with one voice, perhaps because as written texts their "words" can now be read and heard together. It seems unlikely that such a development would have occurred on the basis of exclusively oral traditions.'
CLEMENTS The Former Prophets and Deuteronomy
91
significance that attaches to those references where such a book is mentioned. They are primarily three in number, each of them highly significant. First in the transition from the leadership of Moses to that of his successor Joshua, a theme already introduced in Deuteronomy, we discover that Joshua has been entrusted to read, study, and act in accordance with this book of the law: Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, so that you may be successful wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to act in accordance with all that is written in it. For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be successful. (Josh. 1.7-8)
What is implied by this entrusting of the law book to Joshua is highly meaningful, since it is wholly in line with the contention that Moses was altogether unique as a prophet of Yahweh and that no other prophet could arise to equal or supplant him. So, in the same fashion Joshua is to be the successor to Moses, but, at the deepest level, he will be a leader of a totally different order since Moses gave to the emergent nation the book of the law and Joshua will simply minister to its needs in accordance with it. Moses creates a book of Law, but Joshua merely administers it. The basic ideas of national leadership and authority have been totally transformed in this transition.8 There can never be another Moses. But this does not hinder the nation's success, for there does not need to be another such person. The law book has come into existence and fills the gap left by Moses' death. The story of Israel's progress under the leadership of Joshua is one of initial success, but thereafter the picture begins to change significantly under the judges and the need arises for a kingship to be introduced. This is marred initially by failure and only with the rise and achievements of King David is the decline reversed. In consequence the question of what is to happen to the nation after the death of David becomes a very challenging one. It is at this point therefore that a similar time of crisis is recognized, comparable to that which had come about with the transition from Moses to Joshua. It therefore fits comfortably with the admonition that had been made at that earlier time to introduce a further warning to the successor to David that he too, like the earlier leader, will have to give full and 8. Cf. Christa Schafer-Lichtenberger, Josua undsalomo. Eine Studie zu Autoritdt und Legitimitdt des Nachfolgers im Alien testament (VTSup, 58; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).
92
God's Word for Our World
constant attention to the book of the law that Moses had given. So, David reminds King Solomon that there exists a book of the law which embodies God's charter for the nation and its leaders. He is to make this his daily guidebook and constant resource for governing the nation: When David's time to die drew near, he charged his son Solomon, saying: 'I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong. Be courageous, and keep the charge of Yahweh your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn. Then Yahweh will establish his word that he spoke concerning me "If your heirs take heed to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel".' (1 Kgs 2.1-4)
The third of the passages where the written form of the law given to Israel through Moses is presented with considerable emphasis is to be found in the account of the circumstances in which this book was discovered in the temple of Jerusalem during renovations in the reign of King Josiah. The unexpected way in which this occurs and the account of how the book's origin with Moses was attested and how its contents were subsequently read out in the temple in the presence of priests, prophets and representatives of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is made the subject of a lengthy report (2 Kgs 22.8-23.3). A striking feature, as has been increasingly remarked by scholars, is that this account stands as a relatively self-contained unit with the report of the renovations and changes introduced under Josiah's direction. It stands as the last of the three episodes in the history of the Former Prophets that relate the covenant made through Moses on Mt Horeb and the law given at that time with a law book. Quite certainly it is a late intrusion into the earlier account of how the temple was renovated and given a new central authority under King Josiah. Accordingly the present form of the historical work which make up the six books of the Former Prophets displays a comparable book-consciousness such as we find occurring in Deuteronomy itself. The three primary occasions of its mention serve a distinct purpose in reflecting the authority accorded to the book and its superiority to other forms of religious and political authority within the nation. Joshua is to be a leader in succession to Moses, but he can never be another Moses, since the latter's relationship to God was unique and unrepeatable. So Joshua is to guide the nation through the medium of the book that Moses bequeathed
CLEMENTS The Former Prophets and Deuteronomy
93
to the nation. The subordination of the kingship, even the kingship of David, to this same unique authority is then made a feature that called for special mention at the time when David handed over his throne to his successor Solomon. The recovery of the law book in Josiah's time from its neglect is then a significant moment in the story of Israel's decline and break-up, since it explains why earlier misfortunes had befallen the people and why new hope emerged with this king. Whether all three of these references to the existence of the law in a written book form were introduced at the same time lacks any certain proof, but it seems highly probable that this was the case. In any event they all serve exactly the same purpose—to show that the written law book was superior to the institution of kingship. The references to the law book as the central mediating agency for Israel's continuing compliance with the demands of Yahweh's covenant then become a key feature in focusing upon its role in the life of the nation. The existence of the book sharpens and defines what Yahweh's law is, how it is to be known and how Israel is to act in accordance with it. If the center of the original form of the history was provided by the story of the covenant and promise made by Yahweh to David, as recounted in 2 Sam. 7.1-17, then the introduction of passages showing emphatically that God intended such kingship to be throughout subject to the prescriptions and demands set out in the law book which Moses had given, changes this perspective drastically. If any feature of the History that we know as the Former Prophets deserves to be labeled 'Deuteronomistic', then it is surely this revisionist perspective on the subordination of kingship to the law book given through Moses. In this we are confronted most directly with the very roots of a conception of authority vested in a collection of writings which constitute a canon. With the linking together of a Mosaic law book with a historical narrative in which the rise, repeated failures and demise of the Davidic kingship are chronicled we are presented with several of the most foundational assumptions of Israel's existence as a community of God. The introduction of a literary self-consciousness in both works is more than a shift from an oral to a literary culture; it is an entry into a new dimension of religious authority. 4. The Deuteronomic Movement and the Transition to a Religion of a Book My contention in the present article has been twofold. The first has been to reflect more fully on the point that the explicit references in the book of
94
God's Word for Our World
Deuteronomy to its formal existence and function as a comprehensive manual of law represent a late stage of its own literary development. The same point holds true when we examine the historical work known as the Former Prophets. Although there are many explicit and implicit references to the laws revealed to Israel by God, especially concerning the obligation to worship no other deities apart from Yahweh, references to the fact that these are embodied in a book that requires to be read, preserved and explained to the people more widely, are few. Those that do appear are a relatively late feature of the work clearly aimed at showing that kingship, as a primary institution of national life, was wholly subordinate to the law given by Moses. The second point follows these observations and argues that these explicit references to the divine law book in both works require to be taken together and seen as part of the same editorial process. It is this stage of literary self-consciousness in the compositional development of both Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History which alone properly justifies use of the adjective 'Deuteronomistic'. It might at first appear acceptable to conclude that it was simply a matter of editorial preference and literary taste to make reference relatively infrequently to the embodiment of the laws of Yahweh in a written law book in the case of both these works. Yet this is to underestimate the extent of the impact that the transition from an oral to a literary culture implies for understanding the nature of ancient Israel as a religious community. Moreover, issues of a broader, fundamentally political nature are also at stake. What is implied by such a shift is no mere cultural transition but an entry into a new realm of religious authority mediated through a book. The ideologies of a nation-state governed constitutionally by a written law book and of a nation ruled with sovereign power by a divinely chosen royal dynasty are two fundamentally different views of the divine governance of national life. They are, in essence, opposed political ideologies. They cannot therefore both be usefully labeled Deuteronomistic. This 'law book' ideology is one that has been imposed on both Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets as the result of a secondary level of editorial revision. Throughout both works relics of an older, discredited royal ideology still abound. The introduction of references to a written book of law designed to serve as a document of constitutional polity for ancient Israel are evidence of the shift from one ideology to the other. The accomplishment of this transition was a complex and difficult process and certainly marks a
CLEMENTS The Former Prophets and Deuteronomy
95
major turning point in Israel's own self-understanding as a community of God. It is the adoption of the new law book ideology that properly deserves to be called Deuteronomistic. By this change literacy replaced orality as the medium through which the voice of God was to be heard. The day of the scribe had come and that of the prophet had been circumscribed by new limits.
ON THE STUDY OF PENTATEUCHAL POETRY Amira Meir Poetry is as ancient as the most ancient times, with oral poetry preceding written poetry.1 And indeed philosophers, poets, and linguists have attempted to define it. Habermann, in his book lyunim Bashira Uvapiyut, nicely surveys the many attempts that have been made to define poetry, in both Jewish and non-Jewish literature, beginning with the words of Plato, who banished poets from his ideal state until it learns to appreciate simple language and 'to try to prove that there's more to poetry than mere pleasure—that it also has a beneficial effect on society and on human life in general.. .we'll be the winners if poetry turns out to be beneficial as well as enjoyable'.2 His survey continues with the words of the sages, the greatest Muslim poet of Granada Ibn al-Khatib, the Hebrew poets Immanuel Frances, Naftali Hertz Wiesl, Samuel David Luzzato (ShaDal) and others,3 and is completed with the words of Kant, who defined poetry as, 'a play of the senses arranged by the intelligence', and Friedrich Schiller who said that, 'The philosopher is half a person, and the poet—a whole person'.4 However, unlike Greek literature, in which problems of poetry are discussed in scientific terms in Aristotle's Poetics5—Aristotle was the first to distinguish between poetry and rhetoric—in our literature no such discussion is known.6 Accordingly, one must define the poetry of the Torah, 1. See W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 67-83; and also U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), II, p. 20. 2. Plato, Republic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1944), p. 362. 3. See A.M. Habermann, p. 7. In his poem 'Im lashir, David, tir'av', Immanuel Frances sets rules for poets. 4. Aristotle, Poetics (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1972), Part One, On Poetry, pp. 3-\2. 5. See M. Huk, Aristotle, On the Art of Poetry (Tel-Aviv: Mahbarot le'Sifrut, 1972), p. 9. 6. For a historical survey of the essence of biblical poetry, see J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), Chapter 6 ('What is the System of Hebrew Poetry?').
MEIR On the Study ofPentateuchal Poetry
97
which resembles neither the poetry of the Middle Ages nor modern poetry, nor the poetry of any other group, with the exception of ancient Canaanite poetry,7 although the poetry of the Torah is the more complete and sophisticated of the two, as it is the continuation of this literature.8 It is usual to view biblical poetry as a unique literary form in itself which is differentiated from biblical prose, not only in its special rhythms9 but also in its content, which is never narrative; in its style, which is graphic and rich in images; in its metaphors and tendency toward climax;10 in its syntax, which tends to maintain a loose connection between parts of the sentence; and in its special vocabulary.11 The uniqueness of the poetry of the Torah, as opposed to biblical poetry in general, lies not in any of the factors mentioned above, but rather in the different approaches of the commentators to it, which arise from their various approaches to the entire Torah, as to the holiest part of the biblical canon.12 In light of the fact that all biblical poetry, even the earliest,13 excels in its high level of language, structure, phrasing, rhythm, meter, parallels and so on, Segal14 claims that it is reasonable to assume that in antiquity known rules had already been formulated and set as a sort of Hebrew prosody15 7. On the precedence of parallelism in Canaanite poetry, see W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (New York: Doubleday, 1968), pp. 4-5. 8. U. Cassuto, Biblical and Canaanite Literatures (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1972), pp. 20-54, and see also J.C. Greenfield, 'The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature', in R. Alter and F. Kermode (eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible (London: Collins, 1987), pp. 545-60. 9. See R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), pp. 3-26, 28. 10. See Y.S. Licht, 'Shira', in Entziclopedia Mikrait (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1976), VII, pp. 638-39. 11. See M.H. Segal, Introduction to the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1967), I, pp. 35-39. 12. See N.M. Sarna, 'The Canon, Text and Editions', in EncJud, IV, col. 821-25, and also O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans, from 3rd German edn by Peter R. Ackroyd; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), pp. 562-71. 13. Examples for that are, according to M.H. Segal, the Song of Lamech, the Song of the Well, and the Blessing of Jacob. See his article, 'Leheker Tzuratah shel ha-Shira ha-Mikrait', Sefer Klausner (Tel-Aviv: Va'ad Hayovel in cooperation with Hevrat Omanut, 1937), p. 90. 14. Segal, 'Leheker Tzuratah shel ha-Shira ha-Mikrait'. 15. See B. Hrushovski, 'Prosody, Hebrew', mEncJud, XIII, col. 1200-202. On col. 1202 he notes that although there is no exact theory of rhythm, other rules do exist. For
98
God's Word for Our World
according to which Hebrew poets composed their poems throughout the biblical period, as well as in later generations. According to U. Cassuto,16 the rules of biblical poetry, along with those of biblical literature, are common to all peoples of the ancient East,17 and these began to develop even before the rise of the Israelite nation; and as biblical literature is, in its form, the continuation of Canaanite literature, its high level is unsurprising.18 The difficulty lies in that the rules and content of this literature were not relayed to us in the Bible itself or in the rabbinical literature, and accordingly, it is natural that the definition of biblical poetry would be challenging and complex matter.19 Therefore, one should primarily study those places in the Bible where the shira concept appears. The term 'poetry'—shira—appears in the Torah in three contexts. One is the Song of the Sea: 'Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD...' (Exod. 15.1). The second is the Song of the Well: 'Then Israel sang this song...' (Num. 21.17). The third is the Ha'azinu song: (1) 'Therefore, write down this poem and teach it to the people of Israel; put it in their mouths, in order that this poem may be My witness against the people of Israel' (Deut. 31.19) (2) 'and the many troubles and evils befall them—then this poem shall confront them as a witness...' (Deut. 31.21) (3) 'That day, Moses wrote down this poem...' (Deut. 31.22) (4) Then Moses recited the words of this poem to the very end, in the hearing of the whole congregation of Israel...' (Deut. 31.30) (5) 'And Moses came, together with Hosea son of Nun, and recited all the words of this poem in the hearing of the people' (Deut. 32.44).
The Torah itself, therefore, defines three units—Exodus 15, Numbers 21 and Deuteronomy 32—as poetry units. However, only in Deuteronomy 32 does it delimit the passage both at its opening—Deut. 32.30—and at its conclusion—Deut. 32.44. In Exod. 15.1 there is an opening to the poem: 'Then, Moses and the Israelites sang this song...,' but there is no verse to conclude the poem. The opening of the Song of the Well says, 'Then Israel instance, he notes that no two accented syllables will appear one after another; he also observes the secondary stress in long words. 16. See Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, pp. 16-59. 17. On parallelism in Canaanite poetry, see Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, pp. 4-10, and also Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, pp. 58-60. 18. The uniqueness of biblical poetry lies, in Cassuto's opinion, in its content and its spirit (Biblical and Oriental Studies, p. 59). 19. See A. Berlin, Biblical Poetry Through Medieval Jewish Eyes (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), p. 7.
MEIR On the Study ofPentateuchal Poetry
99
sang this song...' (Num. 21.17), but here, too, there is no verse to conclude the poem.20 That is, of the three places in the Torah where the concept of poetry—shira—is mentioned, in only one of them is there a precise definition of the poetic unit. In the other two places, one must use the definitions of the term 'poetry' to determine the limits of the poetic unit.21 The question that arises is: Are these poetic units, whose limits are not always clear, the only poetry in the Torah, or are there other passages which can also be defined as poetry, even if the Torah does not define them as such; or, does all of the Torah have 'the nature and the properties of poetry, that is language in poetical style', as claimed by the Na-ziv who lived in the nineteenth century.22 In the rabbinical literature, we do not find such a definition, but it appears that they did discern a difference in certain verses and defined them as poetry. In the Tractate Rosh Hashanah23 there is a discussion of the song the Levis are to say daily and on the Sabbath. In this context, the three poetic units defined as song—Ha'azinu Song, the Song of the Sea and the Song of the Well—are mentioned; these are the three units that are defined as poetry by the Torah itself. In the tractate Megillah 16b graphic rules for writing poetry appear: 'All the songs [in Scripture] are written in the form of a half-brick over a whole brick, and a whole brick over a half-brick, with the exception of this one24 and the list of the kings of Canaan,25 which are written in the form of a half-brick over a half-brick and a whole brick over a whole brick'. That is, the graphic rule that appears in the tractate Megillah determines that except for the list of the sons of Haman and the list of the kings of Canaan, all the poetry in the Bible is written half-brick above whole brick and whole brick above half-brick. However, here too 'all these songs' is not detailed. In the tractate Soperim, it is said that, 'All poems must be preceded and followed by benedictions'.26 However, here again there is no detail of 20. Alter notes the difficulty in delineating poetic units (The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 5). 21. See Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 12, and also A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), pp. 4-6. 22. Naftali Zevi Yehuda. See his Introduction to his commentary Ha 'emek Davar, section c. 23. See p. 3 la of the 1938 Soncino edition. 24. The reference is to the sons of Haman, Est. 9.7-10, which is not a poem. 25. The list of the Canaanite kings whom Joshua defeated appears in Josh. 12.9-24. The reason why the list of the sons of Haman and the list of the Canaanite kings are defined here as poetry is a subject in its own right 26. Chapter 12, Rule 4 (Soncino edition).
100
Go d 's Word for Our World
what 'all songs' is referring to, and among the poetic units in the Torah, only the Song of the Well, the Song of the Sea and Ha'azinu Song are mentioned—again, the same three poetic units that the Torah itself defines as 'poetry' and which are noted in the tractate Rosh Hashanah. The graphic rules for writing the Song of the Sea and the Song of Deborah are also mentioned in the tractate Soperim; they are 'written in the form of a halfbrick over a whole brick and whole brick over a half-brick'.27 If we judge by the rule that appears in the tractates Megillah and Soperim, then the only poetic units—shirot—in the Torah are the Song of the Sea and Ha'azinu Song. The Song of the Sea is indeed written halfbrick above whole brick and whole brick above half-brick, whereas the Ha'azinu Song is written half-brick above half-brick and whole brick above half-brick, and not half-brick above whole brick and whole brick above half-brick, as set by the tractates Megillah and Soperim. The Song of the Well, which is mentioned in tractates Rosh Hashanah2* and Soperim29 is not written according to this rule. It appears, therefore, that the sages distinguished between prose and poetry in principle, but that their definitions of poetry stemmed either from the definitions of the Torah itself or from the graphic appearance of the lines in the Torah. Accordingly, the verses they define as poetry—the Song of the Sea, the Song of the Well and the Ha'azinu Song—fit these definitions. I did not find in their writings any poetic definition of the essence of biblical poetry. From the writings of the sages regarding the poetry of the Torah, I move now to a discussion of the writings of Philo and Josephus with regard to the poetry of the Torah.30 In his book on the life of Moses, De Vita Moses,31 Philo the Alexandrian, a Jewish historian of the first century of the Common Era, describes the manner in which Moses was educated: 'Arithmetic, geometry, the lore of meter, rhythm and harmony, and the whole subject of music as shown by the use of instruments or in textbooks and treatises of a more special character, were imparted to him by learned 27. Chapter 12, Rule 10 (Soncino edition). 28. See p. 3 la of the Soncino edition. 29. Chapter 12, Rule 4 (Soncino edition). 30. In order to maintain the continuity from the Torah's own attitude to the poetry in it through to the writings of the sages, I placed the discussion of their writings before those of Philo and Josephus, although historical continuity is not thereby maintained. 31. Here following the F.H. Colson's English translation (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 287. This book by Philo, which is his most sophisticated composition, was destined for a non-Jewish audience.
MEIR On the Study ofPentateuchal Poetry
101
Egyptians'.32 That is, in the opinion of Philo, Moses learned the art of rhythm, harmony and meter from the Egyptians. It may be, as Segal notes,33 that here there is an allusion to the literary types of poetry in the Torah, but Segal raises doubt with regard to the guess that Philo knew Hebrew on such a high level, a doubt which is also shared by H.A. Wolfson34 and Y. Amir.35 Josephus Flavius mentions to the poetic units in the Torah in two places. The first is after the parting of the Reed Sea: After having themselves thus escaped from peril and furthermore beheld their enemies punished in such wise as within men's memory no others had ever been before, they passed that whole night in melody and mirth, Moses himself composing in hexameter verse a song to God to enshrine his praise and their thankfulness for his gracious favour.36
The second place in which Josephus mentions poetry in the Torah is in the description of the last deeds of Moses: .. .On the following days—for assembly was held continuously—he gave them blessings, with curses upon such as should not live in accordance with the laws but should transgress the ordinances that were therein. Then he recited to them the poem in hexameter verse, which he has moreover bequeathed in a book preserved in the temple, containing a prediction of future events, in accordance with which all has come and is coming to pass, the seer having in no whit strayed from the truth.37
32. Colson adds here that Moses might have learned that perhaps from Plato. See p. 286 n. c of the Colson edition (cited in n. 31). 33. Segal, 'Leheker Tzuratah shel ha-Shira ha-Mikrait', p. 91. 34. On the question of whether Philo knew Hebrew, see H.A. Wolfson, Philo Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), I, pp. 88-90. Also see H.E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture (London: Macmillan, 1985), p. xxix, and also see C. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria alsAusleger des Alien Testaments (Jena: Verlag von Hermann Dufft, 1875), pp. 142-45. L.H. Feldman, 'Use Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writing of Josephus', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 456-57; and L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984), pp. 492-527. 35. Y. Amir, 'Philo of Alexandria', in Encylopaedia Hebraica (Israel: Encyclopaedia Publishing Company, 1975), XXVII, p. 661. 36. Josephus, Ant. 2.346. A. Schlitt adds that according to Josephus the Blessing of Moses is also written in this meter. See Schlitt's translation of Book 2 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1978), p. 71 n. 162. 37. Josephus, Ant. 4.302-303.
102
God's Word for Our World
In addition, Josephus makes reference to the poetic compositions written by David.38 It appears, therefore, that Philo and Josephus felt the linguistic-formal difference between biblical prose and poetry; however, it is not possible from their writings to learn the essence of biblical poetry, and one might take issue with Josephus regarding the poetry's rhythms.39 However, since that is not the subject of this article, I have chosen not to expand on it. What is important for us is the fact that they made a distinction between poetry and the rest of biblical literature, and this is also the opinion of A. Schalit, who translated Josephus and noted his comments on this matter. In his opinion,40 Josephus is telling his Hellenistic-Roman readers about the verse in which the Song of the Sea, the Song of Ha'azinu, and the book of Psalms is written, for their greater understanding, and also 'so that the picture will be complete and so that the Hellenists will not suspect the Jews of having a poetry which is poorer in its poetic form than Greek and Roman poetry'. That is, Josephus's starting point is Greek poetry, and he is comparing it to biblical poetry; his starting point is not one of the essence and uniqueness of biblical poetry.41 The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael is the most ancient commentary on the Song of the Sea.42 Regarding the opening verse of the poem, the Mekhilta says,43 'But is it a single song? Are there not ten in all?' The Mekhilta then proceeds to count ten biblical creations which, in its opinion, are poems:44 38. Josephus, Ant. 7.305: 'David, being now free from wars and dangers, and enjoyed profound peace from this time on, composed songs and hymns to God in varied meters—some he made in trimeters, and others in pentameters' (quintupled meter). However, these poems are not a part of the poetry of the Torah and so I will not expand on this matter. 39. As indeed does Segal, 'Leheker Tzuratah shel ha-Shira ha-Mikrait', pp. 91-92. 40. Schalit's translation to Antiquities Book 7, p. 256 n. 342. 41. In Origen, Eusebius and Hieronymus, fathers of the Christian Church, one can find a few more details. The subject is discussed by G.B. Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry Considered (New York: Ktav, 1972), pp. 12-17. 42. Exod. 15.1. The Mekhilta was collected and redacted in Palestine, not before the end of the fourth century BCE. See J. Goldin, The Song of the Sea (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), pp. 4-5. 43. A very similar formulation appears in Yalkut Shimeoni, Exodus 242. On the differences, see Goldin, The Song of the Sea, pp. 68-69. 44. The same baraita also appears in Midrash Hagadol on the Pentateuch, Exodus, from the fourteenth century. The English versions are according to J. Neusner's translation of the Mekhilta (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), I, pp. 175-76.
MEIR On the Study ofPentateuchal Poetry
103
The first was recited in Egypt: 'You shall have a song, as in the night when a feast is sanctified',45 the second at the sea: 'Then sang Moses' (Exod. 15.1), the third at the well: 'Then sang Israel',46 the fourth, said by Moses: 'and it came to pass when Moses had finished writing... Moses spoke in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, until they were finished'.47
The Mekhilta goes on to enumerate six more songs, but these are taken from the books of the Prophets and of the Writings, and therefore I will not list them here. The standard for defining all the verses cited by the Mekhilta is, in any case, the mention of the verb T2) in all of its inflections, regarding these poetic units.48 One may conclude that according to the Mekhilta a poetic composition is one which has been defined as such by the Bible by means of the verb T2) or by the nouns shir (song), shira (poetry) or meshorer (poet). After the writings of the sages in the tractates Rosh Hashanah, Megillah and Soperim,49 and those of Philo and Josephus50 on biblical poetry and through the commentators of the Middle Ages, we are not aware of any progress in the study of biblical poetry.51 It appears that the first of the medieval commentators to attempt to explain the phenomenon of biblical poetry was the tenth-century grammatician and lexicographer Menahem Ben Saruq.52 45. Isa. 30.29. This passage is not sufficiently clear. Rashi, basing himself on the Talmud in the tractate Pesahim 95b, comments that the intention is the joy that will come on the night of Pessah, the way they recited a song on the night of the Pessah in Egypt. Goldin, The Song of the Sea, p. 68, explains that according to the midrash the poem mentioned in Isa. 30.29 will be like the poem that was sung by Israel in Egypt during the festival of the night before they left Egypt. 46. Num. 21.17. 47. Deut. 31.24. In Hebrew: nmnnTEJH ^D HN "131^ net) m^DDTH. In the Mekhilta the verb 'to speak' appears in place of the verb 'to write' in the Torah, and 'the words of the song' in place of 'the words of the Torah'. 48. Except the fifth poem, which is attributed to Joshua. This baraita also appears in Midrash Hagadol on the Pentateuch, Exodus, where there is an addition in this context, hi the Mekhilta it says: 'The fifth said by Joshua as it is written: "Then spoke Joshua to the LORD" (Joshua 10.12)', and in Midrash Hagadol it says: 'The fifth, that Joshua said: "Then Joshua spoke [this poem] on the day the LORD routed the Amorites..."' That is, Midrash Hagadol adds the expression 'this poem' in regard to Josh. 10.12. 49. See above pp. 101-102. 50. See above pp. 102-104. 51. See Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry Considered, p. 17. 52. See Segal, 'Leheker Tzuratah shel ha-Shira ha-Mikrait', p. 93 n. 16.
104
God's Word for Our World
In his Mahberet,53 which is considered to be the first biblical dictionary and which includes both information on the rules of grammar that had accumulated up to his time and clarifications of many biblical verses, Ben Saruq refers to the subject of parallelism in a number of places. In one place54 he says: 'The two questions are posed in the same verse, once with the interrogatory heh, and again with the interrogatory "if," as in "Can mortals be acquitted by God? Can man be clearer by his Maker?"55.. .and there are many like this.' In another place56 he discerns the missing parallelism without defining it as such, in the saying, ' "It is not the aged who are wise, the elders, who understand how to judge",57 the first "not" standing in the place of the two. And similarly in "because it did not block my mother's womb, and hide trouble from my eyes"58.. .and in many like this in the Torah.'59 In explaining the word av,60 he divides it into six aspects and says: The fourth: 'new wine jugs.'61 There is no word in the Torah that is similar to this word, but the context will teach about it and half of the verse will tell about the other half. One half would have been sufficient, but the subject is repeated, resulting in one matter mentioned twice in one verse, and there are many like this. These are some of the verses in which one half explains the other and where only one half would have been sufficient... 'May my discourse come down as the rain, My speech distill as the dew...'62 And there many like this in the prophets.63 53. Or by its original name, Sefer Pitronim (The Book of Solutions), a name that, in the opinion of E. Ashtor, was usual for books on linguistics. See E. Ashtor, Korot ha-Yehudim bi-Sefarad ha-Muslemit, A (History of the Jews in Muslim Spain) (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1960), p. 162. 54. Menahem Ben Saruq, Mahberet (Granada: Edicion Cristica e Introduccion de Angel Sbenz-Badillos, 1986) p. 27. 55. Job 4.17. In Hebrew: inrinCD" ITO UD D« pIS" m'aw E713KH. 56. Ben Saruq, Mahberet, p. 139. 57. Job. 32.9. In Hebrew: CDSCO iriT D^pTI 1I3DIT D^l N1?. 58. Job. 3.10. In Hebrew: TUD "7QU inD1! 'HDDS TI^I T1D R^ 'D. 59. What Ibn Ezra later defined as 'pulls itself and another with it'. 60. Ben Saruq, Mahberet, p. 17. 61. He is referring here to Job 32.19: 'My belly is like wine not yet opened, like jugs of new wine ready to burst'. 62. Deut. 32.2. 63. He offers nine additional examples, all from the prophets, among them: Isa. 33.21; Josh. 5.13; Job 39.15; Song 4.12; and others. See also E.I.J. Rosenthal, 'The Study of the Bible in Medieval Judaism', in G.W.H. Lampe (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 259.
MEIR On the Study of Pentateuchal Poetry
105
Menahem Ben Saruq's language is not fluent and flowing, but his meaning is clear: he definitively determines that these verses are parallelisms. It is of interest to note that although he cites about twelve examples in which 'half of the verse teaches us about the other half'64 in his explanation of 'new wine jugs' (Job. 32.19) only two of them are from poetry in the Torah (Deut. 32.1, 2), and thus his conclusion is 'and there are many like this in the prophets'.65 That is, Ben Saruq discerned parallelisms in the Bible, and although he also noted examples from the Torah (Deut. 32.1, 2), and in one place he says 'and there are many like this in the Torah',66 he associates the phenomenon in general with the prophetic literature. The question of whether in the expression 'and there are many like this in the Torah' he is really referring to many examples of parallelism in the Torah and did not note them, or if this was perhaps no more than a slip of the pen—writing Torah and intending N'vua (the prophets)—remain forever unanswered. It appears, therefore, that Menahem Ben Saruq was not merely a guide to Rashi, as J.J.L. Barg's claims in his foreword to the Epistola of Jehuda Ben Koreisch,67 but also a sort of guide to biblical poetry, since he was the first to attempt to deal with this literary phenomenon in the Bible.68 About three centuries after him, in the twelfth century, the Spanish Hebrew poet Rabbi Moshe Ibn Ezra attempted to define biblical poetry. In Sefer hafyyunim we-ha-Diyyunim69 which he wrote in Arabic during his old age to a friend and an admirer who had asked him eight questions on the essence 64. Ben Saruq, Mahberet,p. 17. 65. Ben Saruq, Mahberet, p. 17. 66. Ben Saruq, Mahberet, p. 139. 67. R. Jehuda Ben Koreisch, Epistola (Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857), p. xxvii. In 1984 D. Bekerr published a critical version of Judah Ben Quraysh's Risala, and in the Foreword he relates to the Barg's edition, the M. Katz edition and the edition of M. Goodstein. For the matter at hand, Barg's Foreword is important, and so I turned to his edition. 68. Incidentally, as H. Hirschfeld noted in his book, Literary History of Hebrew Grammarians and Lexicographers: Accompanied by Unpublished Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press; London: Humphrey & Milford, 1926), p. 24, he was also the first grammarian to write in Hebrew. M. Katz notes this as well, in his Foreword to his edition of the Epistola (p. 51). 69. On the importance of Sefer ha-fyyunim we-ha-Diyyunim (The Book of Discussion and Conversation) see J. Dana's book ha-Poetica shel ha-Shira ha-Ivrit biYamei ha-Benayim (Poetics of Medieval Hebrew Literature) (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1982), pp. 15-18.
106
God's Word for Our World
of Hebrew poetry, he discusses biblical poetry and the stylistic and rhetorical devices that serve it. Ibn Ezra refers the reader to the eighth section, which is called Poetika, in the philosopher's70 logical writing, in which he tries to clarify the difference between poetry and composition.71 However, the point from which he sets out appears only in the last chapter of his book where is he says: 'that poetry is the wisdom of the Arabs, and the Jews follow in their footsteps in this art'.72 In the opinion of Rabbi Moshe Ibn Ezra, the art of poetry, which is called poetika in Greek, is not one of the independently existing sciences like arithmetic, geography, music and the like, and it is also not entirely one of the consensual sciences, not because it has consensual elements—the science of grammar and the accuracy of the language in which its creations succeed... and it is composed, therefore, of separate things, consensual and didactical.73
Further on, he tries to define the poetic units in the Bible, and says: We did not find variations from prose in it, except for these three books: Psalms, Job and Proverbs, and they, as you will see, do not require rhythm or rhyme as in Arabic rules, and they are like my tempestuous poem... [A] few of the poems in the Holy Scriptures tend from prose, for instance Song of the Sea, Ha'azinu Song, 'David addressed the words of this song to the Lord'74 and 'Deborah sang.'75 And I said only 'a few of the poems' for no other reason than that also in the prose there is what is called poetry, such as the Song of Songs and the Song of the Well76 and others.77
Later, Moshe Ibn Ezra refers to the bareita that lists the poems in the Bible and says: 'The writers of halacha increased their number to nine78 and most of them are prose'.79 That is, Rabbi Moshe Ibn Ezra sees the books of Job, Proverbs, Psalms and the Song of Songs as books 'varying from 70. So, too, he refers to Aristotle. 71. See Sefer Ha-Iyyumim we-ha-Diyyunim (edited and redacted by A.S. Halkin: Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1975), p. 135. 72. Sefer ha-Iyyunim we-ha-Diyyunim, p. 223. 73. Sefer ha-Iyyunim we-ha-Diyyunim, p. 23. 74. 2 Sam. 22.1. 75. Judg. 5. 76. Num. 21.17-18. 77. Sefer ha-Iyyunim we-ha-Diyyunim, p. 47. 78. The tenth poem, 'Sing to the LORD a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth' (Isa. 42.10) is for the future, and therefore Moshe Ibn Ezra, also known as Abu Harun, did not count it among the other poems. 79. Sefer ha-Iyyunim we-ha-Diyyunim, p. 47.
MEIR On the Study of Pentateuchal Poetry
107
prose', and among the books of prose he sees 'what is called poetry'. As examples from the Torah, he cites the Song of the Sea, the Song of the Well, and the Ha'azinu Song. It may be that Rabbi Moshe Ibn Ezra's definition stems from a more profound literary understanding than that of the sages, and therefore he does not agree with the definition of the bareita in the Mekhilta,^ and claims that not all the verses it defines as poetry are indeed poetry, and says: 'most of them are prose'. However, in his examples of verses of poetry he does not say anything innovative in relation to the Torah and the writings of the sages. A discussion of biblical rhetoric according to the rules of classical rhetoric is found in the writings of Rabbi Judah Messer Leon, a humanist and scholar who lived in Italy in the second half of the fifteenth century.81 In the fourth section of his book Nofet Supim, he enumerates 'the figures of speech by category'82—eighty-three in all. In section 5483 he defines 'clarity [of expression]'—his term for parallelismus membromm:M 'Clarity is a figure of speech in which a single theme is stated in various ways; it is much in evidence in Isaiah. For example, "I responded to those who did not ask, I was at hand to those who did not seek Me".'85 He cites several other examples,86 and then goes on to say: 'The present figure is related to the interpretation as a part is to the whole... It is because this clarity contains the highest degree of clarity that it is called simply "clarity".' That is, Rabbi Judah Messer Leon identified the phenomenon of synonymous parallelism with certainty, and even demonstrated it well, using several outstanding parallelisms from the books of the prophets; however, he does not define it properly according to its nature by the name 'parallelism', but rather sees in it one of the eighty-three clarities, such as, maxim, climax, synecdoche, and others.87 A basic study of biblical poetry is first found in Azariah Dei Rossi (1511-78), one of the great Renaissance scholars of Hebrew, whom Zinberg defines as a 'free researcher', the 'founder of scientific, historical criticism', who 'was far ahead of his time' and of whom 'only the 80. See above, pp. 104-105. 81. In his book Nofet Supim: A Critical Edition and Translation (trans. I. Rabinovitch; Ithaca, NY; Cornel University Press, 1983), Chapter 54, pp. 412ff. 82. Nofet Supim, p. 416. 83. Nofet Supim, p. 530. 84. The term which Robert Lowth coined for parallelism. 85. Isa. 65.1. 86. Isa. 33.14; 65.2; Ezek. 18.16, 45. 87. See Nofet Supim, fourth section, pp. 412-14.
108
God's Word for Our World
nineteenth century was able to appreciate his importance duly'.88 His book Me 'or 'Enayim—Enlightenment to the Eyes—was published in 1572, after an earthquake that struck Ferrara while he was there in November 1570, an earthquake which lasted some ten days. The important part of his book is the third, 'Imrei Binah' (Words of Understanding),+in which Azariah comprehensively discusses the history of Israel and the development of the Bible, while in ch. 60, 'Al Hashirim Ha'mehubarim Bileshon Ha'kodesh'' (On the Poems Composed in the Holy Tongue), he discusses biblical poetry. In his opinion, everybody admitted that they were conscious of a poetic melodiousness while reciting them and that their cantillation differed from that of the rest of the Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa. But nobody knew how to appraise them... My heart told me that the songs of holy Scripture do undoubtedly have measures and structures, but that they do not depend on the number of long or short vowels, as in the norm with poems of our owr times... In some cases, the clause will have two measures which together with the second to which it is attached amounts to four; other have three feet and with the second part amounts to six complete feet... Sometimes, a single verse, and even more so, one song, will contain these two kinds of measures, namely two-two and three-three.. , 89
Azariah gives examples of this with the help of verses from the poetry of the Torah. The Song of the Sea, in his opinion, has four qualities: Your right hand, O LORD, glorious in power Your right hand, O LORD, will shatters the foe.
The Ha'azinu Song has six qualities: Give ear, O heavens, let me speak; Let the earth hear the words I utter.'
And the Song of the Well begins with c, c and continues with b, b: Spring up, O well—sing to it The well which the chieftains dug Which the nobles of the people started With maces, with their own staffs. And from Midbar to Mattanah. 88. I. Zinberg, Toldot Sifrut Yisrael B (History of Israel's Literature) (Tel-Aviv: Y. Sherberk, 1956), pp. 290-95. 89. Me 'or 'Enayim (Vilna, 1866), Chapter 60, pp. 479-80, here following the translation by J. Weinberg, The Light of the Eyes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), pp. 712-13.
MEIR On the Study ofPentateuchal Poetry
109
In Azariah's opinion, the key to understanding biblical poetry is the subject, that is, the words, and not the vowels in the words, that is, the syllables.90 The fact that it is possible to count ideas and that when they are counted they represent a regular, balanced pattern, although not all poetic verses meet this criterion, is, in the opinion of A. Berlin,91 the innovation of Azariah. In his words: You should not count the feet nor the words, but only the ideas, and thus it often happens that a small word converges with the adjoining word... It does not surprise me that there are many verses which I am unable to fit into the systems described above—perhaps the exceptions outnumber those that are applicable.92
Azariah's work won a great deal of acclaim among Christians, and in 1660, Chapter 60, the chapter that deals with biblical poetry, was translated into Latin and appeared at the end of Johannes Buxtorf II's (1599-1664) translation ofSefer ha-Kuzari.93 On the other hand, among contemporary Jews, the book received lethal criticism, was excommunicated and even burned.94 The distinction between biblical prose and biblical poetry, and the definition of a large portion of biblical literature as poetry, was made by the English bishop Robert Lowth (1710-87) in his study of 1753.95 Lowth wrote his book Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews*6 under the influence of the book Me 'or 'Enayim by Rabbi Azariah Dei Rossi. Lowth's principal innovation is the determination of the relationship between parts of biblical verse, where he relates to the internal substantive relationship and not to the external relationship that concerned Azariah.97 He defined 90. See also Segal, 'Leheker Tzuratah shel ha-Shira ha-Mikrait', pp. 94-99. 91. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, p. 143. 92. Me 'or 'Enayim, Chapter 60, p. 480. The translation is by Weinberg, The Light of the Eyes, pp. 713-14. 93. Johannes Buxtorf II was, like his father, a Swiss Middle East expert. He inherited his post as Professor of Bible at the University of Basel from his father. He was the first to translate Sefer ha-Kuzari into Latin (as stated, in 1660). 94. See Segal, 'Leheker Tzuratah shel ha-Shira ha-Mikrait', p. 96. See also Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, pp. 200-203, and Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, pp. 42-44. 95. Robert Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation with A Preliminary Dissertation and Notes (London, n.p., 1948). 96. De Sacra Poesia Hebraeorum (London, 1835), originally published as Praelections de Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum (Oxford, 1753). 97. That is, the structure of the line and its composition.
110
God's Word for Our World
the correspondence between two verses or two lines with the concept of parallelism,98 and in his words: The correspondence of one verse, or line, with another, I call parallelism. When a proposition is delivered and a second is subjoined to it or drawn under it, equivalent, or contrasted with it, in the sense or similar form of grammatical construction, these I call parallel lines; and words or phrases, answering one to another in the corresponding lines, parallel terms."
Further on, he discerns three types of parallelism and gives examples of them:100 1. Parallela synonymous: e.g. Isa. 54.4; Prov. 3.9; and others,101 2. Parallela antithetic: e.g. Prov. 10.1; Ps. 20.8; and others,102 3. Parallela synthetic: e.g. Job 12.13-16; Isa. 58.5; and others.103 That is, Azariah dealt only with the structure of the line and emphasized the 'subjects', that is, the internal relationships of content and concept in each line and their logical connection, whereas Lowth dealt with the structure of the verse and emphasized the external relationships—synonymous, antithetic and synthetic parallels—which are expressed in the rhythm; and as Segal claims, an entire picture of the biblical poem can be obtained by connecting these two theories, which was done toward the end of the eighteenth century by Moses Mendelssohn in his commentary Habiur. In his Foreword to the Song of the Sea, Mendelssohn characterizes biblical poetry and also relates to the difference between it and Greek and Roman poetry. Mendelssohn mentions Azariah explicitly,104 whereas he does not mention Lowth. However, as J.G. Klausner showed,105 there is no doubt that Mendelssohn knew Lowth's work and was influenced by it, although 98. As Gray notes in his book The Forms of Hebrew Poetry Considered, pp. 38-39, parallelism is not a characteristic only of Hebrew literature, but also appears in Babylonian literature, as in the creation epic Enuma Elish and The Epic ofGilgamesh. See also Greenfield, The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature, pp. 549-54. 99. Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation, p. xiv. 100. While he explicitly notes (Isaiah: A New Translation, p. xv) that he cites his examples from those books which are usually seen as books of poetry, and afterwards from Isaiah, and at times also from other prophets. 101. Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation, pp. xv-xxiv. 102. Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation, pp. xxiv-xxvii. 103. Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation, pp. xxvii-xxxi. 104. In his commentary to the Song of the Sea, Exod. 15. 105. • ha-Historya shel ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-Hadasha (translated by H. Danby as History of Modern Hebrew Literature) (Jerusalem: Achiasaf, 1960), pp. 71-72.
MEIR On the Study of Pentateuchal Poetry
111
he formulated it in his own words. It appears, therefore, that the first to define parallelism clearly as a literary phenomenon characteristic of biblical poetry was Robert Lowth.106 According to A. Berlin,107 since Lowth's definition of parallelism as a characteristic literary phenomenon of biblical poetry, biblical researchers tend to identify parallelism with biblical poetry, with the only dissenting voice being that of J. Kugel in his book The Idea of Biblical Poetry. Kugel claims that it is impossible to distinguish between poetry and prose in the Bible because the typical characteristics of poetry also appear in what is clearly not poetry, like the Mesha Stele.108 Kugel differentiates between regular prose and elevated style, and claims that 'to see biblical style through the split lens of prose or poetry is to distort the view'.109 Indeed, Berlin agrees with Kugel that there are parts of the Bible which have a more elevated style, but in her opinion,110 this elevated style is the result of terseness and parallelism. When those two characteristics occur in high degree this is what everyone except Kugel defines as poetry.111 Berlin's conclusions are that not every parallelism is poetry, but that there is no doubt that parallelism is the most central element in the definition of biblical poetry. As stated above, linguists have also attempted to define poetry. The philologist R. Jakobson112 follows in the wake of Lowth, noting that the dominant characteristic of poetic language is parallelism created by patterns of linguistic equivalence projected into sequences of sounds, accents, 106. Rabbi Menahem Ben Saruq, who preceded Lowth by some eight hundred years, did indeed discern the phenomenon of parallelism, but Ben Saruq's phrasing is awkward and he does not distinguish among the various types of parallelism. 107. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, p. 4. 108. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, p. 63. 109. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, pp. 85ff. 110. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, p. 5. 111. Alter disagrees with Kugel regarding the continuity from prose to what Kugel calls elevated style. See R. Alter, 'The Characteristics of Ancient Hebrew Poetry', in Alter and Kermode (eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible, pp. 611 -24 (612). hi Alter's view, Kugel is at one end of the spectrum of opinion regarding biblical poetry. At the other end of this spectrum, he places Paul Kraus, who in the 1930s, sought to prove that the entire Bible is poetry; in an advanced stage of his work, when he learned that the biblical text does not support this assumption, Kraus took his own life (p. 4). 112. 'PoetryofGrammarandGrammarofPoetry',ZJ«gwa21 (1968),pp. 597-609 (602), and M. Weiss, The Bible From Within: The Method of Total Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), p. 406. Cf. also Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, pp. 7-14.
112
Go d 's Word for Our World
words, sentences, texts, and so forth. However, there is no parallelism that is unique only to poetry, and not all of poetry is parallelism alone. T. Longman113 speaks of prose and poetry, as poles on a continuum. In addition to terseness and parallelism he notes the use of imagery and meter as characteristic of biblical poetry; even though he is aware that including these two factors as characteristics of biblical poetry is problematic. In the opinion of Y. Kaufmann (1889-1963),114 ancient Israelite poetry, which began to come into existence during the desert period, is rooted in the ancient Hebrew song of the moshelim,U5 and its remnants are: Blessing of Jacob: Song of the Sea: Song of the Well: Blessing of Balaam: Blessing of Moses:
Gen. 49.1-26116 Exod. 15.1-21 Num. 21.14-20 Num. 23-24117 Deut. 33
Y. Kaufmann does not mention the other poetic verses in the Torah.118 M.H. Segal adds a few other verses to the units above:119 Song of Lamech: Curse of Canaan: Blessing of Rebekah: Blessing of the children of Rebekah: Blessing of Isaac to his sons: Song of the Ark: Ha'azinu Song:
Gen. 4.23-24 Gen. 9.25-27 Gen. 24.60 Gen. 25.23 Gen. 27.27-29 Num. 10.35-36 Deut. 32.1-43
Relying on Berlin's definition, I have added two more units to these verses:
113. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (Michigan: Zondervan, 1987), pp.121-34. 114. Toldot ha-Emunah ha- Yisraelit, B (Tel-Aviv: Bialik Institute/Devir, 1960), p. 150. 115. Indeed, he claims that the ancient poets who preceded Israel were called 'moshelim' ('rulers'). See Kaufmann, Toldot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit, pp. 144-45. 116. In noting these verses he was not precise when he delimited the song as ending with v. 26, since v. 27 is also a poetic verse, hi the Blessing of Balaam he also lacked precision, where he classifies chs. 23-24 in Numbers as 'Songs of Balaam', despite the fact that the poetic verses are confined to 23.7-10,18-24, and 24.3-9,15-24. 117. Kaufmann calls these verses 'the Song of Balaam' (see Toldot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit, p. 145). 118. Kaufmann also notes Josh. 10.12-13; Judg. 5 and 2 Sam. 1.17-27 as poetic verses. 119. See Segal, Introduction to the Bible, I, pp. 110-18.
MEIR On the Study ofPentateuchal Poetry
113
The song at the end of the war with Amalek: Exod. 17.16 Song of the moshelim: Num. 21.27-30
In my opinion, all of these verses meet the basic criteria that define biblical poetry, these being terseness and parallelism, and accordingly can be defined as poetry.
HENDIADYS AS AN AGENT OF RHETORICAL ENRICHMENT IN BIBLICAL POETRY, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PROPHETIC DISCOURSE
J. Kenneth Kuntz
During my stay at Union Theological Seminary in New York City (195963), I heard my respected professors in biblical studies speak approvingly of several young scholars whose sojourns as graduate students preceded mine. Clearly, one such person was Simon De Vries, who had earned his ThD degree there in 1958. Although Simon's interests in the discipline have been wide-ranging, he has often tarried with the prophetic corpus of the canon. Given his firm grasp of the dynamics of Biblical Hebrew poetry, I wish to pay tribute to Simon's scholarship by offering an essay on a compelling trope of prophetic discourse—hendiadys. 'A horse and a man is more than one, and yet not many'. This citation from William Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew is prominently featured in George T. Wright's pioneering essay, 'Hendiadys and Hamlet'.1 Convinced that the famous English dramatist and poet used hendiadys far more freely and frequently than is commonly assumed, Wright offers one of the most rigorous treatments of hendiadys available. Ellen Spolsky charges Wright with having overestimated 'the amount of necessary meaning' in this rhetorical figure.2 Frank Kermode lifts up this first systematic examination of hendiadic discourse in Hamlet as 'a brilliant piece of literary criticism'.3 Above all, Wright is persuasive in his conviction that through their use of hendiadys, 1. George T. Wright, 'Hendiadys and Hamlet', PMLA 96 (1981), pp. 168-93. 2. Ellen Spolsky, 'The Limits of Literal Meaning', New Literary History 19 (1987), pp. 419-40 (423). Early in her article Spolsky states, 'Necessary meaning makes only a small contribution to interpretation, but it is present, crucial, uncancellable, and distinguishable from several less determinate kinds of meaning. Though no longer in the majority party, literal meaning still has a seat in parliament' (pp. 419-20). 3. Frank Kermode, Forms of Attention (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 50.
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
115
gifted poets of the past have achieved new levels of amplification, intensification, and elusiveness. Situated in manifestly diverse social and linguistic contexts, such artists have often been successful in employing this ambiguous yet enriching stylistic figure to distinct advantage. As a trope that is commonly attested in classical writing, it continues to surface in modern language discourse as well. Introductory Issues Claiming as its origin the phrase, EV 5ia Suoiv, meaning 'one through two', hendiadys may be defined as a rhetorical device in which a single complex idea is expressed by two words joined by a coordinating conjunction, rather than by a qualifier and a substantive. If, formally speaking, one component is not subordinated to the other, logically speaking, it is. Hence, in Shakespeare's Macbeth, the expression 'full of sound and fury' (V.v.27) engages coordinate nouns that are understood to mean 'full of furious sound'. Given Kenneth Quinn's astute observation that 'in all forms of writing, a word may be backed up by a near-synonym, either because the right word cannot be found or because an unfamiliar idea seems easier grasped when put two ways',4 it comes as no surprise that such a stylistic mechanism might come into existence and enjoy abundant usage. The writings of Virgil and Shakespeare, which yield many examples of this phenomenon, primarily entail the linking of nouns. Whereas nominal coupling is evident in the contemporary English phrase 'this day and age', verbal hendiadys is evident in the expression 'try and do better' (for 'try to do better'). For vintage adjectival examples we may mention 'hot and bothered' (for 'extremely irritated') and 'null and void' (for 'invalid'). This figure of speech assuredly finds a home in our colloquial English. Nevertheless, in contemporary scholarship the existence of hendiadys has sometimes been only grudgingly accepted or forthrightly denied. Having lost patience with those scholars of rhetoric for whom 'the identification, classification, and labeling of specimens of given stylistic devices becomes an end in itself, linguist Geoffrey N. Leech holds in contempt 'the survival in modern textbooks of figures like hendiadys, which we can value only as curiosities'.5 In Leech's estimation, hendiadys is so rare a 4. Kenneth Quinn, Virgil's 'Aeneid': A Critical Description (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1968), p. 424. 5. Geoffrey N. Leech, A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry (London: Longmans, 1969), p. 4.
116
God's Word for Our World
phenomenon that he has been unable to find any certain instance of it in English literature. More than four decades earlier, E. Adelaide Hahn had embarked on what Wright regards as 'a persuasive disparagement of hendiadys in Virgil'.6 In so doing, she espoused a position that would surely win Leech's approval. Based on her inspection of individual passages drawn from that famous first-century BCE Roman poet, Hahn produced a detailed study in which she came to the conclusion that 'whenever Virgil chooses to write as though he had two ideas, he really did have two, and that, accordingly, the term hendiadys is a misnomer, and the phenomenon which it is supposed to describe is non-existent'.7 As Hahn lays out her argument, she insists that all examples of what has been called hendiadys in the work of Virgil are nothing more than examples of hendiadic parallelism. In her estimate, the phrases of Virgil that are at issue consistently yield two substantives that are meant to be kept separate, and since both are of equal importance, no subordination of thought is possible. One substantive never unfolds or augments the other. Even so, this essay fails to commend itself as a balanced endeavor. Moreover, Hahn's assessment of this poet has not evoked widespread scholarly endorsement. For example, Kenneth Quinn, who reaches a substantially different conclusion, contends that Virgil made frequent use of hendiadys and that consistently the second substantive 'sharply limits or corrects the first'.8 At the very least, Hahn is guilty of generalizing from the particular to the universal. Even if her reading of Virgil is fundamentally viable, her claim that the phenomenon does not exist lacks warrant. Those who take the history of this rhetorical figure into account are constrained to admit that despite its Greek name the evidence is wanting that hendiadys was regarded by early Greek grammarians or commentators as a recognizable literary device. Whereas Aristotle, in his treatise on Rhetoric, recognizes such figures as the simile, metaphor, and zeugma (the close relative of hendiadys), he does not refer to hendiadys itself. Yet, as David Sansone is quick to point out, this lack of evidence 'does not, of course, mean that the phenomenon is absent from Greek authors'.9 6. Wright, 'Hendiadys andHamlef, p. 170. 7. E. Adelaide Hahn, 'Hendiadys: Is there Such a Thing?', The Classical Weekly 15.25 (8 May 1922), p. 197. 8. Quinn, Virgil's 'Aeneid', p. 424. 9. David Sansone, 'On Hendiadys in Greek', Glotta: Zeitschriftfur griechische undlateinische Sprache 62 (1984), pp. 16-25 (18).
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
117
The first explicit mention of the term is found in the writings of Servius dating from around 400 CE where it undergoes two misspellings—endiadis and endyadys.10 This Latin grammarian coined the term to describe a figurative device that is pervasive in Virgil's A eneid. It involves the use of two substantives, joined by a conjunction signifying 'and', to denote a single but complex idea. Sansone observes that the expressions that Servius identified as hendiadys all contain 'two nouns in the same case, and each can be paraphrased...by substituting for one of the nouns either a genitive depending on the other noun or a corresponding adjective in agreement with the other noun'.11 The most commonly cited example from Virgil is found in the Georgics (11.192): patens libamus et auro ('we drink from cups and gold'). Ordinarily, English translators suppress the bizarre tenor of this phrasing by judging one of the nouns to be dependent on the other. Hence, the rendering 'We drink from golden cups' readily emerges. In like manner, membris et mole valens ('powerful in limbs and weight'} is customarily translated 'mighty in mass of limb'. Building on the findings of recent scholars of Virgil, Wright insists that the figure of hendiadys cannot be explained away in so facile a manner that it fails to 'account for the poet's deliberate stylistic choice of two parallel substantives instead of what we would call a noun phrase (noun and adjective [golden cups]+or noun and dependent noun [cups of gold])'+.1 Perhaps when Virgil portrays the ceremonial sacrifice at which the faithful consume wine from cups and gold, he wishes to confront his readers with two notions rather than one: for these celebrants, only one kind of sacred vessel and one kind of liquid will do. Similarly, in the Aeneid, Entellus' powerful limbs and his entire massive appearance may in fact be dual items of interest. Thus Wright cogently remarks, 'The et in each phrase precisely registers the separateness and successiveness of the two distinct segments of the event. The perception may even be a triple one—of each idea in turn and then of their combination or fusion.'13 Here Wright might have pressed this line of reasoning one step further by suggesting that the two segments in question would undoubtedly be perceived as standing in creative tension within that combination or fusion. This understanding of hendiadys meshes with that advanced by Kenneth Quinn, who lists the figure among the many devices that disclose Virgil's 10. 11. 12. 13.
Sansone, 'On Hendiadys in Greek', pp. 17-18. Sansone, 'On Hendiadys in Greek', p. 18. Wright, 'Hendiadys and Hamlet', p. 168. Wright, 'Hendiadys and Hamlet', p. 168.
118
God's Word for Our World
predilection for coordinating structures over subordinating ones. Though, as a practiced writer, Virgil was acutely aware of the efficacy of an incisive phrase, there is in the poet's syntax that constant assertion that is partly facilitated through a frequent recourse to hendiadys. Scarcely lacking in the ability 'to secure first time a direct hit',14 Virgil seems to have been fond of crafting parallel statements that entailed the coordination of substantives. And whereas it is the case that both substantives exist in their own right, often the second substantive functions either to explain or augment the first. With his habit of regularly establishing the elements of a situation in coordinate syntax, this poet expects his readers to perceive 'the differing flavour of his words in the two arms of the parataxis'.15 Clearly successiveness and separateness may present themselves as equally compelling factors within a given hendiadys. Even so, Wilfred G.E. Watson's textbook generalization about hendiadys is ordinarily quite pertinent as we come to terms with this literary figure: 'the important aspect of hendiadys is that its components are no longer considered separately but as a single unit in combination'.16 They exist for the purpose of expressing a single and inseparable concept.17 Accordingly, the interplay between the components merits careful scrutiny on the part of the beholder. Moreover, the complex character of this rhetorical device underlies Chris Baldick's astute observation that 'the status of this figure is often uncertain, since it cannot be established that the paired words actually express a single idea'.18 When it appears that such is not the case, we dare not attach this kind of identity to the word pair. Hendiadys in English Poetry Whereas hendiadys is mainly celebrated as a poetic ornament in Greek and Latin discourse, it is scarcely absent in English poetry. William Shakespeare, John Milton, Alfred Tennyson, and Dylan Thomas are perhaps the better known English poets who have invited hendiadys into their canon of compelling rhetorical devices. In Milton's Samson Agonistes the hero 14. Quinn, Virgil's 'Aeneid',p.423. 15. Quinn, Virgil's 'Aeneid', p. 426. 16. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), p. 325. 17. This feature is likewise highlighted in H.A. Brongers' 'Merismus, Synekdoche und Hendiadys in der Bibel-Hebraischen Sprache', OTS 14 (1965), p. 110. 18. Chris Baldick, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 97.
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
119
admits that he is made the spectacle of his enemies, that he is the object of their 'scorn and gaze' (1. 34), and the high-ranking men and women who attend the ill-fated feast of Dagon are depicted as the 'choice nobility and flower'+of the Philistines (1. 1654). In his poem, 'Geriant and Enid', Tennyson intensifies the image of scattered gold coins that lie strewn at the marble threshold of Enid's house by presenting them as 'gold and scattered coins'1 (1.26). And Dylan Thomas' poem, 'Fern Hill', focuses on one who is both 'young and easy under the apple boughs' and 'green and carefree+among the barns'. These are suggestive collocations indeed. Since Shakespeare used hendiadys with extraordinary facility, he must have confronted that figure frequently as a schoolboy. Wright avers that this poet's frequent recourse to hendiadys is 'dazzlingly various'.19 In a given hendiadys of Shakespeare the coordinate structure that emerges can range from the simple to the profound, from that which explicates to that which mystifies. Additionally, his hendiadys 'usually elevates the discourse and blurs its logical lines'.20 Late in Shakespeare's tragicomedy Cymbeline, the villain lachimo says of himself, 'The heaviness and guilt within my bosom takes off my manhood' (V.ii.l). An increased emphasis is achieved through this use of two nouns for the more conventional combination involving a noun and its modifier. Moreover, the singular verb effectively yokes the nouns and creates in us the assumption that heavy guilt is intended.21 The collocation is simple, yet effective. It is crucial, however, that we realize that in many instances hendiadic usage resists logical analysis. Here Wright observes that 'hendiadys, far from explaining mysteries, establishes them'.22 This rhetorical figure, therefore, served Shakespeare exceedingly well as he shaped his tragedies that brood on the darker aspects of human existence.23 And no other 19. Wright, 'Hendiadys andHamlef,+p. 169. 20. Wright, 'Hendiadys andHamlef, p. 171. 21. Miriam Joseph, Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language (New York: Hafher, 1966), p. 62. 22. Wright, 'Hendiadys and Hamlet', p. 169. That 'anti-logical overtones' are a characteristic feature of Shakespeare's use of hendiadys is also a matter that Wright emphasizes in his hendiadys entry in Alex Preminger and T.V.F. Brogan (eds.), The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 515-16. 23. In Forms of Attention, Kermode admits this to be the case, but he is even more fascinated by what he calls the 'central principle of doubling' that governs the play (p. 53). He discerns in Hamlet 'a sort of hierarchy of doublets, with hendiadys as the most complex and the most central' (p. 51).
120
God's Word for Our World
Shakespearean play employs this trope more frequently than Hamlet. Let us recall two examples. First, the devious nature of the quest on which Polonius and Reynaldo are embarking is highlighted when the former says to the latter, 'And thus do we of wisdom and of reach by indirections find directions out' (II.i.65-67). Second, a hendiadys consisting of 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' in Hamlet's famous soliloquy (III.i.59) is an artfully constructed portrayal of ambiguous and treacherous human relationships on which the play is centered. For Shakespeare, hendiadys proved to be a truly crucial rhetorical artifice. Having had this limited say about hendiadic discourse in poetic literature beyond the biblical canon, we should find ourselves in a more advantageous position to consider hendiadys as a stylistic phenomenon in the poetry of the Hebrew Bible itself. Hendiadys in the Hebrew Bible Admittedly, our topic has scarcely dominated biblical studies. In their Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Richard N. and R. Kendall Soulen identify hendiadys as 'the name for a form of syntactic coordination in which two or more terms are joined by the use of "and" (KCU), rather than by subordinating one term to the other, as, e.g., adjective to noun', and list but one example from the Greek New Testament (Mk. 6.26).24 They do not admit explicitly to the existence of hendiadys within the poetry and prose of the Hebrew Bible. Yet, given the rather limited number of adjectives and adverbs that surface in Biblical Hebrew, it is entirely understandable that in their quest for other avenues of modification, many framers of both prose and poetic discourse looked to hendiadys as an ally. Among the better known introductory grammars of Biblical Hebrew, only one concerns itself with hendiadys, namely that of Thomas O. Lamdin, in which he provides a section entitled, 'Verbal Hendiadys and Related Idioms'.25 Lambdin's opening sentence on the topic clearly shows what he has in mind: 'In the construction wayydsob wayyebek ("and he wept again"), the two verbs are simply coordinated, both having the form as required by the narrative sequence in which they occur, but in meaning the first serves to qualify the second and is best translated adverbially in 24. Richard N. and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 3rd edn, 2001), p. 72. 25. Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), pp. 238-40.
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
121
English'.26 Included among Lambdin's examples is umihartem wehoradtem 'et- 'dbi henna ('Andyou shall quickly bring my father down here'), which is part of Joseph's command to his brothers in Gen. 45.13. The NRSV and the JPSV translations are representative of renderings of this verse in contemporary English. The former reads, 'Hurry and bring my father down here', and the latter, 'bring my father here with all speed'. Surely the latter rendering is more accepting of the hendiadys. Lambdin also provides examples of asyndetic hendiadic constructions. Among them is sub sekdb ('Lie down again'), an imperative situated in Eli's speech to the boy Samuel in 1 Sam. 3.5. Once more, a logical reading of these coordinate verbs demands our recognition that the first verb is subordinated to the task of qualifying the second. The figure of hendiadys receives varied treatment in more advanced Hebrew grammars. Though Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar shows no interest in hendiadys, two respected studies of Hebrew syntax accord it some consideration, namely Ronald J. Williams' Hebrew Syntax11 and Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.2* Yet, apart from providing a list of twenty-one such specimens from the Hebrew Bible, Williams offers the briefest of explanations, merely noting that by means of hendiadys, 'a single concept may be expressed by two words linked by the conjunction we'.29 In Waltke and O'Connor's grammar, hendiadys is specifically mentioned in the authors' discussion of (1) complex nominal constructions, (2) adjectival modifiers, (3) copulative waw, and (4) conjunctive waw. In discussing complex nominal constructions, they isolate Jer. 6.7 which yields the phrase hamas wdsodyissdma' bd ('violence and destruction resound in her') as an example of hendiadys. Here Waltke and O'Connor rightly point to 'the juxtaposition of two nouns as a single referent'.30 And in discussing the conjunctive waw, they explain that it 'serves to join two clauses which describe interrelated or overlapping situations not otherwise logically related'.31 This directly bears on our topic since on occasion pairs of such clauses constitute a hendiadys. 26. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, p. 238. 27. Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2nd edn, 1976), p. 16. 28. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 70, 73-74, 540, 653-54. 29. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, p. 16. 30. Waltke and O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 70. 31. Waltke and O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 653.
122
God's Word for Our World
E.A. Speiser may be named as one among a few prominent scholars who have demonstrated some fascination for hendiadys in the course of their exegesis of specific biblical texts. As Speiser provides supporting documentation for his assertion that 'a faithful translation is by no means the same thing as a literal rendering',32 he devotes three reasonably full paragraphs in his 'Introduction' to this trope.33 For him to name hendiadys as a 'method' seems idiosyncratic, but his working definition is illuminating: 'two formally coordinated terms—verbs, nouns, or adjectives—[are] joined by "and" [to] express a single concept in which one of the components defines the other'.34 Speiser is rightly aware that in Biblical Hebrew not all hendiadic constructions call for the coupling of substantives. The twinning can also entail verbs or adjectives. Although he admits that on occasion the translator's failure to perceive this 'added nuance' need not be damaging, he maintains that an accurate translation of Gen. 3.16 fully depends upon our detecting the presence of hendiadys. If a literal rendering of the Hebrew in that verse turns Yahweh's disclosure to the woman into a statement of illogical sequence, 'I will multiply greatly your pain and your conception' ('isfbonek vtfheronek),+the verbal hendiadys urges that the rendering be 'pangs in childbearing'.35 The coordinate phrase itself is eliminated from the translation, which also accords with the recommendation of H.A. Brongers, who on stylistic grounds argues that in most instances an elimination (Ausmerzung) is the best tactic to take in approaching such a Hebraism.36 It is not unusual for hendiadys to present itself at prominent collocations within the biblical text. For example, in Gen. 1.2, at the outset of the Priestly creation account, we are informed that in its original state, the earth was tohu wdbohu ('formless and void'). This nominal hendiadys, with its striking assonance, readily invites the rendering 'formless void' (so NRSV; 'formless waste' in Speiser). Thus, Gen. 1.2 offers a circumstantial nominal clause which declares that at this juncture, the earth was yet a desert waste. 32. E.A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doublelday, 1964), p. Ixvi. 33. Speiser, Genesis, p. Ixx. 34. Speiser, Genesis, p. Ixx. 3 5. Identifying this coordinate construction as ' a typical hendiadys', Claus Westermann says it means 'the pains that childbearing will bring you' (Genesis 1-11: A Commentary [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], p. 262). 36. Brongers, 'Merismus, Synekdoche und Hendiadys', p. 110.
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
123
No less prominent is the first of several hendiadic elements that significantly enrich the poetic discourse in the Song of the Sea (Exod. 15.1-18). Standing near the head of this ancient poem in v. 2 is the first-person affirmation of the poet, 'ozzi wezimratyd+('My strength and my might.is Yah'). Here is a hendiadys of sturdy hymnic confession that might well be translated, 'My mighty fortress is Yah'.37 Four other instances of hendiadys in this one hymn also merit mention. First, just a few lines later in v. 4 we meet the hendiadys martebotpar 'oh v^helo ('the chariots of Pharaoh and his army'). What is said to have been 'cast into the sea' is not both chariots and the remainder of the army, but Pharaoh's chariot force as a single entity. This invites the translation, 'Pharaoh's chariot army'. Second, a break-up of a hendiadic phrase and its redistribution into two different locations within the bicolon seems to lie behind the use of the words behasdeka ('in your steadfast love') and be'ozzeka ('with your might') in v. 13: 'You led in your steadfast love the people whom you redeemed; / you guided them with your might to your holy abode' ,38 Third, in v. 14 mention of Philistia's anguish over Israel's entry into the land of Canaan is expressed in the asyndetic hendiadys, sdme 'u 'ammim yirgazun ('the peoples heard and trembled'). Here a simultaneous response to encroaching danger is deftly conveyed. This colon to be rendered 'trembling, the peoples heard' hosts a verb pair that conveys the same reciprocal relationship that is characteristic of nominal hendiadys. Fourth, the presence of a singular verb (tippdl) at the head of v. 16 offers sufficient indication that the two nouns 'emdtd wapahad (''terror and dread'') form a hendiadys denoting how 'the dwellers in Canaan' (v. 15) reacted to Israel's penetration into their land: 'dreadful terror fell upon them'. Even though the poetry of Exod. 15.1-18 may strike us as extraordinary in its proclivity for hendiadys, this trope is no stranger to Biblical Hebrew poetry in general as our analysis of selected prophetic texts will now demonstrate. Hendiadys in the Poetry of the Prophets Although it is not the focus of this essay, we would do well to recognize that hendiadys is no stranger to prophetic prose. One well-known example 37. In agreement with David Noel Freedman in his essay, 'Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15', in idem, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), pp. 163-203 (195), who, in turn, credits E.M. Good with this insight ('Exodus XV.2', VT2Q [1970], p. 358-59). 38. See also Freedman, 'Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15', p. 211.
124
God's Word for Our World
is attested in Jon. 1.11 and repeated verbatim two verses later. Seeking to reclaim the recalcitrant Jonah, Yahweh hurls a mighty wind against the sea that severely challenges the mariners guiding the boat on which Jonah has taken passage. The phrase ki hayyam holek weso 'er yields an effective hendiadys. The two verbs enlisted are participles (literally, 'going and storming'} that readily denote that the storm at sea was escalating. Phyllis Trible aptly claims that parallel images 'underscore the intensity of the situation'.39 Moreover, in a prose conclusion to a mocking dirge against Babylon and its king, Isa. 14.22 enlists a hendiadys in order to underscore the full-scale destruction of the city as a people: Yahweh resolves to cut off nin waneked ('offspring and progeny', rendered 'kith and kin' in the JPSV translation). No descendant whatever is expected to remain. But what is knowable about this rhetorical device as it surfaces in the poetic disclosures of biblical Israel's prophets? Three categories of hendiadys may be differentiated—nominal, verbal, and adjectival. Clearly, the nominal category is more pervasive than the verbal and the adjectival category is attested least of all. Yet all three categories serve the needs of poetic prophetic discourse. Nominal Hendiadys In the book of Isaiah, the nominal category is well represented. As Yahweh's lawsuit against Israel unfolds in Isa. 1.2-20, various ritual practices are rejected. But why are they odious to the deity? A hendiadic colon in v. 13 offers the initial answer. The deity thunders, 'I cannot abide the iniquitous solemn assembly"". The hendiadys consists of a pair of linked terms, 'awen wa '"sard, meaning 'iniquity and assembly". Two nouns specify one criticism: Yahweh has no intention of enduring the worship enterprise of an immoral people that undercuts authentic ritualistic practice and its underlying motivation. Manifesting artful alliteration, Isa. 5.6 and 9.17 both yield a nominal hendiadys, samir \vasayit, that may be rendered 'briers and thistles'. We are not to infer that the first noun denotes a thorny bush that is prickly in its totality and is thus distinguishable from the second noun that denotes a bush whose prickliness is limited to its leaves. Collectively the two terms call to mind a thriving bramble patch. In Isa. 5.6 this is what the formerly coveted vineyard of Yahweh has sadly become; in Isa. 9.17 the bramble patch that is consumed by fire serves as a brilliant image for escalating 39. Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), p. 143.
KuNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
125
wickedness that defies containment. Of course, the effectiveness of this nominal pair does not depend upon the listener's or reader's ability to establish a precise botanical identification. Like the previous hendiadys in Isa. 1.13, this word-pair in Isa. 5.6 and 9.17 enlivens the discourse that develops Yahweh's case against his covenant people. A negative image is also projected in Isa. 51.19 whose chiastically arranged cola host a double hendiadys. In his discussion of hendiadys, Watson highlights this superb poetic artifice, noting that 'the prophet refers to two events, but in fact mentions four—or, rather, two sets of words in tandem'.40 Watson's translation reads, 'These two disasters have overtaken you, / Who can console you? / destructive desolation, I stabbing starvation, I Who can comfort you?' Reflecting on Jerusalem's punitive downfall that was wrought by Babylonian forces whose deeds brought Yahweh's will to fruition, Deutero-Isaiah first juxtaposes two nouns, hassod wehasseber, meaning 'destruction and shattering', and immediately juxtaposes two others, hard 'db ^hahereb, meaning 'famine and sword'. While the initial nominal pair may be assessed as a more conspicuous instance of hendiadys than its successor, surely the latter targets one reality, not two. Watson's rendering of the Hebrew as 'stabbing starvation' is cogent. Isaiah 53.8 illustrates how an obscure verse in the Hebrew Bible is made more accessible when a hendiadic construction is detected. As the fourth Servant Song (52.13-53.12) elaborates on the intense suffering of Yahweh's faithful servant, mention is made of his removal from the human scene and subsequent burial. The opening colon of this verse yields me'dser umimmispat luqqdh. Whereas the RSV settles on a literal rendering, 'By oppression and judgment he was taken away', the NRSV and JPSV translations present more felicitous readings that presumably capitalize on the hendiadys. The former reads, 'By a perversion of justice he was taken away' and the latter, 'By oppressive judgment he was taken away'. The ubiquitous noun mispdt poses no problem, but its predecessor, 'oser, a noun attested but three times in the Hebrew Bible, is less confidently rendered. If in Ps. 107.39 and Isa. 53.8 this noun denotes some form of oppression, in the latter instance it is better understood when construed as a term that modifies the noun that immediately follows. Calling to mind one event and not two, the hendiadys readily invites the rendering, 'By oppressive judgment'. Finally, a discussion of nominal hendiadys in the book of Isaiah dare not slight the initial colon in Isa. 35.8 that is activated by a singular verb: 40. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, p. 326.
126
God's Word for Our World
wehayd sam maslul waderek ('and a highway and a road shall appear there'). Cast as a stirring oracle of salvation, Isa. 35.1-10 meditates on the return of the exiles from Babylon to Zion. In anticipation of the return of Yahweh's redeemed and dispersed people, the prophet envisions a pilgrim's highway that traverses the wilderness. Successive cola depict a conspicuous and sacred road (derek haqqodes) that is solely available to Yahweh's own people. As a hapax legomenon, the noun maslul ('highway') is buttressed by the far more familiar noun derek, Yitzhak Avishur's rendering of this hendiadys as 'a paved road' is commendable.41 The dual terminology for 'road' along with a reiteration of the more commonly known term in the colon that immediately follows help to establish the significance of this thoroughfare. The book of Jeremiah is less rigorous in attesting nominal hendiadys in its poetry than is the book of Isaiah. Even so, it hosts several noteworthy instances. In Jer. 3.2, when the prophet fervently seeks to call Judah's citizens to accountability for their continuing infidelity toward the deity, Jeremiah draws on the husband-wife imagery that Hosea had already put to definitive use. He charges wife Judah with having defiled the land: 'You have polluted the land / with your shameful harlotry'. A literal rendering of that defilement yields 'with your harlotry and with your wickedness' (biznutayik ubera 'atek). Since it is unlikely that Jeremiah is rebuking his contemporaries for having committed unspecified crimes in addition to acting unfaithfully,.'your shameful harlotry'+is a viable rendering of this hendiadys.42 As Jeremiah's rhetoric in the previous chapter has already clarified, Yahweh's case against Judah is primarily focused on its senseless and outrageous engagements in infidelity. The hendiadic discourse in Jer. 3.2 offers powerful reinforcement. Four instances of nominal hendiadys in poetic prophetic discourse entail a juxtaposing of the nouns hamas ('violence') and sod ('destruction'). In Jer. 6.7, 20.8, and Amos 3.10 hamas opens the hendiadys, but that task falls to sod in Hab. 1.3. The poem in Jer. 6.1-8 portrays Jerusalem as a city under siege by the Babylonian army that intrudes at Yahweh's bidding. In 41. Yitzhak Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), p. 109. 42. Understanding the nouns to be equivalent, William L. Holliday (Jeremiah 1 [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986], p. 114) thinks it 'certainly possible' that Jer. 3.2 hosts a hendiadic construction. William McKane (A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Jeremiah [ICC; 2 vols.; T. & T. Clark, 1986], I, p. 60) recognizes the hendiadys and translates 'the evil of your harlotry'.
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
127
the last three verses Yahweh offers the rationale for having reversed his patronage of the city: wickedness abounds like a reservoir of water that continuously renews itself. Enlisting a singular verb, the third colon in v. 7 reads hamas wasod yissama' bd ('violence and destruction is heard in her'). Robert Carroll interprets this word-pair as a decisive denotation of outrage, 'the shout of those set upon by thugs'.43 Although this literary unit does not put us on notice to contrast the meaning of one member of the word-pair with the other, Hans Walter Wolff submits that ordinarily hamas entails violence against persons and sod violence against property.44 More importantly, we may infer that this nominal coupling is laden with richer meaning than would have been the case if only one of these two nouns had been used. Hosting its own hendiadys, the colon that immediately follows reads, 'before me [Yahweh] continually are sickness and wound' (h°li umakkd). Even though these yoked nouns lack a finite verb (presumably one in the singular), they confront the reader with a single image—a city whose morally corrupt citizens have plunged it into a debilitating illness. Clearly, Avisur's translation, 'a wound of sickness', makes good sense of the text.45 As a fixed pair, hamas wdsod emerges in a lament of Jeremiah (20.7-13) in which he charges God with having enticed him into a mission that has made him a laughingstock and object of ridicule. He complains that whenever he speaks, he must shout, 'Violence and destruction!' (v. 8). Such speaking has set Jeremiah's contemporaries against him. The prophet's forthright cry about Judah's situation calls to mind Jer. 6.7, where we first took note of this hendiadys. Then in Amos 3.10 the proclivity of the ruling class to store up ('sr) 'violence and destruction in their fortresses' is advanced as compelling evidence that 'they know not how to do right'. It is profitable for the ruling elites to engage in grossly unethical behavior. In light of his understanding of these two nouns that we have previously noted, Wolff infers that the rich 'have imported murder and robbery right into their homes, in the form of their luxurious furnishings'.46 Finally, the nouns hamas and sod surface in close association in Habakkuk to yield a felicitous shorthand description of societal collapse. In his 43. Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), p. 193. 44. Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 194. 45. Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs, p. 107. 46. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 194.
128
God's Word for Our World
initial complaint to Yahweh, the prophet protests, 'Destruction and violence are before me' (sod wehdmds lenegdi, 1.3c). With the conventional nominal sequence reversed, this hendiadys is no less effective in exposing social decadence that seems not to concern Yahweh. This colon is buttressed by the next in which rib and madon are closely linked: 'and there disputation and contention rises up' (1.3d). Perceiving the second noun as attributive, Francis I. Andersen submits that the focus of the first element in this nominal hendiadys is sharpened by the second: 'while rib can cover any kind of quarrel in many settings, madon has more legal associations'.47 Together these cola confer on the prophet's complaint a dramatic effectiveness. One other nominal hendiadys in Jeremiah merits mention. In an oracle concerning the Zion community (30.12-17), the prophet declares that whereas Yahweh desired that sinful Zion suffer ostensibly incurable wounds and desertion, he now desires that Zion be healed and its oppressors suffer ruin. This oracle consists of two strophes, the first (vv. 12-15) focusing on the painful present, the second (vv. 16-17) on what lies in store. In v. 13 the particle 'en, denoting lack, is constitutive for both cola. Speaking for Yahweh, the prophet informs Zion, 'There is no one to uphold your cause, / there is no remedy, no healing for you' (r^pu '6t te 'did 'en lak). The missing repetition of 'en lak shows the phrase to be one semantic unit. Avishur embraces Jer. 30.13b as an appositional hendiadys since the term r*pu 'dt and its apposition /* 'did 'appear without any connective waw'.48 The hendiadic colon in v. 13b appreciably contributes to the vivid depiction of the people's plight that this strophe is intent on establishing. To expand our discussion of nominal hendiadys in poetic prophetic discourse, let us consider two examples each from the books of Micah and Habakkuk, and one each from the books of Joel, Amos, Jonah and Zephaniah. (1) Micah 2.1-5 hosts a judgment oracle focused on the wealthy in Judean society who plot against the poor by laying claim to what is not lawfully theirs. If v. 1 is devoted to a general condemnation of evildoers, v. 2 invests itself in specifics. The covetous wealthy seize fields and households. Their violent actions lead to the foreclosing of family farms. 47. Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 118. 48. Yitzhak Avishur, 'Pairs of Synonymous Words in the Construct State (and in Appositional Hendiadys) in Biblical Hebrew', Semitics 2 (1971), pp. 17-81 (66). He cites nine examples from the prophetic corpus: Isa. 25.12; 30.13, 33; 33.9; 54.5; Jer. 30.13; Hos. 7.15; Hab. 2.6; 3.11.
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
129
Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman render the second bicolon, 'and they [evildoers] defrauded a man and his house, I and a man and his estate', thereby highlighting the hendiadys that divides itself over the bicolon. Accordingly, they read beto...wenahalatd as 'his patrimonial property'.49 (2) Another oracle in Micah berating the wealthy (6.9-16) yields a nominal hendiadys that is split across two cola. In v. 12ab Yahweh is depicted as railing against Jerusalem, 'whose rich men are full of lawlessness, / and whose inhabitants speak treachery'. The hendiadys consists of '"sireyha... wtyo^beyha. Certainly those whom Micah vehemently criticizes are one and the same—Jerusalem's wealthy residents who avariciously victimize the poor. Both the favored financial status and the urban residency of the oppressors are at issue. (3) Both hendiadic constructions in Habakkuk that concern us are appositional in nature. The first appears in a rhetorical question advanced in Hab. 2.6ab that introduces a series of five proverbial sayings, each of which targets an identifiable feature of Babylonian imperialism. Assuming an international consensus that stands in strong opposition to Babylonian hegemony and its oppressive tactics, the prophet asks, 'Shall not all these lift up a taunt against him, / in scoffing derision of him?' Watson summons this verse to explain that a hendiadys in biblical poetry may be suspected when one term in a given colon is matched by two terms in its mate.50 The noun masal in v. 6a, rendered above as 'taunt', finds its counterpart in two nouns in v. 6b that are juxtaposed asyndetically—melisd ('allusive saying' or 'satire') and hidot ('riddles' or 'enigmas'). These two substantives are rendered 'mocking riddles' in the NRSV and 'a pointed epigram' in the IPS translation. Even though precise English equivalents are not easily obtainable, two things are clear. First, all three nouns seek to categorize the genre of the proverbial sayings that will immediately unfold; second, the two terms in v. 6b jointly answer to their single antecedent in v. 6a. (4) As Yahweh's theophanic intervention is portrayed in Habakkuk 3, the initial colon in v. 11 reads semes ydreah 'amad zebuld ('sun, moon stands still on high'). An appositional hendiadys immediately prefaces a singular verb. Avishur regards this nominal twinning as an instance of
49. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24E; New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 257,269. 50. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, p. 325.
13 0
God's Word for Our World
'poetical hyperbole' .51 Presumably, the other two cola in v. 11 suggest that as the deity battles cosmic chaos, the brilliance of his weaponry eclipses both sun and moon. In any event, the asyndetic mention of these two heavenly lights is noteworthy. (5) The nominal word-pair, simhd ('joy') andgf/ ('gladness'), assumes the form of a hendiadys in Joel 1.16 as the prophet proclaims the imminence of the day of Yahweh. Seeking confirmation from his audience, Joel frames a rhetorical question, 'Is not food cut off before our eyes, I joy and gladness from the house of our God?' With devastated fields no longer yielding grain and drink (vv. 10,13), the daily temple service was in serious jeopardy. Jerusalem's worshipers would be robbed of this splendid venue for rejoicing in Yahweh's blessing. With one substantive augmenting the other, this hendiadys sets the enormity of this cultic privation into bold relief. (6) After Amos indicts those who wallow in conspicuous luxury (Amos 6.1-7), he lifts up for ridicule (6.8) what Shalom M. Paul perceives as 'a current slogan or shibboleth in Samaria'.52 This is thege'6nya >aqob ('the pride of Jacob') that Yahweh claims he 'detests' (t'b). The suffixed noun w6 'armenotdyw+('and its citadels') that immediately follows denotes the sturdy fortifications that Yahweh claims he 'hates' (sn'). Jacob's misplaced confidence is all the more manifest if we accept the suggestion of Andersen and Freedman that g6 'on and 'arm enot be construed as a hendiadys, namely, 'the majestic citadels of Jacob'.53 (7) In the Jonah psalm, the protagonist holds Yahweh responsible for having cast him into the deep (2.4 [Eng. 3]). Engulfed by the floods, Jonah protests, 'all your breakers and your waves swept over me'. Through this hendiadys, misbareykd wegalleyka, he alerts the deity that he is presently overwhelmed by the primeval waters of chaos (precisely replicating the language of Ps. 42.8cd [Eng. 7cd]). This coordinate structure points to one terrifying reality. (8) Finally, we turn to Zeph. 3.19-20. This concluding editorial element in the book of Zephaniah promises that the formerly scorned Jerusalem will be blessed by a dramatic reversal of fortune. Here a hendiadys is
51. Avishur, 'Pairs of Synonymous Words', p. 71. 52. Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 214. 53. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1989), p. 571.
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
131
minted in one verse, only to find its mirror reflection in the next. In v. 19 Yahweh says of Jerusalem, 'I will change their shame into praise and renown (lithilld+ulesem)in all the earth'. Then in v. 20 Yahweh says to Jerusalem, 'I will make you renowned and praised (lesem vflithilld)+among all the peoples of the earth'. In both verses the substantives Fhilla ('praise') and sem ('name') exist in tandem, but what appears first in one hendiadys appears last in the other. With one noun backed up with a near-synonym, these hope-filled disclosures are made all the more compelling. Verbal Hendiadys Even though this category of coupling is not as prevalent in poetic prophetic discourse as is its nominal counterpart, the books of Isaiah and Hosea incorporate several noteworthy examples. We begin with an appositional verbal hendiadys that is discernible in Isa. 33.9. The poetic lines in Isa. 33.7-9 reflect a period of social unrest set in motion by military disaster, perhaps during the Assyrian assault on Judah in 701 BCE. The initial colon in v. 9 reads 'dbal 'umMd 'ares ('the land mourns, languishes'1}. By naming four specific geographical regions (Lebanon, Sharon, Bashan, and Carmel), this verse claims that extensive territory has suffered disruption. As a summarizing statement, the opening hendiadic colon presents the war-torn land's grieving and withering as one manifestation of the present crisis. In prose and poetry alike, Isaiah 38 reports Hezekiah's illness and recovery. The poetic segment (w. 10-20) imparts a thanksgiving psalm attributable to Judah's king. As is customary for that genre, the first words to surface are those of complaint. As a superb example of figuration, the initial bicolon in v. 12 reads, 'My dwelling is pulled up and removed from me / like a shepherd's tent'. Adjacent niphal perfect verbs linked by a conjunction yield the hendiadys: nissa' v^nigld. The action is presented as simultaneous. Then in the final colon of v. 16 Hezekiah implores Yahweh, 'Revive me and restore me'.54 Here the hendiadys consists of adjacent hiphil suffixed imperatives linked by a conjunction: hahalimeni^hahayeni. Clearly, the king's request for revival anticipates one undertaking by the deity, not two. For double hendiadic formulations enlisting verbs, we turn to Isa. 28.23 and 29.9. In Isa. 28.24-29 the prophet frames an agricultural parable that
54. Following the Syriac version, we emend the first verb in the hendiadys from a perfect to an imperative, thus changing the taw consonant to a he.
132
God's Word for Our World
draws an analogy between the farmer's wisdom and God's—both act skillfully in diverse situations. That parable is prefaced by a hendiadic bicolon (v. 23) in which Isaiah as a wisdom teacher urges his audience, perhaps an intimate support group, to lend him its undivided attention. Four masculine plural imperative forms that dominate the bicolon are so arranged that the first two, ha 'azinu wfsim 'u, yield one hendiadys, and the last two, haqsibu v^sim 'u, yield yet another. Isaiah proclaims, 'Give ear and hear my voice, I pay attention and hear my speech'. The second imperative in each pair is identical. These formulations deftly convey Isaiah's fervent desire that his words be attended. Isaiah 29.9-16 offers a compositional unit that is dramatic in its claim that Judah's citizens lack the talent to discern traces of Yahweh's work in their time and place. It opens with a dual hendiadic formulation (v. 9ab) in which the prophet invites his audience to lapse into one emotional state— being dumbfounded! The four imperatives comprising this bicolon convey striking assonance: hitmahmehu uFmahii I hista 'as 'u wdso 'u ('Act astoundedly and be astounded, I act blindingly and be blinded*}. In each case the hendiadys is activated by two forms of the same root. Hithpael and qal imperatives derive from tmh in the first member of the bicolon; hithpalpel and qal imperatives derive from s"+in the second. We may surmise that this hendiadic discourse compensates for the lack of any single term that answers to what the prophet is foremost intent on saying by way of summons. Three instances of verbal hendiadys in the book of Hosea invite brief inspection. First, Hos. 7.15 particularizes the prophet's claim that Yahweh has lavished attention on a people whose obstinate response is one of ingratitude. Within a larger context (7.13-16) that finds Hosea criticizing his contemporaries for their bankrupt lifestyle, the bicolon in 7.15 reads, ' Although I trained, strengthened their arms, /they plot evil against me'. An appositional hendiadys consisting ofyissarti hizzaqti appears on the heels of the emphatic personal pronoun 'ani. Of the two verbs employed (ysr and hzq), the first recalls Israel's trek in the wilderness when Yahweh disciplined his people as a parent trains a child. A twinning of verbs handsomely calls attention to the distant past when the deity diligently equipped his own. Second, as the poetry in Hosea 2 portrays the experience of Hosea's wife who has defected from her husband, it enlists first-person speech not only to spotlight her desire to pursue other lovers (v. 7 [Eng. v. 5]), but also to make vivid her new resolve to rejoin him (v. 9 [Eng. v. 7]. The latter speech offers a verbal coupling of cohortatives: 'I mil go
KUNTZ Hendiadys as an Agent of Rhetorical Enrichment
133
and return to my first husband' ('el e kd w6 'dsubd). To be sure, this hendiadys is native to our own speaking. Third, in Hos. 12.3-7 (Eng. 2-6) we encounter Hosea's depiction of Israel's eponymous ancestor Jacob. There he undertakes a succinct poetic summary of Gen. 32.23-33 (Eng. 22-32) that narrates Jacob's wrestling with God at the Jabbok. As Hosea refracts this tradition, he states that Jacob strove with an angel of God and in so doing 'wept and implored him' (bakd wayyithannen, v. 5 [Eng. 4]). As is likewise evident in Est. 8.3, with reference to Esther, this hendiadys exploits two verbs, bkh and hnn, for the purpose of depicting a single act of intense supplication. Adjectival Hendiadys Although the prophets rarely enlist this twinning category in their speech, it is discernible in Isa. 29.5 and Joel 3.4 (Eng. 2.31). The former example enlivens the poetry of Isaiah 29 as it depicts Yahweh's siege and subsequent deliverance of Jerusalem. The final colon of v. 5 and the initial colon of v. 6 declare, 'And in an instant suddenly I you will be visited by Yahweh of Hosts'. Here the prophet mints an appositional hendiadys (peta' pit 'dm) in order to signal the alarmingly abrupt onset of the siege. With apocalyptic overtones, the latter example in Joel 3.4 (Eng. 2.31) anticipates the impending day of Yahweh that will be preceded by cosmic signals: 'The sun will be turned to darkness, / and the moon to blood, / before the day of Yahweh comes—greatly awesome'. This adjectival hendiadys, haggadol wehannora', weds the adjective gadol ('great') with the niphal participle of the rootyr' as adjectival modifier. Though not engaged as elements of a hendiadys, these modifiers previously surface in Joel 2.11 to portray the day of Yahweh as an overpowering event that inflicts Judah with terror. Presently, these directly linked modifiers portend a new day when other nations will undergo the terror while the faithful of Yahweh are delivered. Conclusion In the poetry of the prophets, nominal hendiadys is the favored category of coupling. To be sure, several examples we have noted are rhetorically compelling: 'by oppressive judgment+he was taken away' (Isa. 53.8); 'you have polluted the land / with your shameful harlotry' (Jer. 3.2); and 'the majestic citadels of Jacob' (Amos 6.8). Such a verbal hendiadys as 'my dwelling is pulled up and removed from me' (Isa. 38.12) is unmistakably expressive.
134
God's Word for Our World
In the final analysis, hendiadys has been, and remains, a significant resource for many talented communicators. Through hendiadic transformations, relatively colorless adjectival phrases are elevated into striking coordinate phrases that induce listeners and readers to take notice. If Macbeth had claimed that life is but 'a tale told by an idiot, full of furious sound', rather than 'full of sound and fury' as he did claim (V.v.27), William Faulkner might still have produced a stream of consciousness novel in which one of the central characters is an idiot, but the title of that novel might have been entirely different. Surely Shakespeare's hendiadys worked its way into the psyche of this highly accomplished American novelist. Moreover, hendiadys serves well those communicators, writers and speakers alike, who truly appreciate the power of repetition as a compelling mode of discourse. Quinn ruminates, 'Repeating an idea for rhetorical emphasis or for rhythmical effect is as old, probably, as the first awakening of man's pleasure in words'.55 As we accept the invitation to take pleasure in the words of biblical Israel's prophets, and hopefully resist the temptation to take too much pleasure in our own words about their words, we would do well to encounter their hendiadic expressions with a welcoming posture. In so doing, we shall be in a better position to fathom the diverse shades of meaning in the play of the text itself. And with enhanced sensitivity, we will realize anew that art and meaning intersect in multifarious and marvelous ways.
55. Quinn, Virgil's 'Aeneid',p.423.
Two STUDIES IN ISAIAH John D.W. Watts
It is a privilege to be able to contribute to this volume in honor of my friend, Simon John De Vries. Our work together on the Word Biblical Commentary volume on 1 Kings was a pleasure. He made a distinctive contribution to the series. The T Speeches in Isaiah and the Proper Names in Isaiah 42.19 E.W. Conrad1 focused his reading of the book of Isaiah as a literary text on 'the function of its narratives, the interaction of narration and poetry, the interplay of narrative voices, and the relation between the narrators and poetic personae'. He isolated one group of the 'poetic personae' to study in 'we' speeches and songs in the book.2 In this paper I propose to look at another of the 'personae' created by the text. The great drama of the Vision of Isaiah creates three central personalities or characters who present its prophetic message. The central character and speaker is Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, patron of Jerusalem and its temple. The second is Isaiah son of Amoz, the eighth-century prophet who walked with kings (7.1-16; 20; 36-39). The third is the person who narrates portions in the first person T form in passages that appear throughout the book. This study deals with this third character who appears in the T speeches and report a suggestion concerning his identity. 1. E.W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah (Overtures to Biblical Theology, 27; Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1991), p. 30. 2. Conrad, Reading Isaiah, pp. 83-117. For other treatments of newer literary methods of reading the Old Testament, see the works of John Barton: Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), especially pp. 158-78; Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 141-53; (withR. Morgan) Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 203-68.
13 6
Go d 's Word for Our World
The Persona behind the T Speeches The book of Isaiah contains a number of speeches written in the first person. Many of these are spoken by God, the principal speaker in the book. But a number of other T speeches are not from God. Two of them belong to the so-called 'servant poems' (49.5-7; 50.7-123). Palache, Mowinckel and Schmidt thought the author had presented himself in these speeches as the Servant of Yahweh.4 One may extend this identification by suggesting that all the passages in the Vision that are written in the first person (except those that apply to God) were means by which the drama created a special role for the T speaker. These passages begin in 5.1 and continue through the long prayer in 63.7-64.12, and include: 6.1-13; 8.1-18; 12.1-35; 16.9-12; 48.16b;21.1-10, 11-12, 13-17; 22.1-14; 24.16b-18; 25.1-5; 49.1-4 (Israel); 49.5-6 (or the Persian king?); 50.4-9; 61.1-6, 10-11; 62.1-7; First-person passages use a number of genres in Isaiah and in other prophetic books. Some are narratives telling of visions or experiences (Isa. 6, 8, 21 and 22).6 Others are poems or psalms (Isa. 5 and 25).7 Other passages are speeches addressed to an audience or to the readers (Isa. 49.5-7; 50.4-9; 61; 62). Yahweh speeches are often in the first person (Isa. 1.2-3 and many others, especially in chs. 40^8). A particular feature of these 3. Lisbeth Fried (' Cyrus, the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1', HTR 95 [2002], pp. 373-93) suggests that 61.Iff. should be added to this list as a messianic speech for the Persian monarch. 4. J.I. Palache, The Ebed-Jahve Enigma in Pseudo Isaiah (Amsterdam, n.p., 1934). S. Mowinckel, Der Knecht Yahwas (Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1921). He retracted this interpretation in 'Die Komposition des deuterojesajanischen Buches', ZA W49 (1931), pp. 87-112. H. Schmidt, Gott undLeid im Alien Testament (Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1926). 5. A hymn (for the reader to sing?) 'you shall say'. 6. Cf. Jer 1; 2; and so on; Ezekiel (almost all); Hos. 3; Amos 7.1-9; Zech. 1-6 (inside a third-person frame). 7. Cf. the confessions of Jeremiah (11.18-12.5; 15.10-21; 17.14-18; 18.19-23; 20.7-18). K.M. O'Connor (The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1-25 [SBLDS, 94; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988]) has found that the poems are composed for the book using the 'lament genre' of the Psalms in order to establish the authority of the prophet. On the confessions in Jeremiah, see also: G.M. Behler, Les Confessions deJeremie (Bible et Vie Chretienne; Tournai: Casterman, 1959); S. Blank, 'The Confessions of Jeremiah and the Meaning of Prayer', HUCA 21(1948), pp. 331 -54; N. Ittmann, Die Konfessionen Jeremias: IhreBedeutung fur die Verkundigung des Propheten (WMANT, 54; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), and much more.
WATTS Two Studies in Isaiah
137
speeches is the use of phrases of 'Divine Self-Predication'.8 The phrases are not unique to Isaiah. Sometimes first-person direct and indirect quotations come from others: Isa. 40.27 (Israel); 49.1-4 (Israel); 49.14 (Zion). In 5.1-2 the speaker introduces himself as a poet/singer who sings for his beloved who is revealed in vv. 3-7 to be Yahweh himself. The author is a devotee of Yahweh and a poet. This is appropriate since most of the Vision is written in superb poetry. The passage also shows the speaker's concern for Israel as the people of God. In 5.9 he attests to the words of Yahweh concerning Israel. He is witness to an oath. In 6.1 -13 the speaker introduces himself as a visionary. This, too, fits the rest of Isaiah since most of the Vision is like a vision seeing God moving about and speaking in heaven and on earth. The passage also explains the origin of the speaker's concern for 'the destruction of the whole land and for the nations and peoples in it'. After the introduction of the narrative about Isaiah son of Amoz in 7.1 -17, in which he is supportive of the monarchy and Jerusalem, four passages in first person contrast the speaker with Isaiah son of Amoz. They continue the message of ch. 6 and portray the speaker struggling to come to terms with what he has heard in ch. 6. The first of the first-person accounts in ch. 8 reflects and responds to the earlier third-person narrative of ch. 7. Yahweh lays on the prophet's heart a word: 'Swift Plunder, Hastening Booty'. He has it attested by witnesses. When a child is conceived and born to his wife, he is told to 'call his name Swift Plunder, Hastening Booty'. The explanation parallels that given for the miraculous son promised in 7.15-17 whose name was to be called Immanuel. 'Before the lad knows how to say "my father, my mother", one will carry away the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria before the king of Assyria.' But here the name is not the positive, Immanuel 'God with us', but the negative 'Swift Plunder, Hastening Booty'. The time span is perhaps a little shorter, but not much. Is this a corrective? Or does it have a different audience in mind? Instead of addressing the king whose throne will in fact be spared, does it address the people who will feel the pain of the invasions? 8 . P.B. Harner, Grace and Law in Second Isaiah: 'I am the Lord' (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1988). Cf. also K. Elliger, 'Ich bin der Herr—euer Gott', in Kleine Schriften zum Alien Testament: Zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 7. Ma'rz 1966 (Theologische Biicherei, 32; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966), pp. 211-31, for a treatment of the phrase in the Holiness Code.
138
God's Word for Our World
In the second word, 8.5-10, 'the coming of Assyria', Immanuel speaks of 'this people'. In the book of Isaiah Yahweh expresses his love and compassion to 'my people'. When he uses the abrupt impersonal word 'this people' it indicates his distance from them, his impatience toward them. The reason for his displeasure is clear. 'They have refused the waters of Shiloah which flow gently', a way of peace and acceptance. Instead they have chosen a policy that pleases the king of Aram and Pekah, whose name the writer cannot bear to pronounce. He calls him 'Remaliah's son' as he had in 7.5. These kings promoted a policy of active rebellion against Assyria which they wanted Ahaz to join (7.1-2). Because of this rebellion against Assyria and against Yahweh's will for them, Yahweh is bringing an Assyrian invasion that will flood the land including Judah. The people respond with a chant on the name 'Immanuel', the name given by the prophet in 7.14. They do not believe it can happen to them for, after all, 'God is with us'. They have taken the promise to Ahaz to mean that Zion is invulnerable. It cannot be touched. God will not let it or them be harmed. They ignore the word about 'Swift Plunder, Hastening-Booty'. This third word, in 8.11-15, 'Do not call conspiracy',9 also relates to 'this people', but it defines that relation more precisely, 'as though someone took (me) by the hand so that he might turn me away from walking in the way of this people'. This word is much closer to ch. 6. Like the others, this word is not one to be passed on to 'this people', but helps the speaker and the reader recognize the tension between Yahweh and 'the way of this people'. The speaker is warned not to use the language of this people when talking about God (his conspiracy). He need not fear what they fear,10 but he is allowed to call Yahweh of Hosts 'a conspirator'. Chapter 6 had already alerted him to the 'conspiracy'. There is a conspiracy here all right, but it is not the one that the people think of when they use the word. The author is warned to fear God alone. He, not the people or the enemy, is the one to be feared. Yahweh himself is the 'stone of stumbling' for both houses of Israel. They both have a problem with him, not each other. They cannot accept him and his ways, his plans for them. As such he is 'a trap and a snare' which they cannot elude. And this involves every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Here the reader is reminded of the basis problem in the book that was explained in 1.19-20 and 27-28. Because of which 'many 9. C.A. Evans, 'An Interpretation of Isa 8,11-15 Unemended', ZAW91 (1985), pp. 112-13; N. Lohfink, 'Isaiah 8.12-14', BZ 7 (1963), pp. 98-104. 10. On the relation of the prophet to the people and their attitudes, cf. 42.19.
WATTS Two Studies in Isaiah
139
shall be offended...fall and be broken, snared and taken captive'. The bright promise of ch. 7 is put aside. A dark future is revealed. The fourth word, 8.16-18, 'binding the testimony', is not an announcement of a new word from Yahweh. Instead it marks the decision to retreat from the public arena 'to wait for Yahweh who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob'. Here is an echo of 6.11-13. Having witnessed to the harsh prophecy about the Assyrians given in the birth of his son, the speaker seals the testimony (8.2) with his disciples. Then he draws back to wait and to hope knowing that he and the children that have been given to him will be 'signs and symbols' in Israel from Yahweh of Hosts who dwells in Mt Zion. Isaiah becomes a 'sign and symbol' also in ch. 20. In the Burden of Babylon (chs. 13-27) the T passages serve a different role. The voice shows sympathy and sorrow for the nations, including Judah, in their experience of the invasions and destruction. In 16.9-12 he sympathizes with Moab's suffering. 21.1-10 portrays the anxiety of waiting for an inevitable destruction of Babylon. 21.11-12 trembles with Edom, while vv. 13-17 empathizes with the Dedanites of Arabia. 22.1-14 portrays and weeps for Jerusalem in a critical time. 24.16b-18 expresses distress for a chaotic time for all the land. 25.1-5 is a psalm of trust and praise to Yahweh in the very midst of the terrible times. In all of these the speaker is cast in a literary world of the drama's own creation which makes no effort to relate to the real world of history. In the following speeches the same is true, but the literary world is much closer to the real world in which writer and the readers live and the role portrayed in much closer to the real experiences of the writing prophet. There are large sections of the Vision in which no T speeches occur: chs. 1-4, 9-12, 18-33, 34-48 (with one exception), 55-60, 65-66. In 48.16b there is an announcement: 'And now, Lord Yahweh has sent me and his spirit!' The announcement precedes the first call to move out from Babylon in 48.20. 49.1-4 has Israel speak in first person to decline the invitation to be Yahweh's servant. 49.5-6 brings the announcement that Yahweh has prepared the speaker 'to be his servant, to restore Israel' and 'to be a light to the nations'. This speech contains language compatible with the messianic terms of 45.1 and probably is intended as a speech by Cyrus or his successor.11 50.4-9 presents the claim to having 'a student's tongue' and that he has learned to listen to Yahweh. But it also tells of beatings and persecution for that role.
11. See Fried, 'Cyrus, the Messiah?', p. 166.
140
God's Word for Our World
After a space in which the T speech is missing, it returns in concluding speeches in 61.1-6, 10-11 that had the speaker voicing a call for justice and righteousness, as well as care for the needy, the poor, the widow and the orphan. In ch. 62 the speaker acts as a Zionist who insists that Yahweh owes it to the city to rehabilitate it. Both these speeches may better reflect the words of a Persian ruler acting as patron for the city.12 In 63.7-64.12 he voices a prayer for Yahweh to remember his long history with Israel and act to restore her as his people. In this prayer, as in ch. 8, the speaker debates with God about his policies. In both instances these are fruitless prayers for he knows that the divine decree has already been proclaimed, but he feels it important to voice his protests. This speaker in Isaiah, like Jeremiah, is a prophet under protest. In the T speeches the drama has presented a picture of a prophetic personality and voice in the world of the Vision. He is a poet and a visionary. He is a sympathizer and a protester. He is the one who stands up for Israel and for the nations. He is the one who suffers for his faith and his role.
Who is the T? Do these speeches represent one personality throughout? Or are they representative of different personalities? Do the speeches represent a historical figure at all? Or a literary figure? One answer could be that the implied author/editor of the Vision has inserted himself into the drama. Mowinckel and Schmidt (see n. 4, above) thought that the servant speeches represented the prophet/author and his claim to be the Servant of Yahweh. Isaiah 42.19-21 may name this selfproclaimed servant. Isaiah 42.18-21 has been a text that exegetes have struggled with from earliest times.13 Among the problems: the 'blind and deaf are addressed in the plural in v. 18 but vv. 19-21 are singular.14 Many scholars choose to emend the text or to excise portions as glosses. However, if we deal here with vv. 19-21 alone, seeing them as an 'aside' within the larger speech, another possibility emerges: 12. Fried, 'Cyrus, the Messiah?', p. 166 13. See the excellent survey in Jan L. Koole, Isaiah (HCOT; 3 vols.; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), I, pp. 261-71. 14. This phenomenon is common in these chapters. In ch. 40, after addressing the nations, Yahweh turns to speak to Israel as singular.
WATTS Two Studies in Isaiah
141
Who is blind as (except) my servant ("T3U)?15 Or deaf as Malachi (my messenger, Tl^E) (whom) I send?16 Who is blind as Meshulam (one in covenant) D^CQ? Or blind as the servant of Yahweh? Seeing many thing, but you [singular] do not pay attention. Ears open, but he [singular] does not hear. Yahweh was pleased for his righteousness sake that he magnify instruction (H~nn)and glorify (it).
Scholars have seen many different meanings in D^OS, but only Rabban has thought of it as a proper name, Meshulam.17 Rabban thought this refers to the eldest son of Zerubabbel (1 Chron. 3.19) and that this is a self-identification of the author of 'Second Isaiah'.18 Are Meshulam and Malachi proper names? There is nothing in the context to make that impossible. If they are proper names, who are they? Is Malachi identical with the author of the last book of the Old Testament? The passage associates the servant with being blind and deaf, but also with magnifying prophetic Torah, a theme emphasized at the end of Malachi (3.22). These topics are strands which run through the Vision: the blind and the deaf, the servant of Yahweh, and Torah.19 15. Cf. the 'Comment' and 'Excursus: Identifying "the Servant of Yahweh'" in the forthcoming second edition of my Isaiah 34-66. 16. Cf. Mai. 3.1: 'I will send Malachi (My messenger) who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple. The messenger of covenant whom you desire will come.' 17. Palache, The 'Ebed-Jahve Enigma. Nehemiah Rabban, Second Isaiah: His Prophecy, His Personality, and His Name (Jerusalem: Kiriath Sepher, 1971 [Hebrew]); R.L. Kohn and W.H.C. Propp, 'The Name of "Second Isaiah": The Forgotten Theory of Nehemiah Rabban', in B. Beck et al. (eds.), Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 223-35. 18. If they do record words the author hears from God, they may refer to his earliest religious experiences of a call to be God's servant. Even if the words are proper names, they do not necessarily point to the author. 19. Torah appears in the earlier servant passage (42.4) as well. Cf. Gerald T. Shepperd, 'The "Scope" of Isaiah as a Book of Jewish and Christian Scriptures', in Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOTSup, 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 257-81. Torah is the principal subject matter of Isaiah as a book of Jewish Scripture. Late passages like 2.3; 8.20; 24.5; 42.4, 21,24; 51.4,7, may originally have had Mosaic Torah in mind. In exilic passages, like 8.16, 20, torah designates the book of Isaiah itself, but likewise implies a Scripture
142
God's Word for Our World
Meshulam is a fairly common name in that period. It appears twentyfour times in Persian period texts. Is he the son of Zerubbabel, as Rabban thinks? If these individuals are properly placed in Isaiah 42, they must be alive in 539 BCE when the context expects the coming of Cyrus. Could they have been schoolboys in that time who would later have important careers? These questions cannot be answered with certainty, but they suggest intriguing possibilities. Meshulam Son of Zerubbabel? Meshulam is a fairly common name of the period, but Rabban's interest was drawn to the eldest son of Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah in the time of Haggai and Zechariah, who bore that name (1 Chron. 3.19). We do not know anything else about Meshulam. But a good bit is known about Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel was a grandson of Jehoichin. He apparently grew up in Babylon as the royal princes did, being trained to serve the Babylonian state (2 Chron. 36.20). Zerubbabel served as a military aid to Darius (1 Esdr. 3.13^.63). Josephus (Ant. 3.2) speaks of Zerubbabel as the governor of Judah when Darius ascended the throne. Zerubbabel appears frequently in Hag. 1.1,14; 2.2,4,21,23 as the prophet encourages him to greater efforts in rebuilding the temple. Zechariah 4 affirms both Zerubbabel and the chief priest Joshua as God's chosen leaders. Ezra 2.2 has Zerubbabel among those returning to Jerusalem. Whether this was in the first return of Sheshbazzer or a later return of people from Babylon is not clear. In 3.8 he and Joshua appoint Levites for work at the altar. In 4.2-3 he rejects the offer of non-Jewish neighbors to help in building the temple. In 5.2 he and Joshua with the support of prophets begin the work on the temple. But they are stopped by Tattenai, the territorial governor. Nehemiah 7.7 and 12.1 list his name among those who came back to Judah from Babylon.
and a subject matter larger than merely this book, namely, the Mosaic Torah: see M.A. Sweeney, 'The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah', in Melugin and Sweeney (eds.), New Visions, pp. 50-67. The book of Isaiah when it reached its final form in the fifth century BCE was designed to support the reform program of Ezra-Nehemiah. In Isa. 2.3 torah refers to Yahweh's instruction concerning the proper way to conduct international relations so as to bring about worldwide order. In its broader context torah refers to the Mosaic Law. The purpose of that law is to establish the norms of life for the people of Israel (Isa. 2.5) and to realize Yahweh's worldwide sovereignty (Isa. 2.2-4).
WATTS Two Studies in Isaiah
143
Zerubbabel was the last of the house of David to serve as governor in Jerusalem. But his daughter, Shelomith, sister to Meshulam, probably married the next governor, Elnathan.20 At the time which Isaiah 40^8 portrays, just before Cyrus appears, Zerubbabel would still have been in Babylon. His son would be a schoolboy?21 Zerubbabel's son probably shared his life in Babylon and went to Judah with him. If Meshulam is the one addressed in Isa. 42.19, one searches for an understanding of his role that would support the accusation of being more blind than anyone else. Was he a prophet or prophetic scribe in training along with Malachi? If Meshulam is a proper name, parallel to Malachi 'my messenger', the passage (Isa. 42.19) takes on a very different meaning and function. And, if Meshulam should be recognized as the author/composer of the Vision, as Rabban has done, it takes on still more specific meaning. The prophetscribes, Meshulam (for Isaiah) and Malachi (for the Book of the Twelve), are, at least for this stage of the development of the Vision, identified with the blind and deaf of Israel. They did not really hear God's message or see his purpose, what he was doing. This could be true for Meshulam right down to his last prayer (63.7-64.12) in which he is still pleading for God to recognize Israel again as his elect people, something which God at this stage in the development of his history with the people cannot and will not do (65.1-16). Up to this point, despite all of his experiences as 'the servant', despite all of the messages (chs. 55-56, etc.) which he has transmitted, Meshulam (who Rabban thinks is Deutero-Isaiah) does not see, has not rightly heard. Does this verse provide the clue to Deutero-Isaiah's identity as Rabban thinks, to the mysterious T of the prophecy, and to the relation between 20. E.M. Meyers, 'The Shelomith Seal and Aspects of the Judean Restoration: Additional Reconsiderations', Eretz-Israel 18 (1985), pp. 33-38. 21. 1 Chron. 3.17-20 places Zerubbabel as a grandson to Jehoichin, Meshulam a great grandson. Jehoichin was 18 years old when he became king and soon went to Babylon (2 Kgs 24.8). This was 598 BCE. If we reckon first sons to be born whe fathers are between 20 and 25 years old (median 22 years), The dates for the generations look like this: Jehoichin's third son Pedaiah, born around 594 BCE; Pedaiah's first son Zerubbabel, born around 572 BCE; Zerubabbel's first son Meshulam, born around 550 BCE. The year that anticipates Cyrus' entry into Babylon would be 540 BC.. Meshulam would be about ten years old. Zerubbabel went to Jerusalem as part of the larger returns of Sheshbazzar and assumed a major role in the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 2.2; 3.1-4.4; Haggai; Zech. 1-6). This work began about 520 BCE. Meshulam would have come to Jerusalem with the family. In 520 he would have been about 30 years old.
144
God's Word for Our World
The Twelve and Isaiah? Were the composers/editors of Isaiah and the Twelve contemporaries, rivals, friends? If so, should the closing date for each of the books be placed earlier than is customary today, in the generation that follows Zerubbabel, that is, in the early days of the temple built while Zerubbabel, Haggai, and Zechariah were still active in the last decade of the sixth century? There is much to be said for placing Isaiah (and the Twelve) prior to Ezra's coming when the Priestly law was instituted as the Law of the Temple. The last identifiable historical events in the Twelve had to do with the work of Haggai and Zechariah. Zerubbabel was governor and Joshua was high priest c. 515 BCE. The last identifiable historical event in Isaiah is the expected arrival of Cyrus in Babylon (539 BCE). In both books our projection of later dates for Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi, as well as for Isaiah 55-66 is based on conjecture and on historical projections, not explicit historical references. The historical references in each book suggest that. The temple practices challenged in Malachi belong to the newly rebuilt temple in c. 515-500 BCE, and the celebration of a newly rebuilt Jerusalem in chs. 60-62 and a temple in ch. 66 refer to the temple of Zerubbabel. Combining the Two Observations What is the result of combining this interpretation of Isa. 42.19 with the survey of the T speeches? If we hypothesize that Meshulam is the author of the book and that the T passages are intended to give the reader insight into his thinking and experience, we learn that: he is related to 'blind/deaf theme beginning at 6.9; he is 'sent' in 6.8 as a messenger to the people; he is Yahweh's servant (50.7-10). This would require an understanding that the author wrote himself into the script22 in these T passages and that 22. A number of scholars have suggested that the servant of Yahweh is the writer. They include: Kohn and Propp, 'The Name of "Second Isaiah"'; A. Laato, The Servant ofYHWHand Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exilic Messianic Programme in Isaiah 40-55 (ConBOT, 35; Stockholm: Almquist & Wikell, 1992); Mowinckel, DerKnecht Yahwas (as noted above in n. 4, he retracted this interpretation in 'Die Komposition des deuterojesajanischen Buches'). Rabban, Second Isaiah; Schmidt, Gott undLeidim Alien Testament; W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, 'TTCUS Beou', in TDNT, V, pp. 653-717. G. Fohrer, Das Buck Jesaja (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1964); E. Kutsch, Sein Leiden und Tod—unserHeil (Biblische Studien, 52; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). H.-J. Hermissen, 'Das vierte Gottesknechtslied im Deuterojesajanischen Kontext', in B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja
WATTS Two Studies in Isaiah
145
Meshulam presents himself as the visionary and servant depicted as the speaker of the T passages. If the T speeches are traced through the book one may be able to gain a portrait of Meshulam, a self-portrait of the writer. We have already noted the first signal, the youthful first memory of God's calling (42.19). 50.4-9 confesses the trials of being a 'servant of Yahweh' in the face of persecutions. 63.7-64.12 is a long prayer asking God to restore the previous status and privileges to Israel. Is he still showing that he is 'blind' and 'deaf in failing to recognize God's intentions toward his servants? The rest of the story must be deduced from the Vision itself. The book of Isaiah is replete with first-person speeches. Some are put in the mouth of God, but others are not and remain unidentified. The T passages are also found much earlier in the Vision. In 5.1 the implied author introduces himself as a singer/poet who sings to or for his beloved Yahweh. In 6.1 -13 he introduces himself as a visionary who in vision received a word from Yahweh for the year that Uzziah died. In ch. 8 he appears in counterpoint to the narrative about Isaiah son of Amoz. This is another major characteristic of the book. He refutes the positive message of Isaiah with a son whose name implies the disaster to come and then becomes a part of the controversy in which God is called a conspirator. The causes him to retire for a time. In chs. 21, 22 and 24 he shares the pain of the nations and Judah as they experience the very destruction that he has predicted. He sings in 25.1-5. Evaluation The Vision of Isaiah has created a prophetic voice who speaks in T speeches through most of the Vision. The personality of this speaker is fairly clear. The speaker seems overawed by his task and finds it difficult to fulfill. He begins in 5.1 with enthusiasm to sing his song, but has the speech taken over by God who presents his own speech with the poet left only to serve as a witness to his oath. His experience in the throne room (ch. 6) leaves him overwhelmed and he asks in horror 'How long?' 53 und siene Wirkungsgeschchte (FAT, 14; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996). H.M. Orlinsky, The So-Called "Servant of the Lord" and "Suffering Servant" in Second Isaiah', in H.M. Orlinsky and N.H. Snaith, Studies in the Second Part of the Book of 'Isaiah (VTSup, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967), pp. 1-133. A. Schoors, I Am God Your Savior (VTSup, 24; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973); R.N. Whybray, Thanksgiving fora Liberated Prophet (JSOTSup, 4; Sheffield: JSOT, 1978), pp. 134-35.
146
God's Word for Our World
His task in countering the message of Isaiah son of Amoz (ch. 8) brings him into confrontation with a protesting people, leads him to question God about his intentions, and finally to withdraw from the public stage. In chs. 16, 21, 22 and 24 he weeps in sympathy with the peoples who are being overrun by enemies. In 42.19 he hears God's identification of him as his servant, even calling his name, but in the context of accusing him of being 'blind and deaf just like the people, but even more so. In a complaining speech (50.7-12) he tells of beatings and persecutions while insisting that he has been faithful to his charge. In 63.7-64.12 he presents the case for Israel to be recognized on its old terms as the children of God, showing little sign of having learned anything from the progress of God's speeches within the Vision. Are the strand of T speeches and the vignette in 42.19 intended to give the reader a glimpse into the heart and life of the author? Like the 'confessional laments' of Jeremiah, the picture that emerges is much weaker than one would expect from the author of the magnificent picture of God in the Vision in which he resolutely deals with a rebellious people, a city prone to violence, and nations intent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of their neighbors. Perhaps, like Jeremiah who cries to God in his bedchamber only to confront strongly the king and the crowd the next day, the poet Isaiah thinks of himself in very modest, self-effacing terms, while fulfilling his Vision with unique skill and power. There, he says, God is speaking, not I. Is this speaker and prophet/scribe Meshulam, son of Zerubbabel? There is no clear historical identification possible. It only remains an intriguing possibility.
THE SONG OF MOSES (DEUTERONOMY 32.1-43) IN ISAIAH 40-55 Hyun Chul Paul Kim
1. Introduction Scholars have long noticed correlations between the Pentateuch and Isaiah in terms of words, phrases, metaphors, and motifs.1 Traversing through the temporal or compositional boundaries, the texts of Isaiah echo, shift, and reconceptualize the terminologies and traditions of the texts of the Pentateuch as well as other parts of the Tanakh. Just as scholars have pointed out the linguistic and thematic connections between Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, there are echoes between the Patriarchal traditions and Isaiah 40-55 (hereafter Deutero-Isaiah).2 The creation concept, old and new exodus motifs, and the occurrences of the names of Abraham, Sarah, Noah, 1. In addition to the numerous commentaries of this past century, for more recent approaches, see Marvin A. Sweeney, 'The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah', in Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOTSup, 214; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), pp. 50-67, which redefines the role of the book of Isaiah as a prophetic Torah in line with the reform and restoration program of Ezra and Nehemiah; Roy D. Wells, Jr, '"Isaiah" as an Exponent of Torah: Isaiah 56.1-8', in Melugin and Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah, pp. 140-55, which focuses on the relation between the Isaianic traditions and Mosaic traditions, especially the echo of Deuteronomic language; see also two significant works by Patricia T. Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (SBLDS, 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), and Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), especially pp. 132-51. 2. Concerning the scholarly works on the interconnections between Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, see, among others, J. Philip Hyatt, 'Jeremiah and Deuteronomy', JNES1 (1942), pp. 156-73; idem, 'The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah', in Richmond C. Beatty et al. (eds.), Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1951), I, pp. 71-95; Henri Gazelles, 'Jeremie et le Deuterome', RSR 38 (1951), pp. 5-36; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 359-61.
148
God's Word for Our World
Moses, let alone Jacob as Israel, are some of the key elements that display the recapitulation of the Pentateuch in Deutero-Isaiah. Additionally, one can find close parallels between Deut. 32.1-43 (the Song of Moses) and Deutero-Isaiah (and possibly Isa. 56-66, hereafter Trito-Isaiah), which deserve special attention. There have been extensive discussions on the interconnections between Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 1. For example, J. J.M. Roberts points out the close relationship between Isaiah 1 and Deuteronomy 32 in that Isaiah 1 is heavily dependent on Deuteronomy 32 in terms of its covenant theology.3 Hans Wildberger also illustrates the similar parallels in terms of the fatherimagery of YHWH (cf. Isa. 1.2b).4 Harold Fisch further contributes in explicating the intertextual relations between Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah I.5 George A.F. Knight in his commentary has pointed out briefly several interconnections between Deuteronomy 32 and Deutero-Isaiah.6 The recent commentary by Klaus Baltzer also enlists further correlations.7 Despite these studies, however, no extensive study on these two particular texttraditions with the specific intertextual interests has been dealt with sufficiently. Apart from these works, no scholarly work has compared the Song of Moses with Deutero-Isaiah in a more detailed analysis. Therefore, the present study attempts to examine the intertextual connections between Deuteronomy 32 and Deutero-Isaiah. It will construct and identify linguistic, metaphorical, and substantive parallels between the two, including the 3. J.J.M. Roberts, 'Isaiah in Old Testament Theology', Int 36 (1982), pp. 130-43 (135). 4 Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 9-13 and 23. 5. Harold Fisch, Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 64-79. 6. George A.F. Knight, Servant Theology: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 40-55 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 75, 103, 109, 119, 149. 7. Klaus Baltzer in his commentary (Deutero-Isaiah [trans. Margaret Kohl; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001]) presents a thesis that the servant of Deutero-Isaiah is first and foremost the Moses of the Torah, especially of Deuteronomy. Viewing the text of Deutero-Isaiah as a liturgical drama, Baltzer argues for the influence of Moses and his legacy for the composition of Deutero-Isaiah (pp. 18-22). To prove the identity of the servant as Moses, Baltzer relates pertinent phrases and metaphors to the Song of Moses, offering further evidence for the intertextual connections. Yet this monumental work mainly focuses on the correlations between Deutero-Isaiah and the whole book of Deuteronomy, not on the Song of Moses in a more specific and detailed intertextual study.
KIM The Song of Moses
149
summons to heavens and earth, the call to remember the days of old, the emphasis on the incomparability of YHWH, the idol imagery, the 'rock' as a metaphor of deity, 'Jeshurun' in parallel with Jacob, the notion of 'servant(s)', the idea of vengeance on the enemies, and other parallels. For clarification, I will define the intertextual parallels preliminarily by three broad categories: citation, allusion, and echo.8 Citations refer to distinctive and direct quotations of more than a term or phrase.9 These citations are virtually identical, with a few or no changes, signaling the evidence of an author's intentional quoting or citing another source. Allusions refer to indirect correlations of a brief phrase, word combination, or metaphors, which nevertheless show some signs of distinctive usage and deliberate intertextual connections.10 Oftentimes, in these cases, it is not clear whether a text is conscientiously alluding to another text or to that which is a common idiomatic usage. Echoes refer to remote interrelations of the texts that share no distinctive word parallels but only similarity of metaphor or imagery.11 In these cases, it is almost impossible to clarify whether the intertextuality occurs among the texts or among the reader's imaginations (or illusions, delusions).12 After exploring the citations, allusions, and echoes of the two text-traditions, the study will consider implications of composition and theology of Isaiah that these interconnections may suggest.
8. Both the definition and methodology of intertextuality have been issues of ongoing discussions or debates among literary and biblical scholars in recent decades. For a premier review on these issues, see Patricia Tull, 'Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures', CRBS 8 (2000), pp. 59-90. Tull accurately diagnoses that 'Because intertextual theory and its vocabulary have been construed so diversely, some discussion of theoretical and methodological assumptions becomes necessary at the outset of most studies' (p. 73). 9. E.g. Isa. 2.2-4 = Mic. 4.1-3; Ps. 105.1-15 = 1 Chron. 16.8-22; andExod. 20.1-17 = Deut. 5.6-21. 10. E.g. Gen. 50.24-25//Josh. 24.32; Jer. 6.14; 8.11//lsa. 48.22; 57.21; and Amos 4.9//Hag. 2.17. 11. E.g. Isa. 36.13-17 (cf. 2 Kgs 18.28-32)//Jer. 27.8-15; Hos. 2.23b//Zech. 13.9b; andZech. 8.12//Hab. 3.17. 12. For a more detailed discussion of the definitions of inner-biblical parallels (with some overlaps with and differences from my views), see Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 1-31, and James D. Nogalski, 'Intertextuality and the Twelve', in J.W. Watts and P.R. House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (JSOTSup, 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 102-24.
150
God's Word for Our World 2. Inter textual Readings
The citations, allusions, and echoes within the two parts of the Tanakh can be identified as follows. They will be discussed roughly following the textual arrangement and key phrases or motifs within the Song of Moses. a. The Summons to Heavens and Earth Deut. 32.1: Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; let the earth hear the words of my mouth.13
mrnNi D^OETI irmn ••a-noN psn unom
Deut. 32.43: Give praise, O nations, 14 his people.
IQU D-U i3nnn
Isa. 44.23: Sing, O heavens, for YHWH has done it; shout, O depths of the earth.
mrr nvo-'i D^DP m n» nrnnn iir~in
+++++++ Shower, O heavens, from above, let the skies rain down righteousness; let the earth open, let salvation sprout up.
bran croons'inn piin^r Dipnoi tfKr-na'n ntrnnsn
Isa. 49.13: Sing, O heavens, and rejoice, O earth; break forth, O mountains, with rejoicing.15
P»"'7:n D"QEn:n
H3~i ann inus11
The Song of Moses opens and ends with the summons to the components of the universe to serve as witnesses in hearing the greatness and promises of YHWH (cf. Deut. 32.43). In Deut. 32.1, both the heavens and the earth as creatures of YHWH are called to be the audience of what Moses is about to recount regarding the great plans of his God. In Deut. 32.43, as an inclusio, the celestial and terrestrial realms are invited again to join in the chorus for praise and worship. 13. All translations are my own, unless indicated otherwise. Although this article implements gender-inclusive language throughout, its translations are intended to be 'literal', for example, in translating designations of YHWH. 14. Both IQIsa3 and the LXX read 'heavens' instead of 'nations'. 15. Cf. Isa. 41.1; 49.1; 51.1.
KlM The Song of Moses
151
Admittedly, this type of summons is a common feature for a song, psalm, or covenant lawsuit. However, the phrase 'heaven and earth' occurs elsewhere in the contexts of denoting the fullness of the world, which covers the whole of universe (e.g. Exod. 20.11; Isa. 51.6; Pss. 57.12; 89.11), the dwelling place of God in contrast with the habitations of the creatures (e.g. Deut. 4.36; 30.12; 1 Kgs 8.30; 22.19; Ps. 115.16; 2 Chron. 6.21), and mere components of God's creation (e.g. Gen. 1.1; 2 Kgs 19.15; Isa. 40.22; 44.24; 45.12; 48.13; 51.13,16; Ps. 102.26; Prov. 3.19). What is unique in our texts then is the use of these terms in the context of a direct call to witness and/or praise. This summons to heavens and earth as witnesses can be traced back to the Sinai covenant tradition (Deut. 4.26; 30.19; 31.28). Yet, in those passages, heavens and earth are referred to as witnesses in an indirect speech (cf. also Deut. 4.36; 2 Sam. 22.8; Isa. 13.13; Hos. 2.23 [Eng. 21]; Joel 2.10; Pss. 50.4; 68.8; 1 Chron. 16.31). In a sharp contrast, heavens and earth are called directly only in Deut. 32.1; Isa. 1.2; 44.23; 45.8; 49.13. This style of reference, with the direct call to both 'heavens and earth', is unique only in Deuteronomy and Isaiah. Furthermore, the placement and function of this call in both texttraditions deserve our attention. Just as this call starts the Song of Moses in Deut. 32.1, so it starts the whole book of Isaiah in Isa. 1.2.16 If we follow the Qumran and LXX renderings of Deut. 32.43 ('heavens' instead of 'nations'), then we may further interpret that this phrase of summons nicely envelops the Song of Moses. A similar case can be found in DeuteroIsaiah where the two occurrences of this call (Isa. 44.23; 45.8) serve a similar function, enveloping the beginning and end of the Cyrus oracle (44.24-45.7). Another occurrence (49.13), moreover, seems to bridge nicely both the preceding and the following units (49.1-12 and 49.14-26). While some may argue that these phrases are merely supplementary inserts in Deutero-Isaiah, their occurrences in the larger context of DeuteroIsaiah—and with the remote echo of Isa. 1.2 (cf. Isa. 66.1, 22)—show a deliberate compositional purpose in that their placement in the present form functions both as markers of independent units and as key bridges 16. Paul Sanders convincingly points out the intertextual correspondence between Deut. 32.1 and Isa. 1.2 (cf. Deut. 32.6bcc and Isa. 1.3a). Concerning this connection Sanders views that 'both compositions may go back to the same oral tradition' rather than a situation in which one text directly influenced the other (The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 [OTS, 37; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996], p. 355). Likewise, see Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, p. 9: 'Without a doubt, we are dealing with a judgment speech ("rib-pattern"). The closest parallel is found in the introduction to the Song of Moses in Deut 32.1.'
152
Go d 's Word for Our World
that connect the preceding and following units.17 Inasmuch as the opening and closing lines of the Song of Moses are crucial, so also are the similar phrases in Deutero-Isaiah, as they function as the key elements that connect the whole text of Deutero-Isaiah. b. The Call to 'Remember' the 'Days of Old' and 'Former Things' Deut. 32.7: Remember the days of old, consider the years of long generations.
D^U miT "QT "im~"in ni3C 1ITD
Isa. 43.18: Do not remember the former things, or consider the ancient things.
m]DN"l TaTrr^K IDDDnrr^N m*]Qlp1
Isa. 46.8-9: Remember this and take heed, recall it to mind, you wicked ones; remember the former things of old. 18
12mm H^T'TDT D1?"1?!? D'UKTIS ITEFI D^IUD mJEan TOT
The call to 'remember' (and 'remember not') constructs one of the main thematic skeletons of Deutero-Isaiah.19 The 'days of old' and 'the long 17. Claus Westermann lucidly explains the importance of the short hymns (44.23; 45.8) and the Cyrus oracle: 'The two hymns contained in 44.23 and 45.8 set it in relief as a distinct and independent part of the oracle. Comparison with the other hymns of praise occurring throughout the book shows that its use along with the Cyrus oracle is deliberate' (Isaiah 40-66 [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969], p. 163). Cf. also James Muilenburg, 'Isaiah', in George A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), V, p. 525: 'This verse [Isa. 45.8] is not a separate literary unit. It is directly related to the preceding strophes and is a characteristic outburst after a most profound thought. The invocation of the heavens and earth to participate in the work of salvation expresses the psychic rapport between nature and history (cf. 1.2-4).' 18. Cf. also Isa. 41.22; 42.9; 44.21; 48.3-5 (Eng. 6-8); (51.2). 19. The occurrences of the similar motif in Psalms (e.g. 77.7,12; 143.5) should not be overlooked. Patrick D. Miller, regarding the intertextuality of Deuteronomy and Psalms, delineates the compositional and theological significance of Deut. 32, the Song of Moses, in the framework of the entire book of Deuteronomy: 'Deuteronomy is preeminently the lawbook of the Bible and the Psalms are preeminently its songbook. But the Psalter begins with the law and sets its songs and prayers on the way oftorah. And Deuteronomy ends with a song, knowing that the people cannot travel by torah alone' ('Deuteronomy and Psalms: Evoking a Biblical Conversation', JBL 118 [1999], pp. 3-18 (15).
KIM The Song of Moses
153
by-gone years' form a unique correlation with the notion of former things' in Deutero-Isaiah. Admittedly, the words 'to remember' and 'to consider' occur many times in the Hebrew Bible, mainly used with their nominal sense as either a humble reminder (from human beings to God) or a solemn admonition (from God to human beings). However, the fact that these two words occur in pairs and especially in combination with the terms for the 'former things' or 'days of old' is quite distinctive. The combination of the two verbs in command along with the terms for the 'former things' occur elsewhere only in Pss. 25.6-7; 77.5; 106.7; Isa. 64.8 (Eng. 9); Jer. 30.24; Mic. 6.5; Eccl. 1.11. Yet in these passages only one verb or one object to remember occurs. Also, oftentimes the addressee is God who is besought to remember the people in distress; otherwise it is in a report that the people either did not or did remember the former things. On the contrary, it is the people who are called to remember or not remember the former things. Most importantly, it is this word-combination that occurs uniquely in Deut. 32.7, Isa. 43.18-19 and 46.8-9 and nowhere else with these word associations. In fact the term 'former things' (HlD^n)20 occurs so often in Deutero-Isaiah, along with Deut. 32.7, that we may claim this phrase to be typically Deutero-Isaianic (Isa. 42.9; 43.9, 18; 46.9; 48.3; 65.16-17). Therefore, although the notion 'to remember' is not uncommon, the peculiar linguistic associations are quite unique. In light of these interconnections, we may draw out several further implications. First, there is more than one correlation (along with word combination), as several motifs reverberate in the two text-traditions in a concatenated fashion. Fisch has already pointed out the allusion between Deut. 32.1 and Isa. 1.2,20—Isa. 1.2 corresponds to the summons to heavens and earth of Deut. 32. la, whereas Isa. 1.20 corresponds to the words that YHWH has spoken ("131 miT '3) in Deut. 32.Ib (>IB~>I1BK).21 The allusion to the words of YHWH recurs in Isa. 58.14 as well. Likewise, in Isa. 48.3-5, there is a similar allusion to the words from the mouth of YHWH (1KJT ""SB), which neatly echoes Deut. 32.1, 7 together with the motif of the former things of long ago. Second, according to the correlation between the things of old and the words of YHWH (cf. Isa. 44.7-8; 46.10; 53.1), the subsequent inference implies that the 'former things' of DeuteroIsaiah signify not only the things or events of the past but also the very words and promises YHWH had desired and declared, frequently through 20. This term, in this feminine plural form, occurs only in Gen. 41.20 elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. 21. Fisch, Poetry with a Purpose, pp. 66-67.
154
God 's Word for Our World
the words of the prophet. Third, in light of Isa. 63.11, it is plausible to deduce that the days of old and their former things from the perspective of Isaiah point to the long by-gone days in the Israelite history, particularly to the time of Moses, if not the Song of Moses per se.22 This then makes a nice conceptual sequence in that whereas the days of old in Deuteronomy 32 refer to the birth, exodus, and possibly the chastisement of Israel by YHWH (Deut. 32.8-14, 19-27), the former things of old in DeuteroIsaiah refer to the traditions of the ancestors, Moses in particular, and the very words of YHWH via the prophets (Isa. 44.26a). Within these echoes, Deuteronomy 32 advises the Israelites (both the immediate and the ongoing future generations, cf. Deut. 32.44-47) to remember the beginning, exodus, and birth as apeople, as an inheritance of YHWH (Deut. 32.8-14). In Deutero-Isaiah, the Israelites in the exile are exhorted with double messages. On the one hand, they are exhorted to remember YHWH'S promises and steadfast love shown from the time of Moses on. At the same time, on the other hand, the Israelites are exhorted not to remember or linger upon the past pride or punishment but humbly to anticipate the unfolding new things that will be far greater and more splendid than the former things. c. The Incomparability of YHWH and Monotheism Deut. 32.12: YHWH alone led him, and no foreign god was with him.
IDnr "m miT "Q] "?R 1QU fW
Deut. 32.39: See now that I, / am he, and there is no god besides me.
Kin S3K "3» "D nnu 1&CI 1 "1DI? DTI^K j^l
Isa. 41.4(28): I,YHWH, am th++++, and the last, I am he.
jlK»n !TI!T '+] NTTHDN D'mtNTlNT
22. There is a similar echo in Isa. 63.9b, 1 la, which in a striking way identifies 'the ancient days' with Moses. It should be noted that the name Moses occurs only twice (63.11, 12) in the entire book of Isaiah: 'He lifted them up and carried them all the days of old... They remembered the days of old Moses ofhis people' (DNKP1 D^Qn 1QU 1K3 D'TUT'Q" -Dn...0*711; W^l).
KIM The Song of Moses
155
Isa. 44.6: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
]Tin» 'DK1 ]ican ']K DTI^K "pS ^TU^DI
Isa. 45.21: Was it not I, YHWH? There is no other god besides me.
mrr -]» Nl^n "Hl^nO DTDK "Hir'psi
Isa. 48.12: / am he; I am the Kin"" also, I am the last.23
++++++++++++++++ ]lin» "]»•)»
Another fundamental concept in the theology of Deutero-Isaiah is the consistent emphasis on the incompatibility of YHWH as the only God—a concept which is also emphasized in the Song of Moses. In both places, YHWH'S incomparability is asserted as YHWH'S sole authority is sharply contrasted with the nullity of other foreign gods. YHWH as the only God guarantees the steadfast promise and fulfillment to the people while this concept also discloses the falsehood of any taunts or threats by the foreign gods, sorcerers, or peoples. In these interconnections, the vocabularies are strikingly similar as well. The portrayal of the insignificance, if not non-existence, of the foreign gods in Deut. 32.12 recurs in Deutero-Isaiah. What is unique here is again the syntactical similarity, 'there is no god besides me', which occurs in association with the notion of YHWH'S incomparability in Deut. 32.12,39; Isa. 44.6; 45.5, 21. Elsewhere, this phrase occurs yet in quite differen contexts, mostly uttered in human confessions rather than YHWH'S own sef-presentation (2 Kgs 5.15; Pss. 10.4; 14.1; 53.2; Dan. 3.29). In add tion, the emphatic phrase of the first person pronoun in depicting YHWH (NTH ""IN, 'I am he') in Deut. 32.39 is a typical and frequent one in DeuteroIsaiah (Isa. 1.4; 43.10, 13; 46.4; 48.12; 52.6; cf. Kin "33K, 51.12).24 What is striking here is the fact that this phrase occurs only in those passages of Deutero-Isaiah and Deut. 32.39 and in no other place in the entire Hebrew Bible! The setting of Deuteronomy 32 has been taken, with much debate, as that of the pantheon in which the Most High deity apportions and rules 23. Cf. also Isa. 40.18, 25; 42.8; 43.11-13; 45.5-6, 14, 18, 22; 46.9; 47.8, 10. 24. For the linkage of this formula with Exod. 3.14, see Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OIL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), p. 335.
156
God's Word for Our World
other gods. This picture of henotheism which echoes similar ancient Near Eastern mythological notions is somewhat comparable to the depiction in Psalm 82. While the intensified monotheism recurs more radically in Deutero-Isaiah, one can also find a similar portrayal of the divine council in Isaiah 40.25 At the outset, both text-traditions display an element of intensified uniqueness of YHWH as the supreme—and thereby sole and incomparable—deity amid the subtle backgrounds of polytheistic pantheon. Last but not least, the notion of incomparability of YHWH is coincided with the depiction of YHWH as the source and maker of implicit dualism: Deut. 32.39b: I kill and make alive, I shatter and I heal.
JTrmi D'EK 'JK KS1K <3Kl "nsno
Isa. 45.7a: I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil.
"JOT NTD1118 lav in «"im DI^EJ nE7U
In these passages, YHWH professes to be the sole enabler of both killing and making alive (Deut. 32.39b) and the sole giver of both light and darkness, both peace and evil (Isa. 45.7a). More important, however, is the juxtaposition of these notions with the 'I am he' phrase. If read together, Deut. 32.39 and Isa. 45.6-7 build a uniquely parallel pattern in terms of the virtually identical phrases of the incomparability of YHWH and the dualistic expressions of the cosmic realms both of which are under YHWH's sovereign control: See now that I, I am he, and there is no god besides me; I kill and make alive, I shatter and I heal. (Deut. 32.39)
I am YHWH, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. (Isa. 4S.6-7)26
This correlation of vocabulary and concept then offers further evidence of the intertextual allusions between the Song of Moses and DeuteroIsaiah. 25. Note further A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (London: Oliphants, 1979), p. 390: 'The thought that Israel's enemies, judges themselves of the evidence put before them, should acknowledge the superiority of Yahweh, has a clear echo in Isa. 41.1-4'. 26. Similarly Mayes asserts: 'The verse has a slight formal parallel in Hos. 5.14, but there is no doubt that its closest parallels and its thought world are to be sought in second Isaiah' (Deuteronomy, p. 392). Cf. also 1 Sam. 2.6; 2 Kgs 5.7.
KIM The Song of Moses
157
d. Idol Imagery Deut. 32.16-17: They made him jealous with strange gods, with abominations they made him angry. They sacrificed to demons, not God, to gods they did not know; to new ones recently arrived, of whom your ancestors were unaware.
D'HTD. inKlp"1 inD^T rQJJTTQ n^« K*7 D'TID1? 1 rnr 01UT »"? 0* n "?K 183 31pQ D^Cnn DDTQN D111JO N1?
Deut. 32.21: They made me jealous with non-god, provoked me with their idols; So I will make them jealous with non-people, provoke them with a foolish nation.
^tTN^D " JltWp DH DIT "73m 'D1DUD DITN^D DN'DpN n3N1 DO'UDN ^33 "in
Deut. 32.37-38: Then he will say: Where are their gods, the rock in which they sought refuge; those who ate the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their libations? Let them rise up and help you, let them be a shelter for you!
IDTI^K n K 1QN1 13 VOn 11U I^DN' ICTmT n^n 1C» DTD] ]" inET DD1T1T11Q1jT HiriD DD'bu TT1
Isa.41.24: Look, you are nothing and your work is naught; whoever chooses you is an abomination.
"fRD Dn^~]H US^H DD^USI DDH 1FIT rpl?in
Isa. 42.17: They shall be turned back, utterly put to shame; those who trust in idols, who say to cast images, ' You are our gods'.
HED ICT 11118 150] ^033 DTlCD3n nDDCJ1? D'lQ^H IJTt^K Dfl^
Isa. 46.7b: If one cries out to it, it does not answer or save anyone from trouble.27
V "?K pBlT -*|» n]IT 8^1 IDU'EJl" «*? iniUQ
27. Also Isa. 40.19-20; 41.6-7, 21-24, 29; 44.9-20; 45.9-10, 16; 48.5; 54.16; cf. Jer. 10.1-16.
15 8
God's Word for Our World
In light of the previous instances of the correlations between Deuteronomy 32 and Deutero-Isaiah, we also see that the idol imagery occurs frequently in both places to highlight the unrivaled power of YHWH over against the challenges of the neighboring social, religious, and political forces around the people of YHWH. Although the idol passages are spread out in Deutero-Isaiah, their placement within the larger context is essential and significant in the extant form. In Deuteronomy 32, the idol imagery is used to indict the people's rebellion and idolatry against God. Likewise, in Deutero-Isaiah, the idol passages, through satire, parable, or metaphoric polemics, function to underscore the powerlessness of the idols, the vain efforts of idolfabricators, and the sole trustworthiness of YHWH.28 Not only the function, however, but also the language and metaphor of the two text-traditions are quite similar. The notion of the new gods who recently arrived in Deut. 32.17 reverberates in a satirical metaphor in Isa. 41.23, 'Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods'. Idolatry is sternly declared as 'abomination' in Deut. 32.16 as in Isa. 41.24: 'whoever chooses you is an abomination'. Similarly, YHWH'S mockery of the idolaters in Deut. 32.37, 'Where are their gods?', reverberates in the very words of the asinine idolaters in Isa. 42.17, 'You are our gods'. Likewise, the rhetorical challenge to the people's futile plea to the idols in Deut. 32.38, 'Let them rise up and help you, let them be a shelter for you', corresponds to the famous satire in Isa. 44.9-20, 'He prays to it and says, "Save me, for you are my god!"' (v. 17b, cf. Jer. 2.28a). Thus, in both places, the idol imagery functions to intensify the incomparability of YHWH. In both places, the idol imagery is associated with the rhetorical taunt as an essential element of the whole composition, without which the texts would not convey their full messages. In light of similar language, satire, and polemics, therefore, these two text-traditions echo each other. e. The 'Rock' the Begetter and the 'Rocks' Deut. 32.4: The Rock, his deed is perfect, for all his ways are justice.
1 ^S D'Qn TVStn C3SBD VDTT^D ''D
28. For relevant studies, see Knut Holter, Second Isaiah's Idol-Fabrication Passages (BBET, 28; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995), and Brian C. Jones, Howling Over Moab: Irony and Rhetoric in Isaiah 15-16 (SBLDS, 157; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
KIM The Song of Moses
159
Deut. 32.15: He abandoned God who made him, and scorned the Rock of his salvation.
iney mbN ecn inutzr TIH tan
Deut. 32.18: You deserted the Rock that begot you; you forgot the God who gave birth to you.
11
en TT'T TIM •^m ^ mem
Deut. 32.30-31,37 How could one have pursued a thousand, and two put a myriad to fight, unless their Rock had sold them, and YHWH had handed them over? Surely their rock is not like our Rock... Then he will say: Where are their gods, the rock in which they sought their refuge?
«]"?« in« *pT mrs mm IDT D-3E71
D"DD DTTipa «yn« DTJIDH mm .. .DTjlJ IDTjlp ^ "3
iQTibN •*» -mi in von ins
Isa. 44.8b: Is there any god besides me? There is no other rock I know.
•nutao m^N Ern -njrr-taTTsrw
Isa. 49.14: Zion said, 'YHWH has forsaken me, (cf. 45.9-11) Adonay has forgotten me\
mrr -JDT^ |vu "ia«m 1 ]nDC'']i«i
Isa. 5Lib: Look to the Rock from which you were hewn...
TJ^-^« iCD^n .. .onnun
Isa. 51.13: You have forgotten YHWH, your maker...
.. .TfCJU mn* meni
This metaphor is a very common one in the Hebrew Bible. The term 'rock' (pN, U^D, or "Y1U) in broad categories denotes a firm object (stone or foundation), a hiding place (a cleft of the rock), or the deity (YHWH or foreign deities). For the comparison of the two text-traditions, what is unique in both places is the purpose of this metaphor directed to the intensified incomparability of YHWH and sharp thematic contrast between YHWH and other gods. Michael Knowles lays out the double implications of the 'rock' in expression for God in the Hebrew Bible. On the one hand, God as rock
160
God's Word for Our World
conveys the imagery of 'fortress, stronghold, and refuge', a common feature in other references such as the Psalms (e.g. Pss. 18.2; 19.14; 28.1; 31.2; 62.2; 71.3; 94.22; 144.2). On the other hand, God as rock also accompanies the concepts of 'justice, truth, righteousness, uprightness, and salvation', a peculiar feature in Deuteronomy 32.29 From this double meaning, Knowles points out the unusual imagery of God as the Rock, which is in association with YHWH'S divine aspects and ethical norms in Deuteronomy 32. It is in accordance with these unique concepts that Deutero-Isaiah may have constructed much of theology. In Isaiah 51, the 'rock' has the connotation of origin or creation as well as that of refuge.30 In this passage, this word is surrounded by the concepts of righteousness, Torah, justice, salvation, and the like (Isa. 51.1, 4-5, 6b, 8b). While these moral or covenantal concepts recur frequently in Deutero-Isaiah, the integration of the rock imagery with those concepts in Isaiah 51 acutely reverberates Deuteronomy 32. Moreover, the imagery of the Rock for YHWH and YHWH'S loyalty is used to denote a sharp contrast with the fickleness of the people who easily abandon and forget their God (Deut. 43.15,18; Isa. 49.14; 51.13). In Isa. 49.14, there is a pun in that instead of Zion forgetting YHWH, Zion laments or challenges that the city has been forgotten by YHWH. In these similar motifs, a more unique interconnection resides in the metaphor of motherhood of YHWH. Deuteronomy 32 pictures God the Rock as the one who 'begot' and 'gave birth to' Israel (Deut. 32.18). Deutero-Isaiah provides a similar imagery of a mother and her child, in that YHWH is implicitly compared to a mother who would not forget Zion (Isa. 49.15; cf. Jer. 2.32).31 Furthermore, the verb ("rn) which connotes the feminine imagery 29. Michael P. Knowles,' "The Rock, His Work is Perfect": Unusual Imagery for God in Deuteronomy XXXII', VT 39 (1989), pp. 307-11 (311): 'What is unusual is that, rather than celebrating a salvific personal encounter with God, the Rock of deliverance and refuge, we find instead an emphasis on the moral character and righteousness of God. The explicative parallels to stir are not "refuge", "stronghold", "fortress", and the like, but refer rather to the perfection of his work, the justice (mispaf) of his ways, his faithfulness+('emuna), righteousness (saddiq)1and uprightness++(weyasar).' Likewise, Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 189: 'hi the Deuteronomy passage, "rock" is the outstanding predicate for God'. 30. Note that Knowles states 1 Sam. 2.2 but omits discussing Isa. 51: 'This understanding of stir in moral, or perhaps better, covenantal terms is matched only in 1 Sam. ii 2' ("The Rock, His Work is Perfect'", p. 311). 31. J.A. Foster similarly argues, with the examination of the verb bTT ('to writhe in labor') in Prov. 8.22-26; Ps. 90.1-2; Isa. 45.9-11; and Deut. 32.18, that these languages
KIM The Song of Moses
161
of God who 'gave birth to you' ("]L?1TIQ) in Deut. 32.18, recurs in Isa. 51.1-2, where Israel is admonished to look to the 'rock' (~ilU, masculine noun) and the 'quarry' ("I'D PQpO, feminine noun) as well as to Abraham their father and Sarah who 'gave birth to you' (OD^inn).32 Additionally, just as God the Rock who had been abandoned by the people is depicted as the maker of the people (Deut. 32.15), so YHWH who had been forgotten by YHWH'S people is depicted as the maker of the people (Isa. 51.13). Therefore, the imagery of the Rock in expression of YHWH, the notion of the people's forgetting their maker, and the metaphor of YHWH as the begetter or the mother all in an unusual combination provide further clues for the intertextual relations between the Song of Moses and Deutero-Isaiah. f. 'Jacob' and 'Jeshurun' Deut. 32.9: For the portion of YHWH was his people, Jacob the lot of his inheritance.
1QU miT p^n "D in'n] ^OH HpIT
[Deut. 32.14:] [Jacob ate and was satiated.]
[men npir "TDK'O)]
Deut. 32.15: Jeshurun grew fat and kicked, you grew fat, thick, and gorged.
EIO"1! ]11ET JQET1 PPCD rPDJJ n]QO
and metaphors explicitly convey the feminine imagery of God ('The Motherhood of God: The Use of hyl as God-Language in the Hebrew Scriptures', in L.M. Hopfe [ed.], Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory ofH. Neil Richardson [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994], pp. 93-102). Note also Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 346: 'According to the context (Deut 32.19: "Yahweh saw.. .his sons and daughters"), this is saying that the God of Israel is simultaneously father and mother—in whatever transferred sense this may be understood'. 32. Thus Baltzer interprets:' Deut. 32.18 can actually offer a key for an understanding of Isa. 51.1-2' (Deutero-Isaiah, p. 346). Here it should be noted that the metaphors, imagery, or attributes for God are not to be equated with the very definition of God. For this, one should note the trenchant remarks by Simon J. De Vries: 'Two things must be said: (1) the biblical God is not bi-sexual...but radically asexual... (2) the masculine gender is little more than a linguistic convention; in the case of its use with reference to the biblical God, it functions to express his personhood, nothing more' (The Achievements of Biblical Religion: A Prolegomenon to Old Testament Theology [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983], p. 101 [emphasis in original]).
162
God's Word for Our World
Isa. 44.2: Do not fear, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.33
3pIT H3U NTrrbN ID TTirQ ]1"lgn
Concerning the echoes of Jacob and Jeshurun in Deuteronomy 32 and Deutero-Isaiah, it is true that the term and notion of 'Jacob' cannot be seen as anything unique. Admittedly, Israel has been called 'Jacob' in numerous parts of the Hebrew Bible, all the more in the prophetic literature (e.g. Gen. 32.29 [Eng. 28]; 49.2; Exod. 19.3; Num. 23.7; 1 Kgs 18.31; Pss. 14.7; 135.4; Isa. 10.20; 29.23; 40.27; Jer. 2.4; 30.10; Ezek. 39.25; Mic. 1.5; 2.12). Nonetheless, as the simple name 'Jacob' along with 'Israel' often depicts the mysterious servant in Deutero-Isaiah, the significance of this name in the Song of Moses cannot be quickly dismissed where the name likewise conveys both individual and collective nuances. More importantly, this name occurs in parallel with the peculiar name 'Jeshurun' in Deut. 32.14-15 and Isa. 44.2. The name 'Jeshurun' occurs only in two other places in the Hebrew Bible (Deut. 33.5,26)! In all these passages, the names of Jacob and Jeshurun occur in parallel. In addition to the fact that these appellations occur in pairs, both names are associated with the imagery of YHWH'S nurturing and fostering YHWH'S people (Deut. 32.10-14; Isa. 44.2, 'who formed you from the womb and will help you'). It is possible and likely that the names Jeshurun paired with Jacob were commonly used in other traditions and transmissions.34 In the extant canonical shape, however, finding such a parallel only in these two sources is remarkable. Calling and identifying Jacob as YHWH'S alloted inheritance and the archaic name Jeshurun simultaneously demonstrate that one author may have been well aware of, and quite possibly (or even deliberately) alluding to, the other. g. The Notion of the 'Servant(s)' Deut. 32.36: Surely YHWH will judge his people, and will have compassion on his servants.
1HU mrr ]"T~'3 DniCT VPirbgl
33. Note that the term 'Jacob' occurs 42 times in the book of Isaiah. 34. See, e.g., Knight, Servant Theology, pp. 75-76: 'It is interesting how frequently DI [Deutero-Isaiah] refers to the song of Moses in Deut 32; for it itself is a prophetic interpretation of what God had done at the Exodus. It is also interesting that DI's hearers must have been well acquainted with the song to have understood his references. .. DI is drawing his material from the ancient sagas of his people...'
KIM The Song of Moses
163
Deut. 32.43: Give praise, O nations, his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants. [[Isa. 1-39: Isa. 40-53: Isa. 54-66:
1QU D^ia Tinn Dip" VDirDl "D
'servant' (20.3; 22.20; 37.35) 'servant' (41.8, 9; 42.1,19; 43.10; 44.1, 2,21, 26; 45.4; 48.20; 49.3, 5, 6, 7; 50.10; 52.13; 53.II) 35 'servants' (54.17; 56.6; 63.17; 65.8, 9, 13, 14, 15; 66.14)]]
While the notion of the intensified monotheism and the imagery of idolfabrication compose the core themes of Deutero-Isaiah, the equally significant notion is that of the 'servant' or 'servants'. This idea is so central for the theology of Deutero-Isaiah that many commentators have titled Deutero-Isaiah the prophetic book on the servant(s).36 Both in Deut. 32.36 and 32.43, the servants occur in the plural form, denoting the Israelites as a community rather than an individual servant. Early in the Song of Moses, Jacob (and Jeshurun) in the singular form assumes the representation of the collective people of Israel (cf. Deut. 32.9, 14-15). In later sections there is an implicit shift to depict Israel in the plural form and notion as YHWH'S 'sons and daughters' (Deut. 32.19) and 'servants' (Deut. 32.36, 43). It is strikingly peculiar that just as Israel is modified by Jacob and later by the servants in the Song of Moses, the servant is identified as Jacob/Israel in Deutero-Isaiah (but specifically Isa. 40-53) and as the servants in Trito-Isaiah (but specifically Isa. 54-66). Can we say that such a similar pattern is a mere coincidence? Or perhaps could there have been an authorial intention, in a parallel allusion or echo, to portray the traditional development of the identity of Israel, that is, from singular to plural, from Jacob to Israel, and from a servant to the servants? Furthermore, some significant terms occur in both places as well. In Deut. 32.9, Jacob, the people of YHWH, is depicted as the lot of YHWH'S inheritance (in^FI]). With the democratization or pluralization, in Isa. 63.17, YHWH'S servants are depicted as YHWH'S inheritance ("jn'TI]): 'Turn back for the sake of your servants, for the sake of the tribes that are your inheritance'. Also, the motif of YHWH'S having compassion (V-ajr^Ul DrUJT) on YHWH'S servants—which alludes to 'his people' (1121?) in parallelism—in Deut. 32.36 recurs in the well-known message of comfort toward Jerusalem in Isa. 40.1 (''QU1QFI] 1QFI], cf. Isa. 51.3). These correlate 35. Cf. 'servant' in the sense of'slave' or 'official': Isa. 14.2; 24.2; 36.9,11; 37.24. 36. Knight, concerning the calling of Israel as YHWH'S servant, claims: 'He may have taken the concept, not.. .from pagan custom, but from the Song of Moses, Deut 32.36, and possibly from Ps 135.14' (Servant Theology, p. 43).
164
God's Word for Our World
reverberations further present a strong case for the linguistic and thematic allusions between the two text-traditions. h. The Idea of Vengeance on the Enemies Deut. 32.35: Vengeance is mine, and recompense, to the time when their foot will slip; for the day of their calamity is near, the ominous events make haste to them.
pbgnap]''? rbr\ Dinn nub DTK DV imp 'D inb mnu 011
Deut. 32.41-43: If I whet my flashing sword, and my hand takes hold on judgment; I will take vengeance on my adversaries, and will repay those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour their flesh; from the blood of the slain and the captives, from the head of the loose-haired enemy. Give praise, O nations, his people, [worship him, all you gods!] For he will avenge the blood of his servants, and take vengeance on his adversaries; [he will repay those who hate him,] and atone his land, his people.
'Tin p"D TTUETDK
"i" BBBD:I mwn •"-IS1? Dp3 TDK
D^EN 'NDOT'TI Cnn 'HO T3PK
"ien bDKn 'mm mziETi bbn cnn TIN mins ENID lou D'i:i 13-nn Dip' V-aiTDl 'D
vis1? n'Er apii
lau inai« nsai
Isa. 47.3:
Your nakedness shall be revealed, (cf. 48.14) even your shame will be seen; I will take vengeance and I will spare no human being.
-|nnu ^n insnn n»"in DJ np» ap] Df« U353K «^1
Isa. 49.25b-26a: I will contend with those who contend with you; I will save your children. I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and as with wine they shall be drunk with their own blood.37
D'"l« 'D]» "|n'T~n«1
r'E7i» 'DDK -prrrwi TiiD'nK 'n*?DKm angn"nK o'Dim ]i"aer DOT;
37. Cf. also Isa. 50.8; 51.17-23; as well as Jer. 25.15-29; Ps. 35.1.
KIM The Song of Moses
165
Toward the end of the Song of Moses there is a series of dichotomies between the protagonists and the antagonists, between the righteous and the wicked, between the people of YHWH and their enemy-oppressors. Moses announces the impending day of vengeance (Dp3) and calamity on the enemies, who are the false rocks (Deut. 32.31, 35). A similar notion recurs where YHWH declares to take vengeance on the adversaries and pay back those who hate YHWH (Deut. 32.41-43). In Deutero-Isaiah, similarly, there is a reversal motif of the shame and nakedness that is to be transposed from daughter Zion to daughter Chaldea (Isa. 47.3). Here YHWH proclaims vengeance (Dp]) on the enemy Babylon. Furthermore, YHWH'S handraising (Deut. 32.39-41) suggests the implication of the oath, which depicts an imagery of a divine warrior (Deut. 32.41-43). A similar motif occurs in Deutero-Isaiah with the frequent notion of the 'arm' of YHWH which will be against the enemies (Isa. 42.13; 48.14; 51.5; 52.10; 53.1; cf. 9.12, 17, 21; 10.4; 43.13; SO.llb; 51.17). In addition, YHWH'S plan of vengeance on the enemies is delineated as the plan to make arrows drunk with blood and swords devour flesh and blood (Deut. 32.42). This imagery is strikingly similar to that of DeuteroIsaiah, where the vocabularies are exactly the same (Isa. 49.26a).38 However, there is a difference in the subjects. In Deut. 32.42 it is YHWH'S arrows and sword that will get drunk with blood and devour flesh, whereas, in Isa. 49.26a, it is the oppressors and enemies themselves who shall be drunk with their own blood (cf. Lev. 19.26; Deut. 12.23). This shift in the subjects occurs further in Ezek. 39.17-20, where the birds and the beasts are invited for the sacrificial feast and are to eat the flesh and blood of the mighty enemies. Although these demonstrate the authorial reapplications of subjects in each text, the terminological and metaphorical correlations in these similar contexts are quite indicative. Even the word 'captives' Cnt0) in Deut. 32.42 recurs in Isa. 49.24-25 (cf. Isa. 52.2) which may cause the reader of Isaiah 49 to be persuasively reminded of the Song of Moses. Consequently, this evidence reveals that the conceptuality of YHWH'S vengeance and vindication is not of something new or innovative in the time of Deutero-Isaiah, but is part of the long-standing traditions of the
38. Note that while all the terms for 'eating', 'flesh', and 'blood' are the same in Ezek. 39.17,19, the term for 'drinking' is different in Ezek. 39.17,19 (nniB). However, this variation of the verb may not rule out the intentional reverberation of these passages (cf. Jer. 46.10; Zech. 9.15).
166
God's Word for Our World
patriarch, exodus, and conquest stories.39 Echoing and reaching back to the ancient heritage and traditions, the texts of Deutero-Isaiah intend to reaffirm and remind that the promises of YHWH are constant and unchanging, even when concerning YHWH'S dealing with enemies. i. Further Phraseological and Metaphorical Parallels In addition to the above distinctive allusions and echoes between Deuteronomy 32 and Deutero-Isaiah, we can find additional phraseological and metaphorical parallels. For example, in Deut. 32.11 (cf. Exod. 19.4), YHWH is depicted as an eagle who spreads wings to lead, guide, and protect the young Israel. In Isa. 40.31, with a shift in imagery, YHWH'S strength towards Israel is depicted as wings like eagles that are stronger and more reliable than the strength of youths.40 Furthermore, the motif of YHWH'S face-hiding in Deut. 32.20 reverberates with the similar phraseology in Isa. 40.27; 45.15; 54.8.41 Further links of words and phrases are identified by Paul Sanders, Klaus Baltzer, and others as dealt with in the discussion above.42
39. There are intertextual allusions between Isa. 49.25b (cf. Deut. 32.41-43) and Psalmic traditions. It is not clear which one influenced the other, especially because dating a psalm is difficult. Perhaps this phrase was a common idiomatic one, for example, possibly a cliche prayer of supplication in liturgy. One thing, at least, is clear: the phraseology is strikingly similar. For example, cf. Ps. 35.1: 'Contend, O YHWH, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me' (miT nTI •'an'rnN an1? ":TTTI«). Cf. also Pss. 43.1; 74.22. 40. The intertextual comparison of terminology ('eagle' and 'pinions') and metaphor in the two passages can be compared as follows: Deut. 32.11, 'As an eagle stirs up its nest, it hovers over its young; as it spreads its wings, takes itself up, and lifts itself on its pinions' (in-QK"1?!? inNCT innp" VB33 EHST «]nT V^nr^i: 13p TIT 11033): Isa. 40.31, 'But those who wait for YHWH shall renew their strength, they shall soar up with pinions like eagles' (PHED 13S l"?IT HD lET'rr miT ^pl). 41. Although the phrase echoes in both text-traditions, this phrase seems to be a more common idiom which occurs in some other places (e.g. Deut. 31.17, 18; Isa. 57.17; 59.2; 64.7; Ezek. 39.23, 24, 29; Mic. 3.4; Pss. 13.1; 27.9; 30.8; 69.18; 102.3; 143.7). 42. For additional allusions or echoes, Baltzer points out correlations between Deut. 32.39-43 and Isa. 49.2, between Deut. 32.22-23 and Isa. 50.9-11, between Deut. 32.29 and Isa. 52.13, and Deut. 32.47 and Isa. 53.10 (see Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 307,342, 395, 422, respectively); cf. also the possible allusions between Deut. 32.44-47 and Isa. 55.11 (Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy [trans. Dorothea Barton; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966], p. 201).
KlM The Song of Moses
167
3. Conclusion Hebrew Scriptures are written scripturally. By 'scripturally' I mean that just as we the modern readers read and recite the scriptures, so the biblical writers themselves and their contemporary audiences were writing and reading (and listening to) their past and present traditions. In other words, my reading today is a continuous part of the long line of readings and writings of the predecessors which includes the very biblical characters, authors, and scribes. In light of the above intertextual comparisons, it is remarkable that both the Song of Moses (Deut. 32.1-43) and a collection of the prophetic oracles (Isa. 40-55) share many common vocabularies, idioms, imagery, metaphors, and concepts. The chart below is a list of possible intertextual correlations between these two texts as investigated above: The Song of Moses
Key Phrases or Metaphors
The call to 'heavens' and 'earth' 'remember. . .the days of old' The incomparability of YHWH 'Iamhe'(Nirr]N) 'I kill and make alive' w. 15(cf. w. 9, 14) 'Jeshurun' as Jacob w. 15-18(cf. w. 4, The 'Rock' who 'gave birth to you' 30-31,37) w. 16-17 (cf. w. 21, Idol imagery Polemic against idols/idolaters 37-38) 32.1(cf.v.43) v. 7 v. 12 (cf. v. 39)
v. 36 (cf. v. 43)
'servant(s)'
w. 41-43 (cf. v. 35)
Vengeance on the oppressors
Deutero-Isaiah 44.23; 45.8; 49.13 43. 18; 46.8-9 41.4; 44.6; 45.21; 48.12 (cf. 45.7) 44.2 44.8; 49.14; 51. 1-2, 13
40.19-20; 41.6-7, 21-24; 42.17; 44.9-20; 45.9-17; 46.5-7; 48.5; 54. 16 (singular:) 4 1.8, 9; 42.1, 19; 43. 10; 44.1, 2, 21, 26; 45.4; 48.20; 49.3, 5, 6, 7; 50.10; 52.13; 53. 11 (plural:) 54. 17; 56.6; 63. 17; 65.8, 9, 13, 14, 15; 66. 14 (cf. 20.3; 22.20; 37.35) 47.3; 49.25-26
Although we have identified more indirect allusions and remote echoes rather than direct citations, the parallels between the two text-traditions are so distinctive and numerous that it is absurd to view their connections as merely coincidental. It is not a matter of one or two correlations. The plentiful correlations, identified above, give the reader pause to wonder whether
168
God's Word for Our World
these two text-traditions were meant to be read independently at all. Sure enough, the authors of these two text-traditions may have echoed other texts of the Hebrew Bible that were famous, appropriate, precious, profound, and transforming to them as well as to their contemporary audiences. However, among those interconnections, the mutual allusions and echoes between the two could have been quite purposefully crafted by the authors and/or the final redactors. Now, not only the ancient (re-)readers and/or listeners but also the readers of the twenty-first century are invited to read these two texts together. Given the reconstructions of their linguistic and thematic allusions and echoes, it should then be in order to ponder several subsequent implications which such a purposeful engineering of the two may entail with regard to composition, concepts, and contributions. a. Composition As to which one is original to the other—that is, which one is earlier, Deuteronomy 32 or Deutero-Isaiah?—Paul Sanders surmises that the intertextual connections cannot provide any unequivocal evidence on dating or geography.43 Based on the conjectural interpretation of the archaic aspects of Deuteronomy 32, that is, if we see most of Deuteronomy 32 as older than Deutero-Isaiah with regard to language, content, and literary context, we may posit that the essential components of Deutero-Isaiah were heavily influenced by Deuteronomy 32.44 This view fits well with some of the
43. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, pp. 353-54: 'Scholars who regard the song as a very early composition are inclined to argue that other passages in the Hebrew Bible allude or even directly go back to the older song. Scholars who regard the song as very late are inclined to argue that the correspondences demonstrate the song's dependence on older biblical literature... It is unjustified to assume completely rectilinear developments. Religious ideas could be revived or they could crop up again after a period of suppression by a temporarily predominant theology.' Sanders, however, views the essential core parts of the Song of Moses to be pre-exilic and older. 44. For the early dating of Deut. 32, see, for example, George E. Mendenhall, 'Samuel's "Broken Rib": Deuteronomy 32', in J.W. Flanagan and A.W. Robinson (eds.), No Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor ofJ.L. McKenzie (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 64,66: The poem belongs to the second half of the eleventh century B.C— The poem cannot have originated at any time other than after the destruction of Shiloh and before the radical paganization of Yahwism that began early in David's reign and ran its natural course with the accession of Rehoboam and the consequent disidentification of the northern tribes from any further connection with the pagan Jerusalem regime.'
KlM The Song of Moses
169
above observations: for example, the unique word combination of remember', 'consider', and 'days of old', the temporal correlations of the 'former things' between the two, the unique usage of the phrase 'I am he' in both texts, the peculiar phrase for YHWH as the only God who kills and makes alive, the imagery of the 'Rock' in conjunction with the metaphor of the motherhood of YHWH and the motif of 'forgetting', the only occurrence of the name 'Jeshurun' in these two texts (in the entire Hebrew Bible) with the same usage, and the like. This hypothetical view, however, obliges us to consider the opposite possibility as well, primarily due to the independent nature of the Song of Moses over against the rest of Deuteronomy.45 Alternatively, my interpretation concerning the dependence of one on the other may have involved a complex route of interconnections rather than 'completely rectilinear developments'.46 At the safest level, my study reveals that no matter what routes of composition or transmission they must have taken, even with the possibility of their final redactors being contemporary, the two texts are very much in dialogue with each other in terms of word, phrase (including word combination), metaphor, and ideology. To put it another way, we may safely argue that there is an intended effort to make a coherent dialogue between the two. The uniquely distinctive and unusually numerous allusions and echoes between the two texttraditions thus invite the reader to move beyond their literary and historical gap and read them together holistically, canonically, and intertextually. 45. For the late dating of Deut. 32, see, for example, Ronald E. Clements, 'The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections', in Leander Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), II, p. 527: 'It seems likely that the poem was originally composed independently, almost certainly in the post-exilic age, and very possibly at a time when Deuteronomy had come to form the final part of the Pentateuch'. 46. Despite the ongoing scholarly debates, any convincing criteria to determine which of the two text-traditions was earlier have not yet been established. Argument can be made for either the archaicness of the Song of Moses or the archaization of the Song by the later author/redactor. Although several aspects of the above discussion in this study opt for Deutero-Isaiah's dependence upon the Song of Moses, there still remains a possible space for a counter-title, 'Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55) in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32)'. Dennis T. Olson succinctly surmises the issue: 'In my judgment, the poem could have fit and may have functioned in several historical situations in ancient Israel, ultimately including the exile in Babylon. That some more ancient form of the poem was reshaped and edited over the course of this history to bring it to its present form seems the most likely scenario' (Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994], pp. 138-39).
170
Go d 's Word for Our World
b. Concepts Whether Deuteronomy 32 was one of the key foundations for the composition and construction of Deutero-Isaiah, or vice versa, the above examinations of the interconnections display striking similarity not only of the linguistic and formal patterns but also of the thematic and theological intentions within the two text-traditions. Whereas each tradition maintains its own claims and distinctions, together they share many common denominators in concepts and theologies. Just as in Deuteronomy, the fundamental theology of YHWH signals to the only and true God in the main thrust of Deutero-Isaiah. Just as the uniqueness of YHWH makes an asseverative contrast with the idols and idol-worshippers in Deuteronomy 32, so does the incomparability of YHWH point to the impotence of the idol-fabricators in Deutero-Isaiah. Just as the assembly of Israel and the later descendants were exhorted to remember the past for the constancy of YHWH'S plans and promises in Deuteronomy 32, so were the communities of Deutero-Isaiah admonished to remember the past and look forward to the future with the faith in the same YHWH. Where could they find the solidarity within the two seemingly remote traditions? It was from the same Rock who begot and reared them, although they forgot and rebelled against this Rock. It was also in the same identity that they were called 'Jacob' and 'Jeshurun', who were to become the servants for justice and righteousness of 'I am he' (Kin"1]**). In their upbringing, they experienced the punishment for their rebellions. In the hope of consolation, they now heard the messages of YHWH'S deliverance, both from the Song of Moses and Deutero-Isaiah, which likewise encompassed the impending doom on the profane enemies. c. Contributions What then can we make out of these results? What contributions and consequences may we anticipate? First, following up on the intertextual comparisons between Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 1, the above study can suggest more intricate connections among Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 1, and Isaiah 40-5 5.4? These intertextual links then offer more evidences of the compositional and thematic connections between Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 40-55. Second, the intertextual citations and allusions of the Song of 47. Fisch meticulously constructs and explicates the intertextual echoes between the Flood accounts, along with the Sodom and Gomorrah accounts, in Genesis and the Song of Moses in Deut. 32. He further compares them together in relation to Isa. 1 in his table of the intertextual weave' (Poetry with a Purpose, pp. 69-71).
KIM The Song of Moses
171
Moses may not be limited to Isaiah 40-55 but expanded to Isaiah 56-66. Due to the scope of this paper, only a few remarks were made on the interconnections between Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 56-66.48 Nonetheless, those few remarks imply that it is a legitimate task to investigate the interconnections between Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 56-66 in the larger context of Isaiah as a whole. Last but not least, the construction of the intertextual echoes of these two text-traditions may provide more evidence, inputs, or inquiries for the compositional study of Deuteronomy as well as the book of Isaiah as a whole. How does Deuteronomy 32 fit into the larger corpora of Deuteronomy? How is Deutero-Isaiah to be read in relation to the rest of Isaiah vis-a-vis Deuteronomy 32?49 The tasks may seem more complex and insurmountable. However, perhaps, looking at (and listening to) the intertextual reverberations beyond the boundaries of each corpus or book (e.g. consulting with Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and more) may yield some fresh results on these issues.
48. For instance, Michael Fishbane presented a case of Trito-Isaiah's inner-biblical exegesis of Deut. 32 in light of shared vocabulary in Isa. 58.11-14 and Deut. 32.9-13 (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985], pp. 478-79). 49. For a thorough examination of the redactional development of Isaiah, as being shaped in Isa. 1-31 and 32-66, in light of the temporal transitional formulas, see Simon J. De Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), especially pp. 101 and 110-29.
JOHN CALVIN'S CONTRIBUTION TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
Simon J. De Vries
I
In 1853, Edouard Reuss of Strasbourg, an Old Testament scholar and at the same time one of the editors of Corpus Reformatorum, had this to say about John Calvin's standing as a biblical scholar and commentator: One could say that Martin Luther and John Calvin marched at the head of their respective illustrious contemporaries. If, as translator of the Bible, orator and popular writer, Luther left all his colleagues far behind him, by way of compensation Calvin approached his level as a systematic theologian and exegete... An uneven phalanx of more or less distinguished Bible commentators groups itself around the two great leaders, some in front of and some behind the one according to whose particular genius it has gradually become the fashion to align their respective theological methodologies and the orders of their churches. On the one flank there are the isolated and fragmentary essays of Melanchthon, Cruciger, Bugenhagen, and Jonas, followed by the more complete compositions of Brenz, Striegel, Flacius, and Camerarius—all serving the evangelical cause under the banner of Luther in the universities of Saxony and Wurttemburg. On the opposite flank are Bucer and Capito in Strasbourg, Oecolampadius in Basel, Zwingli, Bullinger and Pellicanus in Zurich—all spiritually united without having become attached to any particular set formula, serving in a career of biblical science as predecessors of the one [Calvin] whose name would soon come to eclipse their own reputations and become the symbol for establishing the community of faith.1
John Calvin was born in Noyon, a cathedral town in the French province of Picardy, on 10 July 1509, and died in Geneva, Switzerland, on 27 May 1564. His first 24 years were spent in preparing for a professional career. 1. Translated from the French: 'Calvin considere comme exegete', Revue de theologie de Strasbourg 6, pp. 225-26. Reuss was introducing the ambitious new venture of reprinting the works of Calvin and the other reformers after centuries of neglect. The genial professor will be excused for breaking his own metaphor.
DE VRIES John Calvin's Contribution
173
Since his father was an attorney and administrator attached to the cathedral of Noyon, it was assumed that he would follow an ecclesiastical career. After early years of private tutoring, he was sent at age fourteen to attend the College de la Marche in Paris, from which he transferred soon afterwards to the College de Montaigu, where he came under the influence of leading humanistic scholars. In obedience to his father's wishes he transferred to Bourges at age twenty to study law, and received his licentiate in this profession in 1531 at age 21, upon which he returned to Paris to become involved in humanistic studies at the College of Royal Lecturers. While there, he studied Greek under Pierre Danes and probably some Hebrew under Francois Vatable. His first published writing was a preface to Nicholas Duchemin's Antapologia. He also composed during this period the first of his numerous books, and the only one that was purely secular, a commentary on De dementia, by the Roman stoic, Seneca. The next period of Calvin's life may be designated as a time of searching and testing. In 1533 he was converted to the evangelical movement and became affiliated with the French humanists. On account of this, he was soon forced to flee Paris and resign certain nominal ecclesiastical offices that he had been holding. In early 1534 he visited Jacques Lefevre, who had just published a revised translation of the Bible in French. He fled to Strasbourg and then to Basel, where he was warmly received by Heinrich Bullinger and other reformers. Under the tutelage of Sebastian Munster he made a special study of the Hebrew language. Meanwhile Calvin was preparing what was to be the first of many editions of his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion, dated in his Prefatory Address to Francis I, king of France, in 1535, but by the printers in 1536. In the same year he made an extended trip that took him to Ferrara in Italy and then to Geneva, which had just gone over to the Reformation cause. He was persuaded by Guillaume Farel against his personal desires to join the company of pastors in Geneva, but he remained there for less than two years. Because of his training in Greek and Hebrew he received the title of 'Professor of Sacred Letters'. Since the city authorities balked at adopting the ecclesiastical reforms that he demanded, he resigned his post in early 1538 and returned to Strasbourg, where he became pastor of the French refugees. Martin Bucer was his colleague. Here Calvin held the title, 'Lecturer in Holy Scripture', and began work on what were to become a whole series of published commentaries on the Bible.2 Among his publications 2. The initial publication dates, either in Latin or French, were as follows: Romans, 1539; Jude, 1542; 1-2 Peter, 1545; 1-2 Corinthians, 1546-47; Galatians,
174
God's Word for Our World
from this period was his very first biblical commentary, that on Romans (1539), intended as a companion to what was to be the second edition of his Institutes, which appeared in the same year. Along with these widely influential writings, his participation in a number of ecumenical councils added to his reputation as a foremost biblical scholar, church leader, and theologian. The third period in Calvin's life was a time of fruition which became increasingly a time of conflict as well. In September of 1541, when he was thirty-two years old, Calvin was received back to his post in Geneva with enthusiasm. Until his death he seldom strayed from his adopted city. He was in fact heavily burdened both by the duties that were assigned to him by the authorities in Geneva and the requirements involved in providing leadership for the increasingly persecuted evangelicals abroad. Political conditions in France were especially perilous and of great concern for him. He continued to turn out biblical commentaries as well as a number of treatises on the vital topics of the day. His very first commentary on an Old Testament book was on Isaiah and was published in 1551. It proved to be so popular that it was reissued in enlarged form in 1559, the same year as the fourth, definitive edition of the Institutes. The decade of the fifties brought victory over his opponents in Geneva along with harsh measures against certain scholars, including Michael Servetus, who were unable to agree with his particular version of the Reformed faith. In 1559 Calvin was granted citizenship by the Geneva city authorities. This was also the year in which the Genevan Academy was established under the rectorship of Theodore Beza. Calvin's health steadily declined during these last years of his life, when he was no longer as productive as he had been. Upon his death in 1564, he was buried in an unknown grave and his books were given to the newly established Academy. One might think that a busy pastor and churchman such as Calvin would be too preoccupied with practical matters to become absorbed in the
1548; 1-2 Timothy, 1548; Titus, 1549; Hebrews, 1549; Catholic Epistles with 1 John and James, 1550; Isaiah, 1551; Acts, 1552-54; Gospel of John, 1553; Genesis, 1554; Harmony of the Gospels, 1555; Psalms, 1557; Hosea, 1557; Isaiah, revised edition, 1559; Minor Prophets, 1559; Daniel, 1561; Jeremiah and Lamentations, 1563; Harmony of the Pentateuch, 1563; Joshua, 1564; Ezekiel 1-20, 1565. It was Calvin's design to write on all the biblical books, without exception. It will be seen that the most notable omission for the New Testament was Revelation. Its neglect along wit that of most of the Old Testament historical and wisdom books appears to indicate a special reluctance or deep sense of inadequacy on Calvin's part.
DE VRIES John Calvin's Contribution
175
tedious task of writing biblical commentaries, yet he did so with enthusiasm, knowing that primarily through their influence the Reformation would have the best chance of spreading. He was not alone in this; just the most diligent and, to be sure, the most successful. Luther wrote Bible commentaries; Zwingli wrote them; so did Bucer in Strasbourg and Bullinger in Zurich, and all the others mentioned by Reuss. They engaged themselves in this task because they knew that the recovery of biblical religion was to be the engine of the Reformation, and that increasing the understanding of Scripture through these new commentaries would be fuel for that engine. In the case of Calvin, everything he wrote with the exception of his commentary on Seneca came out of this new scriptural understanding: his Institutes, his biblical commentaries, his polemic tracts, and of course his sermons, which he poured out on Sundays and during the week into the ears of his large congregation.
II During the second half of the twentieth century there has been a strong revival in the scholarly study of John Calvin, his theology, and his work; and in fact much of this new interest in his theology has been engendered by fresh attention to his biblical commentaries in spite of the fact that they are precritical in their exegesis and hence all but worthless for a contemporary critical understanding of the Bible. It is necessary to dismiss the idea that his commentaries can assist the modern pastor in gaining an adequate understanding of the Old and New Testaments within their original settings, and at the same time his commentaries are too much geared to sixteenth-century ecclesiastical conditions to be put to ready use in a relevant modern application. This challenges one to look elsewhere for the factor that lends enduring value to his biblical commentaries, which is the crucial role they play and their lasting significance in the history of biblical exegesis as a whole. What that role and significance were is summed up in these additional words from Edouard Reuss on the occasion referred to: Exegesis ceased to be a game played with texts from the Bible, indifferent whether it nourished ascetic mysticism with allegories that it knew how to extract from it. It became a discipline that was grammatical and at the same time theological: grammatical with respect to the method, theological with respect to the purpose. One was now able, through the study of words and phrases and through the investigation of the context to arrive at a comprehension of how biblical learning should proceed, and as a consequence of
176
God's Word for Our World the relationship between such learning and the doctrine of Scripture within the system of dogma. It is in this regard that the modern church is in fact the daughter of the Reformation.3
In other words, the game of contriving fanciful meanings was over, once and for all. There would be henceforth no place for biblical conundrums. At last studying the Bible had become a science, but a science in the Renaissance sense and not in the Enlightenment sense—a science in dead earnest lying at the very heart of religion and theology. This is not a claim that Calvin invented grammatical-historical exegesis; it is a claim that it was distinctive for him. If he ever wandered into allegorical meanings, this would be an aberration that he would quickly efface if it were called to his attention. Calvin wrote a sufficient quantity of solid sober commentary on Scripture to make it perfectly clear to his readers and emulators that this is what the ancient Word of God was all about. It was revelation from the past demanding to become revelation for the present and the future in a way comparable to what it had been for the ancient Israelites and the apostolic church. Ill
Many of those who sit at Calvin's feet long enough to discover not only what he says and means, but how and why he says what he says, are touched and inspired by this man's deep sense ofmysterium tremendum as he reverently takes the Bible in hand and looks to see what he may find in it. As a teacher and writer in the field of Old Testament, I have always felt that it was worthwhile to look back to the achievements of those who have gone before us, but now I have actually found the opportunity to do this with the great reformer's Bible work—in particular that upon the Old Testament scriptures in which I myself have become a specialist. Upon my retirement from teaching in 1992, I found the means of gratifying an interest that I had acquired from John T. McNeill4 many years previously when I was a participant in his year-long seminar on Calvin at Union Theological Seminary in New York. When I eventually chose to retire to Grand Rapids, MI, where I had gone to college and seminary many years 3. Reuss, 'Calvin considere comme exegete', p. 235 4. Professor McNeill is known especially for two major works, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954) and Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, XX-XXI (trans. Ford Lewis Battles; The Library of Christian Classics; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960).
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
111
before, part of the reason was a distinguished library for John Calvin studies, the H. Henry Meeter Center, offering access to original documents and records pertaining to the Renaissance and Reformation, with special concern for the records of Calvin's life and writings. My own life work as a theological teacher and biblical scholar served now to focus my interest on Calvin's biblical exegesis, and on his Old Testament commentaries in particular. What I wished to know was whether, and in what ways, Calvin deserved to be identified as an authentic forerunner of modern biblical criticism, and if so, how this served his theology. My plan was to survey all his biblical commentaries, but pick one or two to concentrate on—perhaps one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. I would investigate the interaction of the exegesis proper—giving a passage's meaning for the time in which it was written—with the exposition—providing truths from the text for contemporary application. I would examine Calvin's method of questioning the biblical text and responding to problems raised by it or posed by other scholars in address to a particular text and/or others like it. I would observe his skill as a student of Greek and Hebrew in addressing problems raised by the original text and the ancient versions. I would pay attention to his firmness and self-awareness in resisting medieval methods of exegesis and allegorization in particular. I would identify and consider the reasons for mistakes made in his investigation or application of the text to broad questions of biblical interpretation. Finally, I would pay particular attention to his model for superimposing christological consideration upon the ancient text, together with the theology of history that he constructed upon this model. There were additional concerns, but these were the major ones. There had been a few published studies of Calvin's biblical exegesis which might be of help to me, but mainly I would have to devise my own methods. I quickly opted for just one biblical book, abandoning the idea of making a direct comparison between Calvin's treatment of an Old Testament book and of a New Testament book. I carefully made my choice of the ideal book for my purposes, along with the sections from that book which I should use as specimens. It would be Isaiah, of course, and for three good and solid reasons: (1) Isaiah stands first in the canonical order of prophetic books; (2) it is by far the lengthiest among prophetic books, and among biblical books in general, except for the Psalter; and (3) it reflects a unique history of compositional and redactional activity spread over at least four centuries.
178
Go d 's Word for Our World
True: some of the earliest prophecies to come out of Israel—though not the earliest—and some of the latest prophecies—though not the latest—are in this book. An additional advantage in working on Calvin's commentary on Isaiah is the fact that it was the only one in the commentary series to appear in a second edition. This would offer opportunity to observe improvements in his methods during the most tumultuous decade of his life, 1551-59. The chapters in Isaiah that I would study were the following: Isaiah Isaiah Isaiah Isaiah
1, because it offers a collage of authentic Isaianic preaching. 6, because it contains the prophet's memoir of his vision and call. 7, because it has the report of Isaiah's famous oracle to Ahaz. 8.1-9.7 [H 6], because it contains memoirs of a time of transition from King Ahaz (a notorious corruptor of Yahwism) to King Hezekiah (an admired reformer of Yahwism). Isaiah 22, because it contains oracles for 'the day of Yahweh'—ideologically equivalent to the historical event of Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE. Isaiah 36 and 37, because they contain legends of a paradigmatic confrontation between a brazen and boasting foreign foe and Yahweh. Isaiah 44.24—45.13, because of its amazing oracles for Cyrus, another foreign king, as Yahweh's 'messiah' to restored Israel and a reclaimed humankind. IV
As I went to work on this project I was clear in my mind that my effort should be a study in the history of biblical exegesis and not an exercise in historical theology as such. Every discipline and subdiscipline has its own history, and though we cannot study Calvin's biblical exegesis without taking into reckoning his own private and public history, along with that of the church and society he served, my main effort in this case was to gain a better understanding of the discipline rather than of the man. Since Calvin's commentary follows the Isaianic text verse by verse and phrase by phrase, commenting as it goes along and without prominent summaries or excursuses, my method was to articulate the questions that would have been in his mind as he scrutinized each phrase or verse, following this by the substance of the answer he gave and my own appropriate—or at a minimum, necessary—comments. It would have been idle as well as presumptuous for me to aim at demonstrating the superiority of modern critical methodology over that of Calvin. That is not at all what I had in mind. His exegesis was not in any way to be belittled, but sympathetically yet critically evaluated by its relevance, its coherence to factual
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
179
truth, and how well it fitted his use and purpose. Furthermore, I did not see it as my task to place Calvin's work in comparison with what other scholars of his own generation were achieving; that would be a proper task for Reformation specialists! What I hoped to be able to do was to show how effectively he was responding to the demands of the ancient text that lay before him. This would determine his rightful place in the history both of Isaianic and of Old Testament interpretation within the broader spectrum of theological and historical inquiry, both in the church and in the academy, both in his age and in ours. It would have been idle to begin this rather daunting investigation if I were merely seeking reasons to praise the reformer's work. If I were looking for things to praise, I would certainly emphasize first and above all his undeviating attention to his avowed task of interpreting the ancient word of Scripture in its own right, looking first for its meaning in terms of its time and setting—and only then for all times and settings. That had never been done before with such conscious purpose and relative success. While noting how Calvin performed this, I found occasion, nevertheless, to note elements in which his theology and his moral ideals have outweighed the message of the biblical text and even obscured it. Though a man of rare learning and great originality, Calvin's interpretation of the biblical text did not always measure up to the object that it interpreted, the text itself. There were in Calvin's commentary on Isaiah errors not a few, and of various kinds—and it was worth my trouble to point them out and weigh their significance. The reformer would not always be excused on the grounds that he was, after all, a man of the sixteenth century, and did not possess the tools of investigation that were later developed, especially during and following the Enlightenment. Admittedly, I should expect these shortcomings and not berate Calvin for them. However, shortcomings that resulted from the relative primitiveness of sixteenth-century exegesis proved to play only a minor role in determining his success in unlocking the mysteries of the biblical word. There were in addition errors in which he fell short of his own and his contemporaries' scholarly standards—and even faults that must be judged as reprehensible of him as a Christian and as a scholar, such as deliberate omissions, special pleading, misleading alterations, and the like. It will perhaps surprise many that faults of the second category turned out to be more prevalent than those of the first, while faults of the third, though comparatively rare, turned out to be more common than one would wish. To point these out was a worthwhile effort
180
Go d 's Word for Our World
because it enriches our understanding of Calvin as a fellow human being and co-worker in God's kingdom. If his unparalleled achievements, which unquestionably deserve the admiration of all generations, were to be kept in proper focus, they would require this full, frank, fair, and unbiased scrutiny. V
John Calvin's biblical commentaries are closely similar in the way in which they are set up and in the way in which they proceed with their task Almost all present the biblical text in small segments of a few verses. There is philosophy in this, no doubt, but in any case the one about Isaiah presents it by entire chapters. The commentary on Genesis (1554) is the only additional one following this pattern, and this should be looked upon as an experiment that was soon given up. It becomes immediately apparent to the careful reader that Calvin is not constantly engaged in discussing the biblical text in its own right (exegesis), but, depending on the topic, that he is involved instead in articulating how the text should be applied to the contemporary church and Christian living (exposition). The momentary impression of casualness in this set-up is soon dissipated by the discovery that the two do in fact follow a certain pattern. The ordinary rule is: exegesis, then exposition, which makes good logic. Often there is no exposition, only exegesis; and this is when Calvin is immersed in textual problems of one sort or another. Then again—but rarely—there is no exegesis, only exposition. Making a clear identification of which is which might be daunting except for the fact that passages using the first person plural and taking their point of departure in something specific in the preceding exegesis are expositional. Upon further study it becomes apparent that expositional forays are of a psychologizing and moralizing nature mainly in sporadic outbursts of rage or praise, while those of a theologizing nature are more thoughtful elaborations of what Calvin considers to be the doctrina of the passage before him. When one follows these clues, the distinction is possible to trace with a certain degree of confidence, and the difference is important. Exegesis and exposition represent two distinct modes of revelational communication as Calvin perceives them. But there is a third revelational mode! I wouldn't dare say so except from my own direct observation. This is in fact one of the most exhilarating discoveries of my research on Calvin's commentaries. In scrutinizing the commentary (or as he would say, commentaries) on the Isaianic text, I
DE VRIES John Calvin's Contribution
181
observed that he was wont to pause halfway through his exegesis—not yet having broached his exposition (or as he would say, expositions)—and say, 'as if he said/had said', and then something quite different from what is in the actual biblical text, but regularly phrased as a communication direct from either God or from the prophet and directed to the person or persons addressed in the biblical text. An example: God says to Isaiah in 6.9, 'Go and tell this people, "Hear ye indeed, but understand not; see ye indeed, but perceive not"'. About this Calvin says, 'God is warning the prophet, as if he had said (perinde ac si dicer ef),+"You will indeed teach without any good effect, but do not regret your teaching for the reason that it yields no advantage. Only obey me and leave to my disposal all the consequences of your labors. I give you all this information in good time, that the event may not terrify you, as if it had been strange and unexpected".' One should note the psychologizing and moralizing here! Yahweh is on the stage, admonishing the prophet—and Calvin is pulling the strings! I did a lot of investigating after I saw this happening, and I wish to report the following facts: (1) the 'revelatory epitomes'—as I have called them—are almost always at or near the end of the exegesis concerning a particular phrase from Scripture, and almost never in the exposition; (2) they take off in another direction, distinct from the intent of the prophet; (3) there are three distinct formats, first what I call hypothetical because these always begin, 'as if he said/had said' or something very similar; second, the reportorial, which are syntactically and formally developed out of the aforementioned commentary text through the use of a rather extensive variety of transitional formulas; and the declaratory, which have no introductory formulae whatever and are to be understood as declamations from the stage—an aside, as in Shakespeare—or lofty words from the pulpit or in the courtroom; (4) they appear sporadically in Calvin's commentaries on most New Testament books (Harmony of the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, James, Hebrews, 1-2 Peter, and 1 John) and—for the Old Testament—very frequently in all the prophetic books plus the Psalms, but rarely elsewhere; (5) in the 1559 edition of the Institutes (always while citing texts from Scripture), there are twenty-three instances of the same construction; (6) there are similar passages in Calvin's Seneca commentary, in Oecolampadius' commentary on Isaiah, and in the writings of Andrew of St Victor; (7) there are as many as 337 of these revelatory epitomes scattered unevenly throughout
182
God's Word for Our World
the commentary on Isaiah, from 1.5 to 66.24. One can almost tell in advance whether Calvin will use few or many within a given context, depending on the spiritual stance of the prophet and its subject matter. In seeking to understand this phenomenon, it is well to remember that Calvin was a lawyer as well as a preacher, and evidently an actor as well as a lowly scribbler! This is surely a sign of genius! I shan't say a great deal more about this. One must consult what I hope to be my published volume, Isaiah in the Hands of John Calvin, for further examples and of course an extended interpretation. Yet I pause for one further example from Calvin's comments on the previously cited passage, Isa. 6.9. Following the preceding words of reassurance from God, Isaiah is cited as saying, 'My labors will do no good; but it matters not to me. It is enough that what I do obtains the approbation of God, to whom my preaching will be a sweet smell, though it bring death to you.' This is in format a reportorial citation, belonging to my second classification. Instead of having ac si diceret or the like as an introduction, it begins, 'as if he were deliberately taunting them (ac si data opera illis insultety. But Isaiah doesn't actually say this in the biblical text! No matter, Calvin is putting into words what he believes to be the intent and upshot of Isaiah's entire life and mission, which is to taunt and deride those who won't listen to him! Someone may come back with the objection, 'Ah, but maybe this is just a homiletical trick!' It is well to take this demurrer seriously because in their original form (in a previous life, as it were), almost the entire content of Calvin's biblical commentaries was actually preached from the pulpit. What happened is that shorthand reporters would take an entire sermon down on paper and send this to the printer after Calvin had approved it. Thus what I have called 'revelatory epitomes' were actually in the sermons as preached, and hence the original Sitz im Leben of what I am describing was the pulpit! My response is that, yes, Calvin did put these things into his sermons as voiced from the pulpit, hence their appearance within the published commentaries are like fossils from their previous life. But more must be said. Without denying that they may be explained partially as echoes from the pulpit, I say that we must view them as well as self-conscious literary devices which at least in many instances the reformer employed as a third revelational mode alongside the exegesis and the exposition. The proof for this may be seen in evidence that Calvin actually inserted with his own hand into the revised text of 1559 numerous examples that
DE VRIES John Calvin's Contribution
183
were lacking in the 1551 edition. This, or Calvin inserted a modification of the ac si diceret formula into the 1559 commentary. Either way, Calvin himself worked on them directly. He did not simply copy what was in the first edition. Here is where my strategy of comparing the two editions pays off! He was sick in bed with quartan fever for nine months and made good use of his time, among other things, to republish the Institutes and revise by hand his Isaiah commentary! These new or reshaped 'revelatory epitomes' were therefore primarily literary in origin and design, and in either case theological in intent.5
VI Here is how a typical chapter in my book is constructed. I take my treatment of Isaiah 6 as my example. There are four major sections: (1) a structural outline of the Isaianic text; (2) a succinct treatment of 'major questions in understanding the biblical text'; (3) an analysis of'how Calvin exegeted and expounded the biblical text'; (4) 'evaluation of Calvin's interpretation'. The first two of these major sections are provided as helps to the nonspecialist which also set the parameters for the discussion to follow. For this chapter of Isaiah, I treat briefly the following items: (1) the chapter within the book; (2) historical and ideological background; (3) textual corruptions and literary additions; (4) poetic and prose materials; (5) formal and structural elements; (6) visionary elements in the Old Testament and the call-vision genre; (7) covenant traditions in a Jerusalemite context; (8) divine holiness and the fear of God; (9) ritual cleansing and divine forgiveness; (10) prophetic preaching and the hardness of the heart. This is how I handle the Calvinian text: I follow the same divisions he does (a biblical verse and then its successive phrases; e.g., for Isa. 6.1, 'In the year that king Uzziah died', 'I saw the Lord', 'Sitting upon a throne', 'And his remotest parts filled the temple'). Then I do some inventing by dividing up his discussion of each phrase into what the classical scholars called 'sentences', labeling these with alphabetical letters: a, b, c, d, e, and 5. To be sure, we must think of Calvin as emulating a homiletical form in either case. What matters is that he is rendering the biblical text in another altogether different form, in effect furnishing new words for God or the prophet to speak. This is obviously an extremely subjectivistic practice—one that the reformer put to good use in communicating his opinions to his listeners and readers while providing them with the aura of divine authority.
184
God's Word for Our World
so on, but for each of the subsections I first indicate whether the reformer's discussion belongs to exegesis or to exposition, and within the subsections to which they belong I stop to identify and quote (both in English and in Latin) the revelatory epitomes of the three subtypes mentioned above. I do one more thing. In each subsection I compose a question which may be in his text or is (more likely) implied by what he says. This is followed by a fair paraphrase or summation of his answer to such a question, and then by my own comment upon his answer, which I keep as short as I can but allow to be as lengthy as it needs to be for clarity. The fourth part of my treatment, an evaluation of Calvin's interpretation, follows three main subdivisions: (1) his exegesis; (2) his expositions; and (3) the revelatory epitomes. Under item (1)1 discuss Calvin's competence in Hebrew, exegetical inadequacies, egregious errors and blunders, deliberate omissions, and psychologizing, moralizing, and theologizing intrusions. Under item (2) I provide a structural analysis of the expositions, followed by an interpretation and evaluation of them. Under item (3) I provide a contextual analysis of the revelatory epitomes (asking 'where does the epitome attach?') and then a structural and functional analysis of them. In this way I endeavor to give fair and sufficient attention to each of Calvin's three revelational modes. Nevertheless, it is Calvin's exegesis that concerns me the most because it claims to be—at least in discussing the grammatical-historical meaning—both objective and scientific. The structure of Isaiah 1 as Calvin saw it is not remotely similar to the structural outline that I offered at the beginning of my treatment, and this is true with each of the chapters selected. He sees no inherent structure whatever in the biblical text—which means among other things that he did not recognize major transitions and as a consequence was unable to identify the separate pericopes into which the initial chapter falls. Since all but the superscription and glosses are in poetry, to treat them as prose, as Calvin did, involves missing its one main formal and aesthetic feature. Along with an appreciative, 'How much he has seen', one needs to add, 'How much he has missed!' It is not just the matter of form as such, however, that Calvin failed to deal with, but the intentionality and hence meaning. This need not diminish in the least an appreciation for Calvin's achievement in preparing this commentary on ch. 6. He does clearly point out the exegetical pathway leading away from medieval allegorizing to the recovery of the book's historical rooting. He does take in earnest the life of the prophet and the world in which he lived. He clearly does demonstrate that
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
185
the Bible's meaning is not what the church says it is, but what competent and dedicated study in the presence of the Holy Spirit may enable each new generation to see. VII
How well did this sixteenth-century schoolman-humanist deal with the salient problems of Isaianic interpretation in the familiar sixth chapter? There are many mistakes that are due simply to the limitations of sixteenthcentury scholarship, such as the employment of Jn 12.41 ('Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him') as proof that it was the triune God—including Christ the Son—whom Isaiah was seeing, his confusion about chronology, and his normalizing identification of the seraphim as 'angels'. On the question of the chapter's role within the book, we observe how Calvin's biblicism prevents him from extricating himself out of the consequences of dating Isaiah 1-5 prior to the event of ch. 6; he seems incapable of imagining that the book may have been expanded forward to create a new beginning or that an editor may have composed the superscription in 1.1. As a result he is forced to interpret Isaiah's vision as a reconsecration, not a call, for that happened already in the days of Uzziah, as may be inferred from 1.1. Calvin's explanation for this is that Isaiah needed now to be pepped up to face hard times ahead. The book's true problem of sequence has to do with what Isaiah may have been doing from the time of his temple vision in the year of Uzziah's death (740/39) to the time of the confrontation with Ahaz (734). He does not handle this problem, and he does not see the problem of Jothamic preaching. There are other limitations that prevent Calvin from arriving at a reasonable outcome, however, especially his awkward attempt to explain how Isaiah's lips lost their purity at the sight of the heavenly King, forcing him back into the universal depravity that he shared with his people. He infers that God himself gave the tongs to the seraph, subverting the function of the rite as liturgy, for this is neither stated in the biblical text nor implied by it. Especially unfortunate is his lack of acquaintance with parallel material in the Old Testament itself. He obviously does not know of Micaiah's vision in 1 Kings 22, and as a result has all kinds of makeshift and erroneous suggestions for interpreting the heavenly council, such as the idea that the conversation going on is between the three Persons of the Trinity. He goes on to speak of Isaiah's reply to the heavenly King's question as a 'discourse', with a prearranged design, one consequence of
186
God's Word for Our World
which is that he entirely destroys the emotional quality of Isaiah's enthusiastic, 'Here am I, send me!' He takes the metaphors of captivity and abandonment in Isa. 6.12 as literal predictions of Israel's total annihilation. Also, he is far too bold in his makeshift interpretation of the two varieties of trees in v. 13. In discriminating between prose and poetry in this chapter, Calvin has drawn a blank. The days of Lowth and Herder have not yet arrived! Likewise on form and structure: it is fair to say that Calvin has no sense whatever of the movement of this material; the result is that he does not recognize climax and anticlimax, which is unfortunate in view of how badly he does in neglecting the centrally important words of Isaiah's absolution. It may be added that his feeble grasp of the subtleties of Hebrew syntax, combined with his absolute ignorance of the effect of parallelism in poetry, lie at the basis of his idea that total annihilation is the intent and design of Isaiah's preaching as well as of God's call. Calvin falls short also with respect to the tradition of seeing God or not seeing God, the ideology surrounding Yahweh Sebaoth as King, and the concept of the temple as a model of heaven. He has the materials for all this in his Bible; but as well as he knows his Old Testament, he is obviously not trained to recognize the significance of the competing voices that come to expression within it. Calvin can never be accused of falling short in his appreciation for the psychological impact of a vision such as the one that Isaiah sees. He is in fact acutely aware of what it might be like actually to 'see' God; if anything, he is deeply reverent, and he strongly urges this attitude on his readers. Nevertheless, he does not perform well in interpreting the details of Isaiah's numinous experience, especially the prophet's words of confession and the scene in which the seraph touches his lips with the coal and speaks the oracle of shriving, 'Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven'. This is one, not completely unique, instance in which he censors Scripture by neglecting or ignoring an important element in it. The heart of this chapter's message lies in w. 9-11, and particularly in God's charge to the prophet to cause his hearers not to understand and not to perceive the truth he is proclaiming. Calvin's exegesis for v. 10 arrives at the simplistic conclusion that God surely intends the people's damnation by means of Isaiah's prophesying. Though he goes on at extreme length in the exposition to reconcile God's will to save with his will to condemn, it cannot be said that he rises above self-contradiction and special
DE VRIES John Calvin's Contribution
187
pleading. In sum, he seems incapable of appreciating paradox in Scripture, and wants his doctrine straightforward and simple. John Calvin needs a manageable Bible and a God who never steps out of the doctrinal straitjacket prepared for him. VIII It may be said that Calvin has a fairly good grasp of the historical situation in Isaiah 7 in spite of his neglect of a strikingly divergent parallel in 2 Chronicles 28. He is emotionally biased in his harsh and prejudicial treatment of King Ahaz. As severely as Ahaz is dealt with in the Bible, Calvin deals with him even more harshly. Isaiah had appeared to be handling Ahaz more favorably than he deserved, addressing him urgently but respectfully as the scion of the house of David and the bearer of the dynastic promise. The prophet actually spoke to him in the form of a prophecy of salvation (v. 4), which suggests that what he said was meant as salvific and did not involve irony. The Isaianic text is not impugning Ahaz' motives when he refuses to set a sign for Yahweh to act upon (v. 12). Bad as it may be to 'wear out' God by his vacillation (v. 13), this is not the hypocrisy and apostasy that Calvin blames him for. If inability to trust God's word is a sin—and it is—the Isaianic Ahaz is not committing the great wickedness that Calvin is accusing him of and he is not attempting to prevent the Messianic promise from being fulfilled, as Calvin charges. He probably deserves, better than Calvin can imagine, the somewhat ambiguous assurances of vv. 16-17. Thus Isaiah's portrait of Ahaz allows some white or perhaps some gray, since it is only subsequent tradition, as reflected in other biblical sources, that paints him completely black. Calvin uses only black. In addition to these complaints of bias and inadequacy, I am occasionally forced to accuse Calvin of carelessness and lack of attention. In his handling of v. 4, he mistakes a niphal form for a hiphil, and in referring to God's address to Ahaz alone, he states that God is bidding 'them'—not 'him'—not to fear. In his handling of v. 6 he assigns an unattested psychological meaning to HpU and goes on to identify 'Tabeal' as an Israelite rather than Aramean while overlooking that it is not he, but his 'son', who is expected to take over Ahaz' throne. In his handling of v. 9, Calvin arbitrarily and tendentiously gives the copula 1 the translation 'meanwhile' and interprets the gloss to mean that Israel is to enjoy a truce for 65 years.
188
God's Word for Our World
Concerning the crucial fourteenth verse, Calvin wrongly states that Ahaz refused the sign that the Lord offered him, rather than the invitation to chose a sign. He goes on to argue that the promised 'son' could not have been Isaiah's own offspring because Scripture does not mention a deliverer from the loins of Isaiah (argumentum esilentio!). In commenting on v. 16, he actually seems to be making up his own grammar concerning the Hebrew words T) and ~liwn. As twentieth-century students of literature and history, we are inclined to excuse this kind of inadequacy as perhaps occasioned by the harried reformer's weariness and stress, or simply by insufficient time or inadequate resources. Although admittedly those mentioned are not serious errors, they should not have appeared in a work designed to help ministers and other non-specialists in biblical exegesis. In addition, some errors have clearly arisen from a latent inadequacy in Calvin's ability as a Hebraist; in other instances an error has arisen from a presumptuous boldness on his part that seizes on little understood solutions. Moreover, Calvin's otherwise laudable effort to be consistent, as well as his apparent notion that an inadequate answer is better than no answer at all, adulterates the over-all quality of his treatment, error begetting more error. It hardly needs be said that Calvin's rendering 'virgin' for HO^17 is insupportable. He confidently claims that the word has this meaning because its verbal root means 'to hide', which is what virgins do! To be sure, he is somewhat impressed by the Jewish argument that it cannot mean 'virgin' because 'Solomon' uses it for a nubile girl in the well-known 'way of a man with a maiden' passage, yet he argues that young women are often virgins and that therefore the word must mean 'virgin' here. Noting this striking fallacy of the undistributed middle, I point out that this word is not common, but occurs in only four Old Testament passages, Gen. 24.43 (of Rebekah before her marriage to Isaac), Exod. 2.8 (of Moses' sister), Prov. 30.18-19 ('Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on the rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a maiden'), and here—nowhere suggesting or even insinuating that the young women in question are virgins. The specific Hebrew word for 'virgin' is il'nrQ. Calvin compounds his error when he tries to strengthen his claim by saying, 'We know that to the father is always assigned the right of giving a name to a child, and that hence Immanuel must have had no earthly father to give him his name, and that as a consequence his mother had to have been a virgin'. This is deliberate obfuscation if it is not a display of sheer
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
189
ignorance on Calvin's part. As well as he knew Scripture, he could not have been unaware of those passages in which the mother, actual or proprietary, does in fact name the child: Gen. 4.25 (Eve); 29.32,33,35; 30.6, 8,11,13,18,20,23-24 (Leah and Rachel); Judg. 13.24 (Manoah's wife); and 1 Sam 1.20 (Hannah). Suddenly Calvin seems to realize that this claim would not after all fit the virgin Mary because according to the Gospel, it was the Holy Spirit who gave Jesus his name. To cover his error, Calvin makes up the astounding explanation that Isaiah's 'virgin' actually occupied the office of apraeco, 'town-crier', and in this office was making a public announcement of the name rather than actually naming the child on her own volition. Not only is this outrageous statement without any Scriptural foundation, it trivializes the whole conception of this as a holy event. We were rather expecting that this would be the line of Calvin's explanation, but this image of stubborn-headed attachment to erroneous exegesis is a sharp disappointment. IX
Isaiah 8.1-9.6 (Eng. 9.7) is an unusually difficult passage of the Old Testament. Even in our time, it remains a crux. Perhaps its very obscurity is a testimony to the urgency of its correct interpretation already back then in the time of Isaiah. His disciples and redactors, too, tried again and again to get it right! This confusion and apparent disarray may actually have been a direct result of the catastrophic times in which these words were written. 'But why', Calvin might have thought, 'did the prophet Isaiah have to write so obscurely?', and 'Why did not the Holy Spirit preserve a better document?' If Calvin had these misgivings, this did not keep him from working at his commentary with will and determination. His inability to produce a more faithful and insightful commentary should, however, stand as a continuing caution to any and all who assay to write their own commentaries. If even the best of men can botch things so badly, may the less than best take warning! Calvin wanted very much to do well in interpreting the very important material in this section of Isaiah. He had of course accepted the church's claim that it points directly to Jesus Christ, and to him alone, and from that assumption everything else proceeds. However, the misconstruals flowing from this dubious assumption are not the chief source of mischief in his exegesis of this chapter. The worst source of offense is his prudery and keen sense of embarrassment at the mention of anything sexual.
190
God's Word for Our World
We need no longer doubt that Calvin has enough knowledge of Hebrew to enable him to do the kind of exegesis that underlies his treatment of this passage. It goes without saying that he is doing many things right, but it would be patronizing to point out each and every instance of adequate and even exemplary Hebrew philology in his treatment. If I were to make such a list, however, I would immediately have to make another, ten times longer, in which he shows that he knows what the Hebrew means, but interprets it wrongly. Calvin might have become a master Hebraist through the experience he was acquiring through composing these Old Testament commentaries, but he really did not know if he was doing wrong or right, and apparently had no one to moderate his progress. It would be rash to claim that Calvin has successfully elucidated this crucial passage. Instead he has wrought vast confusion. His successful exegesis in one passage is often imperiled by his inadequacies in the next. He does poorly as a literary critic, historian, and biblical theologian, recognizing very few literary clues and making a mess of the history that lies behind this admittedly mysterious passage. Certain of Calvin's errors may be blamed on the fairly primitive state of Old Testament studies, such as an unawareness of the cult of the dead underlying 8.19, an unfamiliarity with the evidence for late dating for the book of Deuteronomy, his ignorance concerning the Assyrian provincial system in Palestine, and a lack of acquaintance with the Egyptian parallels to Isaiah's throne-names. Other errors arise because of his defective training as a biblical exegete, out of his misuse or disuse of scholarly helps, from a lack of sufficiently close attention to the ancient text, or sometimes out of simple bias. As an example of the last, I would point to his outrageous claim that the birth of the prophet's 'son' mentioned in 8.3-4 was purely visionary. There was no sexual intercourse between a father and a mother, and there was no actual child! As a result of this astounding error, Calvin is led to commit a new error in claiming that the 'sealing' and 'binding' mentioned in 8.16 are carried out to prepare Isaiah and his disciples for speaking openly and boldly—precisely the opposite of what one would expect of'sealing' and 'binding'. He is led also to interpret the expression 'behold I' in 8.18 as an indication of intense eagerness on Isaiah's part to engage in public preaching, while demoting 'the children' mentioned here to the status of mere disciples rather than actual progeny. In the effort to maintain this absurd line of interpretation, he goes on to claim that the prophet and his disciples were 'signs and wonders' only in the sense that they were 'monsters'— actual monstrosities of some kind! In this way Calvin twists something
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
191
good—divine confirmations of his revelatory message in the names given the prophet's sons—into something bad—slanderous reproaches that are to be cast on him and his disciples. It goes on like this. The title 'son' in 9.6 is the complete and necessary equivalent to 'Son of God'. Christ is called an 'everlasting Father' in the sense that he is the 'author' or 'originator' of the universe. The 'great light' of 9.2 can mean only the end of the Babylonian captivity (a more probable likelihood is that it designates an earlier event in the time of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, Sennacherib's predecessor), yet Calvin claims that God's deed of deliverance being celebrated in the hymn of 9.1-5 comes to its culmination in Jesus Christ. What then about the huge chronological gap between 539 BCE and 30 CE? Calvin says that this does not matter because the event of 539 is no more than a typical, penultimate realization—thus no true historical event—of what Isaiah was in fact predicting! X
In exegeting my next selection, Isaiah 22, Calvin shows that he is utterly unable to catch the spirit of an existential, eschatological, eminently revelatory event as a sign of God's presence in history. In this respect he is like all biblical literalists, insisting that this happened precisely as stated, but unable to make good theological sense out of it. The reformer knew less about biblical times than one would think. He has a misconception of how ancient Palestinian housetops were constructed and put to use, a misconception of what the tumult in Jerusalem mentioned in v. 2 was about, a misunderstanding of the Hebraic concept of God's self-revelation in history, as mentioned in vv. 5, 8,12,20,25, an unawareness of a disrupting gloss in v. 6, and a misunderstanding of the change in person in v. 8. He does especially badly with vv. 15-25 and completely confuses the references to Shebna and Eliakim, going so far as to claim that the former was usurping the position of the latter, when it was just the other way around. Calvin fails like many other past and present commentators to recognize the significance of the phrase 'in that day', in future reference as a structural marker in vv. 20 and 25, parallel to the two occurrences of the same phrase in past reference as a structural marker in vv. 8 and 12, both of which serve to explicate the theological meaning of' Yahweh's day of tumult, trampling and confusion' mentioned in v. 5. Because he does not perceive the paradox of divine presence in historical event, he wrongly imagines that the people on the housetops are fleeing in fright,
192
God's Word for Our World
that Isaiah is putting on an act when he weeps, that those who revel and carouse have provoked God to pronounce imminent condemnation on them, and that God never smiles nor laughs. Calvin's misconstrual in this chapter is a prime illustration of the dependence of historical reconstruction upon an adequate literary criticism. When exegesis fails, historical reconstruction becomes more obscure than ever. What Calvin has done with this passage is in fact so bad that nothing beyond moral platitudes can be drawn from it. He cannot abide paradox, particularly when it concerns God's presence in time and history. He believes firmly that man must stay in his place and that God must stay in his place. Even while God foreordains and governs human event, he only appears in history supernaturally, never as the infinite dimension of all that is finite.
XI We come now to Calvin's interpretation of Isaiah 36-37. This unusually lengthy passage is mainly in narrative form, but on close examination it proves to be the discourses—what people say—that are dominant. I was somewhat gratified right at the beginning of his treatment to find that Calvin reads his text carefully enough to ask some of the relevant questions required for critical understanding, but this favorable impression did not last long. In commenting on 36.2 he observes an inconcinnity in that the preceding verse reports Sennacherib's attack on 'all' the fortified cities of Judah, presumably including Jerusalem, yet the narrative proceeds to tell of this king's 'large' army attacking Jerusalem. An alarm goes up for Calvin, as it should for any careful reader. What is happening? Calvin asks the question but does not answer it. He might have gone immediately to the parallel passage in 2 Kings, where he would have found a sizeable intrusion (18.14-16) between the two events recorded. This makes the transition even more difficult. Calvin would certainly not have known how to solve the discrepancy, but he would have at least realized that there is serious literary discrepancy in this passage needing to be dealt with. In matter of fact, there are two independent narratives here that are interwoven with each other, the first in Isa. 36.1-37.9a, 37-38, and the second in Isa. 37.9b-36, in addition to a number of glosses and small expansions. Calvin does not recognize this essential literary fact and he scarcely notices that Hezekiah plays a far more decisive role in the second account than in the first account. He does not express surprise that the timid king
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
193
who previously appealed to the prophet for intercessory prayer (37.4) now prays mightily in his own words (vv. 16-20), venturing so far as to inform Yahweh why he should make known to all kingdoms that he is a true and living God, unlike the gods of the heathen! Here Calvin has his best opportunity to retell biblical history according to his own predilections, for the theme of the passage is a mighty combat between two primeval forces, God on the one side and Sennacherib (a.k.a. Satan) on the other. Hezekiah is not a surrogate for Yahweh because he is weeping and cringing, and needs his faith bucked up; Isaiah is there to speak for Yahweh. Calvin places special emphasis on Hezekiah's weakness in order to magnify God's victory. He enters personally into the action by analyzing the state of mind of each protagonist, including that of God. His hubris and urge to control drive him into reproducing how each actor behaves, and why—and then into moral judgment upon each individual's behavior. One important element in these two originally separate accounts that has not been lost is that of the supernatural, but each account presents it differently. The supernatural appears imminently in the first account in the mysterious 'spirit' which Yahweh prepares for Sennacherib (37.7) and transcendently in the devastating angel of the second account (37.36). The first mode is characteristic of the prophet-legend genre as seen in a variety of scriptural examples, in spite of the occasional emergence of transcendental elements such as Elijah's fire and whirlwind (1 Kgs 18; 2 Kgs 2). The second mode is characteristic of scenes of theophany in general. Though such elements may be early (as in the Yahwistic and Elohistic strands in Exod. 19-20), they become increasingly common in the more schematic and artificial wisdom and apocalyptic documents of later times. Calvin comes close to making this highly exaggerated supernatural element the main thing in the entire passage, less for its function as narrative than for its representative and didactic purpose. Neglecting a realistic portrayal of the actions of the historical kings, their emissaries, and their rival military forces, Calvin sets up a stagey drama whose sole purpose is to portray the cosmic contest between good and evil, between God and Satan, and in which the denouement is a foregone conclusion. In this way, metaphor is turned into dogma. Thus Calvin's slobbering Hezekiah and diabolical Sennacherib are more like Job's moralistic friends than like Job himself—which is to say that his theology of history, as exhibited in his interpretation of these two chapters, is wooden, driven, and utterly doctrinaire. Unknown to him, Calvin's
194
God's Word for Our World
biblical theology is well on its way toward the absolute dualism of the apocalypticism that emerged at the end of the biblical period, coming to rival and eventually to banish authentic prophetism during the era of the second temple.
XII Finally I studied Calvin's handling of a great lyrical passage from the sixth-century Isaiah school, Isa. 44.24-45.13, which celebrates Yahweh's commission to Cyrus as his 'anointed'. What Calvin does with this—or does not do—demonstrates clearly that biblical history without sound exegesis cannot be understood adequately, and that theology without sound exegesis will inevitably founder on the shores of dogmatism. There are good and correct things in the reformer's treatment of this material, but there are far more negative elements. For one thing, he does not see this as a sharply defined pericope spanning parts of two chapters. He has a difficult time right at the start in his effort to explain 44.24, 'Thus says Yahweh your redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth—who was with me?"' Calvin tries to explain God's work as redeemer exclusively on the basis of the exodus from Egypt— which might be true of the Old Testament as a whole, but Second Isaiah is obviously applying this image to the new event of Cyrus' appearance upon the horizon of history. He claims that the reference to God as 'Maker' is meant only with regard to spiritual regeneration. He tries in vain to explain that the expression, 'from the womb' simply means that God's benefits are underserved. He says that God's 'stretching out the heavens' stands for nothing more than his administration of the universe. This is the way it is going to go with everything that follows; Calvin will resist the prophet's lyricism and all eschatological excitement with his tired dogmatisms and moralisms! I shall not offer numerous details, but will rely on a few examples to suggest the others. With regard to 44.26 he has trouble with the phrase, 'his servant', explaining it all too readily as a reference to Isaiah himself or to the prophets as a group—which gives away what needs to be determined by careful analysis. He claims that 'counsel' refers to God's eternal decrees rather than to prophetic inspiration and that the mention of Jerusalem is no more than as a pedagogical device. On 44.27 Calvin attempts to explain 'drying up the rivers' as a metaphor for God's management of
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
195
unexpected changes generally.6 Verse 28 is especially difficult for him. He argues that because Isaiah has no factual historical information about Cyrus, he must be speaking purely from divine inspiration. Jerusalem is mentioned, he says, merely as an encouragement to the exiles to hope in the promise of deliverance. Going on to 45.1—which is in actuality a continuation of the same poem, though he does not recognize it—Calvin resists the obvious comparison of Cyrus to Christ with the insupportable claim that in Cyrus' case the title 'anointed' (= 'messiah') is no more than a formal and temporary title. God will literally hold Cyrus' right hand and assist him with direct material aid in his march to Babylon. From the metaphor of the opening of the gates he draws the moralizing conclusion that it never does any good to try to keep the Lord out when he wishes to enter. On 45.2-3, Calvin argues that 'calling thee by name' does not refer to Cyrus' birth, and that the universal knowledge that Cyrus has of God is not an intimate and familiar knowledge—certainly not a saving knowledge—but only an administrative capability. On 45.5, Calvin states that God is repeating his self-identification for the sole purpose of threatening Cyrus. In commenting on 45.6-8, he struggles ineffectively to explain how the world is to receive the knowledge that the God of Israel is in truth the power responsible for Cyrus' victories. In attempting to explain 45.9-10, he finds himself 180 degrees off course in his claim that the pot and potter and the son and the father metaphors are being used as an admonition not to murmur about one's afflictions, when in simple truth they are here because they are loaded with theological meaning. Calvin is just as much off course in taking the reference to 'potsherds' to mean that people should not argue with God, only with one another. On 45.11 -12, Calvin urges that what God says should not be taken as an answer to what is stated in v. 1, lest our human penchant to argue with God should seem to be approved. Failing to understand that v. 1 Ib is a rhetorical question that requires a negative answer ('Will you question me about my children or command me concerning the work of my hands? Certainly not!'), he flounders about for an explanation for God's apparent invitation to argue with him. In spite of God's explicit statement in v. 13, 'he shall build my city', Calvin insists that Cyrus definitely did not rebuild Jerusalem, but at most 6. Immediately he discards this explanation when he wakes up to the realization that it refers after all to the crossing of the Reed Sea.
196
God's Word for Our World
authorized and supported the work. Because he cannot imagine that the prophet who spoke these words may literally have meant that Cyrus would accomplish this feat, he searches for contrived answers. He is unable to entertain the possibility that this prediction may have been nullified by later events because this would have meant that there could be real contradictions in Scripture. Thus Calvin fails to respond either to aesthetic elements in this grand poem or to its marvelous theological affirmation, ending up with the moralizing and psychologizing observations that are so characteristic of him. XIII Calvin does not seem to realize that this great passage of Scripture is bountifully joyful and is designed to make its readers joyful. The style and the sound in themselves invite us to think of a God great enough to summon from afar a potentate to serve him as his 'messiah'! Furthermore, the promise of unexpected deliverance for the Jewish exiles is surpassed by an even more lovely theme—the conversion of the entire world! It can be no surprise that a man who has no capacity for appreciating the beauty and power of this great poem proves as well to have no capacity for grasping the excitement of its message. Little does Calvin realize that this passage gives an answer to the urgent and persistent question of Yahweh's harsh dealing with his people Israel—the most serious in the entire Old Testament: (1) first, Isaiah ben Amoz had proclaimed that, although Samaria had fallen, Jerusalem would never succumb because Yahweh had guaranteed his protection. It did not in fact fall during the lifetime of the model king, Hezekiah; but as we know that king was able to save the city only by submitting to Assyrian power. (2) Several rulers of his lineage managed to remain on the throne in Jerusalem, but when Babylonian imperialism took the place of Assyrian imperialism, the city was at last destroyed and its king and people were taken away to become permanent exiles. Jeremiah and Ezekiel then announced that it had been Yahweh's will after all to allow his city to be ruined, not because he actually wanted it that way, but because the people's unrepentance, idolatry, and rebellion made it inevitable. (3) Disciples eventually arose to continue the tradition of these two great prophets, but announcing that the break between Yahweh and his people was not final, that somehow their grim fate would be reversed. (4) It was, however, a disciple of Isaiah who identified and welcomed a particular person who would perform this. This was the
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
197
prophet whom scholars today call 'Second Isaiah', but he did not merely make the prediction that city, land and people would be restored, nor did he only identify Cyrus as the effectuator. He proclaimed as well that the heathen nations into whose hands the exiles had been delivered would themselves become involved in the saving process and would actually be included among its beneficiaries! In the passage that we are considering, he repeats a saying from Yahweh, 'I am Yahweh, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I gird you [Cyrus], though you do not know me, that men may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am Yahweh, and there is no other' (Isa. 45.5-6) (5). Thus not only are the Jews to know Yahweh, but all men, from east to west, are to know him! This is the ultimate affirmation in Second Isaiah's preaching and, indeed, the highest achievement of the illustrious Isaiah school: not only that the Jewish exiles should be delivered; not only that Yahweh had designated the heathen Cyrus to effectuate that deliverance; but that the true reason for Israel's downfall and ruin was to bring all of humanity to salvation in Yahweh himself.
XIV John Calvin succeeded in showing the church how vital it is to its spirituality to remain on familiar terms with its heritage from the Old Testament. True, it did take him a long time to get around to Isaiah, but once he published his commentary on this grand volume standing at the head of the entire roll of Israelite prophets, he persisted until he had included all the other prophetic books, and a goodly number of the remaining Old Testament books besides. Calvin must have summoned enough self-confidence to think that he was sufficiently well prepared to handle both the intricacies of the Hebrew language and the mysteries of Israelite prophecy, but as we have seen he often faltered in both, though not so as to render his book worthless. On the contrary, we know that Calvin's Isaiah commentary was well received and widely used, to the extent that a second edition—unique in Calvin's publishing programme—was soon required. Part of the reason for that popularity was the book of Isaiah itself—the striking language, the magnificent thought, the grand spirituality—and part of the reason was the impact of Calvin's own piety and doctrine as they emerge upon these pages.
198
God's Word for Our World
A definite factor in the popularity of a well-written commentary on Isaiah like this was the appeal of Calvin's explanation of the so-called 'messianic' passages, particularly those in Isa. 7.14 and 9.6, for their presumed christological affirmations. We have seen that he took them on without fear or hesitation and emerged with a strong apologia for the traditional doctrine. At least, in treating the two passages mentioned, he did make an earnest try at relating the doctrinal meaning that he extracted to the ostensible bearing of the text within its own historical and ideological context. By the time he got down to writing on the famous Suffering Servant passage, Isa. 52.13-53.12, Calvin had given up any such effort and went straight through from beginning to end with the claim that this ancient prophet is speaking directly and exclusively of Jesus Christ, implying nothing whatever regarding the contemporary situation and concerns of Isaiah's (or Second Isaiah's) own time. It is this kind of abdication of exegetical responsibilities on crucial issues that has rendered fruitful Jewish-Christian dialogue impossible until recent times, especially on questions of biblical interpretation, and it has played as well an important role in making historical criticism so irruptive and seemingly destructive when it came upon the scene of European culture towards the beginning of the eighteenth century. The general attitude among church leaders was that the great scholars of the Reformation and Post-Reformation periods had already dealt competently with these problems, so critical questions should be let lie and not be allowed to disrupt the peace of the church. Those who were satisfied that scholars like Calvin had said the last word were inoculated against newer and better ways of doing biblical exegesis. Be this as it may, I take it as my final task to bear testimony to the benefits of a less dogmatic nature that church and theology have derived from the diligent work of Calvin in producing this and his other Old Testament and New Testament commentaries. Once the question of christological centrism is set aside, his complete seriousness in dealing with the Old Testament, showing it equal regard alongside the New Testament, leaves the strong impression that it must be especially revered as a witness to the Word of God by Christians in every age (this way of putting it is more faithful to Calvin's doctrine of the 'testimony of the Holy Spirit' than the dictum of Reformed scholasticism as it has emerged in fundamentalist form in our time, claiming that the Bible as a book is tantamount to, or equivalent to, the Word of God).
DEVRIES John Calvin's Contribution
199
Thus there has never been any question among Calvin's followers within the Reformed churches that Christian piety and morality are based equally on the Old and on the New Testament. The danger here, no doubt, is a moralistic or even legalistic ethic coupled with a literalistic biblicism on the one hand, and a sterile prepositional dogmatism on the other. If those dangers can be avoided, modern readers of Isaiah have in Calvin's commentary a basis for holding fast to 'the whole counsel of God' as it has been revealed long ago to the prophets and apostles, and in the fullness of time in him who was a supreme embodiment of Isaiah's vision.
GUESS WHO is COMING TO DINNER! JEREMIAH 29.1 -9 AS AN INVITATION TO RADICAL SOCIAL CHANGE W. Eugene March
Introduction Simon De Vries has contributed much to those who have read his work and/or had the pleasure of conversing directly with him. One insight has to do with the connection between biblical study and the living of life. The 'end' of scholarly work is not to be found in itself. The more significant contribution such work makes lies in its capacity to aid us in better engaging life in light of a better understanding of God's ways and purposes. This chapter is offered in that spirit. The book of Jeremiah, since its inception, has been a rich resource for those trying to make sense out of the trials and challenges of life. Jeremiah 29 is one well-explored section of this significantly important document that has enabled (and continues to enable) countless persons to face and live through disastrous social collapses. Praying for one's enemies and adopting a 'pluralist' stance toward them was and is 'radical', and, at least some of the time, perhaps it is even 'effective'. What are some of the implications of Jeremiah's 'Letter to the Exiles'? If Jeremiah's exhortation is attended, who in fact might come to dinner? An exploration of these questions is the subject of this study. Jeremiah 29 is the concluding chapter of a section within the book of Jeremiah that may have had a separate 'literary' life before its inclusion in the book as a whole.1 Be that as it may, chs. 27-29 now stand after 1. For a discussion of this possibility, see Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 229-32; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 22-23; Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise and Thomas J. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC, 27; Dallas: Word Books, 1995), pp. 35-38; Patrick D. Miller, The Book of Jeremiah', in Leander Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), VI, p. 778.
MARCH Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner!
201
Jeremiah's 'Temple Sermon' (Jer. 26) and serve to document the violent reactions of some officials of the royal establishment, along with those of some of the other prophets of the time, to Jeremiah's announcement of the impending destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem.2 Jeremiah 27 clearly presents Jeremiah's conviction that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was God's appointed agent to rule over Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, and Judah (Jer. 27.2-7). Any nation that resisted was threatened with extinction (27.8-11). Jeremiah delivered his word to King Zedekiah as well as to the priests and prophets of Jerusalem (27.12-22). Nebuchadnezzar had already looted the temple and taken many officials into exile in 598/7 BCE (Jer. 29.2; 2 Kgs 24.10-17). But in 594 BCE3 some prophets remaining in Jerusalem as well as some in Babylon were insisting that Nebuchanezzar's domination would soon by ended (Jer. 27.14-16). Hananiah in Jerusalem (28.1-4) and Ahab, Zedekiah, and Shemaiah in Babylon (29.15-32) were explicitly singled out by Jeremiah for rebuke. Jeremiah was certain that God intended to place Judah under the dominion of Babylon for at least two generations (29.10). After that, and only after that, and then only if the people truly sought God, return might be possible (29.11-14). Two basic themes, two divine imperatives, echo through chs. 27-29: first, the call to submit to Nebuchadnezzar and, second, the admonition to reject the announcements of Jeremiah's prophetic rivals who were encouraging a false hope of an early return from Babylon to Jerusalem. The structure of ch. 29 has been much debated.4 Various translations divide the chapter differently.5 The history of the redaction of the chapter 2. For a discussion of the interaction between prophets, see Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 523-24; R.E. Clements, Jeremiah (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), pp. 153-60,165-68; Simon J. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 141-51; Miller, Jeremiah, p. 794; Thomas W. Overholt, 'Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False Prophecy', JAAR 35 (1967), pp. 241-49. 3. For a consideration of some of the issues surrounding the dating of this passage, see Clements, Jeremiah, pp. 170-71; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, pp. 31-33; J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 544. 4. See Holladay, Jeremiah, pp. 134-37; Miller, Jeremiah, pp. 791-92. 5. For instance, RSV, NRSV and Niv consider chs. 1-23 and chs. 24-32 as two major sections with slightly different indication of sub-sections (paragraphs) within each; JB has the same major sections but arranges the text in accord with the LXX, by placing vv. 10-15 between vv. 7 and 8, thus creating a different order and division of the sub-sections.
202
God's Word for Our World
is still in dispute.6 What is indisputable is that there are nine appearances of the 'messenger formula', koh 'amar YHWff(Jer.++++++++++++++++++++ 25,31,32), which divide the chapter into a number of 'communications'. It is perhaps the case that 30.1-3 should be understood as the conclusion of this section of Jeremiah because the 'messenger formula' occurs once again at 30.2 seeming to link it with the preceding sections. Here Jeremiah was instructed to inscribe the words he had received in a seper (NRSV translates as 'book'), recalling the introductory verses of ch. 29 where seper (NRSV translates as 'letter') was used in reference to the communication that Jeremiah sent to the exiles (29.1). The 'paragraph' markings of Codex Leningradensis offer some support for such a suggestion by indicating 20.1 -7,29.8-29, and 29.30-30.3, as three 'units' within this body of tradition.7 It seems clear in the final arrangement of the tradition that the 'false prophets' provide the unifying theme in these chapters. But the 'original' communication sent from Jeremiah to the community in Babylon dealt with another very important matter as well (29.4-7, perhaps including 8-9). Indeed, one of the prophetic rivals of Jeremiah, Shemaiah, seems to have made reference to it. Shemaiah was remembered to have sought the rebuke of Jeremiah as a 'madman' (29.24-27). Why? Because, so Shemaiah charged, Jeremiah was saying scandalous things. Jeremiah had dared suggest to the exiled community, concerning the length of their anticipated stay in Babylon, that: 'It will be a long time; build houses and live in them, and plant gardens and eat what they produce' (29.28). Clearly this is a reference back to 29.5 and a substantiation concerning the 'initiating' message preserved in this complex chapter. In the final form of the book the dispute between Jeremiah and those other prophets who were trying to negate Jeremiah's message became the primary concern. But initially Jeremiah's instructions to the community concerning how to adjust to the very new challenge of living in foreign, enemy territory were probably paramount. The relationship of Jeremiah the prophet with others in the exilic period known as the 'Deuteronomists' who preserved the book of Deuteronomy and produced the 'Deuteronomistic History' continues to be debated.8 6. See the literature cited in n. 1. 7. See William R. Scott, A Simplified Guide to BHS (Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1987), p. 1, for a brief explanation of 'paragraph markings' in Codex Leningradensis. 8. For a consideration of such relationships, see Holladay, Jeremiah, pp. 53-64, 85-86.
MARCH Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner!
203
What is clear is that Jeremiah's message, as preserved in 29.4-7, engages some of the specific language and teaching of Deuteronomy, but in somewhat unexpected ways. Rather than 'inheriting' houses and vineyards that they neither built nor planted (Deut. 6.10; 8.12), Jeremiah's audience was admonished to 'build' and to 'plant' (Jer. 29.5; cf. 1.10). The exiles were entering a new land, as had their ancestors, but their task and challenge were quite different. To the total surprise of both those remaining in Jerusalem and those taken away as captives, Jeremiah saw the community in Babylon as the point of God's ongoing interest and commitment to the future (Jer. 24.1-10). Jeremiah's announcement was extraordinary! To be in Babylon was to be understood not only negatively as the consequence of covenantal curse, but also positively as the result of divine providence. Such a word seemed to stand in stark contrast to Mosaic tradition. According to Deuteronomy, the welfare of the community depended totally on obedience to God as demonstrated in observance of the covenant. If God's way was followed, great blessing would come to the community (Deut. 28.3-14). Prosperity and dominion were the positive results and signs of obeying God's instructions. But disobedience brought disaster, including exile (28.36). In exile, any efforts at building, planting, marrying, having children, would be fruitless. Curses rather than blessings were the consequence when the covenant was violated (28.14-46). The evidence was in. Disaster had come. The people to whom Jeremiah wrote had been taken into exile. This was a clear sign of covenantal disobedience! Deuteronomy was unequivocal! But the prophet Jeremiah, though clearly aware of the tradition in Deuteronomy, did not see this exile as a 'community-ending' curse. Certainly divine judgment had fallen on Judah(cf. Jer. 5.20-31; 15.5-9; 18.13-17; 45.4-5; 52.3), but that was not the end of the story. Jeremiah had been commissioned to attend over God's work of plucking up and pulling down, destroying and overthrowing, building and planting (Jer. 1.10). At various points through the book of Jeremiah God's authority over the nations—including Judah—is reiterated using this language. Like a potter, God has the freedom to 'pluck up and break down and destroy' or to 'build and plant' (18.7, 9; cf. 45.4). The image is extended to individuals as well (31.27-30). Indeed, in Jeremiah's vision of the 'good figs' and 'bad figs', God's promise to return the 'good figs' (those in exile) to the land of Judah is articulated using this very language. God's word to Jeremiah is this:
204
God's Word for Our World I will set my eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up, and not tear them down; I will plant them, and not pluck them up. I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart. (24.6-7)
In light of the above, the power of Jeremiah's admonition to the exiles is all the more striking. While waiting for God's restoration, the exiles were to participate in the same activity ascribed to God. They were to 'build' and 'plant' (29.5). And though they were justly in exile because of their disobedience, they would be able to live in the houses they built and eat of the gardens they planted (29.5; cf. Deut. 28.25-46). Building and planting in a foreign land! What a turn in the 'accepted' theological understanding, at least that preserved in the book of Deuteronomy! Babylon was a place of judgment, but it was also a place of new beginnings, a place where God's blessings would be realized. Not only were the exiles to build and plant. Such activities might have been seen as 'temporary' measures to enable survival for a few years. But there was more. They were to 'take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease' (29.6). These instructions make clear that the stay will be for at least two, possibly three, generations. Indeed, later history testifies to the fact that many of these transplanted Judeans, and the families they nourished, never returned to Judah.9 The language used in Jeremiah's communication is particularly interesting. The instruction to 'multiply' recalls other such admonitions. In 23.3 the community was told that God would one day restore those scattered into exile with the result that they would 'be fruitful and multiply' (cf. 30.19). Deuteronomy reminded the people that God had made them numerous when they were slaves in Egypt (Deut. 1.10; cf. Exod. 1.7, 20) and would continue so to bless them if they remained true to the covenant (Deut. 7.13). And of course, the Priestly tradition, with its insistence on the significant place of human involvement in God's creative plan, sounds loudly in the background of Jeremiah's words. God created humankind for the express purpose of being 'fruitful' and 'multiplying', of'filling the earth' and exercising appropriate dominion therein (Gen. 1.28; cf. 9.1). Such was a major part of human duty. While Jer. 29.6 uses only one of the 9. The fact that a very large community of Jews survived in Babylon is witnessed, among other things, by the later development of the Babylonian Talmud.
MARCH Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner!
205
terms found in other texts, 'multiply', the context invites a connection to the larger tradition of the vocation conferred by God on the human family. Whether Jeremiah had direct recourse to either the Deuteronomistic or the Priestly traditions cannot be determined absolutely, but that there is some connection seems hard to deny. One consequence of Jeremiah's admonition was to understand 'Babylon' in a new manner. While there are texts that talk about God's work of amplifying the community after it is restored to Judea (Jer. 23.3; 30.19), in 29.6 the task begins immediately in Babylon. Jeremiah understood this land, so foreign and dangerous in the eyes of the Judeans, as part of God's creation. As Israel had flourished in Egypt for a time, so the exiles could multiply in Babylon. To be sure, it was difficult to sing God's songs by the rivers of Babylon (cf. Ps. 137). Nonetheless they were instructed by the prophet to view Babylon with different eyes, to see Babylon, hated Babylon, as a new home where they could and should fulfill the age-old charge to all of humanity to be fruitful and multiply. The challenge posed by Jeremiah should not be under-estimated. The domination of first Assyria and then Babylonia created both fear and hatred. Words of severe judgment against Babylon for its pride and insolence, for instance, are preserved elsewhere in both Isaiah (Isa. 13-14) and Jeremiah (Jer. 50-51). Babylon was long considered the epitome of godlessness. To view life in Babylon as anything other than an experience of pain and defeat, the very punishment of God, was difficult. And this is what Jeremiah's communication required. Further, to propagate involved unimaginable interaction with the Babylonian population. Jeremiah instructed the exiles themselves both to marry and to arrange marriages for their children (29.6). While it might be possible to argue that the selection of these marriage partners was to be restricted only to other Judeans who had been taken into exile, that is not the simplest or apparent meaning of the text. Rather, the prophet seems to mean that the exiled Judeans should 'intermarry' with their new Babylonian 'neighbors'. It seems clear that those taken into exile were accompanied by their wives or were without family (cf. 2 Kgs 24.13-17). There is no suggestion that any large number of unmarried females were included among the company deported. Thus, the 'multiplying' that Jeremiah called for necessitated, initially at least, finding wives outside the immediate community for the unmarried, male deportees, and subsequently, perhaps, for the children who would be born of those unions as well.
206
God's Word for Our World
Such 'exogamous' marriages were not the norm among Jeremiah's people. While the tradition did remember marriages of 'foreign' women with some of the prominent leaders of the past (e.g. Joseph, Moses, David, et a/.), such unions were not the norm in later times. The 'Deuteronomistic' interpreters, for instance, specifically chastised Solomon for his many foreign wives, citing Deut. 7.1-6 as their authority (1 Kgs 11.1-2). The Priestly interpreters, at least so far as their position seems to be reflected later in Ezra and Nehemiah, took a similar, negative view of intermarriage (cf. Ezra 10.10-44; Neh. 10.28-31; Exod. 34.11-16). Taking wives from outside the recognized ethnic group, marrying 'foreigners', entering into 'exogamous' marriages, therefore, was basically unacceptable. Jeremiah's instructions were indeed radical, scandalous! Settle down in 'enemy' territory and live out the divine mandate to multiply and not decrease. God was going to create, with human participation of course, a new community with which to continue God's purposes. This community was redefined without reference to the land of Canaan or to the temple of Solomon. Further, Jeremiah's exhortation in God's name implied that 'outsiders' would have a crucial role in creating this new community. The risk of being 'polluted by idolaters' (Exod. 34.11-16; Deut. 7.1-6) was considered worth taking by Jeremiah, apparently, because he was certain that God had a different understanding of what was possible and necessary. The exiles were specifically instructed to do what was necessary in order to prosper, that is, to 'multiply' and 'not decrease'. Guess who was coming to dinner: new people, 'foreigners', 'Babylonians'! Outsiders were going to be invited to the table as part of the divine strategy to insure the continuation of God's story! And Jeremiah wasn't through. Not only were these displaced, warshocked, unwilling 'immigrants', these Judean exiles, instructed to put down roots, to build houses, plant gardens, and start new families, they were also admonished to 'seek the welfare' of Babylon and 'pray to the Lord on its behalf (29.7). The physical interweaving of this portion of God's 'chosen' with those clearly understood as 'enemy' was not to be interpreted simply as an unfortunate byproduct of the extremities of war. Jeremiah's message established a 'spiritual' connection as well. To follow Jeremiah's instructions required an acknowledgment to some measure of the mutuality of Judeans and Babylonians, at least so far as the exiled community of Judeans was concerned. In another story about another time, a Moabitess named Ruth pledged to her Judahite mother-in-law Naomi: 'Where you go, I will go; where you
MARCH Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner!
207
lodge, I will lodge; your people will be my people, and your God my God' (Ruth 1.16). Jeremiah envisioned a similarly close connection between the Judean exiles and their Babylonian neighbors. The commitment Jeremiah urged was one that required the Judeans to give serious attention to the 'welfare' of Babylon. The exiles were instructed to 'seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare' (29.7). There is a textual variance with the Hebrew supporting the term 'the city' and the Greek the term 'the earth' or 'the land'. The Hebrew is followed here, but the term is understood as a synecdoche.10 The term 'city' includes in its meaning the whole of the broader 'land' in which the Judeans now lived. With either reading, however, what is clearly at stake is a commitment to the welfare of their place of habitation. The term rendered 'welfare', shalom, as is well known, has a rich spectrum of nuance. Shalom refers to the absence of war, to health, to wholeness, to success, to prosperity, to safety. Among the more than two-dozen occurrences of the term in the book of Jeremiah, a number of these nuances are encountered. But there is a particular cluster of ideas especially important in Jeremiah. Much of Jeremiah's opposition against the 'false prophets' centered on their message of shalom to the community. Jeremiah heard other prophets assuring the people that everything was going to be all right, despite the clear signs that war was rapidly approaching. They said: 'It shall be well (shalom) with you', and 'No calamity shall come upon you' (23.17; cf. 4.10; 6.14; 8.11; 14.13; 28.9). Jeremiah, on the other hand, was certain that the Babylonian army would soon sweep in to destroy the land (23.18-22; 25.1-14; and so on). Suffering and death, not wellbeing, were to befall Judah. There would be destruction rather than prosperity, insecurity rather than security. Judah was not going to be a safe place when the Babylonian army came through, no matter what the 'false prophets' were saying. In contrast, the exiles were challenged by Jeremiah to seek for shalom in the midst of their place of deportation. Their 'welfare' was understood as intimately tied to the 'welfare' of Babylon (29.7). What did Jeremiah understand by this admonition? Jeremiah had been instructed not to marry 10. Holladay, Jeremiah, p. 132. John Bright, Jeremiah (AB, 21; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), p. 208, prefers to follow the LXX and read 'country' or otherwise understand the MT 'city' as used 'distributively' meaning 'whichever city', since the exiles were settled in more than one place.
208
God's Word for Our World
or to raise a family; nor was he even to mourn for or with his people. Why? Because God had taken away God's 'peace' (16.1-9)! We read: 'I [God] have taken away my peace [shalom] from this people, says the Lord, my steadfast love [chesed] and mercy [rachamim]' (16.5). There can be no 'peace' where God's loving kindness/devoted love and God's compassion/motherly pity are absent. Any restoration brought about by God will necessitate a 'healing' that in turn will bring 'prosperity' [shalom++--a 'security' [ 'ernef] (33.6). In Jeremiah's view the physical wellbeing of a people was fundamentally dependent upon the graciousness of God. Thus, for the Babylonians, and for their own sakes as well, the exiles were told to implore God's presence in Babylon, for therein welfare, peace, was to be found. What Jeremiah may have had in mind is in part illumined by another passage, Jer. 38.1-13. Jeremiah delivered a severe message to the people of Jerusalem urging the people, soldiers included, to 'go out to the Chaldeans', to surrender, and thereby live (38.2). In accord with God's will the Babylonian army was going to capture Jerusalem. In light of this certainty, capitulation was the only prudent course of action! Jeremiah was speaking the truth to his people, even though it was painful for him and for them. Some of the officials, however, complained to King Zedekiah that Jeremiah's words were detrimental to the morale of the people, particularly among the military. They accused Jeremiah of treason and called for his execution: They charged: 'by speaking such words...this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm' (38.4). For those opposed to Jeremiah, seeking the welfare of one's people apparently required patriotic blindness and a willingness to speak words of false assurance rather than the truth. For Jeremiah, however, speaking the truth, whether it was popular or not, was what was called for. Honesty and forthrightness were very much a part of seeking the welfare of one's people. Jeremiah was not urging the exiles to be duplicitous or advising them to be subversive of their society. He was not offering words of mere expediency. Rather, he intended that the exiles engage as responsible citizens in the life of their new city and work for its wellbeing. Jeremiah further enjoined the exiles to 'pray' for their new city. Jeremiah had been expressly directed by God not to intercede on behalf of the people of Jerusalem because of their idolatry and their disregard for God's commandments (7.16; 11.14; 14.11). Only after the first deportation, that is, after God's initial judgment had fallen on Jerusalem and Judah, did
MARCH Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner!
209
Jeremiah respond positively to Zedekiah's request for Jeremiah's prayers (37.3). Jeremiah offered prayers for his people, but the outcome was not at all what Zedekiah had hoped (37.6-10). Johanan and Azariah made a similar request of Jeremiah after the insurrection against Gedaliah (42.2, 4), but, again, the outcome was not at all what they wanted (42.7-43.7). On the other hand, Jeremiah, at divine insistence, instructed the exiles to pray for Babylon (29.7). Though the content of their prayers is not preserved, it seems safe to assume that they at least understood to pray that God's loving kindness and compassion would rest on Babylon for therein lay the path to God's peace for the city. To live as responsible citizens required not only that they speak the truth to their neighbors but also that they pray on behalf of the common good, the welfare of all. There are other texts in the Bible that suggest appropriate behavior for those living under the authority of 'foreign' powers. In Ezra, in part to ensure the beneficence of the empire, the post-exilic Judean community was expected to offer sacrifice and prayer on behalf of their Persian overlord Darius (Ezra 6.10). Centuries later, as Christians struggled to live lives of faithfulness in various parts of the Roman Empire, they were advised to offer 'supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings...for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity' (1 Tim. 2.1-2; cf. Rom. 13.1-7; 1 Pet. 2.13-17). Such advice was no doubt pragmatically wise, but it is not the same as the action suggested by Jeremiah. Jeremiah seems to have envisioned and expected a much more positive interaction between the exiles and the Babylonians in whose midst they lived. 'To seek the welfare of the city' in Jeremiah's understanding meant more than 'keep your nose clean' before the authorities. To pray on behalf of Babylon involved much more than perfunctory public displays of token allegiance. The aim was not simply to obtain a measure of 'peace' through anonymity. The goal was the creation of a new way of being faithful without the usual securities offered by homeland, political autonomy, and traditional worship and ritual. Jeremiah believed that God intended the futures of Babylonians and exiled Judeans to be inseparably intertwined. The welfare of the one involved the welfare of the other. Planting, building, multiplying and not decreasing, required the exiles to embrace a new understanding of themselves and the intention of God. In the midst of what had to seem an especially hostile environment, the recipients of Jeremiah's communication were told not only to 'make the best of it' but were also to see themselves
210
God's Word for Our World
as harbingers of God's future. Settle down, create homes, live hopefully, widen the horizons of understanding—God intends to build a new kind of community which incorporates more than those that tradition recognized as a part of God's people. It is hard to imagine how Jeremiah's instructions must have sounded to the exiles. 'Are we really supposed to bring Babylonians home to dinner? What about our tradition of exclusion? Is "pluralism" ever wise?' Jeremiah's message was and is troublesome, especially to the religious establishments in which we live. To take Jeremiah seriously requires a willingness constantly to re-evaluate the present context and reconsider how best to serve God. Written rule and tradition do not finally have the last word. We may have to look at things differently. We obviously cannot bring Babylonians home to dinner; they no longer exist! But, speaking metaphorically, God intends that we open our doors. Now, as then, the better way, at least according to Jeremiah, is to engage our society, rather than pull back in defensiveness and anxious fear. God wanted the Judeans to invite their Babylonian neighbors to dinner. Whom should we consider inviting home?
THE INTERFACE BETWEEN PROPHECY AS NARRATIVE AND PROPHECY AS PROCLAMATION
Simon J. De Vries
In learning to use a computer we become accustomed to up-to-date technical terminology such as the word 'interface'. It means a plane or area at which two essential but separate mechanisms connect and in effect become one, such as that between the computer tower and the monitor or the printer. Each element is a distinct and internally integrated machine, yet the two imply each other and cannot perform their own individual function without the other. There is an 'interface' between prophecy as narrative and prophecy as discourse. Ordinarily, when we think of prophecy we have in mind the page after page of oracular material in the scriptural canon of the Old Testament books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and all the rest. These prophetic books are essentially collections of holy words; that is, orations, discourses, speeches. Some of them are dated, but by far the majority have no indication whatever of when or where they were first uttered. Only a few are provided with a narrative setting or some other minimal notation of the circumstances of utterance; for example, Isa. 6.1, 'In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up...' The autobiographical narration continues into v. 9, which begins with 'and he said, "Go, and say to this people"', and then switches unbroken into oracular discourse extending to the end of the chapter except for a short linking narrative element at the beginning of v. 11, 'Then I said, "How long, O Lord?" And he said...', serving only to introduce more discourse. It is important not to misconstrue the relationship between what someone in the story says and the intended message of the narrative as a discreet literary pericope. One of the most striking characteristics of the so-called 'canonical prophets' is that their individual oracles, though given
212
Go d 's Word for Our World
in particular situations, were preserved as collections and were at the very inception in process of becoming books, thus transcending the narrative circumstances of their initial utterance. It is clear that it is because of their verbal content that they have become 'God's Word' for the synagogue and church, as they must do for each person individually. One experiences them as messages read and occasionally heard. But to receive them with no indication of their original narrative setting places upon one the burden of bringing words to life that have lost their contexting, and perhaps their relevance as well. This is analogous to the situation in which the occupant of a pew hears a sermon, but at its conclusion does not know what is expected of him or her. Nevertheless, there are sections in the Old Testament where prophecy is experienced as something narrated; that is, as stories in which prophetic persons act—in the sense that they do something to communicate God's message to the here and now of those who first received them. Some of them are charmingly naive and simple-minded, but others are intricate in their structure and amazingly sophisticated in their message. One may have to read very carefully to be sure of their meaning. Biblical narrative is like modern secular narrative in that it may contain words spoken by one of the personages which may or may not be central or thematic. Such a word or words may simply be part of the 'wallpaper', so to speak, helping develop character or bringing the plot forward towards its climax without voicing the central motif of the unit as a whole. On the contrary, the kerygmatic word of the unit as a whole may be disguised in narrative details that upon first inspection seem too casual to be central to its meaning. Opposite ways in which narrative action may be interfaced with verbal utterance are (1) that in which all verbal content is structured in service to the action and (2) that in which all the narrative action is structured in service to the verbal content. In between these extremes are a variety of intermediate possibilities, and it is the intent of this essay to examine typical instances in which the main possibilities appear. I intend to analyze examples from the prophet-legend collections of Samuel-Kings, the original account of the siege of Jerusalem found in 2 Kings 18-19 and Isaiah 36-37, the account of narrative action in the prophetic vision of Ezekiel 8-9, and a prophetic 'mashaP—the quasi-prophetic legend of the book of Jonah.
DEVRIES The Interface
213
1. Three Prophet Legends Most of what the scholars call 'prophet legends' are found in the so-called 'historical books' of the Old Testament: Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It may be helpful to know (or be reminded) that the rabbis called these books 'the former prophets', in distinction from 'the latter prophets', which refers to Isaiah through to Malachi—also called the 'major prophets' or 'canonical prophets'. Perhaps the rabbis gave them this name in order to identify them as inspired by God and authoritative. An alternative explanation may be that they have this name because they tell stories about certain prophets. The main reason is probably that they contain narratives composed by prophets and preserved in the prophet guilds. Narrative of this sort is prophecy too, and it has a prophetic message to convey. The prophet legends demand one's attention to clues that one is to follow, and this is almost always verbal—a word rather than a deed. Very often this clue is offered in words placed in a person's mouth or strategically positioned as part of the narrative action. Like the saint legends of the Catholic Church, the Old Testament prophet legends tell of unusual and even spectacular things that the prophets do, and their purpose is to inculcate the values of the prophetic guilds by extolling the virtues of the great ones in their midst. Individual stories may in certain instances prove to be based on actual historical events, but this may never be assumed nor taken for granted because prophetic imagination enjoys free play in these compositions and because of the highly schematic structure of many of them. For example, the story of the death of Amaziah in 2 Kgs 1.2-17 a has three distinct troops of soldiers—one after another—approach Elijah in an effort to arrest him. The captains of the first two troops deliver the same imperious command for Elijah to come down from his hill, which is answered by fire from heaven to consume them in both instances; then the third captain politely requests this instead of demanding it, and he is spared. The element of miracle is often, but not always present in this kind of story, just as it is in a typical Catholic saint legend. This is usually casually introduced and taken for granted when it does appear. a. 1 Kings 13 The structural outline of this word-fulfilment narrative, with elements of discourse in parentheses, is the following:
214
God's Word for Our World [Dtr1 introductory transition, 12.33]
1. The word against the Bethel altar, 13.1-10 a. An oracle uttered and substantiated, vv. 1-6 (1) A Judahite man of God denounces the altar, vv. la, 2aa [Editorial expansion, v. Ib] [Dtr prediction of Josiah's purges, w. 2a0b-3] (2) The king's reprisal frustrated, w. 4-6 (a) His hand stretched out, v. 4a ('Lay hold of him *) (b) His hand withered, v. 4b [Dtr expansion, v. 5] (c) His hand restored, v. 6 ('Entreat now the favor ofYahweh your god and pray for me that my hand may be restored to me') b. The communication of attendant revelation, w. 7-9 (1) The king's invitation, v. 7 ('Come home with me and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward') (2) The man of God's refusal and its explanation, w. 8-9 ('Ifyou give me half your house, I will not go with you, and I will not eat bread or drink water in this place; for so it was commanded me by the wordofYahweh saying, "You shall neither eat bread nor drink water, nor return by the way that you came " ') c. The man of God obeys the command to avoid returning by the same road, v. 10 2. The testing of the attendant revelation, 13.11-25 a. The violation, w. 11-19 (1) The Bethelite prophet seeks the man of God, w. 11-14 ('Which way did he go?... Saddle the ass for me ...Are you the man of God who came from Judah?'... 'Iam"} (2) His invitation refused, w. 15-17 (a) Invitation, v. 15 ('Come home with me and eat bread"} (b) Refusal, v. 16(7 may not return with you or go in with you; neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place') (c) Explanation, v. 17a ('For it was said to me by the wordofYahweh, "You shall neither eat bread nor drink water there, nor return by the way that you came " *) [gloss, v. 17b]2
1. The Deuteronomistic Historian or Deuteronomistic History. 2. I1? era ('but he lied to him') represents a misguided attempt to guard against the possibility that God and his angels might actually lie. It destroys the effect of the old prophet's instruction to be buried next to the erring man of God from Judah.
DEVRIES The Interface
215
(3) His invitation accepted, vv. 18-19 (a) The countering revelation, v. 18a (7 also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of Yahweh, saying, "Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water"') (b) The man of God yields, v. 19 b. The punishment, w. 20-25 (1) Oracle of imminent death, w. 20-22 (a) Narrative introduction, w. 20-2la ('Thus says Yahweh...") (b) Invective, vv. 21b-22a ('Because you have disobeyed the word of Yahweh and have not kept the commandment which Yahweh your god commanded you, but have come back and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, "Eat no bread, and drink no water... " ') (c) Threat, v. 22b ('Your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers') (2) Fulfilment, w. 23-25 (a) The man of God's departure, v. 23 (b) His death by a lion, v. 24 (c) The report reaches the Bethel prophet, v. 25 3. Confirmation of the authenticity of the Judahite man of God, 13.26-32a a. The Bethel prophet disposes of the body, vv. 26-30 (1) Interpretive identification, v. 26 ('It is the man of God who disobeyed the word of Yahweh, therefore Yahweh has given him to the lion, which has torn him and slain him, according to the word which Yahweh spoke to him') (2) Recovery and burial, w. 27-30 ('Alas, my brother! ^ b. The Bethel prophet prepares for his own burial, vv. 31-32a) (1) He instructs his sons, v. 31 ('When I die, bury me in the grave in which the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones... 0 (2) The man of God's death guarantees Yahweh's word against the Bethel altar, v. 32a ('for the saying which he cried by the word of Yahweh against the altar in Bethel...shall surely come to pass') [Dtr expansion, 13.32b] [Dtr notes on Jeroboam's cultic practices, 13.33-34]3
The word-fulfilment story4 is one of three types belonging to the subgenre, 'Prophet-authorization narrative'. Such narratives are marvelous stories 3. For detailed analysis of this pericope, see S.J. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet (Grand Rapids, 1978), pp. 59-61; and idem, 1 Kings (WBC, 12; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), pp. 164-74. 4. Another of the same type is the story of the death of an unbelieving captain in 2 Kgs 6.24-7.17. The other two types of this subgenre are the supplicatory power type (e.g. 1 Kgs 18.21-39) and the theophanous commission type (1 Kgs 19.1-18).
216
Go d 's Word for Our World
demonstrating the power of a prophet to prevail over institutional rivals, including in this instance both the representative of secular power, an anonymous northern king,5 and the representative of spiritual power, the anonymous Bethel prophet, both of whom put to the test the right of a third anonymous person, a 'man of God' from a rival kingdom, to come to the prestigious Yahweh shrine at Bethel and cry against it 'by the word of Yahweh'.6 Dtr has badly confused the structure of this text in his effort to furnish words for this denunciation (w. 2a(3b-3; cf. 2 Kgs 23.15-19) which turn it into a prediction of Josiah's severe suppression of the Bethel shrine. I shall not enter here into a discussion of the issues surrounding rival shrines of the two Hebrew kingdoms. Suffice it to say that it was the opinion only of the winning side that eventually identified Bethel as illegitimate. It is well to keep this in mind when studying this passage, for it is not the legitimacy or non-legitimacy of the Bethel shrine that is in dispute in the unredacted text, but the inspiration of an untested and foreign neophyte, and therewith the truth and authority of his prophecy. Because there is so much action in this narrative, some have thought to split it up into a story of a king confronting a Judahite man of God and a story of a Bethelite prophet confronting the same person or another like him, but its unity is guaranteed first by the close correspondence between the introduction and the conclusion ('And behold a man of God came out of Judah by the word of Yahweh to Bethel.. .and cried against the altar by the word of Yahweh', vv. 1-2, in comparison with 'For the saying which he cried by the word of Yahweh against the altar in Bethel', v. 32), and secondly by the virtual similarity in form and content of the instructions he has been given, w. 8-9, vv. 16-17, and v. 22, which rehearse the same two prohibitions: (1) not to accept anyone's table hospitality and (2) not to return home by the same route. One must see that the main focus in this narrative is not on whether the word of Yahweh spoken against the Bethel altar should be fulfilled, but on the question whether the man of God would continue to follow the seemingly arbitrary restrictions that had been placed upon him, and what the effects would be if he should disobey. In tempting him to disobey, both the king and the Bethel prophet intend to 5. It is Dtr, the redactor of the Deuteronomistic History, who identifies him as Jeroboam I. 6. The parallel with Amos 7.10-13 is striking, but the differences are as important as the similarities. Here an anonymous king and an anonymous prophet oppose an untested ecstatic; there a priest identified as Amaziah is in conflict with a prophet named Amos.
DEVRIES The Interface
III
subvert the effect of his oracle, but neither would have succeeded had not the latter employed what appeared to be superseding revelation, causing the naive and untested ecstatic from the south to believe that Yahweh himself had repealed the precise instructions he had been given. We recognize a subsidiary motif of old vs. young, of experience vs. inexperience. This is unmistakably the hinge upon which the whole story hangs. The man of God will of course be punished, but that is not the central issue. When the old prophet hears that his own oracle of looming death has been fulfilled, he follows through with two appropriate actions, (1) tenderly caring for the man's body by burying it is his own tomb, and (2) instructing his 'sons' to bury him beside this man's body when he comes to die. Why? Because he is guilty? Because he loves him so much? No, but because he wishes to spend eternity lying as closely as possible to the body of a man whose punishment for disobeying his attendant revelation guarantees the validity of his oracle against the Bethel altar. This is strikingly paradoxical. Of course the oracle against Bethel is valid. The old prophet realizes that, and the preservation of this prophet legend among the prophets at the Bethel shrine is a demonstration that they most assuredly regarded the oracle against their shrine to be valid. But the immediate intent of the narrative is to demonstrate that the Judahite man of God was truly empowered by Yahweh. There is an unusual amount of action in this story to confuse the inattentive reader. It has no narrative exposition at the beginning—just 'and behold!' The opening scene serves to raise the question of what will eventually happen to someone so rash as to declaim against the Bethel altar in the very presence of the king. He is not arrested because Yahweh intervenes, first paralyzing the king's hand and then—at the entreaty of the man of God—restoring it. This person's recital of the instructions he has been given get him away from the king's presence and out of his power simply for the reason that a higher authority has been demonstrated and must prevail. Before the second scene can begin, there needs to be a transition, and this is where the 'sons' of the Bethel prophet find a role. They tell their 'father' what happened at the shrine and at his instructions set him on his way to find the man of God on the road he has chosen for his return home. This second scene twice shifts from Bethel to the roadway and arrives at a second transition, that in which travellers report that they have seen the body of a man with the lion who killed him standing by. The third and climactic scene begins with the old prophet's recognition of whose body this must be.
218
God's Word for Our World
Now we begin to see how powerfully words placed in the mouths of the actors in this story may be employed to bring out its meaning. The story contains a number of casual sayings that serve only to depict character and advance the narration, such as the king's 'Lay hold of him', but they never surprise the reader and could just as well be shaped as indirect quotation: 'The king said that they should lay hold of him', and so on. It would be a mistake homiletically to use one of these scraps of conversation as the text for one's sermon, but amazingly this is often done. In the present study we realize that we must pay special attention to those weighty words that conspire together to reveal what the story is all about: (1) the man of God's trifold rehearsal of the seemingly arbitrary command he has been given, and of course (2) the startling oracle of judgment that the old prophet hurls upon his table guest, in particular the threat at the end,' Your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers'. This in turn introduces a new source of suspense (3), which prevails until the old prophet hears of the body lying in the road with a lion to guard it and declares, 'It is the man of God, who disobeyed the word of Yahweh'. He knows this because it fulfills the prophecy, 'Your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers'. Ironically, this same pitiable body is honored at the end by being placed in the old prophet's private sepulchre. It is possessed with a numinosiry that wards off a hungry lion while guaranteeing the oracle against the Bethel shrine. The validity of the attendant revelation to that oracle is fully demonstrated in the fulfilment of the Bethelite prophet's prediction. b. 1 Kings 20.30b-43aa This is a regal self-judgment narrative of the oracle-manipulation type, similar in structure and intention to the narrative of Nathan's confrontation with David in 2 Sam. 12.1-7a, 9-10a, 13-14.7 It is about another anonymous king of Israel8 in confrontation with an anonymous Israelite prophet. The outline is as follows: 1. The Israelite king's word establishes deliverance for Ben-Hadad, 20.30b-34 a. Ben-Hadad treats for negotiation, w. 30b-33a (1) His flight to safety, v. 30b
7. A second type is that of the abusive-action story, as found in 1 Sam. 15. l-12a, 16-19, 27-28, 35a; 28.4-16, 19-25; 1 Kgs 21.1-19, 27-29; and 2 Kgs 20.12-19// Isa. 39.1-8. 8. Identified by a Jehuite redactor as Ahab in v. 34 and in its connection to ch. 21.
DEVRIES The Interface
219
(2) His entreaty, w. 31-32a (a) Reliance on the Israelite kings' reputation, v. 3la ('Beholdnow, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are loyal9 kings') (b) A stratagem of disguise, w. 3 lb-32aa ('Let us put on sackcloth on our loins and ropes upon our heads, and go out to the king of Israel; perhaps he will spare your++++ (c) Ben-Hadad pleads for his life, v. 32a|3 ('Your servant Ben-Hadad says, "Pray, let me live!" ") (3) Identification of affinities, w. 32b-33a (a) The Israelite king's query, v. 32b ('Does he still live? He is my brother') (b) The messengers' response, v. 33aa ('Yes, your brother BenHadad') (c) Invitation to negotiation, v. 33ap ('Go and bring him') b. The negotiation of a treaty, w. 33b-34 (1) Ben-Hadad's honorable reception, v. 33b (2) Offer of concessions concerning cities and trade, v. 34a ('The cities which my father took...I will restore, and you may establish bazaars for yourself in Damascus...') (3) Agreement to a new relationship, v. 34b ('and I will release you from your obligations ^ 2. The Israelite king's word establishes Israel's judgment, 20.35-43a a. A prophet11 prepares himself for announcing judgment, w. 35-37 (1) Validation of attendant revelation, w. 35-36 (a) A command refused, v. 35 ('Pray, strike me!') (b) The refusal punished, v. 36 ('Because you have not obeyed the voice of Yahweh, behold, as soon as you have gone from me, a lion shall kill you"} (2) The same command obeyed and its result, v. 37 ('Pray, strike me!') b. Symbolic judgment on the prophet, vv. 38-40 (1) His disguise,12 v. 38
9. RSv reads 'merciful'. 10. RSV's 'and Ahab said' is an interpretive addition. The king in question is not identified as Ahab; he is probably Joram, Ahab's son. The MT reading, 'but I will release you' is meant as spoken by Ben-Hadad and probably refers to a vassal treaty from which he now absolves him. The king of Israel in turn makes a (new) treaty with him—apparently an alliance in which they are equals. 11. In v. 35 he is called D'N'DDn 'HD "ION 2TN ('a certain man belonging to the sons of the prophets'), but in v. 38 he is called trim ('the prophet'); cf. v. 41, D^nunn ('one of the prophets'). 12. The only meaning of ~ISN in common use is 'dirt, dust'. Following the LXX, it is translated 'bandage' in the RSV of w. 38,41 because the object in question is said to be used to cover the prophet's eyes and to be removable, but 'mask' would be better
220
God's Word for Our World (2) His address to the king, w. 39-40a (a) A fictitious charge, v. 39 ('Your servant went out into the midst of the battle; and behold a soldier tuned and brought a man to me, and said, "Keep this man; if by any means he be missing, your life shall be for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver" ') (b) A fictitious delinquency, v. 40a ('And as your servant was busy here and there, he was gone'.) (3) The king's judgment on the hypothetical delinquency, v. 40b ('So shall yourjudgment be; you yourself have decided it!") c. The judgment applied to the king and his people, w. 41-43a (1) The prophet's self-disclosure, v. 41 (2) Oracle, v. 42 (a) Invective: the king's delinquency, v. 42a ('Thus says Yahweh, 'Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction...') (b) Threat, v. 42b ('Therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people') (3) Narrative sequel, v. 43aa [Gloss, 20.43ap]13
At the end of a day of fighting,14 the Syrian king sends underlings to treat with the victor and at an encouraging word from him enters his chariot to negotiate terms of surrender. On his way home, the Israelite king encounters what seems to be a wounded soldier standing by the wayside who makes up a story of military delinquency that first moves the king to judge the storyteller as a careless soldier. This in turn is used by the prophet to judge the king as one who has transgressed upon Yahweh's right to judge whether one of Israel's dangerous enemies should live or not. Again we are presented with a seemingly straightforward but deceptively complex tale. Much weight is placed upon the issue of taking on a disguise—or at least disarming apparel and demeanor—in order to force a situation of ominous peril to turn out advantageously. In the first scene the servants of Ben-Hadad accomplish this result; in the second scene it is one because it would be more easily removed. It was in use as a disguise rather than as a covering for wounds. 13. For a more extensive discussion of this passage, see my treatments in 1 Kings, pp. 246-47 and Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 123-26, 135-36. 14. The connection with the preceding context is secondary. This narrative commences with a short exposition, 'Now Ben-Hadad had fled and entered into the inner chamber of a certain house' (so LXX; MT has a word substituted redactionally, 'city').
DEVRIES The Interface
221
belonging to the prophetic guild. Even more prominent is the image of a king saying something that others turn against him—first his casual use of the word, 'my brother', then his hasty judgment, 'So shall your judgment be; you yourself have decided it'. The element of paradox emerges strongly in the conclusion; to some extent the first scene has it too, but this is meant as preparation for the climax. The narrative action in both sections of this pericope is lapidary and highly schematic. Some interpreters believe that this pericope should be severed into two independent stories because it seems to start with new exposition at v. 35, 'Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets', but the objection to this would be that v. 42, 'Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore...', makes no sense without the information provided by vv. 30b-34. Who is the 'man devoted to destruction' unless he be the delinquent king of vv. 30b-34? The narrative is a compositional unity but its structure is emphatically bipartite. Verses 30a-34 represents more than a preliminary step in the narration as in 1 Kgs 3.1-10, comprising a complete narrative incident in itself, as does its counterpart, vv. 35-43a. Nevertheless, the two sections belong to each other and imply each other.15 Their essential similarity consists of the fact that they each tell how a seemingly casual remark coming from the mouth of the Israelite king provides the basis for applying the conditions of either of two opposing religio-political ideologies characteristic of the early Divided Kingdom period. The first incident in the story stands under the ideology of 'loyalty (hesed)'1++while the second incident presupposes the ideology of the 'devotion to destruction (herem)'.11 In the 15. Part of our problem in reading this lies in the fact that this narrative has been shaped by a Jehuite redactor as part of an ongoing narrative that included the two battle stories of w. 1-21, vv. 22-30a and that of 1 Kgs 22.Iff. Cf. Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 123-27. 16. This is frequently mentioned as a prominent attribute of Yahweh in parallel with 'righteousness'. Its essential meaning is the loyalty or devotion of a true-hearted kinsman or covenant partner. The KJV'S 'lovingkindness' has led generations of Bible readers to think that it stands for something emotional such as pity or mercy. This mention is the clearest reference to it in the meaning of a political stance or administrative policy. 17. The penalty for neglecting this is carried out on Achan and his family in Josh. 7. hi 1 Sam. 15 Saul is condemned by Samuel for neglecting to carry out a complete herem on the Amalekites. hi the Mesha stone the Moabite king claims that he has carried out a herem against Israel. Nevertheless, various mentions of it in Deuteronomy
222
God's Word for Our World
first part a spontaneous word from the Israelite king, 'my brother', saves a life, while in the second part another spontaneous word uttered by the same king, 'So shall your judgment be, you yourself have decided it', results in the placing of the king and nation in peril of the penalty for neglecting the herem in a looming future, now shaped by the political maneuvers of this particular narrative. Themes from earlier prophetic traditions appear in another account of a lion killing a man (cf. 1 Kgs 13) and in the mention of executing captive kings according to the ideology of the herem (cf. 1 Sam. 15). The second section is embellished with two anecdotes, the first of which tells how a man standing on the roadside came to receive his wounds, so as to attract the attention of the king, and another in which the same man elicits the king's reaction to his made-up story of negligence. The second anecdote provides the basis upon which the king determines his own judgment for letting a dangerous military aggressor get off with a favorable treaty when that aggressor should have been treated according to the terms of the herem—with nobody spared, not even kings who can pay ransom, if required, and make treaties determining the future of his people as well as his own! The discourse in the first anecdote is introduced for characterization and is non-thematic: 'Strike me, I pray', said twice; also the explanation, 'Because you have not obeyed the voice of Yahweh, behold, as soon as you have gone from me, a lion shall kill you'. These sayings help define the character of the protagonist and contribute arithmetically towards bringing the narrative forward. More weighty is the report of a military order in the made-up story of the disguised prophet, 'A soldier turned and brought a man to me, and said, "Keep this man; if by any means he be missing, your life shall be for his life (etc.)"'. When the disguised prophet confesses that he has carelessly let the prisoner go, this fictitious but eminently appropriate order becomes the basis for the king's judgment, 'So shall your judgment be; you yourself have decided it'. Things become very serious when the issue is the possible forfeiting of a soldier's life. In this grim story, strange things happen. If one who does not obey a command, seemingly absurd though claimed to be from Yahweh, falls under the claws of a lion (w. 35-36), why should not a man die—wounded or not—who has let a prisoner escape? This is the precise point for another 'Thou art the man!' (cf. 2 Sam 12.7). It is the king are blatantly ideological and schematic, revealing that the ideology came eventually to be regarded as outmoded, unrequired, and offensive.
DEVRIES The Interface
223
himself who has let a royal prisoner escape when his fate rightly belongs in the hands of Yahweh. The Israelite king ends up determining his own fitting and appropriate judgment, 'Your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people'. If the king in question was in fact the historical Ahab, this prediction came to fulfillment in the event of 1 Kgs 22.37. If he was Ahab's son, Joram, it was fulfilled in the event of 2 Kgs 9.24. The part about 'your people for his people' may be said to have been fulfilled in the sad history mentioned in 2 Kgs 10.32-33. c. 2 Kings 5.1-27 This is a power-demonstration story with a prophetic word motif, a subgenre of prophet legend that provides edifying illustrations of what a true prophet can do. Others of this type, and also from the Elisha Cycle, are the story in 2 Kgs 2.23-24, in which the prophet curses irreverent boys, and the story in 8.1-6 of a king's deed of justice toward the same woman and son who appeared in the restoration story of 4.1-44.18 The structure of the long and involved story of 2 Kings 5 is as follows: 1. Exposition, 5.1 a. Naaman's office and standing, v. laa b. A beneficiary of Yahweh's favor, v. lap c. His leprosy, v. Ib 2. Naaman seeks a cure in Israel, 5.2-8 a. The occasion, w. 2-5 (1) The casual saying of a captive maid, vv. 2-3 (a) How she came to Naaman's household, v. 2 (b) Her mention of a possible cure in Samaria, v. 3 ('Would that my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy') (2) Preparations for Naaman's trip, w. 4-5 (a) Naaman19 reports this possibility to the Syrian king, v. 4 ('Thus and so spake the maiden from the land of 'Israel") (b) The king excuses Naaman for the trip, v. 5a ('Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel') (c) Naaman departs with rich gifts, v. 5b
18. It is to be noted that Gehazi is active as well in these two stories. 19. Male chauvinism seems responsible for omitting to mention Naaman's wife as the one who communicated the little maid's information to her husband, the great man Naaman.
224
God's Word for Our World
b. Placing Naaman's coming in a proper frame of understanding, w. 6-8 (1) A dangerous misunderstanding, w. 6-7 (a) An officious letter of introduction, v. 6 ('When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent you Naaman my servant, that you may cure him of leprosy') (b) The Israelite king's dismay at the letter, v. 720 1) He misunderstands the request, v. 7a ('Am I God, to kill and to make alaive, that this man sends me word to cure a man of his leprosy? *) 2) He suspects intrigue, v. 7b ('Only consider and see how he is seeking a quarrel with me") (2) Elisha accepts responsibility, v. 821 (a) He counsels a calm response, v. 8a ('Why have you rent your clothes?... 0 (b) He welcomes an opportunity to reveal himself as Israel's true prophet, v. 8b ('Let him come now to me that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel1) 3. Naaman becomes a believer in Israel's god, 5.9-19a a. His cure, w. 9-14 (1) Elisha's message, w. 9-10 (a) Naaman arrives at Elisha's house, v. 922 (b) Elisha sends humiliating instruction, v. 10 ('Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean') (2) Naaman's disappointment and departure, w. 11-12 (a) Expectation of an elaborate ritual, v. 11 ('Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of Yahweh his god, and wave his hand over the place, and cure the leper *) (b) Disdain for Jordan's waters, v. 12 ('Are not Abana and Pharpar...better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?') (3) Naaman returns to be healed, w. 13-14 (a) His entourage counsel acceptance, v. 13 ('My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, "Wash, and be clean?"') 20. It is to be understood that Naaman had arrived in Samaria to give him the letter. 21. How Elisha hears the content of the letter is left unsaid. Clairvoyance may be implied, as it is in v. 26. 22. It is to be understood that the king's entourage have given Naaman directions to Elisha's house.
DEVRIES The Interface
225
(b) His sevenfold bathing in the Jordan, v. 14 1) He follows Elisha's instruction, v. 14a 2) He experiences spectacular healing, v. 14b b. A chastened Naaman deals with Elisha, vv. 15-19a (1) A reward offered and refused, w. 15-16 (a) Naaman's offer, v. 15 1) He returns to Elisha, v. 15a 2) Confession, v. 15a ('Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel") 3) Offer of a generous reward, v. 15b ('So now accept a present... ') (b) Elisha's refusal, v. 16 1) He swears not to accept, v. 16a ('As Yahweh lives, whom I serve, I will receive none *) 2) His steadfastness in the face of importunity, v. 16b (2) Naaman requests a special dispensation, w. 17-18 (a) Regarding his not abiding in Israel, v. 17 1) Request for a souvenir from Israel, v. 17a ('If not, I pray you, let there be given to your servant two mules' burden...)23 2) Promise of singular devotion, v. 17b ('Henceforth your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but Yahweh *) (b) Regarding his attendance at the shrine of Rimmon, v. 18 1) Participation as king's counselor, v. 18a ('In this matter may Yahweh pardon your servant: when my master goes into the temple of Rimmon to worship there...') 2) Prayer for mitigation of offense, v. 18b ('... When I bow myself in the shrine of Rimmon, may Yahweh pardon your servant") (3) Approving dismissal, v. 19a ('Go in peace') 4. Gehazi attracts Naaman's leprosy, 5.19b-27 a. He takes possession of a portion of the despised gift, w. 19b-24 (1) Subversion of his master's refusal, w. 19b-20 (a) Reflection on the refusal, w. 19b-20a ('See, my master has spared this Naaman the Syrian in not accepting from his hand what he brought') (b) Oath to set matters straight, v. 20b ('As Yahweh lives, I will run after him and get something from him') (2) Gehazi brings home booty, vv. 21-24 (a) Naaman stops for Gehazi, v. 21 ('Is all well?')
23. riQTN ('of earth') is not read by authoritative LXX witnesses. Nevertheless, this is required since it is 'a pair of asses' burden' of something that Naaman identifies as necessary for giving him the feeling of worshipping Yahweh while away from Yahweh's land.
226
God's Word for Our World (b) Gehazi's contrived request, v. 22 ('My master has sent me to say, "There have just now come to me two young men of the sons of the prophets; pray, give them a talent of silver and two festal garments " *) (c) Naaman's generous response, v. 23 ('Be pleased to accept two talents 0 (d) Disposal of the booty, v. 24 b. His confrontation with Elisha, vv. 25-27 (1) Opening exchange, v. 25 ('Where have you been, Gehazi?'... 'Nowhere *) (2) Elisha uncovers the guilty secret, w. 26-27a (a) The offense detected, v. 26a ('Did I not go with you in spirit when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? *) (b) The offense condemned, v. 26b ('Was it a time to accept money and garments, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, menservants and maidservants? *) (c) The offense punished, v. 27a ('Therefore the leprosy ofNaaman shall cleave to you and to your descendants forever"} (3) Naaman's leprosy attaches to Gehazi, v. 27b
At issue in this narrative is the question of demonstrating the nature of Israel's god, Yahweh, as one who performs great deeds on behalf of his people, not to reveal how grand he is, but in compassionate response to genuine humility and trust. Throughout the narrative the Syrians are depicted as proud, triumphalistic, and exploitative of the people they have conquered.24 They were in the custom of making raids in the territory of Israel according to v. 2 and probably carried off many besides the little maid. The Syrian king's letter of introduction for Naaman is certainly brusque and demeaning, and it does seem to demand a miracle of the Israelite king. Imposing amounts of precious metal and beautiful garments are mentioned in the report of Naaman's departure—meant to be from the Syrian king as well as from him. Horses and chariots support the proud man as he 'stands' at Elisha's door. When Elisha fails to appear and then sends a messenger with the instruction to bathe seven times in the Jordan, Naaman is furious because he had expected him to come out to him, call on the name of his god, and wave his hand over the infected place, as one of his own magicians would have done. After he is cured, he grandly offers a reward to Elisha. He declares that he is a convert to Yahweh but 24. This we are to assume from the mention of victory and raids in w. 1-2. From v. 7 it appears that the king of Israel is in an inferior position over against the king of Syria and is fearful of falling into even worse circumstances.
DEVRIES The Interface
227
sets conditions upon carrying it out. He is also more demonstrative than the request would require in responding to Gehazi. Over against him, Elisha remains in control at every juncture. He does not allow the letter from the king of Syria to intimidate the king of Israel and confidently invites the latter to send the great man on to him. He welcomes this as a commission from Yahweh: 'Let him come', he says, 'that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel'. Accordingly, he remains within his house and instructs Naaman through a messenger. He refuses to utter mumbo-jumbo or perform fancy manipulations, but gives the straightforward and simple instruction to go to the Jordan and dip seven times—not failing to accompany this with a promise that the man's flesh should be restored so that he would be clean of the leprosy. When Naaman returns healed and happy, he remains unmoved by urgent offers, going so far as to swear by Yahweh that he will accept nothing. When Naaman declares that he is a convert to Yahweh but will need leniency in carrying out his worship while away from the land of Israel, Elisha does not parley but says only to go home in peace. This is how Elisha shows Naaman and his king in Damascus that there is a prophet in Israel! As this narrative proceeds through its various turns and twists, dialogue is consistently employed for illuminating the action. Thus there is a great deal of casual discourse, such as the Syrian king's word of permission, 'Go now and I will send a letter to the king of Israel', which could equally well have been presented in indirect speech: 'The king of Syria told Naaman to go and gave him a letter of introduction' (v. 5). An extreme example of this is Naaman's explanation just preceding this statement, 'Thus and so spoke the maiden from the land of Israel (n~D"T niTDl fllTD ^lET pan ~W£ inUDn)'. Even Elisha's word of farewell seems unduly laconic—just 'Go in peace (Dl1?^ l^)'- This remarkable restraint in styling ought to warn the reader that what is to follow is more important. And so it is! The concluding paragraph concerning the venality of Gehazi is the true climax, not Naaman's departure. To be sure, dialogue with high levels of emotion need special attention, but low-keyed speech can be important too. Especially weighty are those elements that have counter-elements. One example is the motif of demonstrating the prophet's unique power. In v. 3 the little maiden enthusiastically says, 'Would that my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure his leprosy.' Just so, Elisha says in v. 8, 'Let him come to me, that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel'. Naaman is furious when he receives what appears to be a humiliating instruction from Elisha. His pique is revealed especially in the scoffing comparison he makes
228
God's Word for Our World
between the cold, pure waters of his Syrian rivers and those of the Jordan. But in the sequel the cured and chastened general declares, 'I know that there is no god in all the earth but in Israel'.25 Another example of counterbalancing language is the motif of oathtaking. In v. 16 Elisha employs an oath to underscore his refusal of an earthly reward from Naaman: 'As Yahweh lives, whom I serve, I will receive none'.26 In v. 20 Gehazi swears the opposite: 'As Yahweh lives, I will run after him and get something from him'. Whether it is to be nothing or something is sworn to by the very existence of Yahweh. These are points of special weight in evaluating the kerygma of this intriguing story, but unless the reader pays close attention, he/she may still miss the main message. One wonders especially about the role of the closing episode, which seems anticlimactic after the grand events that occupy the major part of the story. Gehazi is obviously a counterweight, but to what? Why is he brought in at the very end? Is it only to demonstrate his greed and servility? True, he is a miserable liar and cheat, but the essential thing about him is that he ventures to spoil the grand demonstration that his master has just put on. Elisha makes the point clear almost at the very end when he asks an unanswerable question, 'Was it a time to accept money and garments, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, menservants and maidservants?' Obviously not, or Elisha would not have asked it. No, it is not such a time—and that is why Gehazi's cheating is so deplorable. It is not a time for claiming bonuses in the form of talents of silver and festive garments, a fact that Elisha has tried to show and Gehazi has now tried to obscure. What time is it then? It is emphatically a time for doing nothing to spoil the grand show of power that Yahweh has put on. A rich and famous Syrian wishes help with his leprosy. If he had remained ignorant of the 'prophet who is in Samaria' he would never have been cured, and eventually this would have destroyed all that was great about him. The same Yahweh who had given victory to Syria—a tough theological concept to accept under the circumstances—places a captive Israelite girl in the service of the leprous husband's wife, who tells him what she said, who 25. Statements of this kind are primitive forms of the so-called historical demonstration formula, seen, for example, in 1 Kgs 20.13, 28. 26. Elisha serves Yahweh in the same way that Naaman serves the king of Syria. The giving, accepting, and refusal of rich gifts is a shuffle to show who is the greatest and richest. When confronted by Elisha's steadfast refusal of the gifts he has brought him, Naaman makes what appear to be trival requests in return.
DEVRIES The Interface
229
then tells the king, who then sends the great man off to Samaria with a high-sounding letter and rich gifts. The word of the little maiden is Yahweh's first intervention. The king of Israel is at the point of distraction when he receives the letter, but Elisha calms the king and invites the great man to come to him for the cure which the Israelite king despairs of providing. This is the second intervention. At a point in the story where the whole affair seems about to end in the great man returning empty and angry to his own land, his retainers plead, 'You know that you would do great things if the prophet demanded them, so why can you not do this small thing? Will you have come so far only to let your pride stand in the way?' This is the third intervention. Finally, after Elisha has received the Syrian and sent him away chastened, his servant Gehazi aims to intervene in the opposite way—threatening to subvert his master's noble detachment from earthly reward. How Naaman must have rejoiced to deal with an Israelite who had a price upon his services! Having all his life been surrounded by greedy flatterers, he knew this kind all too well. He demonstrates that he is still in control by making Gehazi accept even more than he requested, thus compromising even more the purity of Yahweh's triumph. Nothing is more just than to afflict this greedy and scheming man with the same loathsome disease which the proud Syrian came to wash away in the Jordan! 2. The Account ofYahweh 's Dealing with Sennacherib a. The Word-Controversy Narrative of 2 Kings 18.17-32a, 36-37; 19.1-8a, 9a(3b-37//Isaiah 36.1-37.9a, 37-38 The original account is modeled after a very sophisticated type of prophet legend. Citing the king's doublet, I analyze the structure as follows:27 1. A confrontation at the wall of Jerusalem, 2 Kgs 18.13-36 a. The Rabshakeh confronts Hezekiah's high officials, w. 13, 17-25 (1) The situation, w. 13-18 (a) Proleptic summary, v. 13 [Hezekiah's surrender, 18.14-16]28
27. See also my Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 69-70. 28. It is perfectly obvious that this report does not fit in the present context, yet it represents a highly trustworthy notice of what Hezekiah actually did when he was attacked by Sennacherib in 701. Interestingly, it is not found in the parallel account in Isa. 36.
230
God's Word for Our World (b) Approach of the Rabshakeh, v. 1729 (c) The high officials respond, v. 1830 (2) The Rabshakeh's message for Hezekiah, w. 19-25 ('Say to Hezekiah... 0 (a) Challenge, w. 19-22 ('Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria...") 1) Demand for disclosure, w. 19-20 ('On what do you rest this confidence of yours? You think that mere words are counsel and strength for war! On whom do you now rely, that you have rebelled against me? *) 2) Derision of Hezekiah's allies, w. 21-22 a) Egypt a broken reed, v. 21 ('Behold, you are relying now on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff... Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who rely on him') b) Yahweh's anger over Hezekiah's innovations, v. 22 ('But if you say, " We rely on Yahweh our god", is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying... "You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem? " *) (b) A taunting wager, w. 23-24 ('Come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria...') 1) Boast, v. 23 ('I will give you 2000 horses if you are able...to set riders on them") 2) Derision, v. 24 (How then can you repulse a single captain... when you rely on Egypt?"} 3) Claim of summons from Hezekiah's god, v. 25 ('Moreover, Is it without Yahweh that I have come up against this place to destroy it? It is Yahweh who said to me, "Go up against this land, and destroy it" ") b. The Rabshakeh confronts the citizens, w. 26-36 (1) A misstep by the high officials, w. 26-27 (a) Their naive plea for diplomatic language, v. 26 (Pray, speak to your servants in the Aramaic language, for we understand it. Do not speak to us in the language ofJudah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall") (b) The Rabshakeh's scoffing rebuff, v. 27 ('Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and to you, and not to the men sitting on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and to drink their own urine?")
29. 2 Kings mentions two other officials before mentioning the Rabshakeh, implying their seniority, yet the last mentioned does all the speaking in the sequel. Their omission in the Isaiah doublet makes it likely that they are secondary in the Kings doublet. 30. Cf. the mention of the first two in Isa. 22.15-25.
DEVRIES The Interface
231
(2) Call to surrender, vv. 28-35 (a) Summons to hear, v. 28 ('Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria!') (b) Warning against deceptive assurance, w. 29-3la ('Do not let Hezekiah deceive you... Do not let Hezekiah make you rely on Yahweh by saying... Do not listen to Hezekiah') (c) Presentation of favorable terms, vv. 31b-32 1) Demand for immediate acquiescence, v. 31ba ('Makeyour peace with me and come out to me...1) 2) Permission to enjoy the land's resources, v. 31b[3 ('Then every one of you will eat of his own vine, and every one of his own fig tree, and every one of you will drink of his own cistern...') 3) Prospect of humane deportation, v. 32a ('...until I come and take you away to a land that is like your own land...that you may live and not die') [Literary expansion, 18.32b-35]31 (3) Silence of the citizens, v. 36 ('But the people were silent and answered him not a word...') 2. Resolution, 18.37-19.9a, 36a|3b-37 a. The eliciting of Yahweh's response, 18.37-19.4 (1) The high officials report to Hezekiah, 18.37-19.1 (2) Hezekiah appeals to Yahweh, 19.2-4 (a) Hezekiah sends the high officials to Isaiah, v. 2 (b) Request for special intercession, vv. 3-4 ('Thus says Hezekiah...) 1) Characterization of the predicament, v. 3 ("This day is a day of distress, of rebuke and of disgrace... Children have come forth to the birth and there is no strength to bring them forth ") 2) Conjectural motivation for divine intervention, v. 4 ( "It may be that Yahweh your god heard...and will rebuke... Therefore lift up your prayer for the remnant... " ") b. Isaiah gives Yahweh's response, w. 5-7 (1) Reassurance concerning the Rabshakeh's demands, w. 5-6 ('Say to your master... "Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have reviled me " ") (2) Promise of a 'spirit' and a rumor to drive Sennacherib away, v. 7 ('Behold, I will put a spirit in him so that he shall hear a rumor12 and return to his own land, and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land')
31. A virtual duplicate of 2 Kgs 19.11-13 that appears also in the Isaiah doublet. 32. The Hebrew reads HUIQC UQET1 im in ]H3 ^H.
232
God's Word for Our World c. Fulfilment, w. 8-9a, 36a, 36b-37 (1) The Rabshakeh returns to Sennacherib, v. 8a [Explicative gloss, 19.8b]33 (2) Sennacherib hears a disturbing rumor, v. 9a ('And when the king heard concerning Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, "Behold, he has set out to fight with you...'")34 (3) Sennacherib returns to Nineveh, w. 36a, 36b (4) Sennacherib's ignoble death, v. 37
In 1 Kings 13 everything is focused on the Bethel prophet's request to be buried alongside the Judahite man of God (vv. 31-32). In 20.32b-43a the narration points to 'your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people'. In 2 Kings 5 the climax comes at v. 26 in Elisha's rhetorical question, 'Is is a time to accept money and garments?'—to which the transfer of Naaman's affliction to Gehazi is the narrative denouement. Nothing like that is happening here. True, there is an almost laconic denouement in 2 Kgs 19.36, 'then Sennacherib departed', to which v. 37— about his being slain in the temple of his patron god—seems to come as an anticlimax. But when we compare the amount of discourse with the amount of narrative action we notice that the discourse has suddenly come into dominance, far surpassing the role of discourse in the rather wordy account of Naaman's cure. In the old prophet legends, speech was given the roles of enlivening the action and of providing the clue—often paradoxical—for understanding the action, but we do not at all find ourselves relying on the discourse for interpreting the action in this narrative about Sennacherib. It is the other way around: the discourse has become dominant and the action is little more than a framework that provides a context for what is being said. This situation can be recognized when we review the rather straightforward narrative action of this story. Sennacherib's emissary challenges Yahweh at the walls of Jerusalem. Hezekiah's officials try to get him not to speak Hebrew but are rebuffed. The officials report to Hezekiah and he sends them to Isaiah, who answers with a prophecy that is fulfilled with 33. Found also in the parallel account at 37.8b. 34. What follows in v. 9b, 'And when he heard it he sent messengers to Hezekiah. ..', is a redactional transition for the appending of the variant literary source. 35. This is the kethib (what is represented by the consonantal text), but the qere (the consonantal text with vowel letters added by the Masoretes) has 'his sons', as in Isa. 37.38.
DEVRIES The Interface
233
the siege being broken off, Sennacherib becoming alarmed at the report of an approaching Cushite army, and him returning to Assyria. The brief notice of his assassination is thrown in at the end to establish the point that one cannot get away with talking about the Israelite God the way he did. In itself, this is not an especially interesting story. There is little character delineation and one ends up knowing little about the three officials, Hezekiah, or Isaiah. Mention of wearing sackcloth and tearing garments is a stereotype that generates little interest. All it does is alert the reader to the fact that all the important people in Jerusalem with the exception of Isaiah are greatly distressed. The Rabshakeh performs very little action but is given marvelous words to speak. We almost admire him for the way he rebuffs the wooden officials who do not want the people to hear what he says, 'Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and to you, and not to the men sitting on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and to drink their own urine?' This is language that alerts the modern reader to the suffering that must come with being walled in without sufficient food or water over a prolonged period of time, just as it creates tension in the story. It seems so realistic that we have to allow for the possibility that it reports an actual historical situation, but still we realize that any good writer knowing the grimness of siege warfare could easily imagine it. This one speech is the only one in the story that is expressly designed to advance the action. All the remaining discourse—two more speeches by the Rabshakeh, one by Hezekiah, and Isaiah's oracle—are framed by the narrative. From this we are able to see that the discourse has assumed major importance in this narrative. It is the message rather than the action that counts. The taunting speech in 18.19-24 is very realistic and may have historical importance, especially the intimation in v. 22 that there may have been resentment in Jerusalem for Hezekiah's suppression of the local shrines (cf. 18.4). Although it is possible to imagine this speech, or one very much like it actually being spoken in the Jerusalem of this period, its major purpose in the narrative as a whole is to depict the mocking attitude of all Yahweh's antagonists, within and outside the land. Its function is to depict the alarming contrast between the relative weakness of Hezekiah and the power of the Assyrian army that confronts him. The concluding line of this speech in 18.25 articulates the major theological premise of the entire confrontation: 'Moreover, is it without Yahweh that I have come up against this place to destroy it? Yahweh said
234
God's Word for Our World
to me, "Go up against this land and destroy it".' The translation 'moreover' is inadequate here because the Hebrew word nnr ('now')36 serves as a situational transition connecting the premise in what precedes to the consequence in what follows within a logical train of thought. The mocking and taunting is based upon the Rabshakeh's premise; namely, that Hezekiah is worthy of it. The conclusion that he would be happy to assume is that Hezekiah's God has forsaken him, and that becomes the issue of the narrative as a whole. No matter that the Rabshakeh frames this as a rhetorical question. Whether he is making it up or not, he would like Hezekiah to believe that it is actually his god, Yahweh, who has brought the Assyrians to attack him. The last speech of the Rabshakeh has again the aspect of verisimilitude. Any king, and certainly the king of Assyria under the circumstances, might talk this way. On the other hand, it could readily be imagined. The Rabshakeh shouts it for the citizens to hear, spelling out the terms of capitulation to Sennacherib and making them think that this great king is actually doing them a favor: 'I (will) come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey, that you may live and not die'. In any event, the message is in the words rather than in the manner in which the Rabshakeh says it; that is, in the discourse rather than in the action as such. In his message to Isaiah, Hezekiah interprets what has been done and said in lyrical and theological language. First comes a poetically formed lament in 3.2 qinah style: A day of distress, rebuke, and disgrace is this day; For37 children have come to the breach but there is no strength to bear them.
Then comes Hezekiah's effort to contrive a consideration for divine action, 'It may be that Yahweh your god heard the words of the Rabshakeh. . .and will rebuke the words which Yahweh your god has heard. For this reason lift up your prayer for the remnant that is left.' Echoing in this prayer are multitudes of implorations that later came from the mouths of those who were yet to suffer—in particular the generation just prior to the Babylonian exile, the time when this particular narrative was most 36. The parallel in Isa. 36.10 has the more pregnant form, HflUT ('so now'). 37. Or 'verily, indeed'.
DEVRIES The Interface+
/235
likely composed. We can be certain that the 'Hezekiah' of this story was praying for a later generation because all four narratives of 1 Kings 19-20 //Isaiah 36-39 come from that period.38 Isaiah's message to Hezekiah at the end of the pericope is not expansive. The prophet exhorts him not to be afraid because it is Yahweh's plan to put a 'spirit' in the king of Assyria which will cause him to hear a 'rumor'39 that he is about to be attacked by Tirhakah the Cushite, which in turn will cause him to flee the country and return to his own land. This message must be seen as the answer to what is claimed in 18.25; namely, that it was not without Yahweh that Sennacherib had come, but at his express behest. This feature justifies calling this a 'word-controversy narrative'. There is another of this kind in 1 Kgs 22.10-13, 19-25, where Micaiah reports seeing a 'spirit'40 come forward and offer to be a lying spirit ("Ipttf m~l) in the mouths of the king's prophets. In the passage under study it is word against word, revelation against revelation. The central question is not, 'Whose god will triumph?', but 'Which king has received authentic revelation from Yahweh?' b. Account of a Dispute between Sennacherib and Yahweh, 2 Kings 19.9b-35//Isaiah 37.9b-37 This variant account has been merged into the preceding prophet legend. Its initial structure was as follows: 1. Sennacherib's message to Hezekiah, 2 Kgs 19.9b a. His warning against resistance, vv. 9b-13 b. Hezekiah's appeal to Yahweh, w. 14-19 2. Yahweh's defiant reply, 19.20, 32-34 3. Fulfilment, 19.35
Added to this is the collection of oracles in poetic form that appear in vv. 21-28, which are probably from Isaiah himself, followed by a prose 38. Very likely all four narratives were brought together as a collection shortly before 597, the date of the first deportation from Jerusalem, which is the apparent background of 2 Kgs 20.17-18, predicting the exile of some of Hezekiah's posterity. They were added by an editor to the pre-exilic corpus of Isaiah just at the transition to the section of Second Isaiah' beginning at ch. 40. Subsequently they were taken over by Dtr to fill out his own material on the reign of Hezekiah, which originally contained no more than 2 Kgs 18.1-14 and 20.20-21. 39. What is meant is not the report brought by spies but a mental perception caused by the 'spirit'. 40. ni~in in this passage.
236
God's Word for Our World
oracle of uncertain vintage in vv. 29-31. It will be observed that Hezekiah is at least as important in this account as Isaiah. Thus the genre-name, 'prophet legend', hardly fits and a more suitable name might be 'royal legend' since the story's evident purpose is to enhance the image of Hezekiah as a potent intermediary with God. The only reason why I mention this material at this point is to show what can happen when the balance shifts from the action to the discourse as early traditions modulate into forms strange to that of the original account. In this variant form of the Sennacherib tradition there is in fact virtually no action, little to prepare for the startling report at the very end of an angel coming from Yahweh to slay a 185,000 Assyrians. This is a remedy far more severe than what was requested or predicted. Hezekiah had asked only for rescue from Sennacherib and the worldwide knowledge than only Yahweh is God (v. 19), which is grand enough to suit the context and yet essentially positive in its expectation. Yahweh had promised no more than to defend Jerusalem in order to rescue his own name and that of David (vv. 32-34). The conclusion is that the motif of a holy-war annihilation of the enemy is foreign even to its own documentary framework and certainly to the original Sennacherib tradition as such.41 3. Other Narrative Action in the Prophetic Books I have discussed the disappearance of prophet legend and the emergence of oracular collections on pp. vii-viii of my book, Prophet Against Prophet, where I call attention to the fact that the time when prophet legend as a genre flourished was prior to the rise of international imperialism. It was the emerging threat of foreign aggression that stimulated discourse as a prophetic mode of communication. We must bear in mind also that the prophet-legend collection arose in the Northern Kingdom, while virtually the entire content of the prophecy as proclaimed arose in Judah. We note also that, wherever there is the theme of conflict in the prophet legends, this is between Israel's own prophets and king, or between one Israelite prophet and another Israelite prophet. An emerging new theme was the struggle between two rival kings, Israelite and Syrian, with a prophet as go-between. The Syrians were active on northern Israel's northwest border, seriously threatening its independence and even existence in the 41. For further analysis of this pericope, see R.E. Clements, The Prophecies of Isaiah to Hezekiah concerning Sennacherib: Old Testament Prophecy From Oracle to Canon (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), pp. 35-48.
DEVRIES The Interface+
+237
time of these stories, but an even greater menace emerged at the time of Assyrian aggression, ultimately destroying Syria along with the Northern Kingdom of Israel. When Judah's turn came, King Hezekiah gained a respite by submitting to the Assyrians and actually becoming their vassal, a policy that was continued during the forty-five-year reign of his son Manasseh. It is this menace of Assyrian imperialism that is reflected in the preserved writings of the pre-exilic prophets Isaiah, Micah, Zephaniah, and Nahum. The menace of Neo-Babylonian imperialism looms in the background of Habakkuk, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Our attention is drawn to the challenge of accounting for the dominance of oracular proclamation throughout the preserved prophetic collection and to observe ways in which narrative action still plays a role. Narrative is now mainly employed in introductory rubrics for individual prophecies or collections of prophecies. In Hosea we find it in the form of schematic information concerning the prophet's marriage with Gomer (1.2-9 and 3.1 -2), but this is not offered as biographical information, but to provide a symbol of resistance to the threat of Baalistic fertility worship and to the wayward public life that goes with it. Amos has no narrative except as a situational background for the call visions in chs. 7-8. Isaiah makes little use of it outside 6.1-8; 7.1-3, 10-14; 8.1-4 (all in the biographical and autobiographical sections), and the collection of late prophet legends of chs. 36-39. It is Jeremiah who makes the most regular use of narrative action, employing it as background for oracles and collections of oracles in all sections of the book except that of the foreign oracles.42 Ezekiel is on his part far more inventive than Jeremiah in the use of narrative forms in the service of his proclamation.43 Among the postexilic prophets, fragments of narrative are found only at 1.1, 12-15 ofthebookofHaggaiand in 6.9-14 and 11.4-14 within the book of Zechariah. Jonah is, of course, entirely made up of narrative. Daniel, the sole Old Testament book of apocalypse, employs narrative in the form of hero-legends in all six of its opening chapters and in a series of apocalyptic visions in the others. We may turn to Ezekiel in search of meaningful narration, if anywhere, because he displays an unparalleled level of skill in adapting visual imagery to the service of his proclamation, though we will find that in 42. Jer. 1.11-12, 13-19; 13.1-7; 18.1-4; 20.1-3; 25.15-17; 26.1-24; 27.1; 28.1-17; 29.1-3; 32.1-16; 36.9-32; 38.1-28; 39.1-18; 40.1-16;41.1-18;42.1-43.13;44.1,15-19; 51.59-64 43. Cf. Ezek. 1-5; 8-10; plus 23.1-22; 24.15-24; 37.1-10; 40.1-43.5; 44.1-4; 46.19-24; 47.1-6.
238
God's Word for Our World
every instance, the visual element remains ancillary to the discourse. Ezekiel must have had an exceptionally fertile imagination.44 He has vision oracles,45 symbolic-act oracles,46 extended-metaphor oracles,47 limitedmetaphor oracles,48 citation oracles,49 and thematic oracles.50 Nevertheless, there is no true narrative. I shall analyze his most complex and extended vision oracle to substantiate this. a. The Account of a Visionary Tour51 of the Temple in Ezekiel 8-11 Once we have set aside a large amount of secondary material,52 we are able to get a clear idea of a remarkable vision containing liberal amounts of discourse along with a highly schematic narrative. One immediately sees that the discourse occupies strategic positions for providing the meaning and purpose of what is narrated. As I indicate the structure, I shall show the place and function of discourse within this structure. 1. Ezekiel's ecstatic transport to the temple, 8.1-4 a. The situation: Ezekiel in a trance before the elders of Judah, v. 1 b. The form of a human hand, v. 2a [Expansion, 8.2b] c. The Spirit takes him to Jerusalem, v. 3 [Expansion, 8.4] 2. Abominations in the temple, 8.5-18 a. Scene One, w. 5-6 (1) The image of jealousy in the north court, v. 5 ( 'Son of man, lift up your eyes now in the direction of the north ') 44. A symptom of redactional derivation is often the comparative inferiority of a narrative's symbolism and structuring. 45. Ezek. 1.1-3.15; 8-11; 37.1-14; 40-48. 46. Ezek. 3.22-5.17; 12.1-16, 17-20; 21.18-32; 24.17-20; 33.21-22; 37.15-28. 47. Ezek. 16; 17; 19; 23; 27; 28.11-19; 29.1-16; 31; 32.1-16, 17-32; 34. 48. Ezek. 3.16-21; 6; 15; 20.45-21.7; 21.8-17; 22.17-22; 24.1-14; 28.1-10; 29.1721; 30.20-26; 33.30-33; 38-39. 49. Ezek. 12.21-25, 26-28; 18; 26; 33.1-20, 23-29; 35; 36.1-15, 16-38; 37.1-14. 50. Ezek. 7; 13; 14.1-11, 12-23; 20; 22.1-16, 23-31; 25; 28.20-26; 30.1-19. 51. The genre of guided tour is seen also in Ezek. 40.1-43.9; cf. the Ethiopie book of Enoch, chs. 17-37. 52. As in outlines of previously examined pericopes, secondary materials are enclosed in square brackets. 53. Probably Asherah, chief fertility goddess of the Canaanite-Ugaritic pantheon and possibly mentioned as Yahweh's consort in one ancient inscription.
DEVRIES The Interface+
239
(2) Summons to witness, v. 6aba ( 'Son of man, do you see what they are doing...to drive me far from my sanctuary? '} (3) Prediction of more to come, v. 6bp ( 'You will see still greater abominations "} b. Scene Two, vv. 7-12 (1) Transition: Ezekiel is conducted to the door of the north court, v. 7a [Expansions, 8.7b-8] (2) Images of loathsome beasts54 seen through a hole in the wall, w. 9-10 ( 'Go in and see the vile abominations that they are committing here '} (3) Sight of 70 elders making incense, v. 11 (4) Summons to witness, v. 12 ('Son of man, have you seen what the elders...are doing...every man in his room of pictures? *) (a) Where they are, v. 12a (b) What they are saying, v. 12b ( 'Yahweh does not see, Yahweh has forsaken the land") (5) Prediction of more to come, v. 13 ( 'You will see still greater abominations which they commit1} c. Scene Three, w. 14-15 (1) Transition: Ezekiel is conducted to north gate, v. 14a (2) Sight of women worshipping Tammuz, v. 14b55 (3) Summons to witness, v. 15a ( 'Have you seen this, Son of man? *) (4) Prediction of more to come, v. 15b ( 'You will see still greater abominations than these ') d. Scene Four, vv. 16-18 (1) Transition: Ezekiel conducted to inner temple court, v. 16a (2) Sight of twenty-five sun56 worshippers at the temple gate, v. 16b (3) Summons to witness, v. 17a ('Have you seen this, O son of man?') (4) The scandalous offense, v. 17b ( 'Is it too slight a thing... to commit the abominations which they commit here? Lo, they put the branch to their nose'}51 (5) Oracular announcement, v. 18 ( 'Therefore I will deal in wrath... ') (a) No more seeing, v. 18a ( 'My eye will not spare, nor will 1 have pity... ') (b) No more hearing, v. 18b ( 'Though they cry in my ears ...I will not hear them *) 54. Apparently Egyptian gods and goddesses as portrayed in hieroglyphic inscriptions. 55. Tammuz is equivalent to Dumuzi, Babylonian male fertility deity. 56. In Babylonian religion, Marduk, chief of the pantheon. 57. The medieval Jewish scholars explained that this means making a stink in God's face. Such a crass anthropomorphism is to be expected of Ezekiel.
240
God's Word for Our World
3. The application of penalties, 9.1-11 a. Scene Five, w. 1-7 (1) The city's executioners appear, w. 1-2 (a) Summons, v. 1 ( 'Draw near, you executioners of the city ") (b) Six executioners and a scribe stand before the bronze altar, v. 2 (2) The execution of the guilty, w. 3-7 (a) Instruction to the scribe, w. 3-4 [Expansion, 9.3a] 1) Summons, v. 3b 2) A saving mark upon the innocent, v. 4 ('Go through the ++++++++++++++./pon the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it'} (b) Instruction to the executioners, w. 5-7 1) Command for complete annihilation of the inhabitants, w. 5-6a ( 'Pass through the city after him and smite... but touch no one upon whom is the mark, and begin at my sanctuary ' 2) They execute the sun-worshippers first, v. 6b [Expansion, 9.7] b. The prophet's protest and the divine response, w. 8-10 (1) His agonizing reaction, v. 8 (a) He prostrates himself, v. 8a (b) He cries to God, v. 8b ( 'Ah lord Yahweh! Will you destroy what remains of Israel in the outpouring of y our wrath upon Jerusalem? ') (2) Yahweh's oracular response, w. 9-10 (a) Verdict: Wickedness prevails everywhere, v. 9a ( 'The guilt of the house of Israel...is exceedingly great, the land is full of blood, and the city full of injustice ') (b) Evidence for this verdict, v. 9b ( 'For they say, "Yahweh has forsaken the land and Yahweh does not see " ') (c) Yahweh's determination to punish, v. 10 ( 'As for me, my eye will not spare nor will I have pity, but I will requite their deeds upon their heads ') (3) The scribe's report, v. 11 ( 7 have done as you commanded me ') c. Scene Six, 10.1-11.25 [Expansion, 10.1]
58. Hebrew tâw—the same as the alphabetic letter, which was in the form of an X in early Hebrew. One may speculate on the possibility that this gave rise to the penitential crossing of people's foreheads in Christian penitential ritual.
DEVRIES The Interface+
241
(1) Instruction to the scribe, v. 2aba ('Go in beneath the cherubim, fill your hands with burning coals...and scatter them over the city') (2) The scribe enters the inner sanctuary, v. 2bp (3) The cherubim and the shekinah, w. 3-4 [Expansion, 10.5-6] (4) The cherub places fire in the scribe's hands, v. 7 [Expansions, 10.8-17] (5) The shekinah departs to the east gate of the temple, w. 18a, 19b [Expansions, 10.18b, 19a, 20-22; 11.1-12, 13, 14-22] (6) The shekinah departs to the mountain east of the city, 11.23 4. Ezekiel's ecstatic return to Chaldea, 11.24-25 a. The Spirit brings Ezekiel to Chaldea, v. 24a b. The vision is concluded, v. 24b c. Ezekiel communicates it to the exiles, v. 25
This is not, properly speaking, narrative. True, certain things happen, but the elements most heavily laden with significance remain still, like displays in a museum or old-fashioned tableaux on the stage. The opening scene presents the prophet and the elders of Judah sitting in the prophet's house, awaiting a vision. The form of a man appears and his hand takes him by a lock of his hair to the temple in Jerusalem. This is followed by four tableaux representing the abominations that are going on in the temple in Jerusalem, the first being in the entranceway of Jerusalem's north gate, where an image of Asherah is displayed. The second tableau is before the door of the court, where seventy elders are burning incense to the animal gods of Egypt. The third tableau is at the entrance into Yahweh's temple, where women are engaged in ritual weeping for Tammuz. The fourth is between the temple porch and the altar that stands in front of it, where twenty-five men are worshipping the rising sun with their backs to the sanctuary. It is not true that the people in these various tableaux are doing nothing; but the ritual acts that they are performing consist of repeated motions and have no status as events. Nor is Ezekiel's ecstatic transport to and from Jerusalem an event in the proper sense. True, this also happens, but only in the way a curtain drops or a scene is changed in a play. Ezekiel is led here and there, but it is like the turning of a leaf in a book or the clicking to a new channel on the television. More seems to be happening in the judgment scene, yet this too is stagey. Groups of men come on stage: the six executioners with their swords and the man in linen with his inkpot. They
242
God's Word for Our World
are commissioned, they go out either to spare or to smite, and the scribe reports their task completed—all in a mechanical way. In the barely recoverable final episode, the cloud of glory moves away by stages, standing first at the east gate of the temple complex and then on the Mount of Olives. It should not be said that these motions are meaningless because each action is symbolic either of the city's wickedness or of the divine justice upon it. The departure of the cloud of glory is meant to be catastrophic, and yet it hesitates to go, standing at the end in a position of readiness to return once more, if Yahweh should so allow. There is monotony in the repeated formulas of interlocution, 'Son of man, do you see?' and 'You will see still greater abominations'. But what Ezekiel sees is magnified in what he hears: 'Yahweh does not see, Yahweh has forsaken the land' (8.12) or its reverse, 'Yahweh has forsaken the land and Yahweh does not see' (9.9). It is in these and other emotion-laden sayings by Yahweh or the prophet that the ultimate meaning of the vision comes to realization. The prophet remains silent, but at the conclusion of Yahweh's command to the executioners to spare no one, not even infants, an expression of dismay bursts from his mouth, 'Ah lord Yahweh, will you destroy what remains of Israel in the outpouring of your wrath upon Jerusalem?' (9.8), which in turn provokes Yahweh's final peroration, 'The guilt of the house of Israel.. .is exceedingly great... My eye will not spare, no will I have pity, but I will requite their deeds upon their heads' (9.9-10). True, the mark on the foreheads of those who grieve over wickedness as Yahweh grieves leaves room for words of hope such as are found in Ezek. 37.1-14, but only those who have learned the grief that their sins have cost Yahweh can share in this hope. b. The Re-Emergence of Prophet Legend in the Book of Jonah I shall conclude this analysis with a brief examination of the book of Jonah. It scarcely fits in the same company with the other prophetic books because it contains a story—a story containing oral discourse, to be sure, but a story still. There is no possibility of its belonging to the pre-exilic period, in spite of its being attributed to the prophet named Jonah ben Amittai who is mentioned in 2 Kgs 14.25. Such features as naming Yahweh 'the God of Heaven' date the book to the Persian period, and the reference to Nineveh in the grammatical perfect in 3.359 indicates that 59. The Hebrew reads D'IT HObîD f ^H] DTI^N1? nbnriT nivn mm ('Now Nineveh was a god-sized great city taking three days to traverse').
DEVRIES The Interface..
/243
Nineveh had long ceased to exist.60 The attribution to the Jonah of 2 Kings may be explained as an effort to create a prophet legend in the old style, but with application to late postexilic conditions. The element of the miraculous is even more abundant than in any of the old stories of the prophets; in fact the great fish is not nearly so marvelous as the fact that a true prophet of Yahweh should so disobey a direct command from God as to flee in the opposite direction from that intended, and that when he reluctantly does prophecy in Nineveh everyone is immediately converted. The intelligent modern student of biblical prophecy ought to recognize here a parody of prophecy, for that is what it is. Its purpose is not to display the virtues that are admirable in a prophet, but to demonstrate his faults when he goes astray. In sum, we are dealing not with a disobedient prophet, but with all who refuse to allow God to repent. The God from whom Jonah tries to flee will not tolerate the attitude that Israel's enemies are permanently and immutably his enemies. Although the Jonah narrative is familiar, it may be helpful once again to display its structure, taking special care to indicate places where there is discourse. The structure is as follows: 1. Jonah flees from his duty, 1.1-2.10 a. He escapes to Tarshish, 1.1-3 (1) He receives a command to cry against Nineveh, w. 1-2 ( 'Arise and go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before me ') (2) He boards a ship, v. 3 b. A storm results in the jettisoning of Jonah, vv. 4-16 (1) Yahweh sends a storm that threatens to sink the ship, w. 4-5a (2) Jonah is roused to help save the ship, vv. 5b-6 ( 'What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call upon your god! Perhaps the god will give a thought to us, that we do not perish ') (3) Jonah is identified as a culprit, w. 7-10 (a) A lot points to Jonah, v. 7 ( 'Come, let us cast lots, that we may know on whose account this evil has come upon us ') (b) Jonah is examined, w. 8-9 1) Questions, v. 8 ( 'Tell us, on whose account this evil has come upon us? What is your occupation? And whence do you come? What is your country? And of what people are you? ") 2) His response, v. 9 ( 7 am a Hebrew; and I fear Yahweh, the God of Heaven, who made the sea and the dry land'} (c) The sailors dread the consequences of Jonah's flight, v. 10 ( 'What is this that you have done! ') 60. It fell in 612 BCE.
244
God's Word for Our World (4) Jonah is cast overboard, w. 11-16 (a) A desperate effort to save the ship, w. 11-13 1) The sailors' question, v. 11 ( 'What shall we do to you, that the sea may quiet down for us? ") 2) Jonah's advice, v. 12 ( 'Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you ') 3) The increasing threat of sinking, v. 13 (b) A final recourse, w. 14-16 1) The sailors pray for absolution, v. 14 ('We beseech you, O Yahweh, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not on us innocent blood; for you, O Yahweh, have done as it pleased you') 2) Jonah is sacrificed, v. 15 3) The sailors' acts of contrition, v. 16 (5) Jonah survives in the belly of a great fish, v. 17 [Expansion: The prayer of Jonah, 2.1-9]
(6) He is cast on dry land, 2.10 2. Jonah reluctantly performs his duty, 3.1-4.11 a. Jonah's preaching brings the Ninevites to faith in Yahweh, 3.1-5 (1) He obeys Yahweh's new command, w. l-3a ( 'Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I tell you ') (2) He preaches to the Ninevites, vv. 3b-4 ( 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown! ") (3) The Ninevites believe and repent, v. 5 b. The king makes a decree, w. 6-9 (1) His acts of contrition, v. 6 (2) His proclamation, w. 7-9 (a) Command to fast, v. 7 ( 'By the decree of the king and his nobles; Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, or drink water... ') (b) Command to repent, v. 8 ( 'but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them cry mightily to God; yea, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence which is in his hands ') (c) The hope of moving God to relent, v. 9 ('Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not? ') c. Opposing responses to Nineveh's conversion, 3.10^.4 (1) God withdraws the intended wrath on Nineveh, 3.10 (2) Jonah prays for his own death, 4.1-4 (a) His anger, v. 1 (b) His prayer, w. 2-3
DEVRIES The Interface..
.245
1) His motivation for fleeing supported, v. 2 ( 'Ipray you, Yahweh, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish;for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repent of evil') 2) His request to die, v. 3 ( 'Therefore now, O Yahweh, take my life from me, I beseech you, for it is better for me to die than to live ') (c) Yahweh's censure, v. 4 ( 'Do you well to be angry? ') d. Opposing responses to the withering of a plant, w. 5-11 (1) Jonah watches for the outcome of his preaching, v. 5 (2) Yahweh favors Jonah with a sheltering plant, v. 6 (3) Yahweh appoints agents of destruction, w. 7-8a (a) A devouring worm, v. 7 (b) A scorching sun, v. 8a (4) Yahweh reproves Jonah for his reaction, w. 8b-9 (a) Jonah renews his prayer for death, v. 8b ( 'It is betterfor me to die than to live ') (b) Yahweh's censure, v. 9a ('Do you well to be angry for the plant?'} (c) Jonah's unrepentance, v. 9b ( 'Ido well to be angry, angry enough to die ') (5) Yahweh repudiates Jonah's distorted sense of priority, vv. 10-11 (a) Jonah's ridiculous grief over his withered plant, v. 10 ( 'Youpity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night, and perished in a night... ') (b) His unwillingness to respect Yahweh's concern for the Ninevites, v. 11 ('and should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle? ')
Now we have a position from which to interpret the interchange of speech and action in the prophet legends that we have previously studied. By comparison, we see an amazing amount of discourse here, artfully created and effectively utilized. From the large variety of speeches which the author of Jonah creates, he has been able to make perfectly clear where the main emphasis lies. It is in the twice-repeated rhetorical question to Jonah (4.4, 9), 'Do you well to be angry?' This is the concern that drives the entire action. Jonah is angry, but he should not be. If the Lord of the universe is glad over the conversion of the wicked, then fie on anyone relishing the prospect of death and damnation! It is evident that the author of this book loves the old prophet legends and understands how they work. Even more ideally than in the old
246
God's Word for Our World
narratives, he knows how to employ action and speech in tandem in order to create a dynamic interface between prophecy as narrative and prophecy as proclamation. His book most definitely does belong in the canonical collection of prophecies. We may be sure that it was readily understood, appealing, and effective in its address to the community for which it was first written, as it may be for all subsequent generations of attentive readers and obedient believers.
BALAK: THE FORGOTTEN CHARACTER IN NUMBERS 22-24
Won W. Lee
1. Introduction From antiquity, Numbers 22-24 has always been referred to in a way which puts the figure of Balaam at the center of the story. This 'Balaam pericope' shows quite clearly that it is none other than Balaam who controls the flow of the story and plays the key role for constituting the compositional integrity of these chapters. Without him the text as a whole could not exist in its extant form as it reveals the complex interrelationship among its various components and the significance of its placement within the book of Numbers. The previous scholarship on Numbers 22-24 testifies to this phenomenon well in that it has predominantly centered around the figure of Balaam.1 Whether scholars have approached this text diachronically (through textual and philological analysis of its poetry section, source critical delineation of its narrative section, form-critical study of the oracles, and tradition-historical investigation of its literary growth up to the present shape) or synchronically (exploring the artistic combination of its poetry and narrative sections, the purpose of the folktale of Balaam and his donkey within the text, and the role of diverse literary techniques employed in the text),2 both methods have related their results in one way 1. Most recent commentaries provide an overview of critical issues with abundant bibliographies; see E.W. Davies, Numbers (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 236-84; T.R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 432-511; J. Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1990), pp. 467-76. See especially B.A. Levine, Numbers 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 4B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 137-275. Levine's commentary contains 138 pages (almost one quarter of the entire book) of meticulously thorough, verse-by-verse analysis of the text with insightful treatments of literary, historical, archeological, and even theological issues raised by the text. 2. For exemplary studies of each category listed, see the bibliographies provided by Olson and Moore: D.T, Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The
248
God's Word for Our World
or the other to reconstructing the character of Balaam. Hence, they have contributed significantly toward answering such questions as: Does Balaam come from Aram (Syria) or Transjordan? Is he a real historical figure who would have lived around the ninth and eighth centuries BCE? Is he a diviner, seer, or exorcist, even a monarch? Is his reputation as such (22.6b) creditable or legendary? Is he an obedient servant of Yahweh or a 'sinner' who rejects the way of Yahweh? Or is he a converted international prophet of Yahweh whose nature has been fundamentally transformed from a foreign and pagan diviner (22.5-6) to a spirit-filled 'mouth piece' of Yahweh (24.2) proclaiming the fate of other countries (24.15-24) through his inability to 'see' Yahweh's angel standing directly his path (22.22-30)? This preoccupation with the figure of Balaam in previous scholarship does have legitimate grounds. The bulk of Numbers 22-24 narrates Balaam's activities. In the middle of ch. 22, there is the folktale of the miraculously talking donkey (vv. 22-35) in which Balak, another major character, is totally absent. Chapters 23-24 contain the seven oracles that Balaam uttered; the first three (23.7-10,18-24; 24.3-9) are his responses to Balak's three requests, and the last four (24.15-19, 20, 21-22, 23-24) are free advice to Balak.3 No doubt these oracles provide a unique window of Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJS, 71 ; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 153-56 nn. 1-14,228-29; M.S. Moore, The Balaam Traditions: Their Characters and Development (ed. J.J.M. Roberts and C. Talbert; SBLDS, 113; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 1-7. See also J.T. Greene, Balaam and His Interpreters: A Hermeneutical History of the Balaam Traditions (BJS, 244; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). As regards the synchronie approach, Margaliot's comment is typical. Margaliot opposes the diachronic approach of Num. 22-24 as 'unscientific' and begins his literary analysis with the purpose of understanding] its [the text's] apparent diversity as subordinated to its central idea or concept as a means to convey its main purport'. For him, this central theme of the text is 'the problem of the relationship between the prophet and his God, the LORD (the tetragrammaton)' (M. Margaliot, 'Literary, Historical and Religious Aspects of the Balaam Narrative, Numbers 22-24', Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990], pp. 75-82 [76 and 77, respectively]). 3. First, these seven oracles all begin with the identical heading, 1QW11 "?CQ NET!; hence the present literary form of the story indicates that they are independently uttered, regardless of their content, length, and assumed origins. Second, the extant text clearly divides these seven oracles into two categories. The first three should be grouped together as Balaam's responses to Balak's requests, while the last four are given to Balak, without Balak's request. Balaam utters the last four consecutively under the rubric of his 'advice' to Balak (24.14). Therefore, claiming that there are four of Balaam's oracles with three later appended oracles is not what the extant text shows.
LEE Balak: The Forgotten Character
249
opportunity to see Yahweh, the God of Israel, who determines to bless his own people through a non-Israelite diviner; hence they pique theological curiosity. Does this mean that the God of Israel has power extending beyond his own 'territory'? If so, does this indicate that Yahweh is here to be identified with El, Elyon, or Shaddai as in 24.16 (cf. 23.8) or instead that Yahweh is the only one and true God who determines the fate of all nation (indicated in 24.15-24)? On the other side of this question one must ask whether a pagan diviner whose practice, that is, leaving the sacrificial place for the purpose of obtaining omens (23.3,15),4 is clearly outside of Israel's sacrificial systems, can claim to be a prophet of Yahweh (22.18). Undoubtedly these theological questions are important in reconstructing the history of Israelite monotheism and cultic institutions. Moreover, beyond the textual grounds raised from Numbers 22-24, there are other biblical tradents that concentrate mainly on the character of Balaam. They portray him either positively (Mic. 6.3-5), neutrally (Josh. 24.9-10), or negatively (Num. 31.16; Deut. 23.4-7; Neh. 13.1-2; 2 Pet. 2.15-16; Jude II).5 These post-Numbers accounts are compounded by non-biblical Jewish writings in which the spectrum of roles ascribed to Balaam is also evident.6 Furthermore, the fascination with Balaam is enhanced by a recent archeological discovery, dated to the eighth century BCE at Deir 'Alia, not too distant from the Plains of Moab, reporting the activity of a seer named 'Balaam, son of Beor'.7 This non-biblical evidence clearly reinforces the already-established ongoing interpretive traditions of the story of Balak and Balaam that have exclusively focused on the figure of Balaam. But this line of research has inevitably neglected the other major figure in Numbers 22-24. As the story unfolds, Balak also plays an important role. The story begins with Balak's fear of the triumphant Israelites and ends with his departure from Balaam to go his own way. Without Balak, Balaam, however his characters and roles may be portrayed, would not enter into the story in the first place. Balaam is at best an employee hired 4. See Levine's assessment on Balaam's practice of perambulation': 'This is the only instance in biblical literature where we read that one seeks to attract the God of Israel by walking about so as to receive a communication from him' (Levine, Numbers 21-36, p. 166). 5. Greene, Balaam and His Interpreters, pp. 69-81. 6. Greene, Balaam and His Interpreters, pp. 82-140; Moore, The Balaam Traditions, p. 1; Milgrom, Numbers, p. 470. 7. For the latest analysis of the Balaam inscriptions from Deir 'Alia, see Levine, Numbers 21-36, pp. 241-75.
250
God's Word for Our World
to do a 'dirty' job for Balak! If Balak's plan goes unaccomplished, Balaam has nothing to lose, except only his reputation, as Balak assumes. Even if that well-known reputation is at stake, the story in its entirety shows Balaam as a diviner in the true sense of the title: one who is bound by and follows the divine instruction in all circumstances, instead of compromising one's integrity. On the other hand, if Balaam does not do what he is hired to do Balak may lose everything. The fate of his kingdom is at stake. Is this not the very reason that he determines to employ Balaam even though Balaam refuses his offer initially (22.15-16)? Note that Balak attempts three times to induce Yahweh's curse on Israel, even if he is warned at the outset concerning Balaam's inability to do anything on his own authority (22.38). As this brief reading of the surface of the story indicates, the text in itself warrants being read through the perspective of Balak. In other words, the unequal treatment of Balak in past scholarship is indicative of a tendency in biblical interpretation, namely, to read the text under study through the vantage point of its interpretive history. Neither the validity of this method nor its effectiveness in explicating meanings of the text under study will be questioned here. Nevertheless, at the very least the text should also be allowed to speak for itself on its own terms and in its own right, because it 'contains in itself its own principles for interpretation and validation'.8 This exegetical approach demands that an exegesis should account for 'every identifiable voice and viewpoint' of the text under study for its own authentic message.9 Accordingly, the present essay will discuss heuristically two major issues in which other voices and viewpoints are hierarchically related: (1) how the extant form of Numbers 22-24 characterizes Yahweh/God and Balaam; and (2) what role the folktale of Balaam and his talking donkey plays in revealing the character of Balak. Another important issue, namely, what role the text plays in its immediate literary framework within the book of Numbers, will be touched upon briefly in conclusion. The present essay contends that the figure of Balak, the king of the Moabites, deserves special attention as equal to or even as more significant than Balaam. 8. This quotation comes from SJ. De Vries' formulation of Rolf P. Knierim's exegetical method which in turn plays an essential function in establishing his Old Testament theology: S.J. De Vries, 'Rapprochement with Rolf Knierim', in W. Kim, D. Ellens, M. Floyd and M.A. Sweeney (eds.), Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. I. Theological and Hermeneutical Studies (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), pp. 121-43 (121). 9. De Vries, 'Rapprochement with Rolf Knierim', p. 123.
LEE Balak: The Forgotten Character
251
2. The Character of Yahweh/God and Balaam As one attempt to reconstruct the character of God as portrayed in this passage, Numbers 22-24 provides an important clue: the variation of divine names occurring in both the narrative and poetry sections. The text shows a total of 51 occurrences of Yahweh (29 times), Elohim (eleven times), El (eight times), Shaddai (twice), and Elyon (once).10 The distribution of these names portrays a peculiar picture of God, according to Levine. He notices that the latter three names, even the common noun 'el, do not occur at all in the narrative section in which the names of Yahweh and Elohim, referring to Israel's God, dominate. In contrast, the name El occurs in most of Balaam's seven oracles: the first (23.8), the second (23.19,22,23), the third (24.4,8), the fourth (24.16), and seventh (24.23); but the name of Yahweh is found once in the first (23.8), the second (23.21), and the third (24.6) oracle, while the name of Elohim does not appear in the poetry section at all.11 With this and other observations,12 Levine argues that the narrative section depicts the God of Israel as the one who controls every activity of Balaam; he understands the names of El, Shaddai, and Elyon as epithets of the God of Israel, on the one hand, and, on the other, that the poetry section illustrates the West Semitic pantheon in which Yahweh, the God of Israel, was included and coexisted with other gods. Levine's effort to demonstrate the distinctive individualities of the poetry and the narrative section of the text must be commended. However, one wonders what the predominance of the names Yahweh and Elohim in the text as a whole signifies. How should one assess the obvious theological conflict between a monotheistic and a polytheistic portrayal of God in the extant text? Note first that the narrative section clearly demonstrates the total control of Israel's God, since it uses the name of Yahweh 26 times and eleven times the name of Elohim. Second, the use of the name
10. T. R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 433. Cf. T.B. Dozeman, 'The Book of Numbers', in L.E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), II, p. 180. 11. All eleven occurrences of the name of Elohim are found only in the narrative section. The name Shaddai occurs in the third (24.4) and the fourth oracle (24.16) in an identical way; the name of Elyon occurs only in the fourth oracle (24.16). 12. Levine, Numbers 21-36, pp. 234,217-24, respectively. Levine makes his case with a detailed examination of other biblical texts and his analysis of the inscriptions from Deir 'Alia. These discussions are beyond the purview of the present essay.
252
God's Word for Our World
of El in the poetry section suggests that Yahweh and El are the same god, contrary to Levine's contention. Taking the name El out of its immediate literary contexts, Levine argues that this usage in the poems indicates not a synthesis of El with Yahweh, but the existence of El, Shaddai, and Elyon in a regional pantheon.13 However, 23.8 shows the direct parallelism El//Yahweh, which could indicate that both designations refer to the same deity. Levine too admits this possibility.14 Moreover, the point made by the clear parallelism in 23.8 can be reinforced by the claim made in 23.22 and 24.8, crediting El with Israel's liberation from Egypt. It is inconceivable that a biblical writer should attribute the most epochal event in the history of Israel to the Syro-Canaanite deity El, unless he understands (1) that El and Yahweh as synonymous, or (2) intends to identify El with Yahweh for the sake of non-Israelites, Balak and Balaam in this case, or (3) simply follows the tradition of the synthesis of these two deities that has already been established. Numbers 23.22 is found in the second oracle which intends to instruct Balak, a Moabite, about the God of Israel and what he has done for Israel. One should note the placement of this verse: it comes right after Yahweh's identification as Israel's God by the use of both names, Yahweh and Elohim. Numbers 24.8 occurs in the third oracle where Balaam, filled with the spirit of God, pronounces Israel's fate. Thus, the literary contexts of 23.22 and 24.8 suggest that El should be understood as Yahweh or as epithetical to Yahweh. Furthermore, the two occurrences of Shaddai and one of Elyon should not be granted any weight, as Levine contends. The name Shaddai occurs in 24.4 and 24.16, while the name Elyon appears only in 24.16. In both verses the name of El is also found. All three names in these verses are part of Balaam's self-understanding as a non-Israelite diviner, though working under the authority of the God of Israel. Thus, there is no reason to claim that either of these names are epithetical to Yahweh or an indication of three distinctive deities in the pantheon. Finally, the occurrence of Elyon in the fourth oracle (24.16) and El in the seventh oracle (24.23) should not have the same value as occurrences of El in the other oracles. The reason is the qualitative difference between the first three oracles and the last four. The former are Balaam's responses to Balak's three attempts and are instructed by 13. Levine, Numbers 21-36, pp. 173, 217-24. 14. Levine, Numbers 21-36, p. 222. He notes the unique status of this parallelism by stating 'It is worth noting that, except for the parallelism of 'Ë1//YHWH in the first Balaam poem (Num 23.8), there is probably not a single clear case of the direct parallelism 'É1//YHWH, or YHWH//'E1 in all of biblical literature'.
LEE Balak: The Forgotten Character
253
God or the spirit of God, whereas the latter are Balaam's 'free advice' to Balak. One may argue that the latter may belong to the former, or specifically to the third oracle. But this is precisely what the text itself does not do. The text makes a clear break between these two categories of oracles. Therefore Levine's argument regarding the portrayals of God in the text as they appear in the two different genres is not convincing. Instead, the text consistently portrays that the God of Israel is in charge from the beginning of Balaam's hearing of Balak's invitation to Balaam and Balak's departure from each other. From the vantage point of this characterization of God, the figure of Balaam is incidental. Whatever Balaam does, he does under the power of the God of Israel. He is bound to speak only what God reveals to him. However, some commentators have argued that the text as a whole reveals Balaam's rise in esteem and his gradual development from a pagan diviner to a prophet of Israel's God.15 Evidence comes from the oracles that Balaam uttered. Although he clearly participates in non-Israelite cultic acts (e.g. looking for omens) in the first two oracles, he seems more progressively aware of how Yahweh works. In the first oracle Balaam learns about Israel whose military strength is powerful enough not to be reliant upon other nations and whose army's number is large enough to stir up a huge dust storm when they march. He also learns in the second oracle that the God of Israel is reliable in that he is faithful to fulfill his promises and blessings. Even though in the third oracle he claims that he is able to hear the word of El and see the vision of Shaddai (24.4), he is confident enough in knowing that Yahweh's will is to bless his people that he abandons his search for omens (24.1) and is overpowered by the spirit of God (24.2). This changes his role completely in that he has become a prophet of Israel. Hence, in the later oracles he predicts the fate of Moab and other neighboring nations as if he possesses the ability to do so without God's direct instruction. The progression Balaam makes, however, should not be overestimated in comparison to Balaam's own admission that he is subservient to Yahweh, clearly expressed throughout the story (22.8,18,20, 35,38; 23.3, 5, 8, 12, 16, 20, 26; 24.13). Note that each time Balak shows his disappointment and frustration at receiving Balaam's oracle, Balaam replies to Balak with the same answer: he is obligated to say whatever Yahweh puts in his mouth (23.12,26; 24.13). The text says emphatically that following
15. Milgrom, Numbers, p. 468; Levine, Numbers 21-36, p. 191.
254
God's Word for Our World
God's instruction is not a matter of choice for Balaam.16 Moreover, it is worth noting that whereas Balaam refers to God with the names of Yahweh and Elohim in his encounter with Balak (22.36-40), he refers to God only as Yahweh in the opening scene (22.8, 13, 18, 19). He even claims that Yahweh is his God. This indicates that the text intends to portray Balaam as one who already knows the God of Israel in a personal way from the beginning, though he is known as a non-Israelite diviner.17 Furthermore, in the folktale of the talking donkey (22.22-35) the name of Yahweh is used twelve times. At one level this tale reaffirms Balaam's duty to speak only Yahweh's words. Thus, 24.1-2 cannot be understood as Balaam's dramatic conversion into God's prophet. On the contrary, these verses plainly express the narrator's portrayal of Balaam as one who works under the influence of God in all circumstances as the prophets of Israel have done. 3. Balak and the Folktale of the Talking Donkey Compared to the incidental role that Balaam plays in the flow of the story, Balak is instrumental. Without his double-edged role the story could not be understood. On the surface level of Numbers 22-24, Balak is depicted as the confident leader of a nation who sits in his 'situation room' preparing for the upcoming confrontation with an enemy. He knows the size, the history, and the capability of his enemy: they are numerous; they have escaped from the mighty empire Egypt; they have come across the desert, defeated the kingdom of the Amorites just north of his own territory, and now sit at the border consuming the crops and water of his land. He is able to convince one of his allies, the Midianites,18 to cooperate in carrying out his specific plan. In seeking to accomplish his plan to weaken the enemy by casting a curse upon them, he shows determination and persistence, with confidence in Balaam's reputation. First, he not only send the delegates to
16. Levine (Numbers 21-36, p. 217) writes well on this point: Balaam 'must carry out his mission, and cannot withdraw from it. The divine mandate overrides Balak's assignment.' 17. Dozeman, 'The Book of Numbers', p. 180. 18. Most commentators assume that the reference of the Midianites in the story, similar to that in Num. 25.6-9, is interpolated by the priestly writers who planted a seed for the Israel's war with the Midianites in Num. 31. Regardless of its origin, the presence of the elders of Midian in the story adds to Balak's ability to rally his allies for support.
LEE Balak: The Forgotten Character
255
Balaam twice, but he travels to the nearest border to greet him. Even though his expectations for the success of the plan are lowered at the outset, he is ready to pursue his plan to start with a feast prepared in honor of his hired diviner. Second, he attempts three times to accomplish his plan, by following Balaam's instructions precisely (building seven altars, sacrificing seven bulls and seven rams on each altar, and staying at the sacrificial site), without raising any objections. Note that the officiai sacrificer is not Balaam, but Balak, on whose behalf the sacrifices are prepared and offered.19 After hearing Balaam's first oracle, reiterating what he already knows (the powerlessness of Balaam, the special military power and huge size of Israel), Balak is even more determined to accomplish his plan by changing the sacrificial sites from those where Balaam is limited to what he can see (23.14, 28). This reading is sufficient to build a case that Numbers 22-24 portrays Balak at one level as confident in his plan to use Balaam's divination and as persistent enough to fulfill it by manipulating Balaam's vantage points. On the contrary, the conceptual level of the story reveals that Balak's plan is self-destructive in that he brings the destruction of his land onto himself. The enigmatic folktale of the talking donkey (22.22-35) bears this point. It is well recognized that the tale seems to be awkwardly connected with the preceding scene: God has given Balaam permission to go with Balak's officials (22.20) and Balaam claims twice that he is subservient to Yahweh (22.8,18), but soon after God becomes angry because Balaam is going with the officials (22.22). It is true that the narrative flow of 22.2-40 would make complete sense even without w. 22-35. Regardless of its origin and roughness, its function and connectedness must be understood in the context of the whole text. First, the tale may have been written 'to reemphasize Balaam's duty to speak only God's word', as Sakenfeld argues.20 She seems to focus more on the last part of the tale (vv. 31-35), in which the angel of the Lord explains what has really happened to Balaam. If this is the case, then there is no conceptual awkwardness between this tale and the story as a whole, since the opening scene already establishes the fact 19. Levine (Numbers 21-36, p. 166) points this out by stating that 'This is only logical: Balak is the official, the one requesting divine authority to curse Israel. Balaam is working on Balak's behalf.' 20. K.D. Sakenfeld, Journeying With God: A Commentary on the Book of Numbers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 126. With this, she concludes (p. 127) that '.. .once Balaam is underway, for whatever reason, God wants him to be clear, absolutely clear, that he will speak God's word and nothing else'.
256
God's Word for Our World
that Balaam is a devotee to Yahweh, and this tale, 'surely one of the great vignettes of the Old Testament, unusual for its colorful detail', serves the writer/editor/redactor no particular purpose.21 Because of this, most commentators prefer to argue that the tale's ultimate purpose is to humiliate Balaam. Milgrom's assertion is typical: The goal of the episode is doubtless the humiliation of Balaam... In truth, Balaam is depicted on a level lower than his ass: more unseeing in his inability to detect the angel, more stupid in being defeated verbally by his ass, and more beastly in subduing it with his stick whereas it responds with tempered speech.22
Unlike Sakenfeld, Milgrom seems to focus on the first part of the tale (w. 22-30) which narrates the episode between Balaam and his donkey. Obviously this negative portrayal of Balaam is the contact point for the broad spectrum of assessment of his character developed in the postbiblical traditions. But the question still remains: What does the humiliation of Balaam have to do with the rest of the story? Does it not weaken the characterization of God as one who holds absolute power to control Balaam, if Balaam is such 'a fool, a caricature of a seer, one outwitted even by his dumb beast'?23 Thus, whether vv. 22-35's purpose is to restress the true duty of Balaam or to humiliate him, its function in the entire story must lie in some place else: to provide the information to counter Balak's confidence in Balaam. Balak's two attempts to hire Balaam are based on his understanding of Balaam's reputation: 'whomever you [Balaam] bless is blessed, and whomever you curse is cursed' (22.6b). By reporting or inserting this tale, the text intends to shatter Balak's confidence in Balaam. It reveals that his choice of Balaam as part of his preparation for the encounter with Israel is in itself a failure from the beginning. Further, his reliance on Balaam causes the unexpected and unwanted result that Israel is now blessed and that his land will in the near future be destroyed. Second, this negative result of Balak's effort is clearly evident throughout the text as the tale mirrors how Balak experiences a downward spiral in his plan. In an attempt to see a parallel between the tale and the rest of the story, R. Alter's argument provides a starting point. He observes that 21. Sakenfeld, Journeying With God, p. 126. 22. Milgrom, Numbers, p. 469. 23. Milgrom, Numbers, p. 469.
LEE Balak: The Forgotten Character
257
in Balaam's prophecies there are again three symmetrically arranged occurrences of the same incident, each time with greater discomfort to Balak. hi Balaam's prophetic imagery, first Israel is spread out like dust, then crouched like a lion, and finally rises like a star, so that the Moabite king, waiting for a first-class imprecation, is progressively reduced to impotent fury, quite in the manner of Balaam's blind rage against the wayward ass.24
With the repetitive pattern of 'three',25 he compares Balak with Balaam in the tale, and he argues that the donkey in the tale plays the role of Balaam to Balak (just as the donkey beholds the angel of the Lord, Balaam reveals God's intent to Balak). However, these parallelisms are problematic. Alter's contention that Balak's progressive discomfort and anger are mirrored by Balaam's blind rage against his donkey presupposes Balak's ignorance of what is happening. This is not the case with Balak in the text. From greeting Balaam at the border, Balak is warned of the powerlessness of Balaam; after the first oracle he asks Balaam, returning from obtaining the omens, 'what has the Lord said?'(23.17), which implies his awareness of Balaam's obligation to communicate the words of God; and finally he asks Balaam to induce the God of Israel to bring a curse as if he understands the success of his plan is actually dependent on the will of God. Balak gradually understands what Balaam is doing and what the God of Israel is doing through his hired diviner. His anger and discomfort arise from his recognition of the power of the God of Israel and/or his coming to a sense of the inevitable failure of his plan, but they are not like the blind rage of Balaam. For interpreting the comparison of the donkey to Balaam, Alter uses only three oracles of Balaam in order to force the parallelism of 'three'. This is not consistent with the text, which contains seven oracles. It is odd that Alter, who pays close attention to literary and rhetorical devices in a text, does not observe the identical heading of each oracle. Moreover, his choice of the three oracles of Balaam does not compare with how the text portrays them. He chooses the first (numerous people of Israel), the third (crouching like a lion), and the fourth (a star rises out of Israel), rather than the first three oracles. Choosing the fourth oracle is in question, because it 24. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 106. 25. Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative, pp. 105-107) also analyzes the tale in terms of the repetitions of the word 'to see' and the phrase-motif 'blessings and curses'. With this rhetorical evidence, he explicates the theological meaning of the story: the mechanical repetition of Balak's cultic preparations cannot manipulate the will of the God of Israel.
258
God's Word for Our World
is not given at Balak's request and is about Moab's future in relation to Israel, rather than about Moab's present situation. It should be distinguished from the first three oracles. Furthermore, the donkey is to be compared with Balak in the whole text. In fact, there are five symmetrically arranged correspondences between what the donkey has done and what Balak attempted to do: 1. Situation: 2. First attempt:
3. Second attempt:
4. Third attempt:
5. Confrontation:
The donkey sees the angel of the Lord, while Balak is warned about Balaam's subservient attitude. The donkey tries to avoid the angel by turning off from a road, while Balak brings Balaam to Bamoth-baal where Balaam can see the entire people of Israel.26 The donkey tries to move to a path cutting through a vineyard, while Balak brings Balaam to the top of Pisgah where Balaam can see only a portion of the people of Israel. The donkey lies down under Balaam after recognition that he can not escape from the angel of the Lord, while Balak brings Balaam to the top of Peor where Balaam sees only wasteland.27 The donkey expresses his anger and reminds Balaam of his past service, while Balak confronts Balaam with a gesture of anger and reproaches Balaam for not doing his job.
26. There are two ways of interpreting the sequence of how many people of Israel Balaam sees (Dozeman, 'The Book of Numbers', p. 185). NRSV translates 22.41,23.13, and 23.27-28 in a three-part plot such that Balaam sees progressively more people. On the other hand, NEB creates 'a satirical story of reversal' in that Balaam sees the entire people at the first place and sees no one at the third place. The former is based on (a) 22.41 itself and (b) 24.2, which reports that Balaam saw Israel camping tribe by tribe. The latter is based on (a) 23.13, which provides a reason for changing the place, 'you shall see only part of them, and shall not see them all', and (b) 23.28, which reports that Balak took Balaam to see the desert. The latter seems to be more compatible with these two further facts: (a) unless Balaam sees the entire people of Israel, his telling of their huge number in the first oracle (23.10) seems to be an odd claim; (b) Balak's request in the third oracle (23.27) is congruent with the place that he chooses for Balaam. 27. Levine (Numbers 21-36, p. 156) interprets the donkey's crouching down as 'a form of prostration before the angel, or perhaps she crouched down in order to await his command'. If this speculation has a merit, then the donkey's final behavior may reflect the motivation of Balak's final attempt, to please the God of Israel to allow a curse on his own people.
LEE Balak: The Forgotten Character
259
As these correspondences demonstrate,28 the donkey's progressive movement from a road to a narrow place reflects clearly the downward spiral in Balak's plan. From the beginning, his plan to bring a curse through Balaam is doomed. There is an ironic twist in the comparison between the donkey and Balak. In the tale, Balaam spares the beast's life even though his eyes are still veiled. On the contrary, Balak's plan backfires to the extent that he not only cannot accomplish his plan to curse his enemy, but inadvertently blesses them instead. Now he receives the unrequested prediction of the destruction of his land from his own hired diviner. Similar to what Milgrom says about the donkey and Balaam, one can say that Balak is depicted on a level lower than the donkey: more unfounded in his confidence and trust in Balaam to carry out his wish and more attached to a failing plan. 4. Conclusion Reading Numbers 22-24 from the perspective of Balak is long overdue. The figure of Balak has been marginalized. This essay does not seek to invalidate calling the text 'the Balaam pericope'. Nonetheless, attempting to reconstruct an authentic viewpoint by contrasting the diverse viewpoints that emerge from the text offers a refreshing result. Balak's plan to curse his enemy, the people of Israel, by employing Balaam is in actuality a fool's idea which unfolds into inevitable failure in spite of his confidence in it. On this basis Numbers 22—24 is well placed in its literary framework of the book of Numbers, especially chs. 21 and 25. From the comparison with adjacent chapters, still other unique features are noticeable: no single Israelite is present; the name of Moses, Yahweh's chief representative, appears not even once, although the divine name occurs 51 times; and the Israelites are viewed from perspectives that are other than their own, namely, that of the Moabites and a foreign (from Aram [Syria] or Transjordan) diviner. Hence, this text is placed in the narration of Israel's continual victories of the Transjordanian nations (21.21 -31,32-35) enveloped by two rebellion stories (21.4-9; 25.1-18). This context suggests the 28. The angel of the Lord may play the role of Balaam to Balak. The angel takes a progressively active role in the tale, from standing in a road in front of the donkey, to halting it in a narrow place, and to moving ahead to push it into a corner, just as Balaam reveals to Balak his identity, the character of the God of Israel and Israel's special relation to God, and the fate of Israel. As the angel rebukes Balaam in the tale, Balaam makes prophetic advice regarding the fate of Moab and other neighboring nations.
260
God's Word for Our World
character of the people of Israel: they are blessed by their own God with military victories even without knowing their enemy's conspiracy and they rebel against God in both physical and spiritual matters. This people is the second generation of Israel which differs from the first generation in its cowardliness and yet shares the same rebellious attitude. This contention, however, awaits another essay. The Story ofBalak's Failed Plan to Curse Israel 22.2—24.25 I. Situation: motivation II. Attempts to carry out a plan A. Plan proper: Balak's hiring Balaam 1. Reasons for hiring: Balaam's reputation., 2. Two attempts to bring Balaam to Moab B. Execution of the plan 1. Balaam's journey to Moab 2. Encounter between Balak and Balaam 3. Three attempts a. First attempt 1) Preparation a) Preparatory sacrifice b) To another place 2) Oracle a) Divine revelation b) Balaam's return c) Oracle proper 3)Responses b. Second attempt 1) Preparation a) Preparatory sacrifice b) To another place 2) Oracle a) Divine revelation b) Balaam's return c) Oracle proper 3) Responses c. Third attempt 1) Preparation a) Preparatory sacrifice b) In the same place
22.2-4a 22.4b-24.25 22.4b-21 .22.4b-6 22.7-21 22.22-24.25 22.22-35 22.36-40 22.41-24.24 22.41 -23.12 22.41-23.3 22.41-23.2 23.3 23.4-10 23.4-5 23.6 23.7-10 23.11-12 23.13-26 23.13-15 23.13-14 23.15 23.16-24 23.16 23.17 23.18-24 23.25-26 23.27-24.24 23.27-24.2a 23.27-30 24. l-2a
LEE Balak: The Forgotten Character 2) Oracle 3) Responses a) Balak's response to Balaam b) Balaam's response to Balak (1) Explanation (2) Advice: oracles 4. Conclusion: new separation
261 24.2b-9 24.10-24 24.10-11 24.12-24 24.12-13 24.14-24 24.25
'YET FORTY DAYS, AND NlNEVEH SHALL BE OVERTHROWN' (JONAH 3.4):
Two READINGS (SHTEIKRIE 'of) OF THE BOOK OF JONAH* Yitzhak (Itzik) Peleg
On the basis of the formulaic opening of the book of Jonah—'Now the word of the Lord came unto Jonah'—we would expect to find a book of prophecy; but instead we read a story: that of the hero's flight to Tarshish.1 Yet although the reason for the mission is clear—'for their wickedness is come up before me' (1.2b)—the content of the prophecy is not known at this stage. Most of the present study is devoted to the questions which unavoidably and immediately arise in the sensitive reader's mind: What is the intention of the book of Jonah? What is its message? Is there a central theme which unites the book into a whole? The very existence of multiple answers to the question of the central issue of the book of Jonah indicates the difficulty of the question itself.2 Critical approaches to the book generally engage with four issues: First of all, the question of whether prophecy and divine sovereignty are limited to Eretz Israel. Second, does Jonah flee to Tarshish in order to avoid the accusation of being a 'false prophet'? Third, the nature of the deity: Is God 'a jealous God' or 'a merciful God'? * This article is based on a paper that I presented at the International Conference of the SBL in Rome, July 2001.1 should like to thank Dr Nancy Rosenfeld for her help in preparing this version. 1. See E.L. Greenstein, 'Literature, The Old Testament', in Paul Achtemeier et al. (eds.), Harper's Bible Dictionar++San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), p. 569. 2. See A. Simon, Mikra Leisrael, Jonah (eds. M. Greenberg and S. Ahitov; Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 46-47; I. Zackowitz, Olam Hatanach, Jonah (Tel Aviv, 1994), p. 220; T.S. Warshaw, 'The Book of Jonah', in Kenneth R.R. Gros Lewis, J.S. Ackerman and T.S. Warshaw (eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (New York: Abingdon Press, 1974), pp. 202-204.
PELEG 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown '
263
A fourth possibility is that the main tendency of the book is to encourage repentance (hazarah b 'tshuva); this is why it is read in synagogues as part of Yom Kippur observances. 1 should like to claim that the only prophetic sentence in the book of Jonah ('Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown', Jon. 3.4), and specifically the word nehepachet ('shall be overthrown') serve as a mise en abyme. Prior to examining the structure and significance of this sentence we will note its literary role in the book of Jonah, and I will argue that understanding the role of the prophetic sentence (3.4) in its two readings as the mise en abyme of the book can provide answers to the questions which I have posed as to the book's 'message'. Mise en abyme1 is a term whose origin lies neither in the realm of biblical research nor in that of the literary arts; its use is still relatively new in the study of biblical literature. André Gide first coined the term; L. Dâllenbach, who devotes an entire book to the subject—Le récit spéculaire (in English The Mirror in the Text)—bases his discussion on Gide's insight: 'what fascinated him must have been the image of a shield containing, in its centre, a miniature replica of itself'. He adds that, 'A "mise en abyme" is any aspect enclosed within a work that shows a similarity with the work that contains it'.4 Dâllenbach cites Gide's own words: 'Thus, in paintings 3. See, among others, J. Barth, 'Tales Within Tales Within Tales', Antaeus 43 (1981), pp. 45-63; G. Rouiller, 'Parabole et Mise En Abyme', in P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker (eds.), Mélanges Dominique Barthélémy: études bibliques offertes à l'occasion de son 60e anniversaire (Freiburg: Editions Universitaires; Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), pp. 317-33; A. Jefferson, 'Mise en abyme and thé Prophetic in Narrative', Style 17 (1983), pp. 196-208; M. Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (trans. Christine van Boheemen; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2nd edn, 1985); L. Dâllenba+++++++++++++++++++++++++ J. Whiteley with E. Hughes; Cambridge: Polity, in association with Basil Blackwell; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989); J.L. Ska, 'Our Fathers Have Told Us ': Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Subsidia Biblica, 13; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Institute Biblico, 1990); M. Bal, 'Reflections on Reflection: The Mise en Abyme', in idem, On Meaning-Making: Essays in Semiotics, Sonoma (California: Poleridge Press, 1994), pp. 45-58; J.-P. Sonnet, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (eds. R.A. Culpepper and R. Rendtorff; Biblical Interpretation, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997); E.L. Greenstein, 'The Retelling of the Flood Story in the Gilgamesh Epic', in J. Magness and S. Gitin (eds.), Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of ErnestS. Frerichs (BJS, 320; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), pp. 197-204. 4. L. Dâllenbach, Le récit spéculaire: essai sur la mise en abyme (Paris: Seuil, 1977), p. 9 (English translation, The Mirror in the Text [trans. Jeremy Whiteley with Emma Hughes; Cambridge: Polity, 1989).
264
God's Word for Our World
by Memling or Quentin Metzys, a small dark convex mirror reflects, in its turn, the interior of the room in which the action of the painting takes place'.5 Rimmon-Kenan, who defines mise en abyme as a 'reflection in miniature', describes it thus: 'An analogy, parallel in literature, to Metzys' famous painting of a room, where on one of its walls hangs a miniature of the painting itself'.6 Since the source of the term mise en abyme is not literature, but rather the plastic arts, Bal prefers 'Text Mirror'.7 In the literary context we find the model of 'a tale within a tale' functioning as a mise en abyme. The 1001 Arabian Nights provides a classic example. In the frame story, the heroine (Sheherzade) is threatened nightly with death at the hands of her husband, the king. Only by telling him thrilling, suspenseful stories—night after night—is she allowed to survive. One of the tales told by the wife is 'The Merchant and the Imp', in which three old men tell an imp stories in order to keep him interested and thus prevent him from killing the merchant. This story, in other words, serves as a mise en abyme of 1001 Nights by reflecting in miniature the frame story in which it is embedded. In applying the term mise en abyme to ancient Near Eastern and biblical literature, E.L. Greenstein defines it as: 'a figure, trope, or structure that somehow reflects in compact form, in miniature, the larger structure in which it appears'.8 Greenstein's definition forms the basis of the present study. I shall begin by explicating the structure and significance of the two parts of the prophetic sentence in Jon. 3.4. The first relates to time: 'Yet forty days'; the second part relates to result: 'and Nineveh shall be overthrown'. How are the two parts of the prophecy linked? Do the two parts complement or contradict each other? What will happen in/to the city in forty days? The answer lies in the combination of words 'Nineveh shall be overthrown' (Nineveh nehepachef). Let us now examine the meaning of the term nehepachet. There are, it would seem, a number of convincing reasons for interpreting this term as 'destroyed': First of all, God sends Jonah to Nineveh and commands him: 5. Dàllenbach, Le récit spéculaire, p. 7. 6. S. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetic (trans. H. Hertzig; London: Methuen, 1983 [Hebrew]), p. 91. Rimmon-Kenan describes the term mise en abyme as a 'reflection in miniature'. 7.
Bal,Narratology,p.l46.
8.
See Greenstein, 'The Retelling', p. 199.
PELEG 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown '
265
'proclaim against it' (Jon. 1.2). Although we do not yet know what message Jonah is to deliver to the people of Nineveh, we understand that the reason for his mission is the people's evil, their sins: 'For their wickedness is come up before me' (Jon. 1.2). It is thus reasonable to expect that a just God would punish the people for their sins. In this context, in other words, nehepachet—'overthrown'—would mean 'destroyed'. Yet if this is the case, why did the writer choose to use nehepachet instead of nehereset, whose meaning of'destroyed' is incontrovertible? This question leads us to the second reason for interpreting nehepachet as 'destroyed'. At this point it is worth recalling that the root h-p-ch appears four times in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19.21, 25, 29 [twice]). The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah is echoed in the prophets; in Jeremiah we find: 'the cities which the Lord overthrew (haphach) not' (Jer. 20.16). And in Isaiah there is an even clearer statement: 'as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah' (Isa. 13.19). It appears, moreover, in Amos 4.11 : 'I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah'. As did Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos, the narrator of Jonah chose nehepachet instead of nehereset because it is reminiscent of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, thus awakening in the reader the idea that Nineveh may be destroyed in the same way as was Sodom. Third, there is the use of 'forty' in the first part of the prophetic sentence. Why forty? Is it simply because forty is a typological number? My answer is: probably not. If forty was indeed chosen because it is a typological number, why not pick another typological number, such as, for example, three, which is arguably more suitable. After all, the number three appears twice in Jonah (2.1; 3.3).9 Even in the LXX we have 'three days more' instead of 'forty' ^ The use of the number forty is not coincidental; it is reminiscent of another disaster—the Flood1! which lasted forty days (see Gen. 7.4, 12, 17).12 Is the reader meant to understand that a similar 9. 'And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days' (Jon. 2.1). The number is also used to describe the city's size: 'Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city, for of three days 'journey' were needed to encompass it (3.3). 10. See Zackowitz, Olam Hatanach, Jonah, p. 228. 11. G.H. Cohn, Das Buch Jona im Lichte der biblischen Erzahlkunst (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 12; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969), p. 75. 12. This assumption is strengthened by the presence of two descriptive terms in the book of Jonah which recall the Flood. 1 refer to the use of the word ra'ah ('evil', 'wickedness') as a key word in Jonah vis-à-vis the sin of the people of Nineveh (Jon. 1.2; 3.8, 10). The same word, of course, is applied to the generation of the Flood in
266
God's Word for Our World
catastrophe awaits Nineveh? If so, in other words, nehepachet herein means 'destroyed'. According to the linguist M. Joos, 'It takes three trees to make a row'. I hope that my 'three trees' have made a convincing case for understanding nehepachet as 'destroyed'. I intend to prove that this is not the only possible reading of this sentence. The other reading, however, stands in direct opposition to the first. According to this reading Nineveh will not be destroyed: its fate will be the exact opposite. On the basis of our examination of the two-part structure of the prophetic sentence it is already clear that its message is ambiguous. After all, if Nineveh is doomed to destruction, why wait forty days? Can anything possibly happen during that period of time to prevent the fulfillment of the prophecy? What will happen in the city in the course of forty days? Will it be good or bad? The answer lies, as I have already claimed, in the combination of words 'Nineveh shall be overthrown' (Nineveh nehepachet). The Hebrew verb h-p-ch13 does not specify whether the overthrowing is beneficial or harmful; if the previous situation was good, h-p-ch would denote a change for the worse, and vice versa. Moreover, in contrast to what I have just claimed, from a linguistic point of view the 'overturning' referred to in Jonah is not necessarily negative. We have already seen that the word nehepachet is reminiscent of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, thus suggesting that Nineveh may be destroyed in the same way as was Sodom. Yet if the narrator really intended to compare the fate of Nineveh to that of Sodom, why didn't he draw an explicit comparison, as did Isaiah (13.19) and Amos (4.11)? This question has already been handled by Rashi and Abarbanel with great sensitivity.14 It would seem that Sodom was not Genesis: 'And the Lord saw that the wickedness (ra 'at) of man was great in the earth' (Gen. 6.5). The second term is chômas ('violence'), which is found in Jon. 3.8 as well as in Gen. 6.11. According to Genesis: 'And the earth was corrupt (charrias)' (Gen. 6.11). And in Jonah: 'And from the violence (chômas), that is in their hands' (Jon. 3.8). 13. The h-p-ch entry in BDB, pp. 245-46, reads 'vb. turn, overturn. 1. Trans, a. turn, turn about, turn over. b. overthrow. 2b. turn=change, change into, Niph. n.m. the contrary, 1. Opposite thing'. 14. According to Rashi, who was aware of the problem, 'If "nehepachet" means "nehrevet" ("destroyed"), the writer did not say "nehrevet" because "nehepachet" expresses two linguistic purposes: evil and good. If the people of Nineveh do not repent, the city will be destroyed. But if the people of Nineveh do repent, they are changed, "overturned", they have gone from evil to good and have repented' (Rashi, Mikra'ot Gedolot, Jonah [Tel Aviv: n.p., 1954], p. 124 [Hebrew]); Abarbanel in his
PELEG 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown '
267
mentioned explicitly in order to allow for an additional, metaphoric interpretation of the word nehepachet.15 An examination of occurrences of the verb h-p-ch in the Hebrew Bible indicates that this verb appears both in its literal, concrete meaning and in its metaphoric sense. In its literal, concrete meaning we find: 'And I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them' (Hag. 2.22); and in its metaphoric meaning: 'My heart is turned within me' (Hos. 11.8).16 Its metaphoric meaning can have negative implications, as in Amos 8.10: 'And I will turn your feasts into mourning'. (See also Ps. 105.25.) But h-p-ch also appears in a positive sense, as in Jer. 31.13 ('for I will turn their mourning into joy') and also Ps. 30.12. The inescapable conclusion is that in the language of the Hebrew Bible the verb h-p-ch can serve as a metaphor for changes, overturnings, both discussion of the book of Jonah, writes: 'In order to allow the word "nehepachet" to include two meanings, God did not command the prophet to announce that "Nineveh will be overthrown, as was Sodom and Gomorrah", but simply to warn that "Nineveh will be overthrown". By this we understand that within 40 days the city will of necessity be overthrown, if its people do not repent' (Abarbanel, Jonah [Tel Aviv: n.p., 1960], p. 126 [Hebrew]). 15. According to J.M. Sasson, Jonah (AB, 24B; New York: Doubleday, 1990), p. 236, nehepachet is intentionally presented as bearing a double meaning. This idea had already been suggested in the Talmud, Sanhédrin 89b: 'Jonah was told that Nineveh would be overturned, but he did not know whether for good or for evil'. Relying on the episode which describes the change-of-heart of the people of Nineveh, Sasson raises the possibility of seeing nehepachet figuratively (p. 236). 16. See also 'My heart is turned within me' (Lam. 1.20), as well as JPSV 'And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart...'' (1 Sam. 10.9). Metaphorical use of h-p-ch was thus fairly common in the Bible. In all the above examples the verb indicates a change of heart, a change in feelings. It must be admitted, however, that there is a linguistic difficulty here which cannot be ignored, hi every case in which h-p-ch appears in the Hebrew Bible in a metaphorical sense, with the exception of the book of Jonah, it is preceded by the preposition 'el/l'. This exception to the linguistic norm serves as a literary figure, indicating the possibility of a multi-layered reading. After all, had the passage read 'the heart of the people of Nineveh was turned to... ' such a formulation would have eliminated the possibility of a literal, concrete overthrowing of the city. Moreover, in the same manner, and for the same reason, there is no explicit statement that 'Nineveh was overthrown, as were Sodom and Gomorrah' (see Isa. 13.19), since such a formulation would have eliminated the possibility that the people of Nineveh could undergo a 'change of heart'. The prophetic sentence is formulated ambiguously in order to allow two readings: Reading A: the city of Nineveh will be destroyed; Reading B: the people of Nineveh will repent.
268
God's Word for Our World
negative and positive, that is, from good to evil and from evil to good. This conclusion supports my claim for the validity of a second reading. It appears that the metaphorical expression 'shalt be turned into another man' (1 Sam. 10.6) supports the possibility of understanding the word nehepachet in Jonah as a metaphor for the repentance of the people of Nineveh. Moreover, the combination of words 'Nineveh shall be overthrown' refers both to the city and metonymically17 to the people of the city. In the story of Jonah itself we witness the narrator's characteristic intentional encouragement of a double interpretation. Convincing evidence is found at the beginning of the book in God's command to Jonah: 'Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness [note the plural!] is come up before me' (1.2). Is God speaking of the city, or of its people? It seems clear that he is speaking of both. If the narrator meant to call our attention to the city exclusively—Jonah is, after all, told to cry against 'it'—why not continue by referring to 'its' wickedness (the city's wickedness) rather than 'their' wickedness? The expression 'their wickedness' applies to the people of the city, even though they are not mentioned specifically. The inescapable conclusion is that 'Nineveh, that great city' can be understood as including both the city and its people. Similarly, in the expression 'Nineveh is overthrown', 'Nineveh' can be understood to include not only the city, but its inhabitants as well. The prophetic sentence 'Yet forty days and Nineveh is overthrown' is thus directed at 'the people of the city': God's words have a double meaning. In the light of this interpretation, the use of the verb h-p-ch contributes to the artistic level, the depth of the story. The use of metaphoric language grants an additional dimension to the story as a whole. Both the metaphoric significance of the verb h-p-ch, as well as the vagueness of the
17. Yet the Bible contains several instances of metonymy, which enable us to claim that 'Nineveh', the name of the city, subsumes and figures its inhabitants as well. Let's return for a minute to the description of the earth prior to the Flood: 'And the earth was corrupt' (Gen. 6.11). As far back as the Middle Ages scholars interpreted 'the earth' as including 'the people living on the earth'. If this example, in which the earth is seen to include its inhabitants, should not suffice, there are God's words in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah: ''The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great. Their sin is exceeding grievous' (Gen. 18.20). In the métonymie expression 'the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah', the absent are present. We understand 'the cry' to be 'the cry of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah', and commentaries call attention to the narrator's use of'their sin', rather than 'its sin' (pertaining to the city).
PELEG 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown '
269
references to Nineveh, which can represent both the city and its people, enable us to understand the story in two opposing ways. It is now possible to show that the second reading (that the people of Nineveh will repent) is also strengthened by the expression 'forty days'. As already noted, 'forty days' hints at the Flood, which lasted forty days; we might therefore conclude that the prophetic sentence suggests that a disaster similar to the Flood will be visited on Nineveh in forty days' time. But in addition to its two appearances in the story of the Flood (Gen. 7.4, 12), the expression 'forty days' is used seven more times in the Hebrew Bible, (six of which refer to Moses: see Exod. 24.18; 34.28; Deut. 9.9,11, 18; 10.10; and one to Elijah: 1 Kgs 19.8). This comparison to events which took place on the mountain of God leads us to conclude that the number 40 may have a positive association. The expression 'forty days' bears both negative and positive connotations in the Hebrew Bible. This may explain why the narrator of the book of Jonah chose the number fort++.hus enabling two readings: one negative and one positive. In any case, Nineveh is to undergo an 'overturning', whether it is a 'change of heart' (or of behavior) on the part of its people, or an overthrowing of the city itself.18 The two are, of course, connected: either there will be a change in the behavior of the inhabitants, or 'Nineveh will be overthrown', that is, destroyed.19 We shall now return to the contribution of the term mise en abyme. As seen in our discussion of the verb h-p-ch, the combination Nineveh nehepachet enables, from a literary stance, the two simultaneous readings: The city of Nineveh will be destroyed, and the people of Nineveh will repent. It is my claim that the prophetic sentence 'Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown', and especially the word nehepachet ('overthrown'), function as a mise en abyme in the book of Jonah, and figure the meaning and message of the book as a whole, which engages with 'overturns'.
18. We have now seen how utilizing the technique of a double reading reveals the significance of the prophecy. Allow me to indulge in a methodological aside at this point: 1 pondered quite a bit as to how to present the two opposing readings of the prophetic sentence. It would, admittedly, have been easier to point out, at the very beginning, my thesis of the two readings of the book of Jonah, as revealed in the title of this study. But I finally decided that the structure of the essay itself would reflect its message. It's my hope that this will serve to make my ideas even clearer. 19. This is what Abarbanel (see n. 14 above) must have meant when he said that: 'Within the period of 40 days something will of necessity be "overthrown"; if the people repent, their behavior will change—or else the town will be overthrown'.
270
God's Word for Our World
Nehepachet, in both its literal and figurative senses, is woven through the book of Jonah. Let us recall that, first of all, at the very beginning of the book the prophet flees 'from the presence of the Lord'. Instead of going to Nineveh, in the east, Jonah flees westward to Tarshish, in the exact opposite direction. Second, the contrast between the divine command and the way it is executed by Jonah is described ironically. Whenever I open the Bible I am filled with wonder at the connection between form and content, and by their mutual contribution to creating the narrative's meaning. One example in Jonah is the frequent use of 'and' to signal ambiguity (I of course refer to the letter waw in Hebrew, which is not a separate word, but is rather attached to the following word). As used in Jonah, the reader is not sure whether 'and' really means 'something additional', or whether it signals contrast, as would 'however' or 'but' in English. It seems to me that in an English translation of the divine commandment and its execution the ironic dimension is lost. In the Hebrew, God tells Jonah to arise and the prophet arises. On the basis of the first two words, vayakam Jonah ('and Jonah rose up'), the reader initially understands that God gives an order and Jonah obeys. In poetry we might have an enjambment, with the line ending between Yonah and livroach (vayakam Yonah/ livroach); only at the third word livroach ('to flee') would the reader undergo an 'overturning' in his/her understanding: Jonah does indeed arise, but his intention is to flee to Tarshish. English translations, however, which commonly begin this sentence with the word 'but', immediately reveal the opposition between the divine commandment and the way Jonah attempts to carry it out. As already noted, the formulaic opening of the book leads us to expect prophecy, but instead we read of Jonah's flight to Tarshish. Moreover, in Jonah's prophecy itself he does not state explicitly that he is speaking God's word. He does not say, for example, 'Thus saith the Lord', and in the prophecy proper—'Nineveh shall be overthrown'—he does not specify who is to do the overthrowing. It is worth noting that criticism of the prophet, albeit veiled, is revealed when we compare the above with the Lord's second call in ch. 3, in response to which Jonah arises and goes to Nineveh 'according to the word of the Lord' (3.3a). The addition of 'according to the word of the Lord' calls attention to the narrator's attitude toward Jonah's flight; after all, Jonah first arose, not intending to carry out the word of the Lord, but to do the opposite. (Compare the phrase 'the word of the Lord' in 1.1 and 3.3.)
PELEG 'Yet forty day s, and Nineveh shall be overthrown'
271
Third, there is an 'overturning', a sea change, if you will, in the sailors' beliefs. While at first every man 'cried unto his god' (1.5), the mariners then 'cried unto the Lord' (1.14), later on 'the men feared the Lord' (1.16a), and finally 'offered a sacrifice unto the Lord' (1.16b). Jonah's behavior, too, is contrasted with that of the mariners. In Jon. 1.5 the waw in veyonah can be read in its contrastive sense, as 'But Jonah', 'This strengthens our sense of Jonah's behavior, as opposed to that of the mariners: But Jonah was gone down into the innermost parts of the ship, And he lay down and was fast asleep.
In the Hebrew version two readings are possible: the waw creates a tension between the straightforward, informative report of what Jonah did, on the one hand, and the criticism of the morality of Jonah's behavior vis-àvis that of the sailors. The NJPS translation, by the way, attempts to deal with the problem of the waw so as to make a double reading possible: 'Jonah, meanwhile, had gone down into the hold of the vessel where he lay down and fell asleep'. To sum up this point, waw in its contrastive sense serves as a literary device which strengthens the opposition in content between Jonah's behavior and the mariners'. In the book of Jonah even the sea undergoes an overturning: it was quiet at first, became stormy (1.4,13), and once again grew quiet (1.15). No less important, however, is the change in behavior of the people of Nineveh, who were sinners, but then repented (3.8). The most significant 'overturnings' in the book of Jonah, however, are those which involve the deity. The Lord, after all, undergoes a change in his attitude towards the people of Nineveh (3.10). There is, moreover, an overturning in the way God is perceived by Jonah: while the prophet had expected the Lord to be 'a jealous God', He appears as 'a gracious God, and compassionate'. The narrative process, in fact, can be clarified by means of the word nehepachet. M. Sternberg points out the role played by surprise, the play of first and last impressions, 'where a surprise gap controls the reader's progress over the whole book'.20 Why does Jonah flee when God order him to 'to go to Nineveh'? According to Sternberg: 20. M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), pp. 318-20.
272
God's Word for Our World The narrator does not say, but apparently only because the reason is selfevident: Jonah is too tenderhearted to carry a message of doom to a great city. He obviously protests against a wrathful God not with words, like Abraham or Moses or Samuel, but with his feet.21
From the reader's point of view, Sternberg adds: Hardly has he recovered from the surprise of God's repentance contrary to all expectations about the future, when he discovers his reading of the past turned upside down... With this master gap disclosed in closure, God and Jonah prove opposites indeed, but with the roles and portraits and normative loads reversed. Of the two, Jonah has been the ruthless one all along and God the merciful.22
Moreover, A.J. Hauser argues that 'The element of surprise is the key structural device employed by writer of Jonah',23 that the 'writer misdirects the readers regarding the true character both of God and of Jonah... ' (p. 37). I shall now suggest that the character of Jonah is presented as a contrast, a 'Text Mirror' of figures from earlier biblical narratives.24 In this way the narrator gives expression to his veiled criticism of Jonah's behavior. As Zackowitz notes, 'The narrator makes sophisticated use of previous biblical creations'.25 In the story of the downfall of Sodom, Abraham daringly argues with God in an effort to save the people of the city (Gen. 18.23-33). Jonah, on the other hand, does the opposite. In the story of Moses' ascension of the mountain of God (Exod. 32.9-14; Deut. 9.25-26), Moses says: 'because the Lord had said he would destroy you. I prayed therefore unto the Lord, and said, O Lord God, destroy not thy people' (Deut. 9.25-26). The reader naturally recalls Jonah's response after God pardoned the people of Nineveh: 'it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. And he prayed unto the Lord' (Jon. 4.1). Jonah prays to God, as does Moses, but the content and aim of his prayer are contrasted with those of Moses. It is likely that awareness of Moses' response in a similar situation leads the reader to judge Jonah harshly. 21. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 318 22. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, pp. 319-20. 23. See also, A.J. Hauser, 'Jonah: In Pursuit of the Dove', JBL 104 (1985), pp. 21-37 (32). 24. For a study of the widespread use of Bible stories in Jonah, see J. Margonet, Form and Meaning: Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah (Bible and Literature Series, 8; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983). 25. See Zackowitz, Olam Hatanach, Jonah, pp. 216-17; Simon, Mikra Leisrael, Jonah, p. 43.
PELEG 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown '
273
To sum up: I have argued that 'oppositions', 'overturning', constitute a leitmotif in Jonah, as when the prophet is contrasted with the mariners, with the people of Nineveh, with God himself. This claim is supported and even strengthened when we compare Jonah to other biblical characters intentionally hinted at throughout the book. This presentation of Jonah as a reflection of Abraham and Moses expresses a tendency to emphasize the differences between the characters, and leads the reader ultimately to judge Jonah harshly. Arguably the most important of the narrator's depictions of the way in which Jonah falls short of an example set by another prophet is the comparison of Jonah with Jeremiah as a prophet of rage. Jeremiah does his best to awaken the people to repentance, as a prophet is expected to do, while Jonah does the opposite. That is, Jonah's behavior is opposed to the very essence of prophethood. The aim of prophecies of retribution is to educate, to encourage repentance, to open up the possibility of salvation for the sinner. Even those prophecies of retribution which are directed at the Gentiles are only conditional: their fulfillment is contingent on the people's refusing to repent. As we find in Jer. 18.7-8: 'At one instant I may speak concerning a nation... To pluck up and to break down and to destroy it. But if that nation turn from their evil.. .1 repent of the evil that I thought to do unto it.' It is worth noting the double meaning assigned to the word 'evil' (ra 'ah)—it is used both for sin and for punishment—in Jeremiah and Jonah:26 Jonah 3.10
Jeremiah 26.3
And God saw their works
The sin: That they turned from their evil way,
It may be they... turn every man from his evil way The punishment:
And God repented of the evil, that I may repent of the evil, which he said he would do unto them, Which I purpose to do unto them And he did it not. Because of the evil of their doings.
It is thus possible that Jeremiah inspired Jonah. 26. See my note, 'The "Measure for Measure" Principle—By Means of "Wording for Wording" (A Further Expression of the Connection between Form and Content)', BeitMikra 158 (1999), pp. 357-60 (Hebrew).
274
God's Word for Our World
What, then, is the contribution of these overturnings to our reading of the book? I believe that the overturnings in the book of Jonah, as well as the presentation of the prophet in opposition to all those surrounding him, both near and far, and especially in contrast to other prophets, lends support to the argument that the book of Jonah is nothing if not a parody of prophecy.27 The narrator chose to couch his educational method in absurdity and irony in order to emphasize his message of grace and mercy, in order to encourage repentance. The Lord is, after all, a merciful God, and the task of his messengers, the prophets, is to recall sinners from their evil ways. The Lord works by reward and punishment: if the people of Nineveh repent during the forty-day 'grace period' God will forgive and reward them; if not, their city will be destroyed and they will be punished. The only prophetic sentence in the book of Jonah—'Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown' (3.4)—is at once rich and ambiguous. It serves as a motto, as a concentrated formulation reflecting the meaning of the book as a whole. It appears that understanding the role of this prophetic sentence in its 'Delphic nature',28 in its two readings, as the mise en abyme of the book as a whole can provide an answer to the question of the central issue of the book of Jonah.29
27. For more bibliography on Jonah as parody of prophecy, see: Hauser, 'Jonah: hi Pursuit of the Dove'; A.J. Band, 'Swallowing Jonah: The Eclipse of Parody', Prooftexts 10 (1990), pp. 177-195 (177, 186). 28. Halpern and Friedman have discussed the double reading of nehepachet they suggest that the reader distinguishes the two meanings, although Jonah himself is not sensitive to the 'Delphic nature of his oracle' (B. Halpern and R. Friedman, 'Composition and Paronomasia in the Book of Jonah', Hebrew Annual Review 4 [1980], p. 87). 29. Allow me at this point to recall my earlier methodological comment (see n. 18 above). It will be recalled that I intentionally began this study with the argument that nehepachet means 'destroyed'. Afterwards I made a 'sea change', an overturning, by making the opposite claim: that nehepachet can refer not to a catastrophe to be visited on the city, but rather to a positive change in the hearts of the people. In this respect the structure of the article itself reflects its message.
JERUSALEM AS THE FALLEN BOOTH OF DAVID IN AMOS 9.11 Kenneth E. Pomykala
Amos 9.11 proclaims that God will raise up the 'booth of David that is fallen', a phrase that interpreters have often cited as evidence for Israel's post-exilic hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty or kingdom. However, in a previous study on Davidic messianism in the early Jewish period (400 BCE-100 CE), I argued against this interpretation. While accepting the widely assigned post-exilic date for the passage, I contended that the 'booth of David' referred not to the Davidic dynasty, but to Jerusalem.1 But I made this point in the section of my study devoted to the background of early Jewish interpretation of the Davidic dynasty in the Hebrew Bible, and thus, my argument was necessarily brief. In the present essay I want to offer a more comprehensive treatment of the question whether Amos 9.11 supports post-exilic hopes for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty and kingdom, first by dealing more fully with the question of the date of the passage and second by presenting a more detailed case for interpreting the 'booth of David' as Jerusalem. The Date of Amos 9.11-15 Amos 9.11-15 contains sayings that promise future salvation for Israel, a message not otherwise expressed in a prophetic book dominated by the theme of judgment. Indeed, it is the sharp change in theme found in these concluding verses that initially raised questions about whether the promise of salvation contained in them could have come from Amos.2 As a consequence, many commentators assigned this text to the exilic or post-exilic
1. K.E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (EJL, 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 61-63. 2. J. Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten: Ubersetzt und Erklart (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1963), p. 96.
276
God's Word for Our World
period.3 Others, however, maintained that 9.11-15 should be ascribed to Amos,4 a view that has found support in several recent commentaries.5 In addition, the time of Hezekiah has recently been proposed as the date for this passage.6 Thus, the dating of 9.11-15 is still a matter of dispute. The question of date is important, however, because the date a scholar assigns this passage shapes, and to some extent controls, how the contents of the passage are construed. In this respect, its contents—at least most of them—have been related to all the proposed settings. Below, therefore, I will review and evaluate various indicators for dating this passage and will contend that several lines of evidence converge to support an exilic or post-exilic date for 9.11-15. The first group of indicators involves formal aspects of the passage. Amos 9.11-15 contains two related oracles, 9.11-12 and 9.13-15, each marked off by introductory and concluding formulas.7 Significantly, Wolff
3. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 400-401; H.W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 352; J.L. Mays, Amos (OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p. 163; B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 405-406; R.B. Coote, Amos Among the Prophets: Composition and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 121; J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), p. 92; R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 222; J.A. Soggin, The Prophet Amos (London: SCM Press, 1987), pp. 148-50; J. Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), p. 162; R.J. Coggins, Joel and Amos (NCBC; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), p. 155. 4. W. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona (KAT, 13/2; Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 1971), pp. 285-86; E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos.-A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970), pp. 140-43; K. Koch, The Prophets. I. The Assyrian Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 69-70; J.H. Hayes, Amos: The Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988), p. 223; M.E. Policy, Amos and the Davidic Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 70-71. 5. D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (WBC, 31; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. 397; S.M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 288-89; M.A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000), I, p. 195. 6. W.M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 63-65. 7. On the presence of two oracles in Amos 9.11-15, see Wolff, Joel and Amos, pp. 350-51; Jeremias, Amos, p. 166. For the purpose of dating, however, I will treat
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
211
has observed that both oracles are multi-layered.8 He notes that v. 12 stands apart from v. 11 in several ways: it is 'pure prose' in contrast to the poetry of v. 11 ; its main verb, 'they may possess' (IC'V), has a third-person plural subject unrelated to v. 11; and v. 12 does not presuppose the contents of v. 11. Likewise, Amos 9.13-15 reflects internal structural differences. Verse 13 presents two bicola of three stresses each and is not firstperson divine speech. Verse 14 includes three cola of four stresses each, while v. 15 is a prose line, and both are first-person divine speech. Wolff concludes, 'These observations concerning the multi-layered form of the two oracles, which are without analogy in the work of Amos himself, should alone suffice to cast doubt on the opinion—still defended by some —that the prophet of the eighth century was their author'.9 He adds that multi-layered oracles are not characteristic of any of the redactional layers dated prior to the post-exilic period.10 Another formal element concerns the introductory formulas 'in that day' (Ninn Dm, v. 11) and 'days are coming' (D"«n D^n mn, v. 13). S.M. Paul has pointed out that 'in that day' is also used in Amos 2.16 and 8.3, 9,13, so that it need not indicate the work of a later redactor.11 Likewise, 'days are coming' also appears in 4.2 and 8.11,12 But in a comprehensive study of temporal transitions in prophetic literature, S.J. De Vries has shown that the introductory transitional formulas in v. 11 and v. 13 are to be distinguished from integral transitional formulas (cf. 4.2; 6.4-7; 7.16), and that such introductory transitional formulas reflect later additions here and elsewhere in prophetic literature.13 Based on this and other factors, De Vries himself assigns 9.11-15 an exilic date.14 them together, even though some commentators assign them somewhat different dates (cf. Jeremias, Amos, p. 162). 8. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 351, though he thinks a single author combined various sayings. See also J.D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW, 217; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1993), pp. 104-22, for a thorough examination of the multi-layered character of 9.11 -15. 9. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 352. 10. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 352. 11. Paul, Amos, p. 290; see also, Hammershaimb, Amos, p. 140. 12. Paul, Amos, p. 292. 13. S.J. De Vries, From Old Revelation to New (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 186-93(190). 14. De Vries, Revelation, pp. 263-64. The other factors are 9.11-15's affinities to both the redactional techniques of the Deuteronomistic school and the early redaction of Jeremiah.
278
God's Word for Our World
Moreover, the oracles' concluding formulas, 'says the Lord who does this' (v. 12b) and 'says the Lord your God' (v. 15b), are otherwise unattested in the book of Amos, the former being parallel to Mai. 3.21 (Eng. 4.3), a post-exilic text, the latter without parallel in prophetic literature.15 Finally, some have suggested that the plene spelling of 'David' ("HI, v. 11) supports a late dating, but orthography is not a reliable indicator of the date of composition, since it may reflect the spelling tradition of later copyists.16 Nonetheless, analysis of the other formal elements suggests that 9.11-15 is not from Amos, but from a later hand, most likely from the exilic or post-exilic era. A number of thematic and historical indicators point in the same direction, and to these I now turn. First, as noted above, the promise of salvation presented in Amos 9.11-15 is at odds with the message of the rest of the book of Amos, where authentic sayings of Amos pronounce a definitive end for Israel. In fact, much of 9.11-15 sounds like the reverse of what Amos preached. Amos envisions Israel's future as 'fallen no more to rise...with none to raise (nn-pQ) her up' (5.2), but in 9.11 God declares, 'I will raise up (D'pN) the booth of David that is fallen'.17 Amos interprets a vision of summer fruit to mean, 'the end has come upon my people Israel; I will never again pass them by' (8.2), while 9.14a states, 'I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel'. And whereas Amos 5.11 says, 'you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine', 9.14b affirms, 'they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine'. How should one account for this situation? Should we imagine that the prophet Amos, while preaching in the northern kingdom, interspersed oracles of definitive judgment with a couple of oracles of promised salvation? How then would mid-eighth century BCE listeners know which future to expect? It is more likely that a redactor appended a pair of salvation oracles to a written collection of judgment oracles to make the theological point that the God who judges injustice also offers hope for restoration— indeed, that God would even reverse the terms of his judgment at some future time, a theological point that would be particularly relevant to the readers/hearers of the book of Amos, especially if they had already 15. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 353. 16. Paul, Amos, p. 289; Schniedewind, Society, p. 64. 17. Cf. Jeremias, Amos, p. 166. See also 2.4, which predicts that God 'will send a fire against Judah and devour the strongholds of Jerusalem', though this may come from a later—pre-exilic—redaction.
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
279
experienced judgment.18 Accordingly, on thematic grounds it remains more probable that 9.11-15 comes from a later author. Second, commentators differ on whether the specifics of 9.11-15 presume a historical setting in the exilic or post-exilic period, or can be understood in a way consistent with Amos's time. Thus, v. 11 is taken by some to indicate a time after the Babylonians destruction of Judah in 586 BCE, because, whether interpreted as the Davidic dynasty, the Davidic kingdom, or Jerusalem, the booth of David is said to be 'fallen'.19 In contrast, those dating the passage to the time of Amos see the fallen booth as either an allusion to the divided state of David's kingdom20 or the weakened condition of Davidic rule in Judah in the mid-eighth century BCE.21 The question then is whether a divided kingdom or weakened rule can be termed 'fallen?' Some, apparently sensing this problem, have argued that the participle fl^Sin should be taken as referring to present time, so that the phrase in question is translated, 'the booth of David that is falling'.22 This is grammatically possible. Yet the context speaks against such a reading because later in v. 11 it is said of the booth of David that God will raise up 'its ruins'.23 Only what has actually fallen can be said to be in ruins. Can it be supposed, then, that because David's kingdom was divided or the rule of a Davidic king weakened that the Davidic kingdom or rule was in ruins? Perhaps this is possible, but a booth of David that is fallen and in ruins—however one interprets the booth—seems to fit an exilic or post-exilic situation better, since by this time the Davidic dynasty, Davidic kingdom, and Jerusalem had all been destroyed.24 18. See R.E. Clements, 'Prophecy as Literature: A Reappraisal', in D.G. Miller (éd.), The Hermeneutical Quest (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1986), pp. 59-76. 19. See above, n. 3. 20. E.g. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, pp. 280-81 ; Hammerschaimb, Amos, p. 138; Paul, Amos, p. 290; Schniedewind, Society, p. 65. 21. Hayes, Amos, p. 224. 22. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jon++++++Hayes, Amos, p. 224; Paul, Amos, p. 290. 23. Note the use of the verb 'raise' for both the 'booth of David' and 'its ruins'. Also, the verbs "?S] and Dip are regularly used together in contexts where the subject clearly is 'fallen', not 'falling' (cf. Amos 5.2; 8.14; Isa. 24.20; Jer. 25.27; 50.32; Mic. 7.8; Ps. 20.9 [Eng. 8]; 36.13 [Eng. 12]; Prov. 24.16). 24. Also, Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 352, notes that Amos nowhere condemns the Northern Kingdom's separation from Judah, something one might expect if Amos thought the division of the kingdom had caused the ruin of the Davidic kingdom.
280
God's Word for Our World
Third, another indicator of the historical situation may be implied by the phrase 'in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom', where the subject 'they' presumably refers to the people of Israel or Davidic kings. Some argue that this best suits the exilic or post-exilic period, since in the aftermath of the Babylonian destruction of Judah, Edom preyed on Judah and Jerusalem (cf. Obadiah; Ps. 137.7; Lam. 4.21-22).25 Other scholars note, however, that the hope of Israel taking possession of the remnant of Edom accords well with an eighth-century BCE setting, since by this time Judah had lost control of parts of Edom originally conquered by David.26 Accordingly, in light of Judah's shifting relationship with Edom over centuries, neither setting can be ruled out.27 We must conclude, therefore, that this phrase about Edom cannot be used to date the passage reliably. Even so, it should be remarked that Israelite antipathy toward Edom is best documented for the exilic and post-exilic periods and therefore may best account for Edom being singled out from the other nations called by the Lord's name.28 Fourth, when it is said in Amos 9.15,'I will plant them upon their land, and they shall never again be plucked up ("PU ItîTir K^l) out of the land that I have given them, says the Lord', this seems to presume that the exile has already occurred, since the people have been plucked up from their land and need to be planted upon it again. It has been held, however, that Amos or a later pre-exilic redactor refers here to the exile of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrian, not the exile of Judah.29 Again, in theory this is possible, but the terms 'to plant' (OT3) and to 'pluck up' (2T13) are otherwise juxtaposed only in Jeremiah in close association with the Judean
25. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 353; Mays, Amos, p. 164; Jeremias, Amos, p. 167; Coggins, Joel and Amos, p. 155. 26. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jon+++. 282; Paul, Amos, p. 291; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, p. 273. 27. Soggin, Amos, p. 148. 28. See Obadiah, Ps. 137.7, Lamentations, Isa. 63.1-6; Ezek. 25.12-14; 35.1-15; Mai. 1.2-5. The oracle against Edom in Amos 1.11-12 is often dated to the exilic period (cf. Wolff, Joel and Amos, pp. 151, 140). 29. Schniedewind, Society, p. 65, says that 'my people Israel' (v. 14) refers to the Northern Kingdom, since it does elsewhere in the book of Amos. But 'my people Israel' can be used for Israelites in the Northern Kingdom or Israelites generally, including those from Judah (cf. Ezek. 14.9; 25.14, where my people Israel does not refer to the Northern Kingdom). Its meaning therefore depends in part on the historical context in which the phrase is used, the very thing which must be determined here.
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
281
exiles.30 Indeed, 9.15 is reminiscent of Jer. 24.6, which itself is an exilic text: 'I will set my eyes upon them [the exiles of Judah, see v. 5] for good and bring them back to this land. I will build them up and not tear them down; I will plant them and not pluck them up.'31 Finally, it is generally accepted that prophetic literature, including the book of Amos, is the result of editorial processes that took place after the work of the prophet.32 Moreover, many of the prophetic books conclude with oracles of future salvation which date from the exilic or post-exilic period. So, for example, Hos. 14.4-8, Joel 4.18-21, Obad. 15-21, and Mic. 7.8-20 all display this pattern.33 In the same way, since the book of Amos concludes with similar oracles of future salvation, it is reasonable to suppose that these are exilic or post-exilic compositions as well.34 So far, I have argued that there are good formal, thematic, and historical grounds for dating Amos 9.11-15 to the exilic or post-exilic period. To refine this dating further, however, is complicated by ambiguity about whether all or some of the material in these verses stems from a Deuteronomistic redaction of the book in the exilic period. While some indications suggest the work of Deuteronomistic editors,35 others speak against this conclusion.36 Perhaps too little is known about the development of the Deuteronomistic school during the exile and its possible successors in the post-exilic era to use Deuteronomistic features for determining a more precise date for 9.11-15. Also, portions of these verses may have been 30. Jer. 24.6; 31.28 (which refers to both Israel and Judah); 42.10; 45.4; the terms are used in Jer. 1.10 toward Judah generally. 31. On the exilic setting for Jer. 24.6, see R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), p. 482. 32. See Rendtorff,Introduction, pp. 188-89,222-23; DeVries,Revelation,passim. For Amos, later editorial features include at a minimum the superscription (1.1), the third-person narrative in Amos's call story (7.10-15), and the collection and arrangement of the sayings, and probably the references to Judah (2.4-5; 6.1). Of course, many scholars find numerous other later additions. 33. See Wolff, Joel and Amos,?. 353, for Joel 4.18-21 and Obad. 19-21; Coggins, Joel and Amos, pp. 156-57, for Hos. 14.4-8. Perhaps also Zeph. 3.14-20 should be included, and Isaiah chs. 32-35 may close off the oracles in the first section of Isaiah in a similar way. Note too the especially close conceptual parallels between portions of Amos 9.11-15 and Joel 4.18-21. 34. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 353; Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 400-401. 35. U. Kellerman, 'Der Amossschluss als Stimme deuteronomistischer Heilshoffnung', EvTh 29 (1969), pp. 169-83; De Vries, Revelation, p. 264. 36. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 352; Jeremias, Amos, p. 166.
282
God's Word for Our World
composed at different times during the exilic and post-exilic periods, since, as observed above, these oracles of salvation are multi-layered. But for the purpose of determining whether 9.11-15 offers evidence of hopes for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty after its fall in 586 BCE, a date some time during the exilic or post-exilic period will suffice. Of course, if one finds the case for an exilic or post-exilic dating unconvincing and opts to assign 9.11-15 to the time of Amos or some other point in the pre-exilic period, then it certainly offers no evidence of hopes for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty after its fall, but only the prospect of an expansion or strengthening of the Davidic kingdom before its destruction. Nevertheless, since in my judgment the exilic or post-exilic period appears the most likely setting for 9.11-15,1 will proceed to interpret the meaning of the 'booth of David that is fallen' in that context. The Booth of David Within the Hebrew Bible, the phrase 'booth of David' (Til POD) occurs only here in Amos 9.11; what it signifies is a matter of dispute. Suggested meanings include the following: (1) the Davidic dynasty;37 (2) the Davidic kingdom;38 (3) Israel;39 (4) the city of Succoth;40 (5) the Jerusalem temple;41 (6) the cities of David's kingdom;42 and (7) the city of Jerusalem.43 All of these represent possible interpretations of the booth of 37. W.R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), p. 200; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, p. 280; J. Mauchline, 'Implicit Signs of a Persistent Belief in the Davidic Empire', VT 30 (1970), p. 291; Blenkinsopp, History, p. 92; Rendtorff, Introduction, p. 222; Paul, Amos, p. 290; Jeremias, Amos, pp. 166-67; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, p. 273. 38. Hammershaimb, Amos, p. 140; Mays, Amos, p. 164; Childs, Introduction, p. 407; Koch, Prophets, I, p. 70; Hayes, Amos, pp. 223-24; Soggin, Amos, pp. 147-50; Schniedewind, Society, pp. 63-65. 39. Coote,Amos, pp. 124-25. 40. H.N. Richardson, 'Skt (Amos 9.11): "Booth" or "Succoth"?', JBL 92 (1973), pp. 375-81; Policy, Davidic Empire, pp. 72-74; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, p. 398. 41. W. J. Harrelson, Interpreting the Old Testament (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964), p. 355. 42. J.D. Nogalski, 'The Problematic Suffixes of Amos IX.11', FT 43 (1993), pp. 411-18(416). 43. Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 353, who nonetheless goes on to speak of 'Davidic imperium'; Coggins, Joel and Amos, p. 155, who also proposes Jerusalem's sacred precincts as a possibility; Nogalski, Precursor++/. 115-16, also raises Jerusalem as a possibility.
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
283
David if Amos 9.11 is dated to an exilic or post-exilic setting, since all of these were 'fallen' after 586 BCE.44 Determining the correct referent for the booth of David will therefore depend on analysis of the language in v. 11, consideration of the literary context of the verse, and attention to analogous passages in prophetic literature. To begin, in ancient Israel a booth (HDD) was a flimsy, temporary structure made from branches and designed to provide shelter most commonly for someone guarding a vineyard.45 It is to be distinguished from a more substantial structure, the stone watchtower, which was also used in vineyards.46 The use of a HDD as a shelter is well illustrated in Isa. 4.6, which describes God's cloud and smoke and flaming fire which will hover over Mt Zion as a canopy: 'It will serve as a pavilion (HDD), a shade by day from the heat, and a refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain'. Similarly, as Jonah awaited the fate of Nineveh from outside the city, 'he made a booth (HDD) for himself there and sat under it in the shade' (Jon. 4.5). The frail character of a !"DD is evident from Isa. 1.8, where 'a booth (HDD) in a vineyard' is used in parallel with 'a shelter (rtn^Q) in a cucumber field', this latter term being employed in Isa. 24.20 to envision how the earth will shake when God judges it: 'The earth staggers like a drunkard, it sways like a hut (HDl^Q)'. The insubstantial quality of a !"QD is indicated again in Job 27.18, where the fate of the wicked is to 'build their houses like nests,47 like booths (HDD) made by sentinels of the vineyard'. Finally, instructions for the Festival of Booths in Neh. 8.15 make clear that a i~DD was made from tree branches: 'Go out to the hills and bring branches of olive, wild olive, myrtle, palm, and other leafy trees to make booths (HIDD), as it is written'. A clear understanding of what a !"OD was—a flimsy, temporary structure made of branches—is important, because it means that the descriptive phrases in v. 1 lacc+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++// which the HDD represents.^ Specifically, we are told that God will 'repair 44. Of course the temple was no longer 'fallen' after 515 BCE, nor Jerusalem after c. 445 BCE. 45. O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), p. 106. Booths also sheltered cattle (Gen. 33.17) and perhaps soldiers (2 Sam. l l . l l j l K g s 20.12, 16). 46. Borowski, Agriculture, p. 106. 47. The MT reads E)i? ('moth'), but LXX and Syriac suggest a reading of ETUDIA ('spider'). In either case, the fragility of the construction is clear. 48. Richardson, 'Succoth', p. 37, and Coote, Amos, p. 124, also recognize the problem of applying the phrases in v. 1 laa-b to a HDD.
284
God's Word for Our World
its breaches (irPiilSTlN T11131), and raise up its ruins (vnDim D"pN), and rebuild it as in days of old (0*711? 'a'D iTTVm)' (9.1 laa-b); none of this suits a i"QD. To begin with, the verb 113 means building with stone or putting up a stone wall. So, for instance, one reads in Hos 2.8b (Eng. 6b): 'I will build OH113) a wall (1113) against her', and in Ezek. 22.30: 'And I sought for anyone among them who would repair (113) the wall (113) and stand in the breach (fis)...' In Lam. 3.7-9, "ill refers to blocking someone's way with a stone wall: 'He has walled ("113) me about so that I cannot escape.. .he has blocked (113) my ways with hewn stones'.49 And when the participle of "113 is used as a substantive, it designates a mason (cf. 2 Kgs 12.13 [Eng. 12]; 22.6; Isa. 58.12; Ezek. 22.30). Also, the noun fis often designates a breach or gap in a stone wall, frequently a city wall. Thus, one reads in 1 Kgs 11.27, 'He (Solomon) closed up the gap (flS) of the city of David'. And when Nehemiah had finished building the walls of Jerusalem 'there was no gap (f IS) left in it' (Neh. 6.1).50 Furthermore, when 113 and f IS are used together, they always refer to walling up breaches in a city wall (cf. Isa. 58.12; Ezek. 13.5; 22.30). Therefore, in Amos 9.11 these two terms can hardly be describing the repair of a flimsy structure made of interwoven branches. Moreover, though the noun VHDin ('ruins') is a hapax in the Hebrew Bible, it is used in Sir. 49.13 in reference to the walls of Jerusalem: 'Nehemiah, may the memory of him be great; he raised our desolation; he repaired our ruins (13flD''in) and set up gates and bars'.51 In Isa. 49.19, "[TlDin (from fllD'Hri), a close cognate of ICTll, describes the ruins of a city, Jerusalem. Lastly, while the verb IDS could apply to any kind of structure, to speak about building a HDD 'as in days of old' (0*711? "^O) simply does not fit its status as a temporary, fleeting structure, which would be built anew each season. In other words, 'building it as in days of old' does not mean repairing last year's HDD Therefore, the phrases in v. 1 laa-b cannot refer to the HDD itself, but must refer to that which the HDD represents. In that case, these descriptive phrases, especially the first about walling up breaches, are also poorly suited for describing what the HDD represents if it is interpreted as a
49. Cf. a similar usage in Job 19.8. 50. Cf. also Amos 4.3; Isa. 30.13, where |*~IS means 'gap in a wall'. 51. For the Hebrew text, see I. Levi, The Hebrew Text of the Book ofEcclesiasticus (SSS; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1904), p. 69. The Greek text upon which the NRSV translation is based is somewhat different. Note too that the cognate verb DIS can refer to the breaking down of walls.
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
285
dynasty, kingdom, or people—all abstract entities, which of course lack stone walls. All these interpretations depend on the phrases in v. 1 laa-b applying to the !"DD itself, an application which I have tried to show is untenable.521 might add too that !"QD is never used in the Hebrew Bible to represent a dynasty, kingdom or people.53 Accordingly, the booth of David must refer to one of the other four options for the booth of David: the city Succoth; the cities of David's kingdom; the Jerusalem temple; or city of Jerusalem. H.N. Richardson also recognized that the images in v. 1 laa-b were not appropriate for a 1~DD and therefore suggested that POD should be read not as rap ('booth'), but rdp ('Succoth'), the Transjordanian city, which Richardson says lay in ruins during the eighth century BCE.54 While ingenious, this suggestion nevertheless labors under difficulties. First, while Richardson may be correct to interpret riDD in 1 Sam. 11.11 and 1 Kgs 20.12,16 as 'Succoth' instead of'pavilions' or 'booths',55 thereby implying that Succoth was an important military center for the expansion of the Davidic empire in Transjordan, his conclusion is unwarranted that 'Thus Succoth became a city associated with David's victories and the development of his empire and may be said to have been a "city of David" almost as much as Jerusalem was'.56 He adduces support for this conclusion from Ps. 60.6, where, in a psalm attributed to David, God promises to divide up the Vale of Succoth. In response, it should be observed that Succoth is only one of many locations mentioned in Ps. 60.6-9, the psalm speaks only 52. Claiming that the 'booth of David' represents the 'house of David', to which the phrases in v. 1 laa-b could apply would require positing that the terms apply to a metaphor of a metaphor (booth = royal house = stone house), an unlikely possibility. 53. Schniedewind, Society, p. 64, appears to claim that it does. He asserts: (1) that 'booth of David' is a redactor's explicit interpretation of the phrase 'Sikkut, your king' (nm^Q mSO) in Amos 5.26, thus indicating that the redactor thought David was the legitimate king and the fallen booth was the division of the kingdom; and (2) that the connection between Amos 5.26 and 9.11 was recognized by the author of a Qumran text, CD 7.14-21. In response, it can be said that: (1) Schniedewind offers no support for his assertion that 9.11 is a redactor's explicit interpretation of 5.26; and (2) how these text were connected at Qumran is irrelevant to the interpretation of 9.11 in its original context. 54. Richardson, 'Succoth', pp. 375-81. 55. Richardson, 'Succoth', pp. 377-78, who follows Yadin's interpretation (see Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands [2 vols.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963], II, pp. 274-75). 56. Richardson, 'Succoth', p. 379.
286
God's Word for Our World
of the Vale of Succoth, not the city, and David's connection to the psalm is based solely on the superscription, a later addition to the psalm. Moreover, Richardson must account for the defective spelling of Succoth in Amos 9.11, because it is usually written plene (fTOD). He therefore argues that in the eighth century BCE when Amos spoke the oracle, Succoth was written with defective spelling, since the mater lectionis was not yet in use (thus niDD). Later, he says, fDD was misunderstood for PQD, because the significance of Succoth for David had been forgotten after the Babylonians exile.57 This argument is problematic, on the one hand, because it requires that the oracle come from Amos, which I have argued above is unlikely. More importantly, how could the significance of Succoth for David have been forgotten after the exile, if, as Richardson claims, Succoth was virtually a city of David as much as Jerusalem. Due to these difficulties his suggestion must be rejected. Other options for the meaning of !"DD are less plausible. As for the Jerusalem temple,58 David's association with the temple is present only in Chronicles, and even there David only makes preparations for its construction. It is still Solomon who builds and dedicates the temple. One would expect the temple to be represented by a phrase such as 'the booth of Solomon', or more likely, 'the booth of the Lord', since this latter use is paralleled in Ps. 27.5.59 J.D. Nogalski contends that the 'booth of David' should be interpreted as a collective noun referring to the destroyed cities of David's kingdom.60 He comes to this conclusion in order to account for the suffixes of different number and gender attached to the words in v. 1 lact-b in the MT.61 However, the mix of suffixes can be explained on other grounds (see below), and it is not clear why David would be associated with all the cities of Judah or Israel. That leaves Jerusalem as a candidate for the 'booth of David', and there are many good reasons for accepting this interpretation. First, the image of a HDD is used elsewhere to represent the city of Jerusalem. Isaiah 1.8 57. Richardson, 'Succoth', p. 377. 5 8. Harrelson, Interpreting, p. 3 5 5. 59. The temple is probably also referred to as 'his (the Lord's) booth' (132?) in Lam. 2.6. See also F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep O Daughter ofZion: A Study of CityLament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Biblica et Orientalia, 44; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993), pp. 69-70, who cites ancient Near Eastern parallels for this usage. 60. Nogalski, 'Suffixes', pp. 411-18. 61. Feminine plural on firms ('their breaches'), masculine singular on TTlD~)n ('his/its ruins'), and feminine singular on iTrPDD ('build her/it).
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
287
reads, 'And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth (HDD) in a vineyard, like a shelter in a cucumber field, like a besieged city'. Moreover, a phrase roughly equivalent to 'booth of David', 111 bnK ('tent of David'), is used for Jerusalem in Isa. 16.5: 'then a throne shall be established in steadfast love in the tent of David ("Til 'TIN)'.62 Here the tent of David indicates the location of the king's throne, namely, Jerusalem, an interpretation supported by Ps. 122.5: 'For there (Jerusalem) the thrones for judgment were set up, the thrones of the house of David'.63 Further, using the image of a booth in a field for a city finds a close parallel in a Sumerian text. In the Lament for Ur, a garden hut that has been knocked down or pulled up functions as a metaphor for Ur's destroyed temple, but in subsequent lines of the lament, this metaphorical language is extended to include the city. Thus, Ningal, the patron goddess of Ur, cries, 'My faithful house.. .like a tent, a pulled-up harvest shed, like a pulled-up harvest shed! Ur, my home filled with things, my (well-)filled house and city that were pulled up, were verily pulled up' (11.125-32).64 Hence, the idea of representing Jerusalem as a booth (HDD) in Amos 9.11 is neither unique nor unexpected. Second, the terminology in v. 11 is appropriate for the city of Jerusalem. The booth of David is said to be 'fallen' (fl^SD), a term used to describe defeated cities. For example, in Isa. 21.9 the destruction of Babylon is reported: 'Fallen (H^SD), fallen is Babylon'.65 Likewise, walling up breaches QmnSTlK TTlTn), raising up ruins (ITpN rnoim), and rebuilding it as in days of old (D^IU ""Q"^ rrmDI) are all suitable ways of speaking about Jerusalem after 586 BCE.66 Indeed, similar images and identical language are used in post-exilic prophetic texts to speak about the restoration of cities: 'Your ancient (0*7117) ruins shall be rebuilt (1311); you shall raise up 62. The phrases are roughly equivalent in terms of describing architectural flimsiness; POO and bnKX are used as synonyms in Ps. 27.5. Jerusalem is also called a tent 'TIN in Isa. 33.20. 63. Cf. also the summary statements about the kings of Judah in the 1-2 Kings, where it states that they reigned in Jerusalem, and Ps. 132.13-17, where Davidic rule and Jerusalem are closely connected. 64. For the English translation, see T. Jacobsen, The Harp that Once...: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), p. 456. Cf. also 11. 122-23: 'My house established by a faithful man, like a garden hut indeed was thrust on its side' (for translation, see Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, p. 69). 65. See also Jer. 51.8,44. 66. In fact, breaches in its defensive walls cause a city to fall (see 2 Kgs 25.4). Also, in Nehemiah' s work to restore Jerusalem, he must deal with breaches (Neh. 2.13; 4.1 [Eng. 7]; 6.1) and ruins (Neh. 2.17) to rebuild it (1.5; 2.17, 20).
288
God's Word for Our World
(DDlpn) the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer (11J) of the breach (pa)...' (Isa. 58.12), and 'They shall build up (13H) the ancient (D^ir) ruins, they shall raise up (IDDlp"") the former devastation; they shall repair the ruined cities, the devastation of many generations' (Isa. 61.4). Hence, the terms in v. 11 appropriately describe a defeated city like Jerusalem. Moreover, David's association with Jerusalem is unquestioned, since he captured it, reigned in it, and named it the city of David (cf. 2 Sam. 5.6-10; 1 Kgs 2.11).67 In this regard, 'booth of David' is clearly parallel to the expression 'city of David', a common designation for Jerusalem in the Hebrew Bible (44 times). Further, viewing the booth of David as Jerusalem can account for the varying suffixes used on words in v. 1 laa-b in the MT.68 The feminine plural on ]mria ('their breaches') would refer to the walls (HQin) of Jerusalem,69 the masculine singular on TTlD"in ('his ruins') to David, and the feminine singular on rrm3 ('build it/her') to the city of Jerusalem. Third, understanding the booth of David as Jerusalem fits both the immediate and broader literary contexts. Within the immediate context, we can observe that the oracle in 9.13-15 refers to the rebuilding of ruined cities. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it was juxtaposed to 9.11-12, because 9.11-12 also refers to the rebuilding of a ruined city, Jerusalem.70 Taken together, then, the two oracles foresee the rebuilding of Jerusalem as a key element in the divine initiative to restore Israel, a restoration that would result in Israel's possession of Edom and the surrounding nations (v. 12), extraordinary agricultural productivity (v. 13), and restored fortunes in the form of rebuilt cities, enjoying the fruits of one's labors, and security in the land (vv. 14-15).71 With respect to Israel possessing Edom and other nations (v. 12), some interpreters have maintained that it reflects the political aspirations of the 67. The phrase 'city of David' sometimes refers to the portion of Jerusalem seized by David (see D. Tarler and J.M. Cahill, 'City of David', inABD, II, pp. 52-53). 68. In the LXX, all the suffixes are feminine singular, but its text is probably not original (see Nogalski, 'Suffixes', p. 414). 69. Forthe phrase 'walls of Jerusalem', see 2 Kgs 25.10; Isa. 62.6; Jer. 39.8; 52.14; Pss. 51.20 (Eng. 18); 122.7; Neh. 2.13; 4.1. nTH is another feminine word for wall. 70. Note the catchwords iTQ ('build', v. 11 and v. 14) and nonn/DQC] ('ruins'/ 'ruined', v. 11 and v. 14) linking the two oracles. 71. Interestingly, the actual rebuilding of Jerusalem by Nehemiah was associated with similar ideas: divine help (Neh. 2.5-8,12,18; 6.16), potential political independence and domination of neighbors (Neh. 2.19; 6.6, 16), removal of shame (Neh. 1.3; 2.17) and reaping the fruits of one's labors (5.1-5, 11-12; 9.37).
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
289
Davidic house, so that the booth of David must be viewed as the Davidic dynasty or kingdom.72 But this conclusion is by no means required. Prophecies from a time after 586 BCE envision a restored Jerusalem dominating or taking possession of other nations without the agency of Davidic kings (cf. Isa. 54.1-3; 60.12-16; Obad. 17-21; Joel 4.19-21). Indeed, Obad. 17-21 serves as a good example of this type of prophecy and it is a close parallel to Amos 9.12.73 Both passages declare that Israel will possess the nations, both single out Edom for special attention, and both allude to the rule of God over the nations (cf. Obad. 2 Ib; Amos 9.12a£).74 In Obad. 17-21, however, those who dispossess the nations are explicitly identified as the people of Israel, who are closely associated with Jerusalem (vv. 17, 20b, 21 a),75 whereas in Amos 9.12a, those who will possess Edom and the nations are identified only as a third person plural subject ('they'). In light of the parallels between Obad. 17-21 and Amos 9.12, therefore, it is more reasonable to identify this unnamed subject in Amos 9.12a as the people of Israel, who in exilic and post-exilic times would be centered in Jerusalem, than as Davidic kings. Accordingly, interpreting the booth of David as Jerusalem is fully consistent with the notion of possessing Edom and the other nations. Within the broader context of the book of Amos, 9.11-15 declares that the results of God's judgment against Israel will be reversed. So, in contrast to the oppression of the nations (3.11; 6.14; 9.4), they will possess the nations (9.12); in contrast to famine, drought, and pestilence in the land (4.6-10), they will know amazing productivity (9.13); in contrast to being denied their houses and wine (5.11), they will live in their houses and drink their wine (9.14); in contrast to exile (5.27; 6.7; 7.17), they will be planted on their land, never again to be plucked up (9.15). In the same way, in contrast to the strongholds of Jerusalem being devoured by fire (2.4), we reasonably conclude that 9.11 declares that Jerusalem will be 72. Schniedewind, Society, p. 64. 73. On the connections between Amos 9.12 and Obad. 17-21, see Nogalski, Precursors, pp. 109,113-22, who argues that these passages likely reflect late editing of the Book of the Twelve in which consecutive prophetic books were thematically linked. 74. Edom would be singled out because of its actions against Jerusalem in the aftermath of its defeat by the Babylonians (see Obad. 11-14; Ps. 137.7; Lam. 4.21-22). 75. Those who dispossess the nations are variously named those who escape on Mt Zion, the house of Jacob, the house of Joseph, those of the Negeb, those of the Shephelah, Benjamin, the exiles of the Israelites, the exiles of Jerusalem, and those saved who go up to Mt Zion.
290
God's Word for Our World
rebuilt as in days of old. In addition, an allusion to Jerusalem in 9.11 may form an inclusio with the reference to Jerusalem/Zion in the opening hymnic fragment (1.2). Thus, for its exilic or post-exilic Judean audience, the book of Amos is bracketed by references to Jerusalem. Finally, Amos 9.11-15 finds its closest conceptual and verbal parallels in exilic and post-exilic oracles about the restoration of Jerusalem. To be sure, several prophetic oracles from this period express hope for a new David or restoration of the Davidic dynasty,76 but hope for the restoration of Jerusalem is a more dominant theme in this era,77 and, as the following examples demonstrate, 9.11-15 resonates with themes found in texts explicitly about the restoration of Jerusalem: (God) says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited', and of the cities of Judah, 'they shall be rebuilt' and 'its ruins (nTTO")!"!,) I will raise up (DQlpN)'78... and who says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be rebuilt (nnn)'. (Isa. 44.26-28) See, I have inscribed you on the palms of my hands; your walls are continually before me. Your builders (~p3) outdo your destroyers ("pDinQ), and those who laid you waste go away from you... Surely your waste and your desolate places and your devastated ("friDin) land—surely now you will be too crowded for your inhabitants... (Isa. 49.16-19) Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you... for the nation and kingdom that does not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste. (Isa. 60.10-12) I will not again give your grain to be food for your enemies, and foreigners shall not drink the wine for which you have labored, but those who garner it shall eat it and praise the Lord, and those who gather it shall drink it in my holy courts. (Isa. 62.8b-9) I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in my people; no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it or the cry of distress... They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. (Isa. 65.19-21)79
76. Ezek. 17.22-24; 34.23-24; 37.24-25; Jer. 30.8-9; 33.14-26; perhaps Hag. 2.20-23; Zech. 3.8; 6.12 (see Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty, pp. 25-67). 77. Isa. 40.1-11; 44.26-28; 45.13; 46.13; 49.14-21; 51.3, 11, 17-23; 52.1-2, 9; 54.1-3, 11-14; 59.20; 60.10-16; 61.3-4; 62.1-12; 65.18-25; 66.6-13, 20; Jer. 30.18; 31.38; 33.6-11; Zeph. 3.14-20; Zech. 1.12-17; 2.4-5, 10-12; 3.2; 8.1-8, 15; 9.9-10; 14.10-12; Joel 3.5 (Eng. 2.30); 4.1,16-21 (Eng.3.1,16-21). Moreover, the destruction of Jerusalem was a significant issue in the early exile (cf. Ps. 137 and Lamentations). 78. NRSV translates 'their ruins'. 79. See also w. 20,22-25, which tell of idyllic conditions analogous to Amos 9.13.
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
291
So you shall know that I, the Lord your God dwell in Zion, my holy mountain. And Jerusalem shall be holy, and strangers shall never again pass through it. In that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine, the hills shall flow with milk, and all the stream beds of Judah shall flow with water... Egypt shall become a desolation and Edom a desolate wilderness, because of the violence done to the people of Judah, in whose land they have shed innocent blood. But Judah shall be inhabited forever, and Jerusalem to all generations. (Joel 4.17-20)80 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the tower of Nananel to the Corner Gate. (Jer. 31.38)81
Themes of rebuilding cities, raising up ruins, submission of foreigners, idyllic agricultural production, keeping the fruits of one's labors, and security, as well as a number of related terms, are found both in these oracles about the restoration of Jerusalem and in Amos 9.11-15. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that in 9.11-15 these themes and terms are also connected to the restoration of Jerusalem, here expressed in terms of raising the booth of David that is fallen. By representing Jerusalem as a booth, however, Amos 9.11 stresses the inherently fragile nature of Jerusalem, whose security ultimately derives not from its defensive walls, but from its merciful God. Perhaps as a closing remark, it should be noted that some of the first interpreters of Amos 9.11 did not understand the booth of David to represent the Davidic dynasty, king, or kingdom. For instance, in Ben Sira 49.13, the author draws upon the language of Amos 9.11 and Isa. 49.19 to praise Nehemiah for rebuilding Jerusalem.82 The Old Greek of Dan. 11.14 also takes up some of the language of Amos 9.11 in a non-messianic way.83 At Qumran, Amos 9.11 is cited twice. In CD 7.15-21, it is used to support the author's interpretation of'booths' (fTDD) in Amos 5.26 as a reference to the Book of the Law. Here neither 'booth' (TOD) from 9.11 or 'booths' (fVDD) from 5.25 is applied to a Davidic figure. In fact, in CD 7.20-21, mention of a royal figure, the Prince of the Whole Congregation, is based on Num. 24.17. In 4QFlor 1.12, Amos 9.11 is cited in a different way, this time to confirm the author's reading of 2 Sam. 7.11b-14 as promising a Davidic messiah, named the 'Branch of David' (Til FlDiJ). But to make 80. Note too that part of the immediately preceding verse (4.16a [Eng. 3.16]) matches part of the opening hymnic saying in Amos 1.2. 81. For the post-Jeremiah date of Jer. 31.38, see Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 568-70. 82. C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 48. 83. See J.J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 380.
292
God's Word for Our World
this point, the author of 4QFlor read the MT'S rpD (plene fDlD, 'booth') as rniD ('branch'), in order to yield the required phrase 'Branch of David' (Tii nrno).84 Acts 15.16 also invokes Amos 9.11 (LXX) to validate a Christian mission to Gentiles apart from circumcision and the law.85 Here commentators usually see the booth of David as a reference to Jesus, a Davidic messiah,86 but Jerusalem would fit the context just as well. The two other LXX texts alluded to in the scriptural citation (Isa. 45.21; Jer. 12.15) come from contexts referring to Jerusalem, and such a reading would be compatible with Luke's theology about the centrality of Jerusalem in salvation history. Nonetheless, Christian exegesis of Acts 15.16, which understands the booth of David as the Davidic messiah Jesus, may have encouraged modern scholars to interpret Amos 9.11 in terms of the Davidic dynasty in its original context as well. In any event, while none of these later interpretations can determine what the booth of David meant in its original context, it is illuminating to know that early Jewish and Christian interpreters did not necessarily interpret Amos 9.11 in terms of the restoration of the Davidic dynasty or kingdom. Conclusion In this essay I have sought to establish two points. First, Amos 9.11-15 should be dated to the exilic or post-exilic period. Formal, thematic, and historical aspects of the passage support such a dating. Second, the booth of David is to be identified with the city of Jerusalem. The phrases in v. 11 aa-b cannot apply to the booth itself, but must refer to that which the booth represents. This rules out theories which view the booth of David as representing the Davidic dynasty or kingdom and requires that the referent of the booth be a structure with stone walls. Of the possible options, the city of Jerusalem is the most likely referent, because the image of a booth is used elsewhere to symbolize cities, even the city of Jerusalem, the remaining language in v. 11 is appropriate for Jerusalem, the literary context supports such an interpretation, and the closest conceptual and verbal parallels to 9.11-15 are found in exilic and post-exilic oracles about the 84. Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty, pp. 195-96; L.H. Silberman, 'A Note on 4Q Florilegium', JBL 78 (1959), pp. 158-59. 85. The LXX of Amos 9.11 differs markedly from the MT. 86. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB, 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), pp. 555-56.
POMYKALA Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David
293
restoration of Jerusalem. I might add, too, that if the booth of David that is fallen represents Jerusalem, the dating of Amos 9.11-15 after 586 BCE is confirmed. Accordingly, while it is evident that some in the exilic and postexilic periods maintained hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty and kingdom, Amos 9.11-15 does not espouse such a view. Instead, like many other prophecies from its time, it looks to the rebuilding of Jerusalem—the booth of David that is fallen—as a central element in God's future salvation for Israel.
'OLD WHAT'S-HIS-NAME': WHY THE KING IN 1 KINGS 22 HAS No NAME*
Robert L. Hubbard, Jr
This essay revisits the confrontation between King Ahab and the prophet Micaiah ben Imlah (1 Kgs 22), the subject of Simon John De Vries' wellknown 1978 monograph.1 The latter was a model of rigorous historicalcritical and traditio-historical analysis. It also continued a long, difficult search by literary critics for the sources and redactional processes which produced the present form of 1 Kings 22. Most seminal was the analysis of Wiirthwein, who traced the text's earliest elements (vv. 2b-4,29-37) to a non-prophetic, Judahite sage with the folklorist motif of the deceived deceiver which denigrated Israelite kings.2 To this, he argued, a later hand added w. 5-28, a narrative dispute about the problem of true and false prophecy which itself incorporated an older tradition (w. 5-9, 13-17 * This essay offers a significant revision of a paper read at the meeting of the Midwest Region of the Society of Biblical Literature in LaGrange, IL, in February 1996.1 gratefully acknowledge the insightful response of participants on that occasion. Thanks also go to my Teaching Assistants, Ery Prasadja, MDiv, who did most of the research, and Kazu Wu and David Mortimer, who provided more recent sources. 1. Simon J. De Vries, Prophet against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Cf. also his Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 292-95. 2. E. Wiirthwein, 'Zur Komposition von 1 Reg 22.1-38', in F. Maass (ed.), Das Feme und Nahe Wort (Festschrift L. Rost; BZAW, 105; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1967), pp. 245-49; cf. also J.M. Miller, The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz', ZAW80 (1968), pp. 337-42, who argued that the king who fought the three battles in 1 Kgs 20 and 22.1-38 was Jehoahaz of the Jehu dynasty, not Ahab. For a summary of a century of research on 1 Kgs 22, see, conveniently, W. Roth, 'The Story of the Prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22) in Historical-Critical Interpretation 1876-1976', in R. Polzin and E. Rothman (eds.), The Biblical Mosaic: Changing Perspectives (Semeia; Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 105-37.
HUBBARD 'OldWhat's-His-Name'
295
[Eng. 18], 26-28), an appeal to the prophet's word coming true as the solution to the problem. According to Wurthwein, a still later expansion (vv. 10-12, 24-25) offered the counter argument that Zechariah and the 400 prophets possessed the spirit, while the final tradition layer (w. 19-22) countered that their inspiration was in fact a deceptive spirit sent by Yahweh to doom the king.3 For his part, De Vries pursued a programmatic twofold purpose: 'to trace the development of the entire prophetic tradition prior to the work of the "writing" prophets', and 'to describe the literary processes by which these traditions became part of Scripture'.4 De Vries concluded that the present 1 Kings 22 interweaves two originally independent narratives— Narrative A, which originated in prophetic circles allied with Jehu (c. ninth century BCE) and featured Ahab's son Joram—and Narrative B, a wordcontroversy narrative closely parallel to 2 Kgs 18.17-19.37 (c. seventh century BCE).5 Having isolated these sources, De Vries then analyzed their genres and ideological dimensions,6 tracked the tradition of the prophet Micaiah traditio-historically,7 followed the narratives' redactional incorporation into the Omride war cycle (1 Kgs 20; 22.1-38),8 and reflected theologically on the implications of his conclusions for Israel's understanding of true prophecy.9 A scholarly consensus concerning the text's genre had eluded earlier discussions (e.g. historical report, prophetic narrative, fable, etc.), but De Vries clearly showed10 its literary roots in 3. Wiirthwein, 'ZurKompositionvon 1 Reg 22.1-38', pp. 249-52. Some scholars, however, parted company with such analyses, maintaining the literary integrity of the entire narrative; cf. J. Montgomery, The Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967), pp. 336; M. Rehm, Das Erste Buch der Konige (Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979), pp. 215-16. 4. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, p. x. 5. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 63-71; cf. idem, 1 Kings (WBC, 12; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), pp. 265-66. By his analysis (Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 33-51), Narrative A comprises w. 2b-4b£, 5-9,15a-18,26-28ap, 29-35ba, 36-37, and Narrative B w. 10-12a, 14,19-20aab, 21-25. Later secondary accretions include vv. l-2a, 4ba, 12apb, 13, 20a(3, 28b, 35b, 38, 39-40. 6. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 52-92. 7. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 93-111. 8. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 112-36. 9. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 137-51; cf. especiallyp. 150: 'Prophet against prophet was only a symptom. The root cause was king against prophet... Our prophet legends record a dynamic struggle to supervise the kingship.' 10. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, p. 26, and especially pp. 52-92.
296
God's Word for Our World
Old Testament prophecy. It is no surprise that his work helped shape the subsequent scholarly discussion on this complex text.11 The present visit to 1 Kings 22 proceeds along different lines from those of De Vries. It accepts the basic unity of the present text as defended persuasively in recent decades.12 It assumes that, whatever the redactional history which gave it birth, the present text makes reasonably good literary sense and sounds its own themes. Further, it focuses on one specific literary phenomenon, the text's consistent reference to the Israelite king by title ('the king', 'the king of Israel') rather than by name ('Ahab'). It interprets that phenomenon as a clue, not to the text's pre-history, but to one theme of its final form, taking its interpretive bearings from three recent studies of related biblical literary features. The latter will help shape the present study's final section, a reading of 1 Kings 22 in support of a literary thesis. To begin, however, requires the description of the phenomenon of namelessness in 1 Kings 22 which follows.
I Scholars have long recognized the important roles which names play in biblical narratives.13 Examples of the ways in which biblical writers love to play with the names of people and places abound:' "Fool" (nabdl) is his name, and folly (rfbald) is with him', Abigail tells David about her cranky husband (1 Sam. 25.25); at Bethlehem's gates, Naomi cries, 'Don't call 11. For example, see the interaction with De Vries in G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), II, pp. 360-62. Inexplicably, it seems to have escaped the notice of H. Weippert, 'Ahab el campeador? Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu 1 Kon 22', Bib 69 (1988), pp. 457-79, who proposes a five-stage redactional history. 12. E.g. H. Seebass, 'Zur 1 Reg. xxii 35-38', FT(1971), pp. 380-83; B.O. Long, 'The Form and Significance of 1 Kings 22.1-38', in Isaac Leo Seeligman Volume (Jerusalem: E. Rubenstein, 1983), pp. 193-208; A.F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (SBLDS, 16; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 68-73. Cf., more recently, A.F. Campbell and M.A. O'Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), pp. 405-406, who judge w. 1-38 to be a single narrative that, whatever its date of composition, was incorporated after the completion of Dtr (35). For an early holistic reading of 1 Kgs 22, see D. Robertson, 'Micaiah ben Imlah: A Literary View', in Polzin and Rothman (eds.), The Biblical Mosaic, pp. 142-46. 13. For a convenient survey, see H.B. Huffmon, 'Names, Religious Significance of, in IDBSup, pp. 619-621; cf. D.M. Pike, 'Names, Hypocoristic' and 'Names, Theophoric', inABD, IV, pp. 1017-19.
HUBBARD 'Old What's-His-Name'
297
me "My Pleasant One" (na '"mi), call me Bitter (mara'), for the Almighty has dealt bitterly (hemar) with me' (Ruth 1.20); 'No longer shall your name be 'abram ("exalted ancestor")', Yahweh instructs Abram, 'but your name shall be 'abraham ("ancestor of many nations")' (Gen. 17.5).14 By the same token, Bible writers often explain the origin of place names from certain memorable events. Thus, one account reports how Canaanite onlookers, impressed by the mourning of Egyptians in Jacob's funeral procession, called one stopping place 'abel misrayim ('the mourning of the Egyptians', Gen. 50.11). Similarly, the names massd and nfribd evocatively recall the 'test' and 'quarrel', respectively, of Israel during their preSinai wilderness itinerary (Exod. 17.1-7; cf. Ps. 95.7b-l 1). This interest in names makes the virtual namelessness of the king in 1 Kings 22 seem all the more curious. Consider the following observations.15 The previous chapter, the episode about Naboth's vineyard (1 Kgs 21), literarily leads the reader to assume that Ahab is the king described in 1 Kings 22.16 Further, the king's portrait here seems consistent with the Dtr's portrait of Ahab—indeed, I suggest, more like Ahab than any other previous northern king. He has 400 prophets at his beck and call (v. 6), the same number of 'prophets of Asherah' assembled by Ahab on MtCarmel(18.19-20,22; cf. 2 Kgs 3.13). Ahab's complaint that 'I hate him [the prophet Micaiah], for he never prophesies anything favorable about me' (v. 8a) compares favorably to the Ahab who complains to Israel's elders about King Ben-hadad's threat, 'Look now! See how this man is seeking trouble...' (1 Kgs 20.7a). In sum, the larger context leads readers to assume that the king here is the same Ahab whose career has played out since ch. 17. In addition, the name Ahab does not appear until v. 20 in Micaiah's vision report. Before that, the text refers to Israel's ruler either by title ('the king of Israel' [17 times]) or simply as 'the king' (11 times). Furthermore, 14. Apparently, the text understands 'abraham to be a variant form of 'ab-hamon goyim ('ancestor of a multitude of nations'). 15. Cf. the similar survey of phenomena presented in Weippert, 'Ahab el campeador?', pp. 458-59. De Vries is among those who have noted the curious absence of the king's name; cf. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, p. 25. The king is completely anonymous in his Narrative A (vv. 33-37) and mentioned only once (v. 20) in his Narrative B (vv. 40-42; cf. 103-104); cf. J.M. Hamilton, 'Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of King Ahab and the Character of God', CBQ 56 (1994), pp. 650-51. 16. Some scholars set the limits of the narrative by pointing to the introductory summary of King Ahab in 1 Kgs 16.29-33 and a typical concluding remark of the king's reign in 1 Kgs 22.39-40. See Long, 'Form and Significance', p. 197.
298
God's Word for Our World
outside of the lone occurrence of Ahab (v. 20), the context invokes the name 'Ahab' only two other times, both in the concluding regnal summary (vv. 39, 40). In all these examples it seems reasonable that literary convention has required the use of the proper name, Ahab. This assumption is true of the concluding regnal summary where annalistic conventions reign (vv. 39-40). All such summaries name the king whose reign they bring to anend(cf. 1 Kgs 11.14 [Solomon]; 14.19-20 [Jeroboam I], 29-31 [Rehoboam], and so on). How could it be otherwise? A survey of vision reports concerning kings suggests that they reflect the presence of the same literary convention.17 Granted, some oracles omit the king's name (e.g. 1 Kgs 20.42 [Ahab]; 2 Kgs 1.3-4, 16 [Ahaziah]), but in those cases the king's name appears in surrounding verses (e.g. 2 Kgs 13.15-19; 19.6,20-31, and so on). Thus, literary convention apparently dictates the identification of Ahab by name in the regal summary and justifies its inclusion in Micaiah's vision. But what is to be made of its omission throughout the rest of the text? Is it intentional, accidental, or of no significance? If intentional, what purpose does the omission serve? The interpretive 'hunch' that the omission of Ahab's name may be intentional gains credibility by observing how the writer treats the context's other main characters. The writer identifies all the story's other major characters at least by name if not occasionally with additional data. The two battling prophets are named in expanded genealogical form—Micaiah son of Imlah (vv. 8, 19) and Zedekiah son of Chenaanah (vv. 11,24). Most often, however, the text simply invokes the name Micaiah itself (vv. 13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 26, 28). In addition, the text also mentions by name two officials who play no role in the main story— Amon the governor of the city and Joash the king's son (v. 26). Their mention by name, despite playing no significant narrative role, only heightens our curiosity concerning the virtual absence of the name, Ahab. In sum, setting aside Micaiah's oracle and the concluding regnal summary, he is the only character whose name fails to appear. The text also introduces the story's other main royal figure by name ('King Jehoshaphat of Judah', v. 2), a somewhat formal phrase which reappears in w. 10 and 29. As with Micaiah, the text most often refers to 17. Consider, for example, Ahijah's prophecy about the division of Solomon's kingdom (1 Kgs 11.31) and about Jeroboam's demise (14.7, 9-11, 13-14); Elijah's death sentences on Ahab (1 Kgs 20.21,24) and its minor merciful emendation (v. 29); and Isaiah's announcement of Hezekiah's future healing (2 Kgs 20.5).
HUBBARD 'Old What's-His-Name'
299
him simply as Jehoshaphat (vv. 4, 5, 7, 8 [twice], 18, 30, 32 [twice]). But while readers know his northern counterpart only as 'the king of Israel', Jehoshaphat is never described by the equivalent phrase, 'the king of Judah'. The consistent contrast between listing the northern king by title and the southern king by name is clearly evident in report formulae involving both kings. Observe the pairing in these phrases: 'Jehoshaphat (proper name) said to the king of Israel (title)' (vv. 4, 5) and 'the king of Israel (title) said to Jehoshaphat (proper name)' (vv. 8,18, 30). The same juxtaposition of title and proper name appears in two descriptions of allied royal activity: 'Now the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah were sitting on their thrones, arrayed in their robes...' (v. 10) and 'So the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead...' (v. 29). This pairing of title with proper name seems literarily unbalanced and unequal, as if the text were treating one character more formally and more distantly (the king of Israel) and the other more personally (Jehoshaphat). One searches the text in vain for the equivalent phrases which might offset this impression, for example,' Ahab said to the king of Judah' or 'the king of Judah said to Ahab', to say nothing of 'Ahab said to Jehoshaphat' or 'Jehoshaphat said to Ahab'. Consistently, the text identifies all other characters by name but portrays the Israelite king in formal, impersonal terms. This impersonal characterization, however, stands in stark contrast to the thrust of the narrative. At the outset, the issue only concerns whether or not the allied armies should attempt to retake Ramoth-gilead (v. 6). With Micaiah's dramatic performance, however, the issue becomes more personal—whether or not the Israelite king himself will survive the battle (vv. 17,28). Yet, as we have seen, the entire consultation with the prophets (vv. 5-28) mentions that person's name only once (v. 20). Even the brief, sad, intimate snapshot of the mortally wounded king ordering his driver 'Turn around, and carry me out of the battle' (v. 34) omits the victim's name.18 Comparison of 1 Kings 22 with its parallel in 2 Chronicles 18 further underscores the former's idiosyncratic nomenclature. For the most part, the Chronicler repeats the Deuteronomist's account (as does the LXX), but striking differences occur. Unlike Dtr, at the outset the 18. It is also striking how sharply this phenomenon contrasts with what the pattern of the preceding chapters. Elijah's confrontations are all with Ahab, not 'the king of Israel' (17.1; 18.1, 2, 17; 21.17, 20, 28, 29; cf. also that with Jezebel, 19.1, 21). Uniformly, earlier texts portray dealings between the prophet and people with names not titles.
300
God's Word for Our World
Chronicler introduces both Jehosphaphat and Ahab simply by name and without title (w. 1 -2a): 'Now Jehoshaphat had great riches and honor; and he made a marriage alliance with Ahab. After some years he went down to Ahab in Samaria'.19 Further, compared to the report formulae in 1 Kings 22, the balance of the report formula (v. 3) with which the Chronicler introduces Ahab's request for a military alliance is striking ('King Ahab of Israel said to King Jehoshaphat of Judah'). Obviously, while drawing on Dtr, the Chronicler has substituted balanced terminology for Dtr's imbalanced pattern. The writer certainly has good literary reasons for introducing Ahab by name. The Chronicler's exclusive interest in the Davidic monarchy means that this marks Ahab's first appearance in Chronicles. Thus, to repeat Dtr's 'the king of Israel' here would not clarify his identity.20 Probably, the Chronicler added the references to Ahab in vv. 1-3 since the rest of the text follows the names and titles of Dtr except for v. 19 where Micaiah's vision report names 'King Ahab of Israel' rather than simply 'Ahab' (1 Kgs 22.20).21 Whatever the case, the comparison of 1 Kings 22 with 2 Chronicles 18 highlights again the curious nomenclature in Dtr and its need of explanation. One such explanation which enjoys a sizeable scholarly consensus reads the king's namelessness as evidence of the text's pre-history. The proposed explanation is that Dtr has incorporated an anonymous text originally about another king—and opinions vary as to which king is meant— in his narrative about Ahab.22 But the matter is less certain than is often 19. Notice that the Chronicler replaces Dtr's reference to the three-year peace between Syria and Israel (1 Kgs 22.1 -2a) with mention of Jehoshaphat's great wealth. The latter apparently intends to highlight the status of Jehoshaphat over against that of Ahab in line with the writer's greater interest in the Davidic king; cf. R.B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC, 15; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 140, 141; S. Japhet, / & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 756-58. 20. Contrast Dtr, whose narrative leading up to 1 Kgs 22 not only included both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (1 Kgs 12-16) but also tracked Ahab's reign at some length (1 Kgs 16.28-21.29). Since readers probably know Ahab's reputation well, the Chronicler's mention of him by name allows the writer to trace his unfortunate influence on the otherwise pious Jehoshaphat; cf. Japhet, / & II Chronicles, p. 758 ('Jehoshaphat became rich, and stumbled'). 21. Alternatively, the Chronicler's nomenclature might preserve an earlier form of the text. Were that true, it would imply something significant—that prior to v. 20 Dtr had intentionally suppressed the name Ahab in 1 Kgs 22. 22. E.g. M. Noth, The History of Israel (New York: Harper & Row, 2nd edn, 1960), pp. 236 n. 2, 243; J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and
HUBBARD 'Old What 's-His-Name'
301
thought.23 It rests on two assumptions—the first highly questionable, in my view—that the king in the 'original narrative' itself (vv. 2-38) was anonymous and that, in compiling the history, Dtr or his editorial predecessors wrongly assumed him to be Ahab.24 In my view, however, it seems improbable that an Israelite writer (or any writer, for that matter) would narrate events involving an Israelite king without naming him. One rightly asks: In what historical setting would such a narrative arise, and what purpose would it serve? Further, the anonymity hypothesis misses what I deem the text's more important literary phenomenon—not the king's namelessness but the striking juxtaposition of named characters with an unnamed one. In essence, the hypothesis begs for a literary explanation of the very anonymity of its putative source. In so doing, it raises the possibility that namelessness, whether in a 'source' or in a 'final text', may in reality reflect an ancient practice, if not a literary convention. It is in this alternative direction that the following recent studies of related biblical phenomena point and provide helpful illumination. II
M. Sternberg was among the first to interpret the absence of names in biblical narratives.25 For example, concerning Genesis 24 Sternberg notes how the servant Eleazar's reference by name to Abraham and Sarah but not to Isaac (vv. 34-36) in effect subordinated the latter to the good news Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 222-23, 252, 254; cf. p. 262; Weippert, 'Ahab el campeador?', p. 459. Candidates for the king to whom 1 Kgs 22 originally referred include Ahab's son, Jehoram (De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 93-97) and Jehoahaz (Miller, 'The Acts of Jehoahaz', pp. 337-42; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, II, p. 361). 23. Cf. the demurrals of Rehm, Konige, pp. 216, 222; John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 3rd edn, 1981), p. 242 n. 42 ('I am not convinced of this. But any reconstruction remains hypothetical'), p. 247 n. 55. 24. E.g. Noth, The History of Israel, p. 243; Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, pp. 252, 253-54. 25. Before Sternberg, comments concerning absent names occasionally appeared elsewhere; cf. P. Trible, 'Two Women in a Man's World: A Reading of the Book of Ruth', Soundings 59 (1976), pp. 251-79 (273), who suggested that the namelessness of Boaz's kinsman (Ruth 4.1) might imply criticism of his refusal to perpetuate the name of his dead relative; and W. Brueggemann, 1 Kings (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), p. 99, who observed parenthetically that 1 Kgs 22 denies the king a name because 'it does not want to grant him that legitimacy'.
302
God's Word for Our World
concerning his parents, both relatives familiar to Laban.26 According to Sternberg, characterization in biblical narratives follows the 'poetics of ambiguity' not the 'realistic fullness' of the modern novel.27 The Bible sketches its characters through indirection—that is, 'without benefit of formal portrayal'28—a feature also evident in its use of names. As a further contrast, Sternberg notes, the Bible refers to persons through unique (vice typical) names, assigning each character his or her own name.29 Thus, biblical characterization alternates not between 'singularity and typicality' but between 'singularity and anonymity'.30 By 'singularity' he presumably refers to the fact that biblical characters bear their own proper names. For 'anonymity', Sternberg offers an astute, seminal observation: Anonymity is the lot (and mark) of supernumeraries, type-characters, institutional figures, embodied plot devices. Its ranks comprise wise women, messengers and other personified voices... To remain nameless is to remain faceless, with hardly a life of one's own. Accordingly, a character's emergence from anonymity may correlate with a rise in importance... By analogy to the biblical world, the abstention from naming in biblical discourse thus implies the individual abeyance of the nameless within the otherwise particularized action.31
For Sternberg the Bible's nameless characters are primarily minor figures (the 'extras' in modern movie casts) whose importance derives only from their narrative or institutional roles and from their ability to advance the plot. As 'faceless' characters they enjoy only vague identity and create a vague physical appearance in the reader's mind. More important for our focus, however, he suggests that they may emerge from (and presumably lapse into) anonymity, and that such change signals a change in their narrative importance. This implies that biblical narrators may intentionally 26. M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 146; cf. his comment (p. 134) on Abraham's reference to his hoped-for daughter-in-law simply as 'a woman' (Gen. 24.4). 27. Sternberg, Poetics, pp. 166, 325-26. This contrasts biblical poetics with the 'poetics of lucidity' articulated by novelist Anthony Trollope in which 'straightforward storytelling' guides both storyteller and reader through narratives with confidence and full understanding. For his discussion of the anonymity of biblical authors themselves and its implications for interpretation, see Sternberg, Poetics, pp. 58-65. 28. Sternberg, Poetics, p. 329. 29. Sternberg, Poetics, pp. 329-30. In his view, this explains why the Bible 'boasts the largest onomasticon in literary history'. 30. Sternberg, Poetics, p. 330. 31. Sternberg, Poetics, p. 3 3 0.
HUBBARD 'Old What's-His-Name'
303
grant and/or deny characters names for literary purposes (that is, to advance plot, sound themes, reveal intentions, convey meaning, etc.). If so, he undermines the common literary-critical explanation of the anonymity king in 1 Kings 22 and argues for a literary reading of it. A second seminal study by E.J. Revell analyzes the way in which biblical narratives refer to or address individual characters and how such designations relate to the use of names.32 Since scholars commonly appeal to such designations to support literary critical arguments 'presented as self-evident', Revell intends to describe biblical usage as a basis 'against which such arguments might be evaluated'.33 His discussion of unnamed characters is of particular interest. He observes that narratives identify them by their occupation (e.g. 'servant', 'messenger') or general social category (e.g. 'woman', 'child', etc.). Though their names may have been lost before the narrators wrote, Revell traces their namelessness more to their low profile in the narrative or in their community's history.34 To his surprise, Revell finds that biblical narratives, usually thought composed from different sources, show consistent patterns of designations and that variations serve deliberately to signal special meaning.35 Indeed, Revell concludes that the text reflects a self-consistent system of designation and that it marks the means by which 'the speaker or narrator conveys his feelings about the matters presented, and attempts to influence the addressee or the reader'.36 Against common scholarly practice, he argues that such 32. E.J. Revell, The Designation of the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996). In the early 1990s, anonymity in the New Testament also received occasional scholarly mention. According to Beck, anonymity in the Gospel of John serves to draw the reader into subjective participation in the narrative and into identification with the beloved disciple: see D.R. Beck, 'The Narrative Function of Anonymity of Fourth Gospel Characterization', Semeia 63 (1993), pp. 143-58; cf. J.L. Staley, 'Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 55-80 (p. 71 n. 5): 'Here [in Jn 5 and 9], the nameless mother of Jesus, the Samaritan woman, the blind man, and the beloved disciple are characters with more of a "life of their own" than named characters like a Judas, Nathaniel, Caiaphas, or a Philip'. 33. Revell, Designation, p. 11. As an example he cites one scholar who argued that the designation of Elijah as 'man of God' in 1 Kgs 17.18 suggested that the chapter's later part derived from a source different from that of its earlier part. He might just as easily have cited scholarly appeals to the phrase 'the king of Israel' as evidence that 1 Kgs 22 originally referred to some other king. 34. Revell, Poetics, pp. 51, 190-96. 35. Revell, Poetics, pp. 11-12,361. 36. Revell, Poetics, p. 361.
304
God's Word for Our World
designations 'cannot be shown to be abnormal in biblical Hebrew' and, hence, do not indicate 'errors' in the text or evidence for the presence of different sources.37 His chapter on 'The Designation of Kings of the Northern Kingdom, Israel' merits particular attention.38 In narration, says Revell, the simple title 'the king' (hammelek) occurs in narratives which concern events in the monarch's kingdom or which involve him only with a prophet or a subject (34 cases),39 while the title 'king of Israel' (melekyisra 'el) appears when he is involved with the king of Judah or other foreign kings (43 cases).40 Most other cases, however, designate the king of Israel by title when the narrative involves him with a prophet, and in these cases, says Revell, 'the prophet dominates the king' by passing judgment on him, healing him, making predictions, giving the king advice, and so on.41 By the same token, narratives designate the king by name when the use of the title does not suit the narrator's purpose—for example, when no foreign king or prophet is involved.42 As for designations in speech, subjects address the king as 'my lord the king' (
HUBBARD 'Old What 's-His-Name'
305
among themselves (1 Kgs 16.16), or to those whom they think should regard his royalty (1 Kgs 22.13; 2 Kgs 10.13), and in messages sent them by the king (1 Kgs 22.27; 2 Kgs 1.9, 11; 9.18, 19). Similarly, Elijah and Elisha refer to 'the king' when addressing, respectively, a royal envoy (2 Kgs 1.6) or one of his subjects (2 Kgs 4.13). Strikingly, the king's personal name occurs in spoken references to him by God or prophets speaking on his behalf, as well as by other non-subjects (1 Kgs 14.7, 10 [three times], 14, 16; 16.3, 4; 22.20; 2 Kgs 9.8 [twice], and so on). Significantly, Revell finds that designations for northern kings parallel the pattern for Saul and David; designations in speech use the same conventions for both Saul and David but in narration narrators avoid the royal title with Saul. In other words, they manipulate standard conventions to signal their view of Saul's royal illegitimacy over against the rise of David.44 Revell finds the same dichotomy in the designations of northern kings.45 In his view, designation of northern kings by title ('the king of Israel') alongside the naming of southern kings in contexts where both appear together... ...shows that the narrator does not identify with the northern community which the king of Israel rules. The use of the title where a king of Israel is involved with a prophet enhances the prestige of the prophet, and the form of religion he supports, since the prophet is shown to dominate the king in such cases.46
This wide-ranging, thorough study has important implications for the present study. It sketches the larger context of literary practice from which 1 Kings 22 probably derives and in which it must be understood. It confirms my suggestion above that a literary convention dictates the invocation of the proper name Ahab in Micaiah's oracle (v. 20). More important, it suggests that the terminological imbalances observed in 1 Kings 22 conform to a larger pattern—the dominance of a northern king by the prophet whom he encounters, and a lack of authorial identification with the Northern Kingdom. In other words, the imbalances comprise a conscious 44. Revell, Poetics, pp. 116-17. 45. Revell, Poetics, p. 143; cf. his full discussion, pp. 143-45. 46. Revell, Poetics, p. 143; cf. p. 144: 'The use of the title in IK 12.28 draws attention to a particularly heinous act by King Jeroboam. The title is used for Saul in just the same way...' On the other hand, Revell concedes (pp. 144-45) that the additional information which regnal summaries on kings of Judah provide but which those of kings of Israel lack may reflect limitations of sources rather than the narrator's viewpoint.
306
God's Word for Our World
literary strategy to convey meaning and perhaps a literary convention. By naming Micaiah, the writer enhances the prophet's prestige and sway over the king and conveys his approval of the prophet's religion; by not naming the king, he diminishes the monarch's prestige and power and conveys his disapproval of the king's religion. The imbalance of title for northern kings over against proper names for southern ones reflects the writer's own southern background and sympathies. Also, by discovering a larger pattern of anonymity as a literary strategy it undermines the consensus view that namelessness in itself implies the presence of a pre-existent source. Finally, it lays the groundwork for the focused reading of 1 Kings 22 with which this essay concludes. The last important recent contribution is the comprehensive study of unnamed biblical characters by A. Reinhartz. Her stated purpose is twofold: to introduce readers to these nameless characters, and to explore the interplay between anonymity and identity.47 In successive chapters, she surveys anonymous biblical characters from obscure, incidental 'bit players' to more fully known figures (e.g. wise women, unworthy Levites, wayward wives, etc.), to figures in the heavenly realm.48 In my view, Reinhartz's most important contribution arises from her second purpose— her discussion of the relationship between anonymity and identity. According to Reinhartz, the interplay between anonymity and identity has three aspects. First, anonymity 'effaces' or 'veils' a personal character's identity—for example, the unnamed Levite's concubine (Judg. 19) whose anonymity literarily foreshadows her eventual effacement from the story through death.49 For Reinhartz, such effacement through namelessness marks a natural corollary of the crucial, constitutive role which a proper name
47. A. Reinhartz, 'Why Ask My Name?': Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 4-5. She defines anonymity somewhat narrowly as 'the lack of a proper name' while identity denotes 'the palpability of individuality or personality' (p. 4). 48. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, pp. 19-177. 49. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, pp. 5-6, and her extended treatment of this aspect (Part I, pp. 17-60). The anonymity of Reinhartz's 'doomed daughters' (pp. 113-33) has similar meaning (p. 188): 'In the tragedies of the doomed daughters, anonymity can signify the death of identity, a demise that foreshadows their own'. Cf. Hudson's thesis that anonymity is a literary device in Judg. 19-21 which epitomizes Israel's familial, tribal, and national deterioration; cf. D.M. Hudson, 'Living in a Land of Epithets: Anonymity in Judges 19-21', JSOT62 (1994), pp. 49-66 (54).
HUBBARD 'Old What 's-His-Name'
307
plays in narrative characterization. The role of a proper name is fourfold.50 The name itself may bear meaning, whether from its etymology or its contextual associations (e.g. Moses—'draw out', Exod 2.10; Benjamin —'honored son', Gen. 35.18). Proper names also bestow a sense of unity on a character, especially when the same character has multiple designations. Readers know Jacob's daughter as a single character, 'Dinah' (Gen. 34), though Hamor calls her 'Jacob's daughter' (v. 8) and her brothers 'our sister' (v. 31). In addition, names provide a clear, convenient 'label' for others to identify a character (e.g. Jacob's sons, Gen. 29.32-30.24; Manoah, Judg. 13.2; Moses, Exod. 2.1-10). Finally, a proper name distinguishes its bearer from other characters, defines individual identities, and allows the reader to track their separate stories (e.g. Jacob and Esau, Gen. 25.25-26). The centrality of the proper name in character construction, says Reinhartz, accounts for how its absence 'contributes to the effacement, absence, veiling, or suppression of identity'.51 The second aspect of the anonymity-identity interplay is that some unnamed characters 'emerge' in narratives—that is, achieve a clear, even detailed identity—despite their anonymity.52 Unlike 'bit players', the unnamed wife of Manoah (Judg. 13), Abraham's servant (Gen. 24), and the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10.1 -10) all take on character and play memorable roles. But, argues Reinhartz, the very fact that we can discuss unnamed characters shows that, however brief their mention, they attain identity: 'Identity creeps in as soon as characters are described, referred to, act, or speak'.53 Indeed, says Reinhartz, some biblical characters achieve personhood despite their portrayal exclusively in social roles (e.g. 'wife of, 'servant of...', etc.). The term 'the wife of Manoah' imposes anonymity, but that very anonymity 'draws attention to the interplay between the wifely role and her narrative portrayal and thereby to the uniqueness and
50. What follows draws on Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, pp. 6-9. 51. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, p. 9. She concedes, however, that most unnamed biblical characters 'make scarcely a ripple on the surface of the narrative', receiving only brief description and speaking barely or not at all before disappearing. 52. For what follows, cf. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, pp. 9-12, and her extended treatment in Part II (pp. 61-133). 53. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, p. 10; cf. S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup, 70; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), p. 92: 'Few of the characters in biblical narratives are depicted extensively and in detail, most being sketched in with only a few lines. Nevertheless, they are convincingly real and human, and have unique features.'
308
God's Word for Our World
individuality which personal identity expresses'.54 In other words, her individuality emerges from the very interplay between anonymity and narrative portrayal. As the reader compares the unnamed character's actual words and deeds with stereotypical role expectations—'the degree to which he or she stretches its limits or calls its very contours into question'—the character's unique traits show themselves.55 The third aspect of the interplay between anonymity and identity is that it produces blurred boundaries.56 On the 'plus' side, anonymity enables the reader to view a specific character as symbolic of a general category (e.g. Manoah's wife as 'wife'). In fact, argues Reinhartz, a generic term 'lends a paradigmatic quality' to the unnamed characters which suggests the universality of their experience.57 Further, encounters with anonymous figures may increase the reader's self-knowledge and suggest personal applications for life today.58 On the other hand, anonymity serves to destabilize some commonly held distinctions—for example, those between characters, that between 'reader' and 'text'. It also destabilizes the link between a character's name and his or her identity, says Reinhartz, undermining the very notion of identity itself. But, notwithstanding that instability, in her view, 'anonymity does not suppress the personal identities of the anonymous' nor prevent the reader from shaping their identity.59 Also, as in postmodern literature, it may in effect make the reader the main character in the text. Indeed, avers Reinhartz, by demanding effort in character construction, anonymity brings characters and readers close together, and in that encounter 'we construct not only their identities but also our own'.60 Reinhartz's theoretical reflections and thorough treatment of characters make several important contributions. Of particular interest is her discussion of the roles of names in biblical narratives and of the relationship between a name (or its absence) and a character's identity. Her thesis that anonymity may symbolize the effacement of a character provides an 54. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, p. 12. Cf. also her defense of the mimetic nature of biblical narratives and discussion of the relationship between social roles and characterization (pp. 10-12). 55. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, p. 188. 56. Reinhartz, Anonymity andldentity, pp. 12-13. Reinhartz's Part III (pp. 135-86) explores this aspect of the anonymity-identity relationship. 57. Reinhartz, Anonymity andldentity, pp. 188-89. 58. Reinhartz, Anonymity andldentity, p. 189. 59. Reinhartz, Anonymity andldentity, p. 191. 60. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, p. 191.
HUBBARD 'Old What 's-His-Name'
309
interpretive window through which to view the nameless king in 1 Kings 22. Similarly, the insight that the namelessness of biblical 'doomed daughters' and the Levite's concubine foreshadows their imminent deaths also seems applicable to the anonymous king's fate.61 Along the same line, her comment concerning the interplay of role expectations implied by a title with a character's actual portrayal is suggestive for 1 Kings 22. That our nameless king eluded her net confirms the rigor of her method, but it also means the exclusion of an in-between phenomenon—a character whose name is known from the context but who is portrayed anonymously—and the interpretive meaning of the anonymity.62 Also, Reinhartz leaves two specific phenomena untreated—the interplay between that namelessness and the fact that the reader knows the name, and the effect of the name's being suddenly introduced (cf. 1 Kgs 22.20). She stops short of calling anonymity either a literary convention or conscious strategy, preferring to limit herself to analyzing its literary effect. But along with Steinberg and Revell, Reinhartz has at least shown anonymity to be a literary phenomenon pregnant with potential meaning. Ill
All that remains is to offer a reading of 1 Kings 22 in light of the observed phenomena and recent studies just discussed. 1 Kings 21 sends mixed signals concerning what lies ahead for the king. On the one hand, the murderous acquisition of Nabom's vineyard (1 Kgs 21.1-16) and Elijah's subsequent oracle (vv. 17-24) create the expectation that Ahab, Jezebel, and their entire dynasty stand doomed to extinction. The following parenthetical comment (vv. 25-26) strengthens that expectation by indicting them in the severest terms: .. .there was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD, urged on by his wife Jezebel. He acted most abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had done, whom the LORD drove out before the Israelites.
On the other hand, Ahab's repentant response (v. 27) apparently postpones the dynasty's end until his son's reign (vv. 28-29) but leaves his personal 61. Reinhartz, Anonymity and Identity, pp. 6, 188. 62. In my view, the closest Reinhartz comes to considering this phenomenon is her discussion of the problem of whether (h)'dm in Gen. 1-5 designates 'a man' or the proper name 'Adam' (Anonymity and Identity, pp. 141-44).
310
God's Word for Our World
fate unaddressed.63 Further, Yahweh informs only Elijah of the postponement; Ahab knows nothing about it. These ambiguities create narrative tension which haunts the reader as 1 Kings 22 opens. How radical is Ahab's newfound contrition? If sincere, is it sufficient to spare him the violent death announced? Why did Yahweh not inform him of his merciful steps? Do Ahab's war plans (vv. 1-4), which send the king in harm's way, imply royal arrogance—the failure to take Elijah's oracle seriously? Is the divine axe about to fell mighty Ahab? 1 Kings 22 opens with the Arameans having broken a three-year truce with Israel by taking the city of Ramoth-gilead in Transjordan (v. 1; cf. 1 Kgs 20.34).64 During a visit by King Jehoshaphat of Judah, the Israelite king asks him to join forces in wresting the city from Syrian hands. Certainly, the addition of such a substantial ally would greatly enhance the assault's firepower, and Jehoshaphat accepts the invitation (22.4).65 Not content to wage war without divine authorization, however, Jehoshaphat requires his host to 'inquire.. .for the word of the LORD' before attacking (v. 5; cf. 1 Sam. 28.3-10; Ezek. 21.21-23). The king of Israel readily obliges, summons an overwhelming display of clerical force—400 prophets—and receives their oracle of reassurance that 'the LORD will give it (Ramoth-gilead) into the hand of the king' (1 Kgs 22.6). But Jehoshaphat remains skeptical, either because he distrusts the orthodoxy of Ahab's prophetic phalanx or because he wants to know 'the real intention of the deity'.66 He asks for inquiry of some 'other prophet of the LORD' (v. 7). 63. This oracle seems to suggest that prophecy is less unconditional than is often thought. For a discussion of this thesis, see D.W. van Winkle,' 1 Kings 20-22 and True and False Prophecy', in K.-D. Schunck and M. Augustin (eds.), Goldene Apfel in silbernen Schalen (Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums, 20; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 9-23. 64. Critics often cite this sudden souring of Israelite-Aramaean relations so close on the heels of their allied military efforts at Qarqar (853 BCE) as historical evidence that the king of 1 Kgs 22 must be someone other than Ahab; cf. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet, pp. 93-97, and the summary and bibliography of Rehm, Konige, pp. 220-22. But I remain unconvinced; so also Rehm, Konige, pp. 221-22; Bright, History of Israel, p. 247 n. 55. 65. Whether vv. 29-36 imply that Jehoshaphat was Ahab's vassal (see also v. 44) is uncertain, especially in light of 2 Chron. 17.2 (so also Bright, History of Israel, p. 242 n. 39). But the alliance sealed by the marriage of Ahab's daughter, Athaliah, to Jehoshaphat's son Jehoram (2 Kgs 8.18, 26) might have obligated the Judahite king to assist his northern counterpart in fighting Israel's enemies. 66. So Hamilton, 'Nets', p. 654, who favors the latter. In his view, the underlying issue is not which prophets are 'true' or 'false' but which prophecy is true and how
HUBBARD 'OldWhat's-His-Name'
311
About now the reader probably observes the imbalanced narrative designations noted above. Juxtaposed to 'Jehoshaphat', the impersonal title 'the king of Israel' seems to efface the character of Ahab (Reinhartz), subordinate him to his Judahite counterpart, and undermine his legitimacy (Revell). The juxtaposition also removes some of the earlier ambiguity, hinting at authorial disapproval of Ahab and his prophets. The king of Israel obliges the wishes of his royal guest a second time— reluctantly, of course because the lone remaining prophet is Micaiah son of Imlah, whom the king says always forecasts disaster for him (v. 8). While a royal messenger fetches Micaiah (v. 9), the other prophets address the two royally robed monarchs enthroned at the gate of Samaria (vv. 10-12). Wielding symbolic iron horns and invoking the messenger formula ('thus says the LORD'), Zedekiah son of Chenaanah predicts certain victory ('With these you shall gore the Arameans until they are destroyed', v. 11), a view with which the other prophets concur (v. 12; cf. Deut. 33.17). Meanwhile, elsewhere in Samaria the messenger urges Micaiah to join the unanimous, favorable prophetic consensus (v. 13). Since the king dispatched the messenger before the prophetic presentation began, the latter's opinion must derive from either prior knowledge of Ahab's prophets or his own loyalty to the king. In either case, his urging reflects badly on both the king and the prophets, implying royal influence on the prophets and a prophetic party-line catering to royal wishes. In reply, Micaiah diplomatically swears only to say what Yahweh tells him (v. 14), a posture which affirms his independence of royal influence. In light of the earlier divine mercy (21.29), it also leaves open the possibility of a favorable oracle. Indeed, when the king of Israel asks his opinion, Micaiah virtually repeats the assurance of victory given by the other prophets (22.15; cf. v. 12), including the omission of the messenger formula.67 From past experience the king, however, suspects insincerity in Micaiah's surprising concurrence and asks for a truthful opinion (v. 16). Ironically, as Hamilton certain is the deity's ability to carry it out: 'Since God (or the gods) has proven in the past to be capable of deception, even when a revelation has been given one hopes for confirmation'. The fact that the king has authority over the prophets, thus making them royal 'yes men', may also have troubled Jehoshaphat; cf. Van Winkle, '1 Kings 20-22', p. 14. 67. The lone omission from the otherwise word-for-word quotation of v. 12 is the city's name ('Ramoth-gilead'). For various interpretations of Micaiah's concurrence, see Hamilton, 'Nets', pp. 654-56.
312
Go d 's Word for Our World
observes, the king's very insistence increases the chances that certain royal doom might result.68 In reply, Micaiah reports seeing a vision of Israel scattered 'like sheep that have no shepherd' (cf. Num. 27.17; Zech. 10.2; 13.7) and hearing Yahweh declare, 'These have no master; let them go home in peace' (1 Kgs 22.17). The vision implies that the king is gone ('no shepherd') and that Israel is better off for his absence ('go home in peace'). The king's 'See, I told you so!' to Jehoshaphat (v. 18; cf. v. 8) confirms that the oracle is an unfavorable oracle.69 Micaiah's vision of the heavenly council (w. 19-23) removes all ambiguity as to the king's fate and probably enhances Micaiah's prophetic credibility (Jer. 23.18-22; cf. Isa. 6.8-13a). Surprisingly, the vision also explains the inspiration of the other prophets, announcing that, prior to the prophetic show, Yahweh had decided to trick Ahab by dispatching a lying spirit to 'entice Ahab, so that he may fall at Ramoth-gilead' (v. 20). Thus, if Micaiah be believed, their favorable (but false) oracle ultimately originates with Yahweh, inspired by that lying spirit (v. 23). Dramatically, as the royal guards hustle him back to jail (vv. 26-27), Micaiah takes an oath—'If you [Ahab] return in peace, the LORD has not spoken by me' (v. 28)—making the fulfillment/non-fulfillment of his prophecy the test of his divine backing. Micaiah's word finally removes all ambiguity concerning Ahab's personal fate: he is to die in the ensuing battle. The king's contrition will not offset his history of opposition to Yahweh. Ironically, if Micaiah is right, even Ahab's own prophets confirm his certain doom. Further, the entire episode reveals that, by initially excluding Micaiah, the king sought to silence his voice of judgment (and to manipulate Jehoshaphat, too). In other words, notwithstanding his earlier humility, Ahab continues to promote favorable prophets and ignore unfavorable ones. For our purposes, the vision report marks the only mention of the name Ahab for the otherwise anonymous king (v. 20), a feature which Revell found to be typical in such genres. But, as Ahab heads into battle, the narrative's reversion to the title 'the king of Israel' (vv. 26, 27, 29, 30, and so on) ominously anticipates Ahab's final effacement—the ultimate loss of name in death as it did with Reinhartz's 'doomed daughters'. Given the high value which Israel placed on the preservation of a name after death (e.g. 68. Hamilton, 'Nets', p. 655. 69. Interestingly, the king's conduct toward the prophets betrays his assumption that prophets can control the content of their own oracles; so van Winkle, ' 1 Kings 20-22', pp. 14, 15.
HUBBARD 'Old What's-His-Name'
313
Ruth 4.1-12), the expected name loss here marks the prospect as all the more tragic.70 He is not only to die—he is, in effect, to cease to exist. The king of Israel himself apparently puts some stock in Micaiah's words. While Jehoshaphat wears royal robes, the Israelite proposes to enter the battle disguised (v. 29). At first glance, it is unclear whether the ruse derives from the king's arrogance or desperation. But, as Coggins has shown, Old Testament narratives always employ the disguise motif 'at the expense o/the king'—that is, to highlight the limits of royal authority to determine how events play out compared to the sovereignty of God.71 The motif also always condemns 'an unacceptable line of kingship' and underscores the disguise's superficiality (that is, it never prevents death).72 If so, 1 Kings 22 portrays the king at least as illegitimate and worthy of death, if not arrogant in his futile attempt to avoid it. His human efforts failed to silence Micaiah, but he apparently thinks that a human disguise may stop the fulfillment of prophecy. In theological terms, the king seems to reckon Yahweh's eyesight as no better than that of the Syrians who temporarily mistake Jehoshaphat for Ahab (vv. 31 -33)—that Yahweh could not single him out for judgment in the swarm of soldiers. But he miscalculates the might of the real force arrayed against him. As Coggins observes, the disguise motif affirms theologically that 'Nothing is hidden from God's sight'—that he controls the situation 'often...in unexpected ways'.73 In Ahab's case, divine control cleverly circumvents all the king's shrewd precautions; 'the nets of prophecy' (that is, the fulfillment of foretold divine judgment) finally ensnare him.74 The royal ruse fails—with fatal results for the king. An arrow randomly fired by some nameless Syrian archer strikes the king in his one vulnerable spot, the space between his scale armor and the breastplate (v. 34). The king bleeds 70. As Hamilton notes ('Nets', p. 662), 1 Kgs 22 offers 'a story meant to be understood as tragic'. Ahab meets a just fate, but he does so 'as a result of his intransigence', thus making the story 'a human tragedy in the classic mold'. 71. R.J. Coggins, 'On Kings and Disguises', JSOT 50 (1991), pp. 55-62 (60 [emphasis in original]). Besides 1 Kgs 22, the other pertinent narratives concern Saul's visit to the witch at Endor (1 Sam. 28), the visit of Jeroboam's wife to Ahijah of Shiloh (1 Kgs 14), two battle reports each followed by episodes involving prophets (1 Kgs 20), and the Chronicler's report of Josiah's death (2 Chron. 35). Cf. also van Winkle, '1 Kings 20-22', p. 16. 72. Coggins, 'Disguises', pp. 60, 61. 73. Coggins, 'Disguises', p. 61. For a study of God as a character in this narrative, see the insightful study of Hamilton ('Nets', pp. 649-63). 74. 1 owes these themes and this term to Hamilton, 'Nets', pp. 651, 652.
314
God's Word for Our World
to death in his chariot (v. 35), and news of his death sparks a panicked retreat by his forces (v. 36). An epilogue underscores how his death fulfilled Elijah's prophecy (v. 38; cf. 21.19), and a concluding regnal resume (22.39-40) closes the curtain on his infamous career.75
IV This visit to 1 Kings 22 has focused on the phenomenon of royal anonymity. Review of recent relevant studies and a reading of the text seem to confirm that the phenomenon involves both a literary strategy and some literary conventions. But the present narrative also uses anonymity in a unique way. Typically, anonymity presents a character without a known name, but 1 Kings 22 imposes anonymity on one whose name is known from the context. The resulting literary effect enlightens the reader gradually over the narrative's course. The reader knows that the king is Ahab, so initially the odd juxtaposition of 'the king of Israel' with 'Jehoshaphat' sows suspicions of authorial disapproval. Later, the juxtaposition of additional characters with names (Zedekiah, Micaiah, et «/.) further depersonalizes or effaces the king. He has a royal title, a royal role, and royal prerogatives but no name to sustain a clear identity. Narratively, he recedes into the blurry historical jumble of kings who have borne the same title.76 Once Micaiah names him in a vision report, however, his namelessness takes on a more ominous tone, anticipating his final effacement in death.77 Ironically, the anonymous king dons a disguise—the dress of anonymity— to escape divine judgment. The arrival of the destiny which his anonymity anticipated finds him dressed appropriately. Except for the royal resume, he dies nameless as if his conduct had squandered all reason for him to be remembered. In the end, by calling him 'the king of Israel', the writer in effect whispers to the reader, 'Old What's-His-Name? Aw, he's history!' i . By mentioning his death three times (w. 35,37,40) the narrative may subtly underscore the king's passing as the fulfillment of prophecy; cf. the observation of Weippert, 'Ahab el campeador?', pp. 459,466, for whom, however, the phenomenon is evidence of redactional layers. For an interpretation of w. 35-38 which favors the assumption that the prophetic narrative (w. 1 -38) and the annalistic notice (v. 40) do not conflict, see Seebass, 'Zu 1 Reg XXII 35-38', pp. 380-83. 76. hi a sense, the critics who seek to identify the real king behind this anonymous character unwittingly may attest the truth of this observation. 77. Cf. Hudson ('Land of Epithets', p. 59) who sees anonymity in Judg. 19-21 as a 'socio-linguistic phenomenon (that) deconstructs naming' and, thereby, parallels the loss of identity and personhood.
THE PORTRAYAL OF YHWH'S DELIVERANCE IN MICAH 2.12-13
RECONSIDERED*
Marvin A. Sweeney
I
Micah 2.12-13 is one of the most problematic passages in the entire book of Micah. Although it appears in the context of Micah 1-3, which most scholars understand as Micah's authentic words of judgment against Israel and Judah, its portrayal of YHWH and the king gathering and leading the survivors of Israel out of the gate like sheep is generally taken as a reference to YHWH'S future deliverance of the people of Israel.1 Because such a message of deliverance contrasts so markedly with the portrayal of judgment in Micah 1-3, most scholars consider 2.12-13 to be a later editorial addition to the original words of Micah. Such a contention is motivated in part by 4.6-7, which employs similar language and imagery to portray YHWH'S gathering the lame and afflicted of Israel so that they might once again constitute a strong nation ruled by YHWH at Mt Zion. In contrast to 2.12-13,4.6-7 presents little problem because it appears within * This is a slightly revised version of a paper read at the Society of Biblical Literature Pacific Coast Regional Meeting, 14-16 March 1999. 1. For surveys of the discussion of Mic. 2.12-13, see esp. William McKane, 'Micah 2.12-13', JNSL 21 (1995), pp. 83-91; idem, The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), pp. 87-94. Recent studies of the issue include Gabriele Metzner, Kompositionsgeschichte des Michabuches (Frankfurt am Main; Peter Lang, 1998), pp. 119-29; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah (AB, 24E; New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 331-43; Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL, 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 65-70; Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam: Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), II, pp. 365-67; Jan A. Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation: The Composition and Redaction of Micah 2-5 (VTSup, 85; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001), pp. 230-40; Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah (JSOTSup, 322; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 115-17.
316
God's Word for Our World
the context of Micah 4-5, which portray YHWH'S deliverance and restoration of Israel. Consequently, scholars are generally at a loss to explain why 2.12-13 should be added to a literary context that is otherwise concerned entirely with judgment. Nevertheless, it appears that the interpretation of Mic. 2.12-13 has been too greatly influenced by 4.6-7. A close examination of the language and imagery of 2.12-13 in relation to its immediate literary context in Micah 2 demonstrates that it is not concerned with YHWH'S deliverance of Israel at all; instead, it portrays YHWH and the king leading the people from the protection of their walled cities into exile. Although Mays and his student Hagstrom have argued this point previously,2 they were unable to account adequately for the threatening nature of the language employed in this passage or the role of the literary context in preparing the reader for the portrayal of YHWH'S leading the people into exile. In order to support this contention, this paper first examines the literary structure, imagery, and rhetorical perspective of Micah 2 and the place of 2.12-13 within that structure. It then considers the literary structure and character of the book as a whole in order to demonstrate that 4.6-7 represents a re-reading of 2.12-13 that is intended to demonstrate that in the perspective of the book as a whole YHWH will ultimately restore Israel to Zion once the punishment is complete.
II The materials in Micah 2 are generally treated as three relatively self-contained units, that is, a woe speech in vv. 1 -5 that announces judgment against those in Israel who plot to take property from their neighbors; a disputation speech in vv. 6-11 in which the prophet challenges the contentions of his opponents that YHWH will protect the people; and vv. 12-13, which portray YHWH and the king leading the people like sheep out their enclosure.3 They are generally grouped together with a larger collection of 2. James Luther Mays, Micah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), pp. 73-76; David G. Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah (SBLDS, 89; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 53-54. See also Gershom Brin, 'Micah 2.12-13: A Textual and Ideological Study', ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 118-24; Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, pp. 115-17. 3. See, e.g., Ina Willi Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments (BZAW, 123; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971), pp. 75-80; Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha-Nahum-Habakuk-Zephanja (KAT, 13/3; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975), pp. 51-65; Mays, Micah, pp. 60-76; B. Renaud, La formation du livre de Michee.
SWEENEY The Portrayal of YHWH 's Deliverance
317
Micah's oracles or sayings against Israel that is variously defined as Micah 1-2; 1-3; or 1-5.4 Even when Micah 2 is read as a distinct unit in and of itself, these three sub-sections continue to be treated as independent sayings that are secondarily placed together in their present context. Such a disjointed reading contributes to the perception that Mic. 2.12-13 constitutes a portrayal of YHWH'S deliverance of Israel and that these verses stand in tension with the surrounding oracles or sayings of judgment. Nevertheless, close attention to the literary forms, syntax, and imagery or contents of vv. 1-5, 6-11, and 12-13 demonstrate that these texts are intended to function together as a coherent woe speech within the book of Micah that points ultimately to YHWH as the cause of Israel's suffering and exile in a time of war.5 Scholars have long recognized that Mic. 2.1-5 constitutes a short woe speech that employs the basic pattern of the prophetic judgment speech.6 Thus, vv. 1-2 lay out the causes for Israel's punishment, that is, the wicked in the land plot to take fields, homes, and property of those among the people who are less powerful. Verses 3-5, introduced by the particle Idken, 'therefore', then delineate the consequences that the guilty parties are expected to suffer, that is, YHWH will ensure that evil comes upon them so that they are unable 'to cast the line by lot in the assembly of YHWH' . This last statement indicates that the guilty will be prevented from playing a role in the apportionment of land among the people, thereby insuring that they will be unable to extract land and property of others as in the past. Tradition et actualisation (EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977), pp. 61-118; idem, Michee, Sophonie, Nahum (Sources bibliques; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1987), pp. 38-55; Delbert Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 31-40; Hans Walter Wolff, Micah: A Commentary (trans. Gary Stansell; Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 72-74; McKane, Micah, pp. 59-84; Metzner, Kompositionsgeschichte des Michabuches, pp. 68-72; Ben Zvi, Micah, pp. 41-70 (cf. idem, 'Wrongdoers, Wrongdoing and Righting Wrongs in Micah 2', Biblntl [1999],pp. 87-100); Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, II, pp. 358-67; Andersen and Freedman, Micah, pp. 253-343; Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation, pp. 208-40. 4. See Hagstrom, Coherence, pp. 45-87, for discussion and an overview of the proposals. 5. For discussion of the Woe-speech form, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOIL, 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 543, and the literature cited there. 6. See Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (trans. H.C. White; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), pp. 190-94 (192); cf. Mays, Micah, pp. 60-62; Wolff, Micah, p. 73; but cf. Ben Zvi, Micah, pp. 47-50.
318
God's Word for Our World
Although scholars have generally focused on the formal aspects of this text in their interpretation of this passage, several major metaphorical aspects of this text deserve attention as they point to rhetorical features of the text that anticipate the imagery of YHWH as shepherd leading the people out of their land into exile. The first is the shift in language apparent in YHWH'S statement in v. 3 a concerning the intention to punish the wicked, 'Therefore, thus says YHWH, 'Behold, I am reckoning evil against this family". The statement includes a subtle shift in the language employed to describe the evil doers in v. 1, that is, whereas the prophet employs the masculine singular term ra' ('evil'), to address 'those who do evil upon their beds', v. 3a employs the feminine singular form ra'd ('evil'). There is no recognized difference in meaning between the masculine and feminine forms of the term, but the consonants of the feminine form correspond to the consonants for the term ro 'eh ('shepherd, herdsman'), so that the form subtly hints at the imagery of YHWH as shepherd that will appear in vv. 12-13. Such an image lends itself to the following statement in v. 3ba, 'from which you shall not be able to remove your necks, and you shall not walk upright', which employs the imagery of cattle put to the harness or yoke to portray punishment of the wicked. Again, such imagery anticipates the portrayal of the people as cattle led forth from their cities and land with YHWH at their head. Finally, the taunt song in v. 4 relates the loss of land that the people will suffer when they say, 'we are utterly ruined; he (YHWH) changes the inheritance of my people; how he (YHWH) removes what is mine; he (YHWH) apportions our fields to one who returns/captures', likewise points to loss of land. Scholars have also long recognized that Mic. 2.6-11 constitutes a disputation speech by the prophet concerning YHWH'S willingness to protect the people.7 The identity of the prophet's opponents is unclear—perhaps they are false prophets,8 village elders, or common people reacting to 7. E.g. Wolff, Micah, pp. 73-74. Because of the diverse formal elements that appear within this text, some scholars maintain that it is a conglomeration of diverse elements rather than an example of the disputation genre (e.g. Willi Plein, Vorformen, p. 79; McKane, Micah, pp. 75, 86); but see Wagenaar's remarks on this issue (Judgement and Salvation, pp. 220-29). For discussion of the disputation pattern, see my Isaiah 1-39, p. 519, and the literature cited there. 8. See the now-classic studies by Adam van der Woude, 'Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-prophets', VT 19 (1969), pp. 244-60; 'Micah IV 1-5: An Instance of the Pseudoprophets Quoting Isaiah', in M.A. Beek, A.A. Kampman, C. Nijland and J. Ryckmans (eds.), Symbolae biblicae et mesopotamicae (Festschrift F.M. Th. de Liager Bohl; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1973), pp. 396-402; but see now my study, 'Micah's
SWEENEY The Portrayal of YHWH's Deliverance
319
Micah's speech—but it is clear that they dispute Micah's contention that YHWH will not act to deliver the people from threat. Indeed, the passage indicates that, according to Micah, YHWH is the threat who rises against the people, strips them of their clothing as they flee, drives out women from their homes, and takes away the young children. Overall, Micah portrays the flight of people from before a conqueror, here identified as YHWH. Scholars have failed to note that YHWH is the one who carries out these atrocities according to Micah. Such a view is clear from the prophet's own rhetorical questions in v. 7, 'Should this be said, O house of Jacob? Is YHWH'S patience exhausted? Are these his (YHWH'S) doings?' When read in context, these rhetorical questions are indeed assertions by the prophet that YHWH'S patience has come to an end and that the threat posed to the people does indeed come from YHWH. In this manner, the prophet's disputation speech builds upon the assertion in w. 1-5 that YHWH will punish the wicked. Now the people are fleeing from their homes and property as the invader, here identified with YHWH, approaches. The stripped clothing, the loss of property, and the threat to family members represents hardships once inflicted by those who plotted evil on their beds, but now they suffer the same threats. It is most likely that Micah describes the flight of people from the Shephelah and his own home town of Moreshet-Gath as the Assyrian invaders approached in 701 BCE. Micah was, after all, a war refugee in Jerusalem, and he contends that YHWH brought about the invasion. Finally, the portrayal in Mic. 2.12-13 of YHWH and king gathering the survivors of the people like sheep and leading them from their enclosure provides the climactic image or rhetorical goal of the passage. As noted above, most scholars read these verses in relation to 4.6-7 as a reference to YHWH'S restoration of the people from captivity that was secondarily added to a text concerned with judgment. But such a reading overlooks the very threatening nature of the language that is employed in this passage. First is the statement, 'I will surely gather' ('dsop 'e 'esop), that employs a combination of the infinitive absolute and finite forms of the verb 'sp,9 unlike the form employed in 4.6-7. The combined form hardly portrays a situation of restoration elsewhere; instead it portrays a situation of threat in Dispute with Isaiah', JSOT 93 (2001), pp. 111 -24, which argues that the book of Micah is designed to challenge Isaiah, not pseudo-prophets who cite Isaiah's oracles. 9. For a full discussion of the expression 'dsop 'e 'esop, see my treatment of Zeph. 1.2, 3 in Zephaniah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, forthcoming 2003), ad loc.
320
God's Word for Our World
which people are swept away from the face of the earth (Zeph. 1.2) or 'gathered' and cut down like the grapes of a harvest (Jer. 8.13). The following reference to the 'remnant' or 'survivors' (se 'erif) of Israel likewise presupposes that the people have suffered a catastrophe. Following the statement that YHWH will set the people together like sheep in a fold/flock in a pasture, the NRSV translation, 'it will resound with people', misrepresents the meaning of the Hebrew tehimend me 'ddam, 'they/you shall be discomfited/confused by people', which indicates that the people are not at all content about what is taking place. The image of sheep being led out from their pens into open pasture hardly conveys an image of security; rather, it points to the potential loss of sheep as they scatter into the wilderness and require the constant vigilance of the shepherd to keep them from loss or harm. Such an image of threat is conveyed by the reference to 'the one who breaks out (happores)' and goes up before them as well as to the actions of the sheep who 'break through (pat^su) and pass the gate'. The verb prs generally describes a destructive act, such as breaking down a wall (2 Kgs 14.13/2 Chron. 25.23; Neh. 3.35) or a fence (Isa. 5.5; Pss. 80.13; 89.41) or the breaking out of violence (2 Sam. 5.20/1 Chron. 14.11; Hos. 4.2). Likewise, the passage out of a gate represents the loss of security as the gate of a city is generally the strongest features of its defenses. Although many take these statements as references to escape from captivity or a gathering of the dispersed,10 they represent instead the loss of security, and convey the image of a decimated people led out from the security of their stronghold to the uncertainty and danger of the wilderness or open pasture. Such an image pertains to that of captives led off by a conqueror, and such images are well known from Assyrian reliefs and inscriptions that relate the victories of the Assyrian kings. Indeed, Sennacherib's reliefs portraying his conquest of Lachish, not far from Micah's home town of Moreshet Gath, portray captives who are led away from their besieged or conquered cities into exile.11 By portraying YHWH and the king as the parties at the head of the sheep/people, Micah portrays the defeat of Israel's king, certainly a major motif in his diatribes against the leadership of Israel, and identifies YHWH as the party responsible for that defeat. When read in relation to Mic. 2.1-5 and 2.6-11, such a portrayal is the logical rhetorical
10. E.g. Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation, pp. 230-40 (230-34). 11. See ANEP, figures 350-73, for portrayals of Sennacherib's campaigns in 701 BCE and ANET, pp. 287-88 for his account.
SWEENEY The Portrayal of YHWH 's Deliverance
321
goal of the prophet's remarks, that is, they have done wrong and they are punished in kind.
Ill Although the previous discussion establishes that Mic. 2.12-13 portrays the exile of the people of Israel, and asserts that YHWH is responsible for leading the people into exile, the question concerning the relationship between 4.6-7 and 2.12-13 remains, that is, why should 4.6-7 employ similar language and imagery to portray the restoration of the people if 2.12-13 is indeed a portrayal of judgment? In order to address this question, it is necessary to establish the overall form and perspective of the book of Micah as a whole in order to determine the placement and function of both 2.12-13 and 4.6-7 within the whole. Most scholarly assessments of the overall form and perspective of the book of Micah are determined by diachronic considerations, that is, Micah 1-3 represent the oracles of the eighth century prophet whereas chs. 4-7 represent exilic or post-exilic composition.12 Therefore, the structure of the book must fall into two or more parts, that is, chs. 1-3 and 4-7; chs. 1-3, 4-5 and 6-7, and so on. But such an assessment inappropriately allows a hypothetical reconstruction of the book's compositional history to determine its overall synchronic literary form, and it overlooks various syntactical, formal, and thematic features that point towards a very different understanding of the final form of Micah.13 At the most basic level, a generic and structural distinction must be made between the superscription in Mic. 1.1 and the prophetic oracles and 12. See the discussion in Hagstrom, Coherence, pp. 11-27; Andersen and Freedman, Micah, pp. 16-29, for convenient overviews. Other recent attempts to establish the overall structure and coherence of the book include, Charles S. Shaw, The Speeches of Micah: Rhetorical Historical Analysis (JSOTSup, 145; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence', Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, pp. 339-416. 13. For discussion of the methodological principles employed here, see my 'Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature', in J.L. Mays, D.L. Petersen and K.H. Richards (eds.), Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future; Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), pp. 113-26; idem, 'Form Criticism', in S.L. McKenzie and S.R. Haynes (eds.), To Each Its Own Meaning (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1999), pp. 58-89; Rolf Knierim, 'Form Criticism Reconsidered', Int (1973), pp. 435-68; idem, 'Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Redaction', in D.A. Knight and G.M. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 123-65.
322
God's Word for Our World
sayings of Micah that constitute the balance of the book.14 Because of its third person reference to the prophet the superscription clearly represents the perspective of an author other than Micah, whereas the oracular material is presented as the words or oracles of Micah, whether it was in fact written entirely by the prophet or not. Insofar as the superscription identifies the following material as the word of YHWH to Micah and specifies the setting in which the divine word was communicated to the prophet, it constitutes the introduction to the book and its first major structural component. The following oracles in Mic. 1.2-7.20, which ultimately communicate YHWH'S intention to exalt Zion, constitute the second major component of the book. Within the oracles of Mic. 1.2-7.20, the syntactical structure of the text points to very different principles of organization from the diachronic perspectives that have prompted scholars to identify chs. 1-3 and 4-7; 1-3; 4-5; 6-7; or other variations as the basic structural building blocks of the book. Although most scholars consider chs. 1-3 or at least 1-2 to form the first major structural component of the text, there is no syntactical connector that binds Mic. 1.2-16 and 2.1-13 together. Thus, 2.1 begins with the exclamation, 'Woe (hoy) for those who devise wickedness and evil deeds upon their beds'. There are syntactical links, however, that bind Micah 2; 3; 4; and 5 together. Thus, Micah 3 begins with the vww-consecutive statement, 'and I said (wa 'omar), 'listen you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel.. ,'15 Although there have been numerous attempts to emend the Hebrew text into w6 'amar ('and he said'), or the like based upon the LXX readingkai erei.16 Nevertheless, the MT may stand without emendation as it simply presents Micah as the speaker who recounts his own oracles. In any case, even the LXX employs a conjunction which ties chs. 2 and 3 together. Micah 4 also begins with a wow-consecutive statement, 'and it shall come to pass (v^hayd) in future days... ',17 which once again establishes a syntactical relationship between chs. 3 and 4. Although the temporal reference shifts from the present in ch. 3 to the future in ch. 4, 14. For discussion of superscriptions in prophetic literature, see Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39, pp. 539-40, and the literature cited there. 15. See John T.Willis, 'A Note on "1DN1 in Micah 3. r,ZAW80 (1968), pp. 50-54. 16. See McKane, Micah, p. 95, for an overview. 17. See Simon J. De Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of the Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 89-93, for discussion of the meaning of this expression.
SWEENEY The Portrayal of YHWH 's Deliverance
323
the portrayal of Israel joining the nations at Zion to learn YHWH'S Torah constitutes the projected outcome of the prophet's present condemnation of Israel. Finally, Micah 5 begins with a conjunctive formulation, 'And you (w6 'attd), Beth Lehem, Ephrathah...', which once again establishes a syntactical relationship between chs. 4 and 5. On the other hand, Micah 6, which many scholars associate with ch. 5 because both are believed to have been composed in the exilic or post-exilic period, begins with a syntactically disjunctive command, 'Hear now (sim 'u-na') what YHWH says', which points to Mic. 6.1 as the beginning of an entirely new structural unit.18 Likewise, Micah 7 lacks any syntactical connection to ch. 6, and begins with the syntactically disjunctive interjection, 'woe is me ('alelay-li)\ which marks the beginning of another structural unit. Altogether, the syntax of 1.2-7.20 points to 1.2-16; 2.1-5.14; 6.1-16; and 7.1-20 as the four basic structural building blocks of the text. Thematic factors support this view of the structure of Micah. The first major unit in Mic. 1.2-16 is fundamentally concerned with announcing punishment against Israel and Samaria, but it does so as a basis or paradigm for announcing punishment against Judah and Jerusalem. Thus, Mic. 1.2-16 constitutes a warning for Jerusalem/Judah based upon the experience of Israel/Samaria. The second unit in 2.1-5.14 then provides a detailed overview of the process by which the punishment of both Israel and Judah/Jerusalem will take place followed by the ultimate restoration of Zion to which the remnant of Israel will come to recognize YHWH. It begins with the woe speech in 2.1-13, which culminates in the exile of Israel because of those who ignored fundamental principles of YHWH'S justice to take the homes and property of their neighbors. Micah 3.1-5.14 then presents the prophet's response to the exile of Israel, that is, a speech in which he announces YHWH'S plan to restore the remnant of Israel/Jacob in Zion. Following the speech formula in 3.1 act1, Micah's speech in 3.1acc2-8 points to Israel's leaders as those who are responsible for Israel's exile, and then turns to the experience of Jerusalem in 3.9-5.14, including both the punishment of Jerusalem in 3.9-12 and the following exaltation of Zion in 4.1-5.14. Included in that scenario of Zion's exaltation are depictions of YHWH as shepherd gathering the lame and dispersed for eternal rule on Zion and addresses to Bethlehem/Ephratah concerning YHWH'S plans to raise a new king/shepherd who will secure Zion's dominion over the nations that previously threatened both Israel and Jerusalem. Ironically, 18. Cf. Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, pp. 63-76.
324
God's Word for Our World
YHWH'S teaching of Torah to the nations and the remnant of Israel will preclude the absence of justice that led to Israel's exile in the first place. The third unit in 6.1-16 constitutes the prophet's appeal to the people to return to YHWH. The fourth unit in 7.1-20 constitutes the prophet's psalm of confidence in YHWH'S faithfulness to Israel, that is, YHWH will indeed act to bring about both the punishment and the anticipated restoration following the period of punishment. Altogether, the book of Micah is designed to provide a theological rationale for the exile of Israel, and to point to Israel's exile as the model or paradigm for Jerusalem's subsequent exile and restoration at the center of Israel and the nations. Ultimately, according to Micah's scenario, the exile of Israel is designed to purge the nation of its transgressions and thereby to prepare Jerusalem to assume the role as the center of the nations from which YHWH'S Torah or justice will proceed.
IV Micah 2.1-13 clearly plays a key role within the overall structure of the book of Micah as a whole. By pointing to the practice of expropriating land, homes, and property from those who are unable to protect themselves, Micah 2 specifies the transgressions that are mentioned generally in Mic. 1.2-16. Furthermore, by portraying Israel's exile in vv. 12-13 with the images of YHWH and the king leading the people like sheep from the gates of their city into the wilderness, it points to YHWH as the party ultimately responsible for bringing about the exile in the first place and to the role of the king for failing in his responsibility to promote justice among the people in the land. In this respect, Micah 2 builds upon the images of Samaria as the capital city of Israel whose protective fortifications are destroyed and whose wasted idols testify to the failure to follow YHWH. That point is reinforced also in 3.1 -8 which accuses the rulers and prophets of the people, that is, those who were primarily responsible for ensuring YHWH'S justice in the land, with failing in their responsibility to guide the people. Micah 2 says nothing about Jerusalem, but its placement within its present literary context at the head of a section devoted ultimately to the punishment and restoration of Zion at the center of Israel and the nations reinforces the general point made in 1.2-16 that Israel's and Samaria's fate will be the model for that of Judah and Jerusalem. Insofar as 4.6-7 states that YHWH will assemble or gather the lame, those who were driven away, and those whom YHWH afflicted so that they might
SWEENEY The Portrayal of YHWH'S Deliverance
325
become a remnant in Zion, it builds upon the imagery of 2.12-13 to portray the ultimate restoration of Israel to Zion. Likewise, insofar as 4.10 states that Zion shall go forth from the city to camp in the open country in Babylon where it will ultimately be rescued, it builds upon the images of 2.12-13 to portray the corresponding exile and exaltation of Zion. Finally, insofar as 5.1-5 portrays the new Israelite monarch from Bethlehem as a shepherd who protects his flock against the threats of Assyria and other nations, it builds upon the imagery of 2.12-13 to portray righteous Davidic rule in place of the earlier Israelite kings who brought the people to ruin and exile in the first place. In sum, Mic. 2.12-13 is best read as a portrayal of Israel's exile with YHWH and the king at the head of the people. When read in this manner, it provides the necessary basis for interpreting the subsequent exile and restoration of Jerusalem/Judah as an act of YHWH that is designed to purge Jerusalem and prepare it for its role as the center for YHWH'S rule over both Israel and the world at large. Appendix: The Structure of the Book ofMicah Prophetic Anticipation of YHWH'S Plans for Zion's Exaltation I. Superscription II. Body of Book: Prophetic Anticipation of YHWH'S Plans for Zion's Exaltation A. Prophetic announcement of punishment against Samaria/ Israel as basis for punishment of Jerusalem/Judah B. Prophetic announcement concerning the punishment and restoration of Jerusalem and Judah 1. woe speech against Israel culminating in Israel's exile 2. prophet's response: announcement concerning YHWH'S plan to exalt remnant of Israel/Jacob in Zion a. speech formula b. speech proper: prophetic announcement concerning YHWH'S plan to exalt remnant of Israel/Jacob in Zion 1) concerning failure of Israel due to leaders 2) concerning punishment and exaltation of Jerusalem/Judah a) concerning punishment of Zion b) concerning exaltation of Zion i. exaltation of Zion ii. exaltation of Zion defined
1.1-7.20 1.1 1.2-7.20 1.2-16 2.1-5.14 2.1-13 3.1-5.14 3.1 act1 3.1 aa2-5.14 3. laa2-8 3.9-5.14 3.9-12 4.1-5.14 4.1-5 4.6-5.14
326
God's Word for Our World
aa.
C. D.
initial statement: YHWH/Shepherd will gather lame/dispersed for eternal rule on Zion bb. addresses to Zion and Bethlehem Ephrata concerning YHWH'S plans i) to Zion: dominion will come after distress ii) to Bethlehem Ephratah: king will come to restore security of Israel aa) ruler/shepherd will emerge bb) future peace when Assyria is stricken cc) remnant of Jacob in midst of peoples like dew dd) remnant of Jacob in midst of peoples like lion so enemies are cut off ee) summation: Israel's punishment/ cleansing leads to punishment of nations and Israel's restoration Prophetic appeal to people to return to YHWH Prophetic psalm of confidence in YHWH'S faithfulness to Israel
4.6-7
4.8-5.14 4.8-14 5.1-14 5.1-3 5.4-5 5.6 5.7-8
5.9-14
6.1-16 7.1-20
ROMANCING THE WIDOW:
THE ECONOMIC DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE 'ALMANA, THE 'iSSA- 'ALMANA AND THE 'ESET-HAMMEf
Naomi Steinberg
1. Introduction to the Problem: Beyond Widows' Biblical interpreters have used the sixty-odd occurrences of 'almond in the canon of the Hebrew Bible, literature spanning from c. 1200 through to the end of the first century BCE, to construct a system of social altruism and emotional regard for ancient Israelite widows.1 This article challenges the basis for this romantic universalizing depiction of the widow's circumstances based on sympathy and shows instead the harsh realities of the economic distinctions reflected in the use of the word 'almand, a woman with limited economic resources, in contrast with other terms for widows: 'almand
'issd- 'almand 'eset-hammet
a widow, in various stages of destitution, who may have had living male adult relatives, either too poor to help or unwilling to offer her economic support, a widow who has redemption rights in her husband's ancestral estate which she exercises through her son, and a widow whose husband has died before fathering an heir to exercise the redemption rights to his ancestral holdings.
Building upon the distinctions between these terms, it will be possible to demonstrate that the common denominator in understanding widowhood in biblical Israel revolves around the existence or absence of ancestral land in the estate of the deceased husband. In this article, I will argue that the use of 'almand in the Hebrew Bible indicates the plight of the lowest end of the financial spectrum of widows in biblical Israel. A good example of * I thank Marvin Israel and Peggy L. Day for their valuable suggestions and their insightful critical remarks about this paper. 1. Typically, discussions of the biblical widow have been word studies. See, e.g., Baab 1962 and Fensham 1962.
328
God's Word for Our World
this usage is Deut. 14.29, which says in regard to reserving every third year tithe, 'Then the levite, who has no hereditary portion as you have, and the stranger, the fatherless orphan, and the widow ('almana) in your settlements shall come and eat their fill'. The differences that separate one group of ancient Israelite widows from the next2 will be developed and the implications for interpreting biblical texts and understanding widowhood in the biblical text will be explained. These interpretations are enhanced by combining the historical results of etymological analysis with the ahistorical results of cross-cultural studies on patrilineally organized societies. We will see that the issue relevant in categories of widowhood is the existence of patrilineal support on the husband's side through land in his estate. For each category, we will see that it is consistently used in the manner indicated above and there are no other places where it could have been used but was not. The history of attempts to understand the economic destitution that was the everyday reality of the 'almana widow, and to appreciate the stages of widowhood, as well as to bring ritual studies to bear on issues such as the clothing of widows that distinguished them from other women, only skims the surface of the complex data in the Hebrew Bible.3 Further work may expand the inquiry to aliens and orphans as in Exod. 22.21-22 and elucidate the use of the often mentioned conjunction of aliens, widows and fatherless orphans, united by their landlessness. The implications of such a study will contribute to the larger project of reconstructing the social world of ancient Israel. 2. A Cross-Disciplinary Analytical Model a. Support Systems We start by building a sociological model for analyzing the biblical material. A survey of cross-cultural perspectives reveals that support systems for widows can be separated into four overlapping support categories: 2. See 'almana in HALAT, I: 56; TDOT, I: 288; and Otwell 1977: 123-31. 3. This may be suggested by the biblical injunction not to take the widow's garment as a pledge (see, e.g., Deut. 1.21). Cross-cultural studies reveal the symbolic importance of clothing as an indicator of the stages of mourning and widowhood, and I intend to study this topic in future research. For the present, one notes that the significance of clothing is culturally determined. Thus the interpreter must analyze the clothing of biblical widows in light of the construction of gender in ancient Israel in order to grasp the particular meaning of women's garments as indicators of her widow status. On this subject in cross-cultural analysis, see, among others, Goody 1962.
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
329
(1) economic, (2) service, (3) social and (4) emotional. Support is defined as 'any object or action that the giver and/or receiver define as necessary or helpful in maintaining a style of life. A support system is a set of similar supports and a support network consists of those persons and groups who provide these supports' (Lopata 1987:4). These categories of support can further be divided into two types: formal and informal support. b. Background Socio-Economic Principles Our interest here is in economic support, a broad category whose precise components vary cross-culturally, but one that refers to the general economic resources by which a widow either supports herself or through which she receives economic support.4 In the biblical world, the following set of socio-economic principles shape the economic support dynamics of a marriage:5 1. A primary concern in ancient Israel is patrilineal descent from one generation of men to the next. 2. Marriage is an economic arrangement whose purpose is the production of lineal descendants to the patrilineage. The biblical texts reveal a preference for vertical inheritance between the generations of the men of the patrilineage. The preferred marriage pattern is between spouses descended from the same patrilineage, with the couple residing patrilocally, and both of them bringing property to the conjugal fund on which the marriage is based. In such a case of patrilineally related spouses, the marriage reinforces kinship links and is categorized as an endogamous marriage.
4. Interestingly, there are very few references to providing economic support for an ancient Israelite widow, and those that exist are all found in Deuteronomy. Deut. 14.29; 24.17,19, 20-21; and 26.12-13 concern tithing provided for widows; this issue will be discussed below. One notes with surprise that the widow is not mentioned in Deut. 15.11 as being among those deserving of economic help. Other biblical references that have economic implications pertain to providing food (e.g. Deut. 16.11,14) or economic resources for the widow; these texts are the subject of analysis in this study. However, the remaining occurrences of 'almand in the Hebrew Bible focus on the social or legal protection due to the widow in order to shield her from social and legal injustice and are generalizations, if not the fixed formula regarding 'the stranger, the fatherless orphan, and the widow'. 5. These principles are discussed by Steinberg 1993: 5-34. For discussion of the historical developments of the ancient Israelite household, see the essays in Perdue, Blenkinsopp, Collins and Meyers 1997.
330
God's Word for Our World 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A woman who brings property to the marriage, typically in the form of dowry (moveable goods transferred to her by her family at the time of marriage), has rights in the marriage which make the marriage more difficult to dissolve, which guarantee her male offspring inheritance rights to their father's estate and which entitle her to be labeled a primary wife. The existence of a bridal dowry guarantees the woman economic rights that protect her against her husband's dissolution of the marriage, particularly when she has borne a male child to her husband. In the endogamous marriages in the Hebrew Bible, this dowry may include land (e.g. Judg. 1.11-15). A secondary wife is a woman without an economic foundation in marriage; she should be identified as a concubine whose primary function is for procreation or sexual pleasure for her husband.6 Without property as a rationale for reinforcing lineage connections, marriage often is outside the kinship group and is labeled exogamous. In the case of this secondary union as a strategy for obtaining an heir (when the primary wife is barren) to the husband's estate, the secondary status of the woman is separated from the status of primary heir of her son—who is reckoned as the heir to the biological father and his primary wife (Steinberg 1993). The vertical inheritance patterns whose economic interests are emphasized in the biblical text are those of the patrilineage descended from Terah, whose vertical line extends through Abraham, and then Isaac and Jacob. In a society with strict patrilineal kinship boundaries, mothers tend to develop the loyalties of their sons where marriage patterns tend toward men marrying women younger than themselves, who will then likely predecease their wives, causing the widow to rely on her son for informal or formal economic support. Women can control (see, e.g., Prov. 31.10-31) and inherit property, including land. For example, in the case of the unmarried daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27.1-11; 36.1-12) daughters
6 In discussing the termptleges, Ackerman (1998:236) argues that'in the Bible the term 'concubine' either can mean a woman who is part of a man's harem but is not one of his actual wives, or it can mean a woman who is married to a man as a secondary wife'. In the present work, my understanding of the structure of Israelite marriage interprets concubine in the sense of a secondary wife.
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
331
inherit their father's land until such a time as it can pass to sons borne by them in endogamous marriages. They may inherit with their brothers (Job 42.15). Or, to take another example, from the book of Ruth, the land that is inherited by the man who exercises his levirate responsibilities is redeemed through the woman whose interests are tied to her husband's property until such a time as an agnatic heir is born.7 c. Properties of a Widow In building a model to reflect the condition of widows in the biblical world, we need to identify the properties of the widow and her situation that will determine her circumstances.8 Here I identify some of these properties and their values sufficient for this study and leave a fuller elaboration of them for further work. A more complete study would expand the list of properties and examine how their variation in different cultures affects the condition of widows.9 In the list of following properties, the name of the property is followed by some of its values in parenthesis: 1. Type of Wife (primary, secondary). 2. Family Property (land, livestock, other marketable goods, no property). 3. Wife's Property Brought to Marriage (land, money, livestock, other non-used up goods, goods already used up, no property). 4. Progeny (son, sons, daughter, daughters, no living children). 5. Patrilineal Family of Marriage (father-in-law present, brotherin-law present, other patrilineal relatives present, no patrilineal relatives because of lack of obligation). 6. Patrilineal Family of Birth (father's household available, father's household not available by law, father's family not available by choice). 7. I agree with Westbrook (1991: 58-67), who argues that redemption and levirate marriage go hand-in-hand, and that without the inheritance of landed property there is no rationale for a relative of the deceased to father a child for the widow. At the time such a child is born, rights to the patrimony of the deceased are vested in the infant heir. 8. From a modeling standpoint, the list of properties above is the basis for classifying cultures and for using the classifications for cross-cultural analysis. For another model, see Whyte 1978. The issues that Whyte addresses as a question (p. 65), I have listed as properties. 9. Most relevant for interpreting the biblical data is anthropological work on the relationship between marriage and patrilineal descent as it shapes inheritance patterns cross-culturally; see Goody 1976 and 1990.
332
God's Word for Our World 1.
Female Property Ownership (allowed before marriage; not allowed when married; allowed when married).
The 'almand widow in the biblical texts is a widow that has no obligated basis of support from the patrilineage of her husband and has limited economic resources at her disposal but who may have a patrilineal birth family to return to if they agree to take her back (as was the case with Naomi's daughters-in-law), perhaps with the return of the dowry and bride price (a typical custom of the period). The case of a priest's daughter 'married to a stranger' in Lev. 22.13 is particularly instructive in this regard, 'But if a priest's daughter is widowed or divorced, without offspring, and returns to her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's food. No layperson shall eat of it.' A married woman, even a priest's daughter, belongs to her husband and his patrilineage after his death. However, when she is without patrilineal support on her husband's side after his death and without a son, she may end up with her biological family as a dependent ('as in her youth') and may find economic support there. The emphasis on 'as in her youth' highlights that she can still be considered a part of her father's family for purposes of eating sacred offerings, which she cannot eat while her (non-priest or 'stranger') husband or children are alive. In fact, it seems to be the case that she cannot eat sacred food if she ever had children. However, presumably, she may return to her father's house and not eat sacred food, but other food purchased for her. In this regard she is worse off than a person purchased by her priestly father who can eat the sacred food (Lev. 22.11)! Here, with her (non-priest or 'stranger') husband deceased, she can eat the sacred offerings only if she has not had children, and acts as a dependent under her father's direction 'as in her youth'. Thus, after a woman moves from her family of birth to her family of marriage, her biological family is not obligated to take her back. Her own father is no different than anyone else that chooses to care for the widow in this respect. Further evidence for this understanding of the circumstances of the 'almand widow are based on correct interpretation of Genesis 38, and the reference to Tamar as an 'almand widow—rather than an 'eset-hammet— in light of the surviving son Shelah in the family of Judah and Judah himself, after the deaths of both Er and Onan. On first reading, it appears that Tamar is labeled by Judah as an 'almand widow in the context of a pending levirate marriage. However, the term 'almand widow applies to a woman whose biological family may choose to take her in after the death of her husband, and Judah advocates just such a return. More importantly,
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
333
Judah's conceit is that he wants Tamar to act as if she does not have any support from his patrilineage. His choice of widow terminology reinforces his deceit and indicates that he has no intention of assuming his levirate obligations. Judah's words show his true intentions!10 The conclusion to be drawn from the above analysis is that in terms of the list of properties in the model to describe the 'almand widow we have: 1. Family Property = limited property, 2. Wife's Property Brought to Marriage - no property brought by wife, or goods mostly used up, 3. Progeny = may have living children, 4. Patrilineal Family of Marriage = patrilineal relatives may be alive but either cannot or will not support the widow, 5. Patrilineal Family of Birth = father's household not available by law or father's household not available by choice. All other widows, such as the 'eset-hammet in Deut. 25.5 or the 'issd' almand in 2 Samuel 14, can be characterized for the purposes of this paper as inherited widows, that is, widows with some means of support identified by the above properties. Biblical research generally collapses three different textual descriptions of widows, the 'almand, the 'eset-hammet or the 'issd- 'almand into one English word, 'widow' and thereby masks the biblical categorization that depends on the widow's access to her husband's property. Because of this conflation of Hebrew terms, scholars have failed to nuance the economic circumstances that separate one category of widows from the next. To avoid this terminological confusion, henceforth I will distinguish between the 'almand widow, a widow with limited economic support, and either the 'issd- 'almand, an inherited widow with sons, or the 'eset-hammet, an inherited widow without sons. d. The Meaning o/'almana The excellent work of Paula Hiebert explored the ancient Near Eastern etymological history of the root of the biblical term 'almand. Based on her etymological studies and the usages and contexts of the ancient Near Eastern data, with a particular focus on Middle Assyrian legal material, Hiebert concluded that the status of 'almand defines those widows who were bereft not only of a husband, but who had neither a son nor a fatherin-law to protect them against the social and economic vulnerabilities of 10. Study of figurative references to widowhood, such as 2 Sam. 20.3, are beyond the scope of the present inquiry. Cities are figuratively referred to as being widowed in Isa. 47.9 (Babylon) and Jer. 51.5 (Israel and Judah).
334
God's Word for Our World
being a woman alone.11 Such a woman was in a dire economic situation, whether there was family property or not, because when her husband died, a woman was unable to inherit property beyond the dowry that she brought to the marriage—property that would probably not sustain her for long. In the case of a widow whose husband died leaving inheritable property, the widow remained as a continuing part of the patrilineal property and the legal standing of her marriage did not dissolve upon the death of her spouse. Thus, Hiebert determines that existence for a Mesopotamian widow would have been precarious at best, and that her wellbeing would have depended on whether or not she had a son or father-in-law to care for her after the death of her husband, the son being the one eligible to inherit property from the deceased, because a woman cannot inherit property. The Mesopotamian widow without inheritable property would have depended on whatever minimal economic welfare the state institutions of palace and temple provided for her.12 3. The 'almana and Other Biblical Widows The foregoing discussion provides a background against which we now set out to look at some of the biblical texts referring to 'almana and to other types of widows, that is, inherited widows. This extends Hiebert's study to cases in the biblical data where there are modified occurrences of the 'almana that separate one group of ancient Israelite widows from the next, and considers the implications of the differences for interpreting biblical texts. In particular, in the Hebrew Bible we have three primary types of widows: 1. 'almana—a widow with limited economic support, 2. 'issd- 'almana—an inherited widow with sons, 3. 'eset-hammet—an inherited widow without sons. As will be discussed in examples below, the phrases 'issd- 'almana, found in 2 Samuel and elsewhere, and 'eset-hammet, used in Ruth 4.5 and Deut. 25.5, should be defined as 'inherited widow'. In other words, both phrases are meant to indicate that a woman is not an 'almana widow. In contrast to
11. She studies Akkadian almattu, Ugaritic 'Imnt, Phoenician 'Imt, Aramaic 'armalta', and Arabic 'armalat; see Hiebert 1989. 12. Harris 1992; see also, Hamilton 1992 and van der Toorn 1995. On this basis, Orwell (1977: 125) argues that in the Hebrew Bible 'almana is from the root 'lm ('to be silent').
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
335
the 'almond widow stands the women who have redemption rights in their husband's property, whose legal protection by this property is jeopardized for one reason or another. The difference between the two terms 'issd'almond and 'eset-hammet rests in whether or not a son is alive to exercise the rights of redemption for this land. The four references noted below to the 'issd- 'almdnd all specifically mention that the widow named has a son, but the 'eset-hammet, used in Ruth 4.5 and Deut. 25.5, envisions the circumstances of an inherited widow without a son.13 a. 'issa-'almana In the Hebrew Bible there are four widows with sons, who are referred to as 'issd- 'almdnd, an 'inherited widow, with sons'. These four are: (1) the wise woman of Tekoa (2 Sam. 14.5); (2) the mother of Hiram of Tyre, who is introduced as being 'the son of an 'issd- 'almdnd of the tribe of Naphtali' (1 Kgs 7.14); (3) the mother of Jeroboam, first monarch of the Northern Kingdom, whose genealogy indicates he is 'the son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother's name was Zeruah, an 'issd- 'almdnd\\ Kgs 11.26); and (4) the woman of Zeraphath (1 Kgs 17.8-24), who is identified both as an 'issd- 'almdnd (w. 9-10) and as an 'almdnd widow (v. 20). In the first three cases, the sons presumably are providing substantial and adequate support for their mothers.14 This brings us to the final example (1 Kgs 17.8-24), the widow of Zeraphath whose surviving son is brought back to life by Elisha at the very point when he is thought to be dead (possibly he is sick due to malnourishment because the story suggests that the woman and her son have only one meal left before starvation), that is, the very point in the story when the death of the child turns the 'issd- 'almdnd, a widow with a son, into an 'almdnd widow, a woman with very limited economic resources for survival. This issue of the occurrence of two distinct widowhood labels attached
13. The phrase indicates that the woman is part of the inheritance that passes to the nearest kinsman of the deceased. 14. In 1 Kgs 2.13-25, after the death of David, Bathsheba is never referred to as a widow, but is instead identified by her relationship with Solomon, that is, she is 'the mother of Solomon' (v. 13). Possibly the widow terms discussed in this article were never applied in the strata of the ruling elite because economic issues never plagued people at this level in the economic hierarchy, for example, the terms are also missing with regards to Abigail (1 Sam. 25.1b-42). Another example of a woman of wealth, who we may speculate may have been a widow but is never so identified, is Micah's mother who has lost her eleven hundred pieces of silver (Judg. 17).
336
God's Word for Our World
to the same individual ultimately conforms to the thesis of this study by its use of the term 'almand at the point when the woman's son is depicted as dead, and thus the house that she holds in trust (v. 17 identifies her as the keeper of the house) until her son is old enough to inherit it passes out of her control. The shift in terminology regarding the woman signals the question of how she will survive after the death of her son.15 b. The 'issa-'almana ofTekoa16 The narrative of 2 Samuel 1417 tells of a woman from the village of Tekoa, who is hired by Joab to tell a fictitious story that is designed to bring about a reconciliation of David and his son Absalom, who has been banished for killing David's other son Amnon, who had raped David's daughter Tamar. In preparing the wise woman to tell her story that is aimed at bringing David to self-judgment, Joab charges her in v. 2 to behave like a mourner (hith 'abbeli-nd') and to dress herself in mourning garments (welibsi-nd' bigde- 'ebel), instructions emphasizing the root 'bl ('to mourn'). Joab's instructions here are worthy of comment because they contrast with the circumstances in Gen. 38.14, where Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah, changes out of her widow clothing (bigde- 'aim enutd) before going out to meet her father-in-law.181 believe that the difference here between garments of mourning and garments of the 'almand widow is far less confusing than it might initially appear, and suggest that there was a cycle of dress and behavior that accompanies the stages of initial grief from permanent widowhood. The wise woman puts on clothing that signals she is in mourning over the death of her son, but not yet in the state of an 'almand widow because she has another son, whereas the clothing that Tamar shed signals the circumstances of an 'almand widow, a woman without access 15. Possibly others may now find economic (or other) distinctions separating the zond from the 'issd-zond. 16. It is not possible to analyze the two other biblical references to the 'issd'almand in the present study. I suggest that both the unnamed mother of Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 7.14) and Zeruah, wife of Nebat, from the northern tribe of Ephraim, the mother of Jeroboam, are referred to as 'issd- 'almand, because they are inherited widows with sons. 17. For further analysis of the many issues raised by this text, see Hoftijzer 1970; Camp 1981; Laffey 1988: 124-26; Carmody 1988: 45-48; and Willey 1992. 18. On the distinctive clothing of ancient Near Eastern prostitutes, see Bird 1989: 134 n. 5, and 135 n. 15. Analysis of this text can be found in Thompson and Thompson 1972; Brichto 1973: 16; Westbrook 1977; Niditch 1979; and Fisch 1982. See also Coats (1983: 272-76) for a discussion of the relevant literary forms in this text.
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
337
to her husband's patrilineage—through either a son or the possibility of access to property. In light of Tamar's belief that she would not be called back by her father-in-law Judah in order for Shelah to fulfill his levirate duty,19 she dresses in garments that the ancient Israelite observer would immediately recognize as those of an 'almond, rather than those of someone in mourning. That something comparable to an 'almond uniform existed in biblical Israel is suggested by the terminology in Genesis 38 and finds further support from the injunction, 'Do not take a widow's garment (beged 'almdnd) as a pledge' (Deut. 24.17b). Additional uniforms may have distinguished other types of widows as well as mourners in Genesis. I focus on 2 Samuel 14 because in the case of the wise woman of Tekoa, we meet an individual who not only identifies herself as 'issd- 'almdnd, 'an inherited widow with sons', as she prepares to tell her parable to David, but one who feels it is necessary to explain further, 'my husband is dead' (wayyamot 'issi, v. 5). Are these two phrases synonymous, and if so, why does the woman repeat her widowed status twice? In presenting her ruse to the king, the woman of Tekoa is arguing that as 'issd- 'almdnd her future welfare depends on the life of her remaining son, who is in imminent danger of dying at the hands of patrilineal kinsmen who will kill him to avenge the death of his brother, whom he has just killed. Should that death occur, the woman of Tekoa would be in a similar situation to that of Naomi in the book of Ruth. I believe that the Tekoaite woman is indicating that she is too old to be eligible for provisions of the levirate law, and should the second son of the woman from Tekoa die, the woman would be at the mercy of charity from others. Naomi would have been in the same circumstances as the woman of Tekoa vis-d-vis her husband's inheritance but for the fact that Naomi has Ruth, who is the agent of redemption of Elimelech's patrimony. The woman of Tekoa specifically says in v. 7 that the death of her remaining son would leave her husband, 'without name or remnant left on earth'. Moreover, earlier in the same verse, she remarks that such a death would mean the death of the heir (hayyores) and 'would quench my soul surviving ember' (wekibbu 'etgahalti 'aser nis 'drd). The woman expresses concern not only in the patrilineage but raises the issue of the impact of her son's death on her personal 19. Biblical commentators note the discrepancy between the biblical law concerning levirate duty and narrative fulfillment of these responsibilities. But in all societies one must distinguish between texts and practice. That we should not get trapped in the technical terms of law as it relates to practice is emphasized in the writings of both Watson (1998) and Jackson (2000: 70-92).
338
God's Word for Our World
economic circumstances.20 The woman of Tekoa seems to be indicating that she cannot exercise her proprietary rights towards her husband's land (presumably this is the field the brothers were in when the killing took place) should both sons die, probably because she is too old to do so. Her circumstances remind the reader of Naomi, who argues that her daughtersin-law should return to their birth homes after their husbands, her sons, die because she is too old to have another husband and bear sons. We can conclude that in her opening statement, the woman says, in effect, 'I am as good as the 'almond widow, a woman who will be dispossessed, because my husband is dead, my firstborn son is dead, and it looks like my sole surviving son will soon be killed'. Thus, the intent of v. 5, with its repetition of the woman's widowhood status, is that the woman will be left with few economic resources should her son die, because her husband is already dead.21 Her future will be one of destitution without her surviving son for support. c. The 'eset-hammet and Naomi and Ruth A good place to begin our analysis of the 'eset-hammet is with the story of Naomi and Ruth, who are both bereft of their spouses. Neither woman is referred to as 'almand. Ruth is identified as 'eset-hammet (Ruth 4.5), literally, 'the wife of a dead man'. This is the same terminology used in Deut. 25.5-10 to identify a woman who has died before her husband has fathered a child and to whom the law of the levirate applies, that is, an inherited widow without sons.22 In order to understand the dynamics intended by Deut. 25.5-10, and to consider their application in Ruth, it is necessary to investigate the biblical statement of levirate intent, namely, that the child born of a union between the deceased husband's brother and the deceased's widow 'shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted 20. For more on how the dynamics of this text reflect ancient Israelite kinship organization, see Bendor 1996. 21. This repetition may then be a means to emphasize the woman's dire circumstances; see Hoftijzer 1970: 421. Possibly synonymous parallelism is an appropriate form of formal speech when addressing the king. One notices the woman's deferential tone towards David when she refers to herself as his maidservant: 'amd (w. 15, 16) andsiphd (w. 6, 7, 12, 15, 17, 19). 22. For general background on the levirate principle, see Kalmin 1992. That the circumstances of the levirate widow are distinct from those of other widows is discussed in Wegner 1988: 97-113,13 8-41. On the Deuteronomic formulation of this law, see Merendino 1969: 318-20 and Seitz 1971: 124-25.
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
339
out of Israel' (Deut. 25.6). The law of the levirate is designed to provide a child23 who will serve the social and economic interests of the dead man by functioning as the heir who perpetuates the name, the property and the inheritance of the kinship unit to which the deceased belonged. Thus, the levirate law is an expedient means to have property continue down the vertical patrilineage, that is, between generations rather than within a single generation, although, as expressed in Deut. 25.5-10, it does not cover each and every possible situation that might arise in fulfilling the kinship obligation to not alienate the dead man's land. The levirate law is a means to preserve the bloodline through the males, who inherit the name and the property attached to this name—including the widow of the deceased.24 As I have already stated, neither Naomi nor Ruth is identified as 'almand. On the one hand, Naomi is represented as having property that can be redeemed; she has proprietary rights in her deceased husband's land. On the other hand, Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi's husband Elimelech, becomes the agent through whom this claim is realized. The key to interpreting the widowhood label that is implied for Naomi and is stated for Ruth, 'eset-hammet, is that there is land to be inherited by the child Ruth bears. Thus, it is a by-product of the levirate law that the birth of a male child will ultimately guarantee the presence of someone to take care of Ruth in her old age (if she herself does not die before the child can protect her); the levirate provision enforced here is intended to serve the patrilineal kinship interests tied to land and property.25 Not all women 23. The stories of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27.1-11; 36.1-12) raise the possibility that a daughter could be borne who would inherit the land and then pass it on to her son in the next generation. 24. Driver 1895: 284. The same principle of the inherited widow is evidenced in cross-cultural studies of the history of the family; see Goody 1976: 83-84. 25. Pressler 1993: 63-74. Pressler notes that there are few references to childless widows in the Bible; this is because the levirate law only had relevance when land was available to be inherited. With no land in her husband's name, a woman became 'almand, and was not able to avail herself of the levirate option of Deut. 25.5-10. This law is the right of first refusal of the widow, given to the deceased husband's nearest patrilineal kin. Although the law may appear to protect the interests of the widow by providing her with a child to see to her needs in her old age, this humanitarian concern is a by-product of the law, and not its primary agenda. The law of the levirate protects patrilineal interests in its aim to produce an heir to the deceased in the event that there is property for vertical inheritance. These principles help us to understand why in the case of the book of Ruth, where there is property to be inherited (4.3), Naomi is not referred to as 'eset-hammet. According to Ruth 1.11-12, Naomi is too old to bear such
340
God's Word for Our World
predeceased by their husbands are covered in the law of the levirate, just as not all women predeceased by their husbands are addressed in the laws of the 'almand, because these laws refer to distinctive categories of widows. The literal interpretation of 'eset-hammet, the wife of a dead man, clearly indicates that because of the inheritable property from which they can derive economic support, Naomi and Ruth are still in a very real sense married to their dead spouses. d. The 'almana Widow in Deuteronomy The above distinctions in categories of widows finds support in the only three texts in the entire Hebrew Bible that make specific economic provisions for the dire straits of the 'almand widow,26 the poorest of the spectrum of widows, women who we may imagine begging at the city gates. I turn now to consider briefly Deut. 14.28-29, 24.19-21 and 26.12-13.21 The evidence marshaled for interpreting the 'almand widow in economic terms in the Hebrew Bible finds support in the work of Lohfink, who investigates poverty in biblical law and concludes that the class of individuals included in the category of 'ebyon and 'am, 'the poor', shifts from one biblical law code to the next.28 Lohfink convincingly argues that a child to the patrilineage of Elimelech; thus, the responsibility falls to Ruth, who is an 'eset-hammet. Finally, I disagree with Otto, who concludes regarding Deut. 25.5-10, 'But these provisions of the deuteronomic family law paved the way for the modern emancipation of women already, in antiquity, and their authors deserve our respect' (1998: 140). Regarding this humanitarian agenda, see Weinfeld 1972: 284; McBride 1981; 1987: 242. For more on how the literal concerns of texts regarding widows may mask their intended purposes, see Sneed 1999. 26. To be an inherited widow upon the death of one's husband would not preclude the possibility of being an 'almand widow later in time. Thus, what if there were no available male to carry out the levirate responsibilities, or the available men proved to be barren? Another possibility that would present problems for the inherited widow would be if she were infertile. 27. Although the implications of Deut. 15.11 are economic ('you shall generously open you hand'), the text does not explicitly refer to provisions for the 'almand widow. The economic implications of Deuteronomic legislation have already been established; see, e.g., Steinberg 1991 and Glass 2000. 28. See Lohfink 1991. Lohfink draws his conclusions on the significant differences in biblical attitudes towards the poor based on his study of the Covenant Code (Exod. 20.22-23.33), Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code in Leviticus. Within these laws 'almand occurs in Exod. 22.21, 23; Deut. 10.18; 14.29; 16.11, 14; 24.17, 19, 20, 21; 26.12, 13; 27.19; Lev. 21.14; 22.12. The grouping of widow, fatherless orphan, and sojourner occurs in all of the above citations in Deuteronomy, except in 10.18.
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
341
in Deuteronomy the triad, the widow ('almdnd), the fatherless orphan (yatorri) and the sojourner (ger)—united by their landlessness—a group traditionally understood as the poor throughout the Hebrew Bible, is a separate category from the poor, identified by the words 'ebyon and 'am, although the triad is still in need of support. In two of the three laws in Deuteronomy with explicit economic directives for those in need, the tithing law of Deut. 14.28-29 and its follow-up in 26.12-13, the traditional triad of the widow, the fatherless orphan and the sojourner has been expanded to include the disenfranchised rural priests whose economic livelihood dried up with the Deuteronomic centralization of worship in Jerusalem.29 The addition of the Levites, a group without land, to the list of individuals in need of the tithing provisions, namely, the widow, the fatherless orphan, and the sojourner, establishes unambiguously that the common link in this list is landlessness, and establishes that the 'almond widow is a landless woman.30 The logic of tithing is explained in Num. 18.21-24. Tithing is intended to give economic support to those who have no land to support themselves; tithing is equivalent to taxation, and results in a redistribution of goods from local landed citizens to the landless. In light of Lohfink's work, which demonstrates that the 'almdnd is not grouped with the 'ebyon and 'am in Deuteronomy, but instead indicates a different category of indigent individuals, the listing of the Levites with the widow in the tithing
Deut. 10.18 differs from the others ('He [Yahweh] executes justice for the fatherless orphan and the 'almond, and loves the sojourner, providing food and clothing'), although it ultimately includes all three categories of individuals. For a general discussion of poverty in the Hebrew Bible, see Pleins 1992. On the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code, see Levinson 1997. 29. Cf. Lev. 19.9-10. For more on the economic repercussions of this shift to more centralized government, typically dated to the time of Josiah's reforms, and reactions to the new policies, see Gottwald 1993: 12-14. 3 0. Lohfink (1991:44) maintains,' It became clear that what Deuteronomy does in these laws is not to add new groups to the poor, but rather to change the structures of society, so as to provide support for those groups which, for very different reasons, are not in a position to live off their own land. If that system worked, these groups could no longer be considered poor... A widow then has the same status as, e.g., a Levite, who according to Deuteronomy, is a very honored person in Israel.' It seems to me that this legislation is ideological and in practical terms does little to alleviate the needs of those without land to provide them with food and the means of an economic livelihood. Lohfink concludes, 'The problem with this Deuteronomic view seems to have been that nobody believed in it' (p. 47).
342
God's Word for Our World
laws of Deuteronomy demonstrates that this tri-yearly tithe aims to support those individuals without land by which to support themselves. Ultimately, Deuteronomy creates a socioeconomic class that is also a poverty category, with the result that the landless, including the 'almdnd widow, depended upon the landed for economic welfare.31 4. Conclusions The foregoing analysis increases our scope of understanding of the spectrum of widowhood in biblical Israel. Our perspective builds on the economic basis for marriage, as a social mechanism to reinforce kinship boundaries. The socioeconomic nature of marriage underscores the connection between patrilineal descent and the existence of inherited property, and results in economic differentiation between kinship groups. The existence of inheritable property is the variable that determines the intersection of economic class interests, related to the reproduction of the patrilineage for purposes of a system of the transmission of property through inheritance, and gender construction, because different categories of widows are found in the biblical text based on whether or not there is inheritable property. Patterns of transmission of inheritance are based on vertical patrilineal descent principles. Future discussions of widows in biblical Israel must utilize terminology that distinguishes different categories of widows. I suggest that henceforth we distinguish between the 'almdnd widow, a woman without economic resources after the death of her husband, and what I have labeled, the inherited widow, an 'issd- 'almdnd, an inherited widow with sons, or an 'eset-hammet, a woman who is transferred by levirate procedures to the nearest patrilineal kin of her husband. According to this categorization of widows, 'almdnd should be understood as an adjective with economic implications, describing a particular category of widows who are predeceased by a spouse with no inheritable property. By contrast, an inherited widow is one who is married into a landed family. The property and the subsequent son, if any, are affiliated to the name of the woman's deceased husband, rather than her levirate spouse. However, if the 'almdnd widow subsequently remarries outside the patrilineage of her deceased husband, any sons she bears are affiliated to the patrilineage of her new spouse. Ultimately then, there are different economic circumstances that separate one category of widows from the other, and the distinction rests 31. For more on the exploitation of this group of individuals, see Bennett 2002.
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
343
on whether or not the primary wife is married into a landholding family. Possibly, future research will recover other more subtle nuances in the spectrum of widows. As we reconstruct widowhood in the biblical text we must recognize that in ancient Israel all widows, mothers of sons and mothers without sons, or simply childless widows, whether they were landed or landless, had to depend on others for support of one form or another. Finally, on a methodological note, this study demonstrates the value of combining historical etymological analysis with ahistorical comparative anthropological studies for illumining biblical data. We must analyze biblical texts based not only on the etymology of the word 'almond and its Semitic counterparts, but incorporate into our understanding of widows in biblical Israel the contexts and the usages of distinctive terminology for these women. Bibliography Ackerman, S. 1998 Baab, O.J. 1962 Bendor, S. 1996
Bennett, H.V. 2002 Bird, P. 1989
Brichto, H.C. 1973 Camp, C. 1981
Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (ABRL; New York: Doubleday). 'Widow', in IDE, IV: 842-43. The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit 'Abjyrow the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 7; Jerusalem: Simor). Injustice Made Legal: Deuteronomic Law and the Plight of Widows, Strangers, and Orphans in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). 'The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative Art and Social Presuppositions in Three Old Testament Texts', in M. Amihai, G.W. Coats and A.M. Solomon (eds.), Narrative Research on the Hebrew Bible (Semeia, 46; Chico, CA: Scholars Press): 119-39. 'Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex', HUCA 44: 1-54. 'The Wise Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women in Early Israel?', CBQ41: 14-29.
Carmody, D.L. Biblical Woman: Contemporary Reflections on Scriptural Texts (New York: 1988 Crossroad). Coats, G.W. 'Widow's Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38', CBQ 34: 461-66. 1972
344
God's Word for Our World 1983
Driver, S.R. 1895 Fensham, F.C. 1962 Fisch, R.H. 1982 Glass, Z.P. 2000 Goody, J. 1962 1976
1990
Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL, 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). 'Widow, Orphan and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature', JNES 21: 129-39. 'Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History', FT32: 425-37. 'Land, Slave Labor and Law: Engaging Ancient Israel's Economy', JSOT 91:27-39. Death, Property and the A ncestors: A Study of the Mortuary Customs of the Lodagaa of West Africa (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). The Orient, the Ancient and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-Industrial Societies of Eurasia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gottwald, N. K. 1993 'Social Class as a Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies', JBL 112: 3-22. Harris, R. 1992 'Women (Mesopotamia)', in ABD, VI: 949. Hamilton, V.P. 1992 'Marriage (Old Testament and Ancient Near East)', in ABD, IV: 559-69. Hiebert, P.S. 1989 '"Whence Shall Help Come to Me?": The Biblical Widow', in P.L. Day Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 124-41. Hoftijzer, J. 1970 'David and the Tekoite Woman', VT20: 419-44. Jackson, B.S. 2000 Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (JSOTSup, 314; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm 1994-99 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (translated and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson; 4 vols.; Leiden: EJ. Brill). Kalmin, R. 1992 'Levirate Law', in ABD, IV: 296-97. Laffey, A.L. 1988 An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
STEINBERG Romancing the Widow
345
Levinson, B.M. 1997 Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press). Lohfink, N. 1991 'Poverty in the Laws of the Ancient Near East and of the Bible', TS 52: 34-50. Lopata, H.Z. 1987 'Widowhood: World Perspectives on Support Systems', in H. Lopata (ed.), Widows.l.The Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific (Durham: Duke University Press): 1-23. McBride, S.D. 1981 'Deuteronomium', TRE 8: 534-35. 1987 'Polity of the Covenant People', Int 41: 229-43. Merendino, R.P. 1969 Das Deuteronomische Gesetz (BBB, 31; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1969). Niditch, S. 1979 The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38', HTR 72: 143-49. Otto, E. 1998 'False Weights in the Scale of Biblical Justice? Different Views of Women from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy', in V.H. Matthews, B.M. Levinson and T. Frymer-Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 262: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 128-46. Otwell, J.H. 1977 And Sarah Laughed: The Status of Women in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press). Perdue, L.G., J. Blenkinsopp, J.J. Collins and C. Meyers 1997 Families in Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). Pleins, J.D. 1992 'Poor, Poverty: Old Testament', in ABD, V: 402-14. Pressler, C. 1993 The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws (BZAW, 216; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Seitz, G. 1971 Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BZAW, 93; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1971). Sneed, M. 1999 'Israelite Concern for the Alien, Orphan, and Widow: Altruism or Ideology?', ZAW 111: 498-507. Steinberg, N. 1991 'Deuteronomy and the Politics of State Centralization', in D. Jobling, P.L. Day and G.T. Sheppard (eds.), The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press): 161-70. 1993 Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
346
God's Word for Our World
Thompson, T., and D. Thompson 1968 'Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth', VT18: 79-99. Toorn, K. van der 1995 'Torn Between Vice and Virtue: Stereotypes of the Widow in Israel and Mesopotamia', in R. Kloppenborg and W. Hanegraff (eds.), Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions (Leiden: EJ. Brill): 1-13. Watson, A. 1998 Ancient Law and Modern Understanding: At the Edges (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press). Wegner, J.R. 1988 Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press). Weinfeld, M. 1972 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Westbrook, R. 1991 Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup, 113; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 1977 'The Law of the Biblical Levirate', Revue Internationale des droits del'antiquite 24: 65-87. Willey, P.K. 'The Importunate Woman of Tekoa and How She Got Her Way', in Danna 1992 Nolan Fewell (ed.), Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press): 115-31. Whyte, M.K. 1978 The Status of Women in Preindustrial Societies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
THE DATE OF THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES Isaac Kalimi
1. Biblical Text and Scholarship: Positions and Perspectives a. The Challenge and the Complexity Although the book of Chronicles mainly deals with the history of the Davidic dynasty and the First Temple, there is no doubt that it was composed in the Second Temple period, and is categorized among the late biblical-historical writings. The linguistic evidence supports this fact: the language of the book is late Biblical Hebrew, shows Aramaic influence, and contains Persian words.1 They all affect the vocabulary, syntax, orthography, and style of Chronicles, which is similar to those of the late biblical books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and even Daniel.2 There are citations in the book of Chronicles from prophets such as First Zechariah and 1. For Persian words see, for example, ]~l] (1 Chron. 21.27); "Q~IS (1 Chron. 26.18 [twice]); "fT33 (1 Chron. 28.11; cf. Est. 3.9; 4.7); nnimK (= darics, 1 Chron. 29.7). 2. On this point, see L. Zunz, 'Dibre-Hajamim oder die Bticher der Chronik', in idem, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden, Historisch entwickelt. Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte (Berlin: Ascher, 1832 [2nd edn = Frankfurt: Kauffmann, 1892]), pp. 13-36 (32-34); A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik (Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1909); E.L. Curtis and A.A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), p. xxi; W.A.L. Elmslie, The Books of Chronicles (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916), p. xxxi; R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM, 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), pp. 27-75; A. Hurvitz, Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for Dating of Psalms (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972 [Hebrew]), pp. 15-16; idem, 'The Hebrew Language in the Persian Period', in H. Tadmor (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People: The Restoration—The Persian Period (Jerusalem: Am Oved & Alexander Peli, 1983), pp. 210-23, 306-309 (214-15) (Hebrew); A. Rofe, Introduction to the Historical Literature of the Hebrew Bible (Jerusalem: Carmel Publishing House, 2001), pp. 57-59 (Hebrew).
348
God's Word for Our World
Malachi who prophesied in the Persian period (both dated in the late sixth century BCE; cf. 2 Chron. 15.5 with Zech. 8.10; 2 Chron. 16.9 with Zech. 4.10; 2 Chron. 30.9 with Mai. 1.9).3 Furthermore, persons and events from the Persian epoch are mentioned in the book. For example, 1 Chron. 3.19-24 concerns the descendants of David, who extend into the Persian period (see below), the list of Jerusalem's residents that took place in the time of Nehemiah (1 Chron. 9.2-17//Neh. 11.3-19),4 and the decree of Cyrus the Great, King of Persia (538 BCE; 2 Chron. 36.22-23).5 There are also some signs of anachronism from the Persian period. For instance, 1 Chron. 29.7 ascribes the Persian coin dories (minted not earlier than 515 BCE) to the Israelites' contributions in the building of the temple at the time of King David (end of eleventh to the first quarter of the tenth century BCE).6 Controversial, however, is the question: Of which period within the Second Temple era was the book of Chronicles composed? Clear evidence concerning the date of composition and authorship is lacking in Chronicles, as is the case with many biblical books. Neither in the book itself nor in other biblical or extra-biblical sources is a definite indication revealed.7 In the Beraita the Rabbis teach that the authors of Chronicles were Ezra the scribe and Nehemiah: Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of the book of Chronicles up to his own time. This confirms the opinion of Rab, since Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: Ezra did not leave Babylon to go up [to the Land of Israel] until he had written his own genealogy. Who then completed it [the book of Chronicles]?—Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. (b. BabaBathra 15a). 3. See I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronikvon ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Konigsbiichern (BZAW, 226; Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 1995), p. 218; idem, The Book of Chronicles: Historical Writing and Literary Devices (BEL, 18; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2000 [Hebrew]), pp. 245-46. 4. On this issue, see I. Kalimi, 'The View of Jerusalem in the Ethnographical Introduction of Chronicles (1 Chron. 1-9)', Bib 83 (2002), pp. 556-62 (559-61). 5. Concerning Cyrus' decree and its place in the book of Chronicles, see I. Kalimi, 'So Let Him Go Up [to Jerusalem]!': A Historical and Theological Observation on Cyrus' Decree in Chronicles', idem, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place, and Writing (forthcoming). 6. This verse—as a part of the entire passage 1 Chron. 29.1-19—is not secondary as assumed by R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes [FTS, 92; Freiburg: Herder, 1973], pp. 105-106 n. 76. 7. See, below in this study, sections 2 and 3.
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
349
Some modern scholars, such as Keil and Kaulen in the nineteenth century, as well as Albright and Young in the twentieth, have adopted this viewpoint partially and have identified the Chronicler with Ezra.8 This choice lacks any historical foundation—as do other rabbinical assignments to biblical writings. The Rabbis desired to rid the biblical compositions of their anonymity and thus ascribed them to well-known biblical characters. Since the Chronicler does not mention any specific event from his own time, the dating of his work has to be based on indirect inner evidence, dependent to a certain degree on the evaluation of the Chronicler's main concern(s). Directly significant to the dating of Chronicles is the assessment of the length of the Chronistic writing, that is, the question of the relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah as well as the question of the original extent of the book of Chronicles itself. These questions are still actively debated among scholars.9 Those, who accept the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (completely or partially) as one single literary unit composed by one and the same author (with the intention of composing the history of Israel from the earliest time to the age of Ezra and Nehemiah),10 also find clues for the date of the composition in EzraNehemiah. Thus, for instance, they derive clues from the lists of priests
8. See C.F. Keil, The Books of the Chronicles (BCOT, 35; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878), p. 27 (in n. 1 Keil mentions also other scholars, such as G.H.A. Ewald, E. Bertheau and C.F.A. Dillmann who hold the same opinion); Kaulen is cited by E. Konig, Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit Einschluss der Apokryphen und der Pseudepigraphen Alten Testaments (Bonn: E. Weber, 1893), p. 285; W.F. Albright, 'The Date and Personality of the Chronicler', JBL 40 (1921), pp. 104-24 (119-20); idem, 'The Biblical Period', in L. Finkelstein (ed.), The Jews—Their History, Culture and Religion (3 vols.; New York: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 3rd edn, 1960), I, pp. 54-55; E.J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, rev. edn, 1964), p. 389. Accordingly, it is completely inaccurate to conclude as S. Japhet (/ & II Chronicles: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993], p. 24): 'Among modern scholars, only Albright returned to the traditional view, again suggesting the identification of "the Chronicler" with Ezra'. 9. For the relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, see I. Kalimi, Reshaping of the Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), p. 9 n. 37. The question of the original extent of the book is mainly based upon the problem of the different lists in 1 Chron. 1-9; 12.1-23; 23-27, but partly also upon chs. 15-16. 10. On this issue, see Kalimi, Reshaping of the Israelite History in Chronicles, p. 9 n. 37, and there detailed references to the secondary literature.
350
God's Word for Our World
and Levites in Neh. 12.10-11.23." Moreover, these scholars must date the entire literary units after Artaxerxes, the king of Persia, who is mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 4.7; 4.12-13.21, esp. 6.14; 7.7-8; Neh. 2.1; 5.14; 13.6).12 The scholars who think, however, of Chronicles and EzraNehemiah as two separate literary units composed by different authors and in different times,13 cannot draw upon those passages. In another camp one finds scholars who consider 1 Chronicles 1-9 (partially or completely) as additions from one or a few later editors or a 'Deutero-Chronicler'.14 11. See, for instance, M. Delcor, 'Jewish Literature in Hebrew and Aramaic in Greek Era', in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. II. The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 352-84 (379). 12. It is a question in itself to which one of the three Persian kings named 'Artaxerxes' these texts are referring: Artaxerxes I (Longimanus, 465-425 BCE), or Artaxerxes II (Mnemon, 404-358 BCE) or even Artaxerxes III (Ochus, 359-338 BCE). See the survey of D.E. Suiter, 'Artaxerxes', inABD, I, pp. 463-64. 13. For this issue see in detail, see Kalimi, Zur GeschichtsSchreibung des Chronisten, pp. 7-9; idem, The Book of Chronicles, pp. 9-11. 14. De Vaux denies the authenticity of 1 Chron. 1-9 and 23-27, see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), II, p. 390; and so does J.D. Newsome, Jr, 'Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 201-17 (215). A.C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism (The Baird Lectures, 1934; Edinburgh: W. Blackwood, 1935), pp. 185-86; idem, The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Its Date (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1938; London: Oxford University Press, 1939), p. 1; B. Uffenheimer, The Visions ofZechariah: From Prophecy to Apocalyptic (Jerusalem: The Israel Society for Biblical Research/Kiryat Sefer, 1961 [Hebrew]), p. 175; J.M.Myers, I Chronicles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 12; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), pp. xxxi-xxxii; D.N. Freedman, 'The Chronicler's Purpose', CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 436-42 (441); P.M. Cross, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18 (11-18); S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 33; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 25-26, thinks of chs. 1-9 as a later edition; Mosis, Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, p. 44 n. 2 holds the same view for chs. 23-27. Between this extreme position lies another position which assigns most of the lists to later editors, but some to the Chronicler himself; for example, M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die Sammelnden undBearbeitenden Geschichtswerk im Alien Testament (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 2nd edn, 1957), pp. 152-173 (= idem, The Chronicler's History [trans. H.G.M. Williamson with an introduction; JSOTSup, 50; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987], pp. 110-31); O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1956), p. 668 (= idem, The Old Testament: An Introduction [trans. P.R. Ackroyd; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965], p. 540); Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, pp. 5, 93, 103, 149-50; idem, 'Problems of the Book of Chronicles', VT 4 (1954),
KALIMI The Date of'the Book of 'Chronicles
351
Obviously, these scholars cannot accept evidence concerning the date of composition from these chapters. On the other hand, those who think of these chapters of genealogies as an integral part of Chronicles15 will take them into consideration. In addition to this insufficient inner evidence, there are textual difficultties and complex hermeneutic problems that show no clear reference to the date of composition, nor even a terminus a quo. Thus the determination of a specific time depends on the evaluation and interpretation of the respective material, which can drastically fluctuate among scholars. The diversity of scholars' opinions concerning the date of the composition of the book of Chronicles reflects, therefore, the diversity of their starting-points. Accordingly, it is apparent why there is dispute even concerning an assumed general period—the Persian (539-332 BCE) or Hellenistic (332164 BCE). There is a large discrepancy between an early and a late dating of the work, and for both extremes one can find numerous points of view and arguments. The following data will illustrate this overview. b. Early Post-Exilic Period Among scholars there are those who argue that Chronicles was composed in the time of the restoration from the Babylonian Exile, that is, in the early post-exilic/Persian epoch, slightly after the last edition of the book of Kings (c. mid-fifth century BCE). However, even within this group there is pp. 401-409 (402). Rudolph denies a considerable portion from 1 Chron. 1-9 and 15-16, as well as 12.1-23 and 23-27 and several parts from 1 Chron. 28 and 2 Chronicles. Cf. T. Willi, Die ChronikalsAuslegung^RLANT, 106; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), pp. 194-204; P.R. Ackroyd, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah: Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1973), pp. 20-21, and see also his monograph, Israel under Babylon and Persia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 295. 15. See, e.g., Keil, The Books of the Chronicles, pp. 21-22; Curtis andMadsen, The Books of Chronicles, pp. 6-8, 57, 260-61; B. Mazar, 'Chronicles', in EncBib, II, pp. 596-606 (597,605-606) (Hebrew); Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, pp. 229 n. 106, 278-85, 288, 352, concerning chs. 1-9; see also idem, 'Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles', JBL 98 (1979), p. 218; D.M. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (SNTSMS, 8; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 47-55; J. Liver, Chapters in the History of the Priests and Levites: Studies in the Lists of Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968 [Hebrew]), p. 11 (on chs. 23-25 and 27); H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982), pp. 14,39 (on chs. 1-9), pp. 104-106 (on 12.1-23; on the latter see also his essay ' "We are yours, O David": The Setting and Purpose of 1 Chronicles XII 1-23', OTS 21 [1981], pp. 164-76).
352
God's Word for Our World
a variety of opinions: M. Throntveit dates it between 527 and 517 BCE;16 J.D. Newsome between 525 and 515 BCE;17 B. Uffenheimer in the year 520 BCE.18 P.M. Cross and S.L. McKenzie19 assume the book was composed in three stages: a first draft (Chr1; 1 Chron. 10-2 Chron. 34 + 2 Chron. 35.1Ezra 3.13) about 520-515 BCE, a second one (Chr2; 1 Chron. 10-2 Chron. 34 + 2 Chron. 35.1-36.23 + Ezra 1-10 + Neh. 8) in 458 BCE, and a third and final one (Chr3; entire Chronicles + Ezra + Nehemiah) around 400 BCE.20 A.C. Welch places the Chronicler in the community 'which had never been in exile', while the annotator of the book is put in 'the generation which followed the Return from Exile'.21 D.N. Freedman thinks that 'the Chronicler composed his work shortly after the completion of the temple, ca. 515 BC[E]';22 R.L. Braun dates it also about the same year, but with the final editing not before the second half of the fourth century BCE;23 R.B. Dillard and D.L. Petersen c. 500 BCE.24 c. Hellenistic Period Some scholars place the book generally in the Hellenistic period without dating it precisely. J. Kegler, for instance, bases his opinion as follows: This particular emphasis and forceful intensity seems to point to the period of Israelite history, in which the threat of on-going change of Jewish identity through the foreign cults was especially intensive. The strict line between 'Israel' and' Judah' on the one hand, and the drafting of a 'true Israel' on the 16. M.A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS, 93; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 96-107 (96, 107). Throntveit considers 1 Chron. 29.7, which mentions the Persian coin darics (minted not earlier than 515 BCE), as a secondary (see pp. 96, 99). 17. Newsome, 'Towards a New Understanding', pp. 215-16. 18. Uffenheimer, The Visions ofZechariah, p. 177. 19. Cross, 'Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', p. 14; McKenzie, Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 25-26. 20. This proposal was accepted also by P.D. Hanson, 'Israelite Religion in the Early Postexilic Period', in P.D. Miller, Jr, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion—Essays in Honor of P.M. Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 485-508 (488-99); and most recently by S.S. Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), p. 10. 21. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, pp. 155, 157. 22. Freedman, 'The Chronicler's Purpose', p. 441. 23. R.L. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC, 14; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), p. xxix. 24. R.B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC, 15; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. xix; D.L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS, 23; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 58-60.
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
353
other, reveals itself in the adherence to the Davidic monarchy, in the legitimating of the Levites' priesthood in a cult practice with Temple-music at its core, in the reliance on JHWH only, and in the strict rejection of any kind of idols and worship of foreign gods, the sharp separation between Israel and Judah, and the abandonment of power-politics due to the trust in JHWH only, points to a historical situation in which this form of Jewish identity enters a very severe crisis. I tend to assume that this development of Hellenism represents this crisis.25
Other scholars, however, attempt to date Chronicles at some point within the span of the Hellenistic epoch. Like the early dating, also the late dating of Chronicles in the Hellenistic time ranges from the beginning of this period through the age of Ptolemaic and Seleucid reigns to the early days of the Hasmonaean era. Thus, for example, J. Wellhausen believes that the book was composed after the downfall of the Persian Empire;26 S.R. Driver dates it shortly after 333 BCE,27 as E. Bertheau, S. Ottli and others did.28 Th. Willi assumes it was composed towards the end of the Persian or at the beginning of the Hellenistic epoch;29 E.L. Curtis and A.A. Madsen, 25. 'Diese besondere Akzentuierung und eindringlich Intensitat scheint auf eine Epoche der Geschichte Israels zu weisen, die Zeit in der die Bedrohung der jiidischen Identitat durch Fremdkulte besonders intensiv war. Die scharfe Abgrenzung von Israel' und "Juda" einerseits und die Konzipierung eines "wahren Israel" andererseits, das sich durch Festhalten an der davidischen Monarchic, an der Legitimitat levitischer Priesterschaft, an einer Kultpraxis, in deren Mitte die Pflege von Tempelmusik steht, am Verlassen auf JHWH allein und in der strikten Ablehnung jedweder Art des Gotzendienstes und der Fremdgotterverehrung zeigt, ferner am Verzicht auf Machtpolitik durch Vertrauen auf JHWH allein, deutet auf eine zeitgeschichtliche Situation, in der eben diese Form der judaischen Identitat aufs tiefste in eine Krise gerat. Ich tendiere zu der Annahme, dass die Entwicklung des Hellenismus eben diese Krise darstellt': J. Kegler, 'ProphetengestaltenimDeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerkund in den Chronikbuchern: Bin Beitrag zur Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Chronikbucher', ZAW 105 (1993), pp. 481-97 (496). However, from Kegler's words one can conclude that he dates the book in the late Hellenistic time. 26. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1878), pp. 165-66 (= idem, Prolegomena to the History of Israel [Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885], p. 171). 27. S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 9th edn, 1913), p. 518. 28. E. Bertheau, Die Biicher der Chronik (KEHAT, 15; Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1854), p. xlvi; S. Ottli, Die Biicher der Chronik, Esra und Nehemia (Nordlingen:Beck, 1889), p. 10. 29. See Willi, Chronik asl Auslegung, p. 190: '.. .aufgrund ihrer (= die Chronik, I.K.) Thematik in die ausgehende Perser- oder beginnende griechische Periode zu
354
God's Word for Our World
L.W. Batten, R. Kittel, R. de Vaux and G. Fohrer in or about the year 300 BCE.30 A. Lods presumes that the final editor of Chronicles lived after Alexander the Great, that is, after 322 BCE, 'and possibly even at the beginning of the second century BC'.31 M. Oeming considers 'between 350 and 250 as the most probable date' for the composition of Chronicles.32 W.A.L. Elmslie considers the first half of the third century BCE as being the time of composition,33 and so does P. Welten, although for different reasons.34 L. Zunz postulates 260 BCE,35 P.H. Pfeiffer the middle of the third century BCE or a little earlier,36 C.C. Torrey 'around 250 or a little later',37 According to M. Noth the date of the book is the period between 300 and 200 BCE,38 that is, the time of the Ptolemaic rule over the land of Israel;39 K. Galling dates the 'first Chronicler' around 300 BCE, the 'second
datieren'. For the same wording but in Hebrew (without referring to Willi), see S. Japhet, 'The Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period', in Tadmor (ed.), The Restoration—The Persian Period, pp. 176-202,295-303 (199). This is her conclusion also a decade later: 'I would place it at the end of the Persian or, more probably, the beginning of the Hellenistic period, at the end of fourth century BCE' (/ & II Chronicles, pp. 23-28 [27-28]). Similar opinion stated recently also by G.N. Knoppers, 'Greek Historiography and the Chronicler's History: A Reexamination', JBL 122 (2003), pp. 627-50 (650 n. 103) (see below). 30. Curtis and Madsen, The Books of Chronicles, pp. 5-6; L.W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913), pp. 2-3; R. Kittel, Die Bucher der Chronik tibersetzt underklart (GHAT, 1.6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), p. 26; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, II, p. 390; G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1968), p. 239. 31. S. Lods, Israel: From its Beginning to the Middle of the Eighth Century (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1932), p. 14. 32. See M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die 'genealogische Vorhalle' 1 Chronik 1-9 (BWANT, 128; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1990), pp. 44-45. 33. Elmslie, The Books of Chronicles, p. xxii. 34. P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbuchern (WMANT, 42; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1973), pp. 199-200. 35. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge derJuden, p. 34. 36. P.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York/London: Harper, 3rdedn, 1957), p. 815. 37. C.C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910), pp. 30, 35. 38. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, pp. 192-97 (= The Chronicler's History, pp. 150-55). 39. Compare also Delcor, 'Jewish Literature', p. 380.
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
355
Chronicler' around 200 BCE;40 O. Kaiser places the book 'between 300 and 200, its concluding redaction probably in the first half of the second century BC'.41 In the same direction follows G. Steins who dates the book of Chronicles at 'early Maccabean time',42 that is, parallel to the book of Daniel. It is noteworthy to mention that such a late dating of Chronicles has been stated already in the last third of the seventeenth century by Baruch (Benedictus) de Spinoza, one of the pioneers of modern biblical scholarship. He determined the time of composition of the book of Chronicles, without any further explanation, as 'a long time after Ezra and maybe even after the restoration of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus',43 that is, even later than 164 BCE (1 Mace. 4.36-61). Thus, the period in which scholars assume that the book of Chronicles was composed is fairly wide-stretched. It ranges from the last quarter of the sixth century BCE almost to the middle of the second century BCE. Not only is the enormous span of time between the earliest and the latest proposed date striking (about 360 years!), but also the fact that this is a time of considerable political, economic, social, religious and cultural changes. d. The Plausibility of the Early and Late Dating Neither the extreme early dating (in the time of the return from the Babylonian Exile), nor the extreme late one (in the Seleucid or even early Maccabean period) seems convincing.44 It has to be taken into account that the book of Chronicles is wanting of any feature of Greek language or thought, as well as any specific reference to cultural or historical events from the Hellenistic period. Furthermore, the book lacks any anachronism from the Hellenistic period.45 All the descriptions concerning the situation 40. K. Galling, Die Biicher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia—ubersetzt und erkldrt (ADT, 12; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1954), pp. 14-17. 41. O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of its Results and Problems (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), pp. 183-85 (185). 42. See G. Steins, 'Zur Datierung der Chronik—Bin neuer methodischer Ansatz', ZAWIQ9 (1997), pp. 84-92 (91-92). 43. Tractatus theologico-politicus 10 (at the beginning). 44. Compare Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, pp. 15-16. 45. The attempt of Welten (Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung, pp. 111-14), and Kaiser (Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 184-85) to find in the ambiguous
text of 2 Chron. 26.15, D'xm KIT *? niDsn "wi a1 "nann ^ nvn1? 2KJirt mono mDnon
m^l3 D'DDWl, a Greek catapult used in the third century BCE is unacceptable. Williamson (1 and 2 Chronicles, p. 338) shows that 'even allowing for the possibility
356
God's Word for Our World
in Judah that Kegler attributes to the Hellenistic period (see above) correspond, nevertheless, also to the Persian era, to the time of and after Ezra and Nehemiah in Yehud Madinta (the 'Province of Judah'): the polemic with Samaritan community as well as other neighbors of Yehud (Neh. 2.19-20; 4.1 -2; 6); the massive inter-marriages with non-Jews (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13.1-3, 23-27); the fear of losing national language (Neh. 13.24). The central function of the high priest, the Levites, priests, and so on, took place already in the mid-Persian period.46 Gary N. Knoppers claims that the Chronicler's work 'does manifest some signs of contacts (direct or indirect) with historiographic traditions attested in the ancient Aegean world...'47 He argues that 'some extrabiblical analogies to the Chronicler's use of segmented genealogies are found...in the west'. Nonetheless, Knoppers dates the book, like some other scholars (see above), 'near the end of the Persian period or the beginning of the Hellenistic period'.48 Without criticizing the meaning of'some signs' and 'some.. .analogies', one should not explain them, necessarily, as a result of a genetic relationship between Chronicles and the Hellenic writings. These kinds of literary features could easily be developed independently in various cultural regions with no direct or indirect influence from each other. Furthermore, as Knoppers himself states, 'Yehud was initially isolated from western influence'.49 Thus, it is very hard, if not impossible, to see how the Chronicler, whose work does not reflect any sign of Greek language nor any that the present phrase is anachronistic, it need no longer demand a date as late as Welten has supposed'. He remarks, properly, that 'we should see here a reference to defensive constructions on the towers and the corners that enabled the soldiers to shoot arrows and great stones from a position of safety' (p. 337). This explanation was suggested already by Y. Sukenik (= Yadin), '32nn fDDnn nmoV, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (= Yedioi) 13 (1947), pp. 19-24; Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (Ramat Gan: International Publishing, 2nd edn, 1963), pp. 313-14 (both in Hebrew). See also G.H. Jones, 1 & 2 Chronicles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 92-93. It is noteworthy that in the LXX the translator identified this Chronistic description with his contemporary UEXCCVOCI. In the Peshitta this difficult text (which is, as matter of fact, hapax legomenon) was omitted, probably because it was unclear to the translator himself. 46. See Kalimi, Zur GeschichtsSchreibung des Chronisten, pp. 161-64, and The Book of Chronicles, pp. 178-81. 47. See Knoppers, 'Greek Historiography and the Chronicler's History', p. 647. 48. See Knoppers, 'Greek Historiography and the Chronicler's History', p. 650 and n. 103. 49. See Knoppers, 'Greek Historiography and the Chronicler's History', p. 648.
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
357
anachronism from Greek culture, could have read any Greek historical writings or meet with any Greek scholars (with whom and where exactly?) who knew Hebrew and/or Aramaic and thus how he could have been influenced by them. After all, this sort of intellectual and academic influence is far beyond the western material influence (such as numismatics, pottery, weights, and so on, which could be moved easily by any trader, visitor and so forth) even before Alexander's conquest of the entire land of Israel. Indeed, the segmented and linear genealogies are found in Chronicles as well as in other biblical writings (especially in the Torah, in J and P codices),50 which were available to the Chronicler. Knoppers adduces an instance from Greek writings for the form: genealogical lists (1 Chron. 1-9) which serve as a prelude to the narrative (1 Chron. 10-2 Chron. 36).51 This form appears, however, already in the Torah. For example, the Flood story (Gen. 6-8) was a prelude with a long list of genealogies from Adam to Noah (Gen. 5.1-32); stories of the Patriarchs (Gen. 12-50) are preceded by genealogies of mankind from Noah to Abraham (Gen. 10-11). All in all, it is reasonable to assume that the Chronicler used and sometimes even developed the literary models he found in the earlier Hebrew writings rather than presume an influence from distant and foreign ancient Greek writings. Concerning the dating of Chronicles in the early Hasmonean era, one must admit the improbability of this assumption especially against the background of the following clear-cut evidence: 1. The book of Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), which has been composed in the Hellenistic period (c. 250-225 BCE),52 cites from the book of Chronicles (cf. Qoh. 6.2; 5.18 with 2 Chron. 1.12).53 2. The book of Ben Sira (The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus) from the beginning of the second century (about 50. See, e.g., A. Malamat, 'King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies', JAOS 88 (1968), pp. 168-73; idem, Israel in Biblical Times: Historical Essays (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute/Israel Exploration Society, 1983 [Hebrew]), pp. 24-45; idem, 'Tribal Societies: Biblical Genealogies and African Lineage Systems', in idem, History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (CHANE, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001), pp. 41-53. For more bibliography on this issue see Kalimi, The Books of Chronicles: A Classified Bibliography, pp. 117-20, items 1000-35. 51. See Knoppers, 'Greek Historiography and the Chronicler's History', p. 643. 52. For the dating of Qoheleth, see J. L. Crenshaw,' Ecclesiastes, Book of, in ABD, II, pp. 271-80(274-75). 53. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten, p. 121, and The Book of Chronicles, pp. 133-34.
358
God's Word for Our World
3.
4.
5.
190 BCE), in his 'Praise to the Elderly Fathers', describes King David as one who established and arranged the singers and musical groups in the Jerusalem temple cult (Ben Sira 47.8-10). This description is based on the description of David in 1 Chron. 15.16-21 (an 'addition' to 2 Sam. 6); 16.4-42;5425.1-31 (an 'addition').55 In other words, several decades prior to the Maccabean period the book of Chronicles was used already as an authoritative scripture. The book of Chronicles served as an authoritative scripture for the author of Dan. 1.1 -21,56 In this introductory account to Daniel 2-6, which was composed 'sometime before the Maccabean period',57 Dan. 1.2 is a citation of 2 Chron. 36.6-T.58 The Jewish-Hellenistic historian, Eupolemus, who lived in the mid second-century BCE, composed a book apparently entitled On the Kings in Judea.59 In this book he discusses in detail the time from David to the devastation of the Southern Kingdom. Eupolemus preferred, however, to rely more on the book of Chronicles than on the books of Samuel and Kings.60 The most important Greek version of the book of Chronicles (LXX-B) was prepared, apparently, prior to mid-second century BCE. Eupolemus made use of it,61 that is, this Greek translation of
54. Verses 8-36 are parallel to Pss. 96.1-13; 105.1-15; 106.47-48; 107.1. 55. See I. Kalimi, 'History of Interpretation: The Book of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition—From Daniel to Spinoza', RB 105 (1998), pp. 5-41 (12-13). 56. See in detail, Kalimi, 'History of Interpretation', pp. 5-41. A limited use of Chronicles can be seen presumably also in the book of Ecclesiastes, which was apparently written in the Hellenistic period. Compare Ecc. 6.2 with 2 Chron. 1.1 Ib, 12b (//I Kgs3.11c, 13a),andseeKa\imi,ZurGeschichtsschreibungdesChronisten,p. 121, and The Book of Chronicles, pp. 133-34. 57. J.J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 129 (my emphasis), and cf. also p. 38. 58. See in detail, Kalimi, 'History of Interpretation', pp. 8-10. 59. The book called so by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.153, 4. For more details, see N. Walter, Fragmente judisch-hellenistischer Historiker (JSHRZ, 1.2; Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 1976), p. 93; A. Fallon, 'Eupolemus', inOTP, II, pp. 861-72(861). 60. See in detail Kalimi, 'History of Interpretation', pp. 15-17. 61. See G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint II Chronicles (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1946), pp. 3-45; Kalimi, ZurGeschichtsschreibungdesChronisten, pp. 12-13 n. 44, and The Book of Chronicles, p. 15 n. 46.
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
359
Chronicles was already completed at the beginning of the Hasmonean period. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the Hebrew Vorlage of the book was composed much earlier! On the other hand, one must admit that the book of Chronicles does have not only some Persian words, names and events from the Persian period, but also some anachronisms from that period, as already mentioned above. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the book was composed some time in the Persian age (539-332 BCE). But when exactly, in the span of almost two hundred years of the Persian rule, was the book composed? e. Persian Period Also among those scholars who hold a position in between these two extreme dates (see above) there is disagreement: E. J. Young places the date of the composition in the latter half of the fifth century BCE, between 450 and 425—however, not before Ezra's time.62 Similarly dates P.K. Hooker: 'in the second half of the fifth century BC, or after 450'.63 W.F. Albright,64 J.W. Rothstein and J. Hanel hold that the book was written about 432 and had received its final form around 400 BCE;65 Y. Kaufmann concludes that the book's origin lies 'in the second half of the Persian epoch',66 that is, between 430 and 332 BCE; W. Rudolph gives the date as around 400 or a little later;67 R.W. Klein prefers 'the late 5th or 4th century';68 M.J. Selman is of the opinion that 'a date for Chronicles around 400 BC is more 62. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 389. 63. See P.K. Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (WBC; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), p. 4. 64. Albright, 'The Chronicler', pp. 104-24. 65. J.W. Rothstein and J. Hanel, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (KAT, 18.2; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1927), pp. Ixix, 46. 66. Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1960 [Hebrew]), VIII, p. 453. 67. W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT, 20; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1949), pp. xxiv-xxv; idem, 'Problems of the Book of Chronicles', p. 402 (the book was composed around 400 BCE, not extended in the course of time—until the Maccabean epoch); idem, Chronikbucher, p. x. Also Myers, 1 Chronicles, p. Ixxxix; M.Z. (= M.H.) Segal, Introduction to the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1977 [Hebrew]), p. 801; Y.M. Grintz, 'The Life of David According to the Book of Samuel and I Chronicles', in Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History (Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House, 1969), pp. 344-53 (348) (= Beit Mikra 1 [1957], pp. 69-75 [72]) (both Hebrew). 68. See R.W. Klein, 'Chronicles, Book of 1-2', in ABD, I, pp. 992-1002 (995).
360
God's Word for Our World
probable, but any date in the fourth century would be quite reasonable'.69 R.K. Harrison dates the book in the last decades of the fifth century or a little later;70 SJ. De Vries presumes that the date of the book could not be earlier than 400 BCE.71 A. Bentzen's suggestion is shortly after 400 BCE.72 E. Bickermann, B. Mazar, L.C. Allen and P.B. Dirksen date it within the first half of the fourth century BCE;73 P. Ackroyd, R.J. Coggins and H.G.M. Williamson estimate the date to be around the middle of the fourth century BCE;74 O. Eissfeld the second half of the fourth century BCE;75 and W. Johnstone thinks that 'the Chronicler is writing in the fourth century BCE, that is, 200 or so years after the edict of the Persian emperor, Cyrus, in 538 BCE', that is, about 338 BCE;76 and similarly A. Rofe, 'towards the end of the Persian Empire in the fourth century BCE'.77 In the following sections I express my positions concerning the cardinal issues involved with the dating of the book of Chronicles.
69. M.J. Selman, / Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester/Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), pp.70-71 (71). 70. R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), pp. 1152-71(1157). 71. See S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOIL, 11; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), p. 17. 72. A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, 2nd edn, 1952), II, p. 215. 73. E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundation ofPostBiblicalJudaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1966), pp. 11-31 (30); Mazar, 'Chronicles', p. 605; L.C. Allen, 'The First and Second Books of Chronicles: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections', in Leander Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), III, pp. 299-301 (301); P.B. Dirksen, 1 Kronieken (COT; Kampen: Kok, 2003), pp. 25-26. 74. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia, pp. 294-95; idem, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 25-27; Coggins, The First and Second Books of Chronicles, p. 4; Williamson, I and 2 Chronicles, p. 16; although in his book, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) p. 86, he is more vague: 'sometime in the fourth century'. See also Jones, I &2 Chronicles, p. 94. 75. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 668 (= idem, The Old Testament: An Introduction, p. 540). 76 W. Johnstone, 1 and2 Chronicles. 1.1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles 9—Israel's Place among the Nations (JSOTSup, 253; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), p. 10. See also W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History (JSOTSup, 160; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 26 ('late Persian period'). 77. See Rofe, Introduction to the Historical Literature, p. 59, and see also p. 61.
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
361
2. The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra—Nehemiah, Chronicle's Extent and Its Date There are several ancient Jewish and Christian sources that testify that Ezra and Nehemiah should be considered as one book.78 However, it is not the case with Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. We do not have any ancient source that considers them as one composition. Although from the linguistic viewpoint there is no clear evidence for either a common or separate authorship for Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah,79 there are, nonetheless, considerable theological, historical and historiographical differences between Ezra-Nehemiah on the one hand and Chronicles on the other. Some examples are as follows: 1. On the issue of inter-marriage with non-Jews, Ezra-Nehemiah expresses a sharp opposition (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13.1-3, 23-27), while the Chronicler avoids discussion of the issue altogether. Moreover, he does not refrain from mentioning the Canaanite wife of Judah, the eponymous matriarch of the core tribe of the Kingdom of Judah and his contemporary Yehud Madinta (1 Chron. 2.3). Likewise one can speak about the mention of David's aunt, Abigail, who married Jether, the Ishmaelite (father 78. See in detail Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten, pp. 7-8 n. 26; idem, The Book of Chronicles, p. 9 n. 28. 79. See M.A. Throntveit, 'Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah', VT32 (1982), pp. 201-16: 'While I am among those who doubt the common authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, I do not think linguistic analysis is capable of providing definite proof either way' (p. 215); D. Talshir, 'A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship Between Chronicles and EzraNehemiah', FT 38 (1988), pp. 165-93. Talshir concludes that the linguistic examination demonstrates that the 'assumption that these two books are the product of separate authors is unfounded.. .but admittedly lack of linguistic oppositions in itself is no proof of identical authorship... Both sides must now proceed from a new vantage point' (pp. 192-93). Contra S. Japhet, 'The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew', PT18 (1968), pp. 330-71. A sharp objection to some of Japhet's conclusions has been stated already by Newsome, 'Understanding of the Chronicler', pp. 201-17 (202 n. 10). Braun questions as well the ability of linguistic inquiry to offer any solution to this issue, see R.L. Braun, 'Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History', in his Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. 52-64. See also Mosis, Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 214-15 n. 23 (215), who concludes: 'Der neuerliche Versuch Japhets, "Common Authorship", die sprachlichen Griinde fur die Zusammengehorigkeit von Chr/Esr-Neh zu entkraften, tiberzeugt nicht'.
362
God's Word for Our World
2.
3.
of Amasa; 1 Chron. 2.17).80 The skillful man who worked in gold and silver etc. was 'son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre' (2 Chron. 2.12-13; cf. 1 Kgs 7.13-14). King Solomon married an Egyptian woman, Pharaoh's daughter (2 Chron. 8.11//1 Kgs 9.24). The mother of his son Rehoboam, king of Judah, was Naamah, anAmmonitess (2 Chron. 12.13//1 Kgs 14.21). To put it another way, Solomon married an Ammonite woman!81 In 2 Chron. 24.26 the Chronicler wrote: 'And these are they who conspired against him; Zabad the son of Shimeat, an Ammonitess, and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith a Moabitess\ instead of simply' Jozachar the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shomer' in 2 Kgs 12.23. The Chronicler does not refer to any of Solomon's sins that are mentioned clearly in the Deuteronomistic History (1 Kgs 11.1-13). Furthermore, he even alters the texts from SamuelKings in order to avoid any allusion to Solomon's transgressions.82 By contrast, Nehemiah refers directly to them: 'Did not King Solomon of Israel sin on account of such women.. .foreign women made even him to sin' (Neh. 13.26). According to Ezra 3.2, 8; 5.2; Neh. 12.1,83 Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel, the oldest son of Jehoiachin, king of Judah. However, according to 1 Chron. 3.19, Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, the third son of Jechoniah.84
80. Compare, however, with the change in the parallel text, 2 Sam. 17.25. 81. This fact is definitely in contrast to the Pentateuch' s law, which clearly forbade marriages with the Ammonites and Moabites (Deut. 23.4-5). Though, generally, the Chronicler makes harmonization between the Torah's law and contradictory texts from the books of Samuel and Kings. However, he did not demonstrate consistency in his work. See in detail Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten, pp. 127-43, 327-29; idem, The Book of Chronicles, pp. 140-56,363-65; contra Rudolph (Chronikbticher, p. 235) who considers 2 Chron. 12.13-14 as material not from the Chronicler himself but a later addition. The content of v. 14a, which is rooted so deeply in the Chronicler's theology, makes Rudolph's suggestion impossible. It is noteworthy to mention that the Rabbis did not overlook this problem. Thus, in the b. Baba Qama 38b, Naamah was compared with Ruth the Moabitess, that is, she became a Jewess prior to her marriage with King Solomon. 82. See Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten, pp. 87-88, and The Book of Chronicles, p. 96. 83. See also Hag. 1.1, 12, 14; 2.2, 23. 84. In the LXX (Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) it is written in 1 Chron. 3.19 KCU 6101 IaAa0ir)A ZopofJafJeA, in contrast to the MT where one reads 'and the sons of Pedaiah:
KALIMI TheDateof the Book of Chronicles 4.
5.
363
In the non-parallel texts of Chronicles there are several descriptions of God's direct intervention in human action,85 while this feature is completely absent from the narration of Ezra-Nehemiah. As already stressed by Braun, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah differ in 'the concept and terms associated with the doctrine of retribution, in their attitude towards the surrounding inhabitants of the land, and at a minimum in its greater emphasis upon Davidic monarchy'.86
The assumption of a common authorship for Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, therefore, is unacceptable. Thus, I find myself among the scholars who consider these books as different writings, composed by different authors in different times. Furthermore, I view 1 Chron. 1.1-2 Chron. 36.23 mainly as one literary complex. The general use of the same technique and similar literary and historiographical devices in all parts of Chronicles, that is, in the parallel texts as well as in those texts without any parallels to other biblical writings, demonstrates the literary unity of the book and its original extent.87 3. Terminus a quo: The List of David's Descendants It seems that one can find the most important clue to a terminus a quo for the composition of Chronicles in the list of David's descendants in 1 Chron. 3.19-24.88 This genealogy was composed by the Chronicler himself (not a later addition as claimed by I. Benzinger and W. Rudolph)89 Zerubbalbel...' but this is an attempt to harmonize this contradictory information, which can be attributed either to the ancient translator or to a later copyist. 85. See, e.g., 2 Chron. 7.1-4 (the theophany in the new Temple); 13.13-17 (God gave victory over Jeroboam and the Northern tribes); 20.22-30 (God defeated the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites); 26.6-8 (divine help against Philistines, Arabs and Meunites). 86. See Braun, 'Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah', p. 63. 87. See Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten, pp. 321-24; idem, Historical Writing and Literary Devices, pp. 388-89. 88. Horbury's consideration of 1 Chron. 3 as a chapter which '[would] have been viewed against the background' of such Davidic oracles as Isa. 11, is extremely weak. See W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998), p. 43. 89. See Benzinger, Die Bticher der Chronik, pp. xv, 1; Rudolph, Chronikbucher, pp. vii, 1, 22. Their arguments were discarded by T.S. Im, 'Das Davidbild in den
364
God's Word for Our World
downward to his own generation. This list, however, is quite problematic, because the number of generations after Zerubbabel is not clear. In the LXX uios aurou (= in, 'his son') is written five times in v. 21 (compare also Peshitta and Vulgate): four times instead of the Hebrew ^"2, and once at the end of the verse, after the name rnDK? before the word "ODl (plural, LXX: singular) at the beginning of v. 22. Thus, these versions count eleven generations after Zerubbabel. MT on the other hand lists only six generations after Zerubbabel: Hananiah, Shechaniah, Shemaiah, Neariah, Elioenai, Hodaiahu. Some scholars assume that this particular passage of the MT was corrupted by a later editor, but the opinions are quite different concerning the reconstruction of the original version: some suppose that the list of generations after Zerubbabel contained either five90 or four,91 others even claim that it consisted of only two: Pelatiah and Jesaiah.92 Apparently, the translator(s) of the ancient Greek (as well as of the Syrian and Latin) version tried to clarify their difficult Hebrew Vorlage of the list, and to apply it to their own time as close as possible.93 The corruptness of the MT has not been proven, though; rather, it seems to be the case that the original version in fact encompassed six generations after Zerubbabel.94 At this point two questions arise: From which point in time are the generations after Zerubbabel counted? And how many years are to be assumed for one generation, that is, from the birth of the father to the birth of the son? Here also the opinions are different. Some count 30 years per generation,95 others 27.596 or 25,97 but most scholars calculate 20 years per generation.98 Some scholars assumed that the starting-point for the accountChronikbiichern' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rheinischen-Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitat Bonn, 1984), pp. 31-34. 90. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, II, p. 215. 91. Rothstein and Hanel, Kommentarzum ersten Buck der Chronik, pp. 43,46-47. 92. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 391. 93. Compare Curtis and Madsen, The Books of Chronicles, p. 6; Elmslie, The Books of Chronicles, pp. xviii-xix; Albright, 'The Chronicler', pp. 108, 110. 94. Contra Driver, An Introduction, p. 518. 95. E.g. Curtis and Madsen, The Books of Chronicles, pp. 5-6. 96. Albright, The Biblical Period', p. 65 n. 139. 97. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, II, p. 215; Braun, / Chronicles, p. 54. 98. E.g. Kittel, Die Bu'cher der Chronik, p. 26; Rothstein and Hanel, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik, p. 46; Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 391.
KALIMI TheDateof the Book of Chronicles
365
ing of the generations was after Zerubbabel (either the year 540 or 538 BCE was proposed, or even 570)." However, the year 520 BCE is commonly accepted. Working with a minimum of 20 years per generation we approximately reach the year 400 BCE, if we count six generations from the year 520 BCE. In his study of biblical chronology A. Kamphausen claims that the average duration of one generation is 23 years.100 He based this on the accounts of the reigns of Israelite kings as they are related in the book of Kings. Indeed, the information about the duration of the Babylonian exile as expressed in Jeremiah supports a time of approximately 23-24 years per generation. In Jer. 27.6-7 it is written: 'Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon... All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes.' According to this text, Jeremiah counts three generations for the time of the Babylonian exile. Elsewhere, he gives the absolute number of seventy years for the same period: 'and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord' (Jer. 25.11-12 compare 29.10). Jeremiah's words, however, cannot be viewed, historically, as absolutely correct,101 for Nebuchadnezzar II was followed by his son, Awil-Marduk. A revolt broke out after him, and Nergal-sar-usur, Labasi-Marduk and Nabonidus (who did not descend from the house of Nebuchadnezzar) reigned successively. During the reign of Nabonidus, Babylon was ruled by the Persian emperor Cyrus II (538 BCE). Also, the number seventy might better be understood typologically, such as, for example, 'seventy years' (Zech. 1.12; 7.5), 'seventy days' (Gen. 50.3), 'seventy descendants' (Exod. 1.5; Deut. 10.22), 'seventy sons' (Judg. 8.30; 9.2.5), rather than literally. Indeed, it is barely fifty years from the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah (587/6 BCE) to the beginning of the return from the Babylonian exile (538 BCE). Similarly, 'seventy years' was the time that the city of Babylon should stay in 99. Rothstein and Hanel, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik, p. 46; see also Myers, / Chronicles, p. 21. 100. A. Kamphausen, Die Chronologic der hebrdischen Konige. Eine geschichtliche Untersuchung (Bonn: M. Cohen & Sohn, 1883), pp. 38-39. 101. Generations of scholars disputed concerning the calculation of the 'seventy years' in Jeremiah's prophecy. For an early example for this, see Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra's commentary on Dan. 9.2, where he informs in detail about his dispute with Rabbi Judah haLevi, most probably before ibn Ezra's leaving Spain because of the Islamic zealous, Al-Muchadien in mid-twelfth century.
366
God's Word for Our World
its ruin (since its destruction by Sennacherib), as it was written down by Marduk in the Book of Fate. However, 'the merciful Marduk—his anger lasted but a moment—turned it [the book] upside down ordered its (the city's) restoration in the eleventh year'.102 Nevertheless, this does not impair the literary parallel, nor is the common biblical understanding of the duration of one generation affected by it. According to this calculation of 23-24 years per generation we would reach the years 382-376 BCE, if we count six generations from Zerubbabel. It follows from these considerations that Chronicles should be composed in the late fifth or early fourth century BCE, but in any case not after the first quarter of the fourth century BCE. It is worth emphasizing, once again, that the book shows no influence from the Hellenistic period. 4. The Elephantine Papyri In the fourteenth year of the reign of Darius II, king of Persia (407 BCE), the Jewish mercenaries who settled on the Elephantine island of the Nile sent a letter (written in Aramaic) to Bogoas the Persian governor of Yehud, to the high priest Jehochanan (II), the other priests of Jerusalem, to "HS 'T 'mnK ]mo« ('Ostan the brother of Anani') and to the most respected among the Jews. In the letter they request for intercession concerning the reconstruction of their destroyed temple of'Yaho the God of Heaven'.103 Several scholars hold the opinion that the Anani mentioned in this letter is identical with the one who concludes the list of David's descendants in 1 Chron. 3.24.104 Accordingly, this Anani would owe his high rank to his 102. See D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (New York: Greenwood Press, 1926), II, p. 243 §643. To be sure, as Luckenbill noted (p. 242 §639): 'The Babylonian numeral "70" turned upside down or reversed, becomes "11", just as our printed "9" turned upside down, becomes "6"'. 103. A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), no. 3011.18-19//no. 31 11. 17-18; H.L.Ginsberg, inANET,p. 492 n. 16. See also I. Kottsieper, 'Die Religionspolitk der Achameniden und die Juden von Elephantine', in R.G. Kratz (ed.), Religion und Religionskontakte in Zeitalter der Achameniden (Gutersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 2001), pp. 150-78; B. Becking, 'Die Gottheiten der Juden in Elephantine', in M. Oeming and K. Schmid (eds.), Der eine Gott und die Gotter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT, 82; Zurich: Ziircher Verlag, 2003), pp. 203-26. 104. See, e.g., E. Meyer, DerPapyrusfundvon Elephantine (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 3rd edn, 1912), p. 73 n. 3: 'Letzter (i.e. Anani - I.K.) kann sehr wohl unsere Anani sein (i.e. the one mentioned in 1 Chron. 3.24 - I.K.)'; Cross, 'Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', p. 17.
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
367
ancestry from the Davidic house of kings, and 'Ostan' would be either the Persian name of one of his brethren or the term 'brother' would not have to be taken literally, but rather in the sense of 'a person related to him'.105 This would support the dating of Chronicles around the year 400 BCE. Although the identification of Anani is uncertain,106 it should not be ignored completely in the course of argument. 5. The El-Ibrahimiah 's Aramaic Grave Inscription Over a hundred years ago within the ancient cemetery of El-Ibrahimiah in northeastern Alexandria, epitaphs of men, probably mercenaries, of different ethnical origins were found, some of whom had been Jews. In one inscription it is written:107 rrnpu "irr^K-a ''D
Akabia | son of Eljoe nai
According to various scholars this inscription originates from the Hellenistic period, more precisely, from the beginning of the Ptolemaic epoch (dawning of the third century BCE).108 105. Cf., e.g., Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, p. 73 n. 3; E.G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (New Haven: Yale University Press; London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1953), pp. 108-109; Ginsberg, inANET, p. 605. 106. For this point see also J. Liver, The House of David (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1959), pp. 16-17 (Hebrew). 107. This inscription was first published by Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, 'L'antique necropole juive d'Alexandrie', Recueil d'archeologie orientale. VIII. Juillet 1907, Livre 5 (Paris, n.p., 1924), pp. 59-65; idem, 'L'antique necropole juive d'Alexandria', Repertoire D'epigraphie Semitique (Paris, n.p., 1907-14), II, no. 797 (pp. 174-75). Later it was published by M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeres fur semitische Epigraphik (Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1909), III, p. 49; recently republished by W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions ofGraeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 3-6, no. 3. 108. See L. Fuchs, Die Juden Agyptens in ptolemdischer und romischer Zeit (Vienna: M. Rath Verlag, 1924), pp. 7-8; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (A New English Version revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), p. 47. For a detailed introduction and discussion cf. Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, III. 1, pp. 4-5. Lidzbarski, Ephemerisfur semitische Epigraphik, III, p. 49, dated the inscription to the third-second century BCE.
368
God's Word for Our World
In the research on the book of Chronicles this inscription was virtually not taken into account. Clermont-Ganneau, however, had pointed out that TUT ^8 "13 iTDpU in this Aramaic inscription could be identified with the Akkub (Dpi?) of 1 Chron. 3.24 who was one of the seven sons of Eljoenai.109 In accordance with 1 Chron. 3.24 this Akkub had a brother named Anani. It is obvious, though, that it would be impossible to equate the Akabia, who is mentioned in the inscription on the tomb (which is from the beginning of the third century BCE), with Akkub the brother of Anani in 3.24, if this Anani is correctly identified with the one, who is characterized as the brother of Ostan in the papyri of Elephantine from the fourteenth year of the reign of Darius II.110 By the same token it would be logically impossible to identify the Anani who is mentioned in the Elephantine papyri from 407 BCE with Anani the brother of Akkub (3.24), if this Akkub would be equated to the TUT ^N "ID IT Dpi? inscribed on the tomb from the beginning of the third century BCE, because there are, obviously, many generations between them. At best we can use only one of these non-biblical sources to help us define a terminus a quo for the composition date of Chronicles. As I have shown above, the only indication for a terminus a quo for Chronicles lies in the list of generations after Zerubbabel in the MT of 1 Chron. 3.19-24, which counts six generations after Zerubbabel, and leads to the year 400 BCE if we assume a generation to last for 20 years, or to the years 382-376 BCE with a generation lasting for 23-24 years. This is approximately 75 to 100 years before the supposed date of the epitaphs of El-Ibrahimiah. Moreover, as stressed above, there is no indication of language, culture and historical events from the Hellenistic period in Chronicles, and the book lacks any anachronism from that time. For these reasons we cannot use the Aramaic epitaph from El-Ibrahimiah for the dating of Chronicles, and hence it follows that the papyri from Elephantine offer only limited support to this issue, supposing that the Anani mentioned in these papyri is indeed identical to the one in 1 Chron. 3.24. This is reinforced by the fact that 'Anani' was a name seldom used, while ITDpU/Dp:? and ^UV^Din^N/^lT^K were quite
109. See Clermont-Ganneau, 'L'antique necropole juive d'Alexandrie', pp. 61-65; compare also Lidzbarski, Ephemeris fur semitische Epigraphik, III, p. 49. 110. See Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, no. 3011. 18-19//no. 3111. 17-18 (pp. 112,120; English translation, pp. 114, 121).
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
369
common during the Second Temple era.111 This increases the probability that Anani of 1 Chron. 3.24 is the Anani who is the brother of Ostan. Now, it is more doubtful that TUT1 ^ "H H'npi: can be identified with mpl? the son of TITT1^ (1 Chron. 3.24). The scholars who favor the version of the LXX, as well as the Peshitta and the Vulgate of 1 Chron. 3.24 (which list eleven generations after Zerubbabel), can rely on this epitaph, if they assume a minimum of 20 years per generation. This calculation accounts for eleven generations from 520 BCE approximately to the year 300 BCE. However, this Greek version of 3.24 is probably not the original version of Chronicles, as I stressed above. Counting 23-24 years for each of these eleven generations, according to the common biblical understanding (see above), we reach a time between 267-256 BCE, which is after the dating of the Aramaic epitaph. Therefore, once again, this inscription is not applicable to the dating of Chronicles. Nevertheless, even if the epitaph from Egypt applied to one of Eljoenai's descendants who lived many generations after the Eljoenai of 1 Chron. 3.24, they were two different persons with the same names. Quite probably the similarity between TITT ^ "Q rr 3pl? and mp:) son of TUV ^ in Chronicles testifies to a papanomic custom of this family. It remains to be emphasized that apart from this epitaph and the genealogy of David's descendants there is no further evidence that these two names designate 111. Akkub also is the name of a Levite who was a Torah teacher to the people (Neh. 8.7); Sons of Akkub also appear in the list of the gatekeepers in 1 Chron. 9.17; Ezra 2.42//Neh. 7.45. hi Ezra 2.45 (= 1 Esd. 5.30) the sons of Akkub are mentioned with the temple servants who returned from Babylon. The name DpU appears in a papyri from Elephantine, see Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, no. 54 1. 10 (p. 159): "Q3 21pi? (Akub-Nebo); Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, Papyrus 8, line 10 (Brooklyn 47.218.96): KSD 13 nptf ('Aqab bar Kp') (p. 226; English translation, p. 227, for debate see p. 230). He also appears in documents from Bet Murasu: lA-qabi-ia-a-ma, lAq-bi-ia-a-man = Akabia; A-qu-bu, Aq-qu-bia = Akkub(ia), see also M.D. Coogan, West Semitic Personal Names in the Murasu Documents (HSM, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), pp. 32-33; R. Borger, 'Einige westsemitische Personennamen aus mesopotamischen Quellen', in O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments (= TUAT), Band I Lieferung 4: Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden Historisch-chronologische 7ejtte/(Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlaghaus/Gerd Mohn, 1984), pp. 411-18 (415). From this same root also comes the name DpIT (in past). It is worth mentioning that in later times, that is, in rabbinic literature, one finds '?»L?lTtQ p N'^py (m. 'Eduyyot 5.6), too; also very well known is the Tanna Rabbi Akiba; compare also Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, p. 5.
370
God's Word for Our World
father and son. This meeting of the names i"PDpl?/DlpI7 and T1TT ^N in two different places and times might be understood as papanomy—if Akabia bar Eljoenai is a descendant of the biblical Akkub of the genealogy of 1 Chronicles at all, or it is simply coincidence. All in all, the Aramaic grave inscription from the ancient cemetery of El-Ibrahimiah,' Akabjah son of Elioenai', does not help resolve the precise date of the book of Chronicles. 6. Conclusion The book of Chronicles was composed, certainly, in the Second Temple period. To be more precise, one can even claim that it happened in the span of the time between Cyrus' decree (538 BCE) and sometime prior to Eupolemus (c. 150 BCE). There is, however, enormous diversity surrounding when exactly between these dates Chronicles' composition should be situated. Here we admit that the number of proposals for the date of Chronicles is almost as large as the number of scholars themselves. There are several hundred years difference between some proposals. All these reflect the great controversy in the scholarship over the issue. The book of Chronicles, on the one hand, neither contains Greek words nor does it reflect any feature of Hellenistic thought or a specific influence of cultural or historical events. There is also not any indication of anachronism from the Hellenistic period in the book. On the other hand, Chronicles does have some Persian words and names, and even mentions events from the Persian period. Some genealogical lists, such as 1 Chron. 3.1-24, extend into the Persian period. It has also some anachronisms from the Persian period, for instance in 1 Chron. 29.7. Accordingly, it is reasonable to presume that the book was composed some time in the Persian era (539-332 BCE), but before the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (332 BCE). The dating of the book of Chronicles depends to a high degree on scholars' approach to the basic problems of this book: first and foremost the question concerning the presumed common authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah and the extent of the original text of the book itself. There is widespread controversy on these and other problems. Moreover, even those who accept that the key to the dating of Chronicles is to be found in the genealogy of the Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3.24) disagree on the number of generations listed there as well as on the average duration of one generation.
KALIMI The Date of the Book of Chronicles
371
This study argues that in all appearances 1 Chron. 1.1-2 Chron. 36.23 represents a more or less coherent literary-historiographic unit which is so distinct from Ezra-Nehemiah that a common authorship seems to be out of the question. The only indication for a terminus a quo is to be found in the MT of 1 Chron. 3.19-24. The six generations after Zerubbabel, which are listed there, lead to the year 400 BCE, if 20 years per generation are assumed, or to the years 382-376 with one generation lasting for 23-24 years, that is, about the first quarter of the fourth century BCE. If the Anani mentioned in the papyri from Elephantine (407 BCE) is identical to the one in 1 Chron. 3.24, this also results in a terminus a quo very close to that time. The figure mentioned in the Aramaic grave inscription from the ancient cemetery of El-Ibrahimiah (beginning of the third century BCE),' Akabjah son of Elioenai', cannot be identified with the Akkub who was one of the seven sons of Elioenai in the genealogy of the house of David (1 Chron. 3.24). Hence, this inscription cannot be regarded as a support for the dating of the book of Chronicles. The similarity between TUT^N "Q iTDpU and Dlpl? son of Tirrbtt in 1 Chronicles 3 indicates a papanomic habit of this family or merely coincidence. At the present time, considering lack of knowledge and in view of the scarcity of external evidence, it seems improbable to reach a more precise and reasonable resolution to dating of the book of Chronicles.
THE WORK OF SIMON JOHN DE VRIES
1950 'The Concept of the Fear of God in the Old Testament' (unpublished STM thesis, Union Theological Seminary, New York). 1952 'What About the New Bible? An Appraisal of the Revised Standard Old Testament', Calvin Forum 18: 77-81. 'Calvin's Attitude Towards Art and Amusements', Calvin Forum 18: 101-107. 1953 'The Radicalism of Thomas Muenzer: A Chapter from the History of Anabaptism', Reformed Journal (August) 3: 11-14. 'Muenzer's Separatism', Reformed Journal (September) 3: 13-15. 1954 'Confusion on the Union Issue', Reformed Journal (April) 4: 10-13. 1955 'The Battle of the Scrolls', Calvin Forum 21: 5-8. Review of M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, and E. Wilson, The Scrollsfrom the Dead Sea, Calvin Forum 21: 102-103. 'Yahweh: God's Forgotten Name', The Banner 90: 1190-91. 1956 'Faith-Healing—or Healing Faith?', The Banner 91: 166-67. 'Are You Prejudiced? A Discussion of the Race Question', The Banner 91:710-11. 'The True Fear of God', The Banner 91: 1478-79, 1491. 1957 'Class Barriers and the Church', The Banner (April) 92: 6-7. 'The Heresy of Formalism', The Banner (July) 92: 6-7. 1958 Review of J. Reider (ed.), The Book of Wisdom, Drew Gateway (Spring): 212-13. Review of H.G.G. Herklots, The Ten Commandments and Modern Man, Drew Gateway (Spring) 213-14. Review of R.H. Pfeiffer and W.G. Pollard, The Hebrew Iliad, Drew Gateway (Spring): 214-15. Review of N.H. Ridderbos, Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?, Reformed Journal (April) 8: 20-21.
The Work of Simon John De Vries
373
'A Hundred Years of Dutch Old Testament Study: The Development of Old Testament Criticism in the Netherlands since 1850, with Special Reference to Pentateuchal Problems' (unpublished ThD dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, New York).
1959 Review of H. Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, Reformed Journal (October) 9: 23. Review of C.F. Whitley, The Exilic Age, JBL 78: 264 'The Distortion of Denominational Ideals: 1. Traditionalism', Reformed Journal (September) 9: 14-16. 'The Distortion of Denominational Ideals: 2. Dogmatism', Reformed Journal (November) 9: 18-19. 'The Distortion of Denominational Ideals: 3. Legalism', Reformed Journal (December) 9: 18-20. 1960 'The Distortion of Denominational Ideals: 4. Separatism', Reformed Journal (April) 10: 11-13. Review of J.D.W. Kritzinger, Qehal Yahwe, JBL 79: 195-96. Review of C.H.W. Brekelmans, De herem in het Oude Testament, JBL 79: 390. 1961 'Recovering a Historical Revelation', Reformed Journal (April) 11: 14-16. Review of J.G.S.S. Thomson, The Old Testament View of Revelation, Reformed Review. 15.44. Review of J. Pelikan (ed.), Lectures on Genesis, Luther's Works, II, Reformed Review 15: 46-47. 1962 'Remembrance in Ezekiel. A Study of an Old Testament Theme', Int 16: 58-64. 'Biblical Criticism, History of, 'Blasphemy', 'Calendar', 'Chronology of the Old Testament', 'Day', 'Dial', 'Ethanim', 'Evil', 'Fall', 'Generation', 'Hour', 'Ignorance', 'Lying', 'Night', 'Rebekah', 'Sarah 1', 'Shame', 'Sin', 'Sinners', 'Tamar 1,2,3', 'Zilpah', in IDE, I: 413-18, 445, 483-48, 580-99, 783, 840; II: 153, 182-83, 235-37, 366, 656-57, 680-81; HI: 192-93, 549; IV: 14, 219-20, 305-6, 361-76, 515-16, 958. Review of A. Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, Reformed Review 15: 46. Review of K.R. Crim, The Royal Psalms, Reformed Review 15: 50. 1963 'The Hexateuchal Criticism of Abraham Kuenen', JBL 82: 31-57. Review of A. Richardson (ed.), A Theological Word Book of the Bible, Reformed Review 16: 43. Translation of H. Berkhof, 'A Beginning: The Roman Catholic Church and Ourselves', Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 2: 26-29. Review of J. Muilenburg, The Way of Israel, Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 2: 40-41.
374
God's Word for Our World
1964 Review of J. Gray, / and II Kings: A Commentary, Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 3: 21-23. Review of D. Baly, Geographical Companion to the Bible, Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 3: 23-24. Review of F.F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple, Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 3: 24-25. Review of S. Terrien, The Bible and the Church, Reformed Review 18: 37-38. 1965 Review of J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, JBL 84: 76-79. 'Consecutive Constructions in the 1Q Sectarian Scrolls', in T. Naamani et al. (eds.), Doron, Hebraic Studies (Festschrift A.I. Katsch; New York: Ktav): 75-87. 'Note Concerning the Fear of God in the Qumran Scrolls', RevQ 18: 233-37. 'The Vision on the Mountain', The Pulpit 36: 4-6. The Syntax of Tenses and Interpretation in the Hodayoth', RevQ 19: 375-414. 1966 'The Acrostic of Nahum in the Jerusalem Liturgy', FT 16: 476-81. Review of E. Nielsen, Die Zehn Gebote: VT16: 530-34. 'Basic Issues in Old Testament Hermeneutics', Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 5: 1-19. 1967 'The Early Years of Barth and Bultmann' (a review of J.D. Smart, The Divided Mind of Modern Theology), Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 5:22-29. Review of K. Elliger, Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, JBL 86: 330-33. 'Preparation for Biblical Preaching II, IV' (with Edward C. Meyer), Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 6.1: 30-37; 6.2: 22-34. 1968 'The Origin of the Murmuring Tradition', JBL 87: 51-58. Bible and Theology in the Netherlands: Dutch Old Testament Criticism under Modernist and Conservative Auspices, 1850 to World War I (Cahier bij het Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 3; Wageningen: Veenman). Review of A. van Selms, Genesis (De Prediking van het Oude Testament), JBL 87: 208-209. 'The Teacher of Righteousness as the New Moses', Proceedings, Royal Arch Masonic Lodge, Columbus, OH 1968: 84-92. 1969 'Preparation for Biblical Preaching, VI, VIII' (with Edward C. Meyer), Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 7.1-2: 59-69; 8.1: 40-52. 1970 'Preparation for Biblical Preaching, X' (with Edward C. Meyer), Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 8.2: 27-37. 'Open Housing and the Biblical Law of Property', Christian Advocate 36.6: 7-8. Review of N.H. Snaith, The Book of Job, JBL 89: 99-100.
The Work of Simon John De Vries
375
Review of The Broadman Bible Commentary, I, JBL 89: 106-108. Review of J.R. Wilch, Time and Event, JBL 89: 474-76.
1971 'Preparation for Biblical Preaching, XIF (with Edward C. Meyer), Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 9.2: 9-23. Review of J. Lust, Traditie, redactie en kerygma bij Ezechiel, JBL 90: 116-17. 'The Book of Nahum, The Book of Habakkuk, The Book of Zephaniah', in C.M. Laymon (ed.), The Interpreter's One- Volume Commentary on the Bible (New York, Nashville: Abingdon): 491-500. Review of H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte des historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alien Testaments, 2te Auflage, BO 28: 77-78. Review of A. Alt, Grundfragen des Geschichte des Volkes Israel, BO 28: 222-26. Review of E. Wurthwein, K. Galling and O. Ploger, Die funf Megilloth, BO 28: 378. Review of D. Bonhoeffer, Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 8: 439. Review of R. Sorg, Ecumenic Psalm 87, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 8: 439-40. Review of P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 8: 664-65. Review of A. Eckhardt and R. Eckhardt, Encounter with Israel, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 8: 887-88. 1972 'Preparation for Biblical Preaching, XIIF (with Edward C. Meyer), Journal of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio 10.2: 1-14. Article, 'Kuenen, Abraham', inEncJud, X: cols. 1284-85. Review of W. Zimmerli, Man and his Hope in the Old Testament, JBL 91: 412-13. 1973 'David's Victory over the Philistine as Saga and as Legend', JBL 92: 23-36. Review of U. Mauser, Gottesbild und Menschwerdung: JBL 92: 124-25. Review of G.E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, BO 31: 302-304. 'The Development of the Deuteronomic Promulgation Formula', Bib 55: 301-16. 1974 Review of H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel, BO 30: 100-101. Review of I. Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments, BO 30: 101-102. Review of G. Liedke (ed.), Frieden-Bibel-Kirche, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11: 545. 1975 'The Time Word mahar as a Key to Tradition Development', ZAW81: 65-80. 'Temporal Terms as Structural Elements in the Holy-War Tradition', FT25: 80-105. 'Deuteronomy: Exemplar of a Non-Sacerdotal Appropriation of Sacred History', in J.I. Cook (ed.), Grace upon Grace, Essays in Honor of Lester J. Kuyper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 90-105. Review of H.W. Wolff (ed.), Gerhard von Rad, Seine Deutungfur die Theologie, BO 32: 234-35.
376
God's Word for Our World
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Time and History in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: SPCK).
1976 Review of L. Sabottka, Zephanja, Versuch einer Neu~iibersetzung, BO 33: 54-55. Review of C.M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy, Bib 57: 265-67. Review of M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss et al. (eds.), Travels in the World of the Old Testament (Festschrift for M.A. Beek), BO 33: 338-39. Review of A.S. Kapelrud, The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah, BO 33: 353. Review of C. Houtman, De hemel in het Oude Testament, JBL 95: 657-58. 'Chronology, Old Testament', inlDBSup: 161-66. 1977 Review ofR.E. Clements, One HundredYears ofOld Testament Interpretation, Int 31:317-18. 1978 Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (I Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 'Observations on Quantitative and Qualitative Time in Wisdom and Apocalyptic', in J.G. Gammieetal. (eds.), Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press): 263-76. Review of A.S. van der Woude, Micha (De Prediking van het Oude Testament), JBL 97: 278-80. Review of M.S.H.G. van Es et al. (eds.), Loven en Geloven (Festschrift N.H. Ridderbos), BO 35:290-91. 1979 'A Reply to G. Gerleman on malke hesed in 1 Kings xx 31, VT29: 359-62. Review of K. Huber and H.H. Schmid (eds.), Zurcher Bibel-Konkordanz, BO 36: 75-76. 'As You Read the Scriptures', International Lesson Annual (1979-80): 342-439. 1980 Review of A.S. van der Woude, Jona, Nahum andHabakuk, Zephanja (De Prediking van het Oude Testament), BO 37: 78-79. Review of Th. Booij, Godswoorden in de Psalmen, JBL 99: 451-53. 1981 Time in the Bible', in D. Power (ed.), The Times of Celebration (Concilium; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; New York: Seabury): 3-11 (with coordinating translations in Spanish, Dutch, French, German, and Italian). Review of W.A.M. Beuken,JesajadeelIIA (De Prediking van het Oude Testament), JBL 100: 634. 1982 Review of C. Houtman, Inleiding in de Pentateuch, BO 39: 178-79. Review of E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (2 vols.), Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19: 820-21.
The Work of Simon John De Vries
377
1983 The Achievements of Biblical Religion. Prolegomenon to Old Testament Theology (Washington: University Press of America). 'The Vision on the Mount: Moses, Elijah and Jesus' (Presidential Address), Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 3: 1-25. 1985 I Kings (WBC, 12; Waco, TX: Word Books). Review of S. Herrmann, Time and History, Horizons in Biblical Theology 7: 117-19. 1986 'The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', Hebrew Annual Review 10: 15-36. 'The Land's Sabbath in 2 Chronicles 36.21', Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 6: 96-103. 1987 Review of A.S. van der Woude, Zacharja, and of M.A. Beek, Prediker, Hooglied (De Prediking van het Oude Testament), JBL 106: 123-24. Review of D.A. Knight and G.M. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, BO 87: 150-52. 'The Schema of Dynastic Endangerment in Chronicles', Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 7: 59-77. 'A Review of Recent Research in the Tradition History of the Pentateuch', Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers: 459-502. 1988 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL, 11; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 'Moses and David as Cult-Founders in Chronicles', JBL 107: 619-39. 1989 'The Three Comparisons in 1 Kings xxii 4b and its Parallel and 2 Kings iii 7b', VT 39: 283-306. Bible and Theology in The Netherlands (American University Studies, 7.22; New York: Peter Lang, 1989). 1990 'Time, Biblical Perspectives on', in W.E. Mills et al. (eds.), Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Macon: Mercer University Press): 918-19. Review of J. Hughes, Secrets of the Times, BO 51: 630-32. 1991 Articles 'Calendar' and 'Time', in T.C. Butler (ed.), Holman 's Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Holman): 1347-49. 1992 Review of M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die genealogische Vorhalle 1 Chronik 1-9, JBL 111:701-702.
378
God's Word for Our World
1993 'Kuenen's Pentateuchal Research in Comparison with Recent Pentateuchal Studies in North America', in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds.), Abraham Kuenen (18281891): His Major Contribution to the Study of the Old Testament; A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Centenary of Abraham Kuenen's Death (10December 1991) (OTS, 29; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 128-47.
1994 'Prophetic Tradition and Canonization', in K. Hagen (ed.), Quadrilog (Festschrift G. Tavard; Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press): 377-86. 1995 From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 1996 Review of G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, Int 50: 293-95. 1997 'Festival Ideology in Chronicles', in Henry T.C. Sun et al. (eds.), Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 104-24. 1998 Review of R.P. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases, Religious Studies Review 24: 37-39. 1999 'Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik de', 'Bleeker, Louis Hendrik KareP, 'Eerdmans, Bemardus Dirk', 'Kuenen, Abraham', 'Kosters, Willem Hendik', 'Matthes, Jan KareF, 'Oort, Hendrik', 'Valeton, Jozua Jan Phillipus, Jr', 'Vriezen, Theodorus Christiaan', 'Wildeboer, Gerrit', in J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Abingdon Press), I: 130-32,318; II: 37-39,135-36,224,604,617,645. 2000
'Rapprochment with Rolf Knierim', in Wonil Kim et al. (eds.), Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept and Theological Perspective. I. Theological andHermeneutical Studies (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International): 116-37. 2002
Review of Paula M. McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, Calvin Theological Journam.U: 124-28. Shining White Knight, A Spiritual Memoir (Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing). 2003
'Futurism in the Pre-exilic Minor Prophets Compared with that of the Postexilic Minor Prophets', in Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart (eds.), Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW, 325; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 252-72.
The Work of Simon John De Vries
379
2004
'John Calvin's Contribution to an Understanding of the Book of Isaiah', in J. Harold Ellens, Deborah L. Ellens, Rolf P. Knierim and Isaac Kalimi (eds.), God's Word for Our World. I. Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries (JSOTSup, 388; London/New York: T&T Clark International): 172-99. 'The Interface between Prophecy as Narrative and Prophecy as Proclamation', in J. Harold Ellens, Deborah L. Ellens, Rolf P. Knierim and Isaac Kalimi (eds.), God's Word for Our World. \. Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries (JSOTSup, 388; London/New York: T&T Clark International): 211-46. The Work of Simon De Vries, in J. Harold Ellens et al. (eds.), God's Word for Our World. I. Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries (JSOTSup, 388; London/New York: T&T Clark International): 372-79; II. Theological and Cultural Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries (JSOTSup, 389; London/New York: T&T Clark International): 279-86. In Press 'God's Provision for the Wellbeing of Living Creatures in Genesis 9', in P. Kim and S. Ringe (eds.), Literary Encounters with the Reign of God: Festschrift for Robert C. Tannehill (Harrisburgh, PA: Trinity Press International). In Preparation Isaiah in the Hands of John Calvin: A Chapter in the History of Old Testament Hermeneutics Explorations in Biblical and Postbiblical Literature The Essence of Biblical Religion
INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis 1-5 1 1.1 1.2 1.28 3.3 3.8 3.10 3.16 4.10 4.23-24 4.25 5.1-32 6-8 6.5 6.11 7.4 7.12 7.17 9.1 9.25-27 10-11 12-50 17.5 18.20 18.23-33 18.25 19.21 19.25 19.29 23.7-10 23.18-24 24 24.3-9
309 20 151 122, 265 204 265 265 265 122 7 112 189 357 357 266 266, 268 265, 269 265, 269 265 204 112 357 357 297 268 272 20 265 265 265 112 112 301,307 112
24.4 24.15-24 24.34-36 24.43 24.60 25.23 25.25-26 27.27-29 29.32-30.24 29.32 29.33 29.35 30.6 30.8 30.11 30.13 30.18 30.20 30.23-24 32.22-32 32.23-33 32.28 32.29 34 34.8 34.31 35.18 38.14 41.20 45.13 46.26 46.27 49.1-26 49.2 49.24
302 112 301 188 112 112 307 112 307 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 133 133 162 162 307 307 307 307 336 153 121 22 22 112 162 52
49.26 49.27 50.3 50.11 50.24-25
112 112 365 297 149
Exodus 1-15 1 1.2-4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8-22 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.17 1.20 1.21 2.1-10 2.8 2.10 2.11-17 2.21 2.23^.17 2.24 3-4 3.6 3.8 3.14 3.19 3.20
6,8,18 21,29 22 23, 365 23 23, 204 7 23 24 24 26 27 27 28, 204 28 307 188 307 7 26 7 7,33 40 36 40,45 31, 155 39, 40, 42 39,40
Index of References 4.1-5 4.6-7 4.13 4.16 4.17 4.21-23 4.21 4.24 5-13 5 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2-7.7 6.2-5 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.18 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.17 7.19-20 8.1-2 8.5-6 8.6 8.7 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12-13 8.15 8.16-17 8.18 8.19 8.22 8.23 9.3 9.4-7 9.4 9.14-16 9.14 9.15 9.35 10.1-2
40 40 40 31 41 13 9, 10 34 40,41 41 11 32 39,41,42 7 7 31 33 39 11,33 39,43 33 9, 11 39 11,39 41 43 43 43 34 34 39 11,34 34 43 39 43 34 39 34 11, 13 39,44 16 11,13 11, 12 11,35 14,39 40 9
10.2 10.9 10.12-13 10.20-21 11 11.1 11.3 11.4-7 11.4 11.7 11.9 11.10 12.29-33 12.29 13.3 13.6 13.9 13.14 13.16 14-15 14 14.4 14.16-29 14.16 14.18 14.21 14.26 14.27 14.30-31 14.30 14.31 15 15.1-21 15.1-18 15.1-12 15.1-11 15.1-7 15.1-6 15.1
15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7-12 15.7
11 35 43 43 13 11 32 13 15 11, 13 33 9, 10 12 8, 13, 15 39,44 35 39, 42, 44 39,44 39,44 40,44,51 44-46 11, 12 41 45 11, 12 45 45 45 45 45 39 39, 44, 98, 110 112 45, 123 46 46 46 47 47, 98, 102 47, 123 32,47 47 33,47 39, 45-48 47,48 48
381 15.8-12 15.8 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13-18 15.13 15.14 15.15 15.16
15.17 16-33 16 16.3 17.1-7 17.4 17.6 17.16 17.19 17.21 18.2 18.10-11 18.10 18.19 19-20 19 19.3 19.4 19.22 19.24 20 20.1-17 20.4 20.11 20.20 20.22-23.33 22.21-22 22.27 22.28 23.14 23.15 23.17 23.21
46 48 32,48 47,48 39, 45-48 46, 47, 49, 50 49, 50, 123 123 50, 123 39, 45, 46, 49, 50, 123 39, 45-47, 49 51 40 39,51 297 33 36 113 33 33 26 53 40, 53, 54 34 193 30 162 166 32 32 7 149 35 151 41 340 328 35 35 34 31 30 33
382 Exodus (cont.) 23.22 24 24.10 24.11 24.12 24.18 31.18 32 32.1 32.4 32.5 32.7 32.9-14 32.9 32.11 32.12 32.14 32.15-18 32.15 32.16-17 32.16 32.21 32.30-31 32.36 32.37-38 32.39 32.41-43 32.43 33 33.11 33.20 33.22-23 33.22 33.23 34.1 34.9 34.11-16 34.14 34.22 34.29 34.35 41.45 41.50 Leviticus 17.15 19.9-10 19.26
God's Word for Our World 34 30,37 37 32,39 35 269 39,51 32 167 167 35 167 272 32, 167 36, 39, 42 167 36, 167 167 167 167 51 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 40,51 51 36 51 39,51 39,51 51 33 206 31 33 36 36 25 25
72 341 165
19.33-34 21.14 22.11 22.12 22.13 26.46 Numbers 5.11-31
5.11-30 5.11-12 5.11 5.12-31 5.12-28 5.12-18 5.12-14 5.12-13 5.12-114 5.12
5.13 5.14 5.15-28 5.15 5.16-28 5.16-18 5.16 5.17-27 5.17 5.18 5.19-23 5.19-22 5.19 5.20-22 5.20 5.21-22 5.21
5.22 5.23 5.24-28 5.24 5.25-28
8 340 332 340 332 40
55-59, 66, 68, 71, 72, 75, 80, 82 71-73, 75, 76 62 60 58,60 62,63 60 57,58 60 60 57, 60, 62, 65,74 57, 58, 60, 65 57, 58, 60 58,60 58,60 58,61 58,61 61 61 61 59,61 58, 59, 61 61, 63, 74 59,61,63, 66, 68, 72 61 59, 61, 64, 67 61,66,70 57,59,61, 63-68, 72 59, 63-68 61 58,61 61,62 62
5.25-26 5.26 5.27-28 5.27
5.28 5.29-31 5.29-30 5.29 5.30-31 5.30 5.31
6.21 10.35-36 11.23 14.30 18.21-24 20.20 21 21.4-9 21.14-20 21.17-18 21.17 21.21-31 21.27-30 21.32-35 22-24
22 22.2-24.25 22.2-40 22.2-4 22.4-24.25 22.4-21 22.4-6 22.5-6 22.6 22.7-21 22.8 22.13 22.15-16 22.18
22.19
62 62 62 62, 68, 70, 72 62, 68, 72 62 58, 62, 70 58,62 62 58,62 55, 56, 58, 62, 68-70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 80-82 70 112 52 43,52 341 42 98, 259 259 112 106 98, 99, 103 259 113 259 247-51, 254, 255, 259 248 260 255 260 260 260 260 248 248, 256 260 253-55 254 250 249, 25355 254
383
Index of References 22.20 22.22-24.25 22.22-35 22.22-30 22.22 22.31-35 22.35 22.36-40 22.38 22.41-24.24 22.41-23.12 22.41-23.3 22.41-23.2 22.41 23-24 23.3 23.4-10 23.4-5 23.5 23.6 23.7-10 23.7 23.8
23.10 23.11-12 23.12 23.13-26 23.13-15 23.13-14 23.13 23.14 23.15 23.16-24 23.16 23.17 23.18-24 23.19 23.20 23.21 23.22 23.23 23.25-26 23.26 23.27-24.24 23.27-24.2 23.27-30
253,255 260 248, 25456, 260 248, 256 255 255 253 254, 260 250, 253 260 260 260 260 258 112,248 249, 253, 260 260 260 253 260 248, 260 162 249,25153 258 260 253 260 260 260 258 255 260 260 253, 260 257, 260 248, 260 251 253 251 251,252 251 260 253 260 260 260
24.17 24.20 24.21-22 24.23-24 24.23 24.25 25 25.1-18 25.6-9 27.1-11 27.17 31 31.16 36.1-12
258 258 255, 258 254, 260 253 261 248, 253, 258 248 251-53 251 251,252 261 261 261 261 253 261 248 248, 249 248 249,251, 252 291 248 248 248 251,252 261 259 259 254 330, 339 312 254 249 330, 339
Deuteronomy 1.1 1.10 1.21 2.25 4.26 4.34 4.36 5 5.1-21 5.6-21
88 204 328 49 151 42 151 7 87 149
23.27-28 23.27 23.28 24.1-2 24.1 24.2-9 24.2 24.3-9 24.4 24.6 24.8 24.10-24 24.10-11 24.12-24 24.12-13 24.13 24.14-24 24.14 24.15-24 24.15-19 24.16
5.15 6.6-9 6.10 7.1-6 7.13 8.12 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.18 9.25-26 10.1-5 10.10 10.18-19 10.18 10.22 12.23 14.28-29 14.29
15.11 15.12-15 16.11 16.14 17.14-20 17.18-19 17.20 18.15-22 18.15 21.1-9 22.20-23 23.4-7 23.4-5 24.17-18 24.17 24.19-21 24.19 24.20-21 24.20 24.21 25.5-10 25.5 25.6 26.8 26.12-13
26.12 26.13
8,42 88 203 206 204 203 269 43,51 269 269 272 88 269 8 340, 341 365 165 340, 341 328, 329, 340 340 8 329, 340 329, 340 88 89 90 90 90 66 8 249 362 8 329, 337, 340 340 329, 340 329 340 340 338-40 333-35 339 42 329, 340, 341 340 340
384 Deuteronomy (cont.) 27.19 340 28.3-14 203 28.14-46 203 204 28.25-46 28.36 203 29.20-21 89 89 29.27-29 30.9-10 89 30.12 151 30.19 151 31.10-12 90 31.17 166 31.18 166 31.19 98 31.21 98 31.22 98 31.24-26 89 31.24 103 31.28 151 31.30 98 32 46, 98, 148, 152, 154, 155, 158, 160, 162, 166, 168-71 112, 147, 32.1-43 148 32.1 105, 150, 151, 153 32.2 104, 105 32.4 158 151 32.6 152, 153 32.7 154 32.8-14 171 32.9-13 161,163 32.9 162 32.10-14 32.11 166 32.12 154, 155 162, 163 32.14-15 32.14 161 32.15 159, 161 157 32.16-17 32.16 158 32.17 158 32.18 159-61
God's Word for Our World
32.44-47 32.44 32.47 33 33.2 33.3 33.5 33.7 33.17 33.26 33.27 34.12 43.15 43.18 44.23 45.8 49.13
154 161, 163 166 157 166 166 159 98 165 164, 165 162, 163 157 158, 159 158 166 165 46, 15456 43,46 164-66 46 47, 165 150, 151, 163 154, 166 98 166 46, 112 46 46 162 46 311 162 46 41,42 160 160 150 150 150
Joshua 1.7-8 4.24 5.13-15 5.13 7
91 52 52 104 221
32.19-27 32.19 32.20 32.21 32.22-23 32.29 32.30-31 32.30 32.31 32.35 32.36 32.37-38 32.37 32.38 32.39-43 32.39-41 32.39 32.40 32.41-43 32.41 32.42 32.43
10.12-13 10.12 12.9-24 22.31 24.9-10 24.32 Judges 1.11-15 2.15 4 5
8.30 9.25 13 13.2 17 19-21 19 Ruth 1.11-12 1.16 1.20 4.1-12 4.1 4.3 4.5
112 103 99 53 249 149
330 53 46 46, 106, 112 365 365 307 307 335 306,314 306
4.6 4.7 4.12 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.19
339 207 297 313 301 339 334, 335, 338 338 338 338 338 338 338 338
1 Samuel 2.2 2.6 3.5 4-7 4.8 5.4 7.12 7.13 10.6
160 156 121 53 53 54 54 54 268
385
Index of References 10.9 11.11 15 15.1-12 15.16-19 15.27-28 15.35 25.1-42 25.25 28 28.3-10 2 Samuel 1.17-27 5.6-10 5.20 6 7.1-17 7.11-14 11.11 12.1-7 12.7 12.9-10 12.13-14 14
267 285 221,222 218 218 218 218 335 296 313 310
14.7 17.25 20.3 22.1 22.8 28.4-16 28.19-25
112 288 320 358 87,93 291 283 218 222 218 218 333, 336, 337 336 335,337, 338 337 362 333 106 151 218 218
1 Kings .39-40 2.1-4 2.11 2.13-25 2.13 3.1-10 3.11 3.13 7.13-14 7.14
295 92 288 335 335 221 358 358 362 335,336
14.2 14.5
8.30 9.24 10.1-10 11.1-13 11.1-2 11.14 11.26 11.27 11.31 12-16 12.28 12.33 13 13.1-10 13.1-6 13.1 13.2-3 13.2 13.4-6 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7-9 13.7 13.8-9 13.10 13.11-25 13.11-19 13.11-14 13.15-17 13.15 13.16 13.17 13.18-19 13.18 13.19 13.20-25 13.20-22 13.20-21 13.21-22 13.22 13.23-25 13.23 13.24 13.25 13.26-32 13.26-30
151 362 307 362 206 298 335 284 298 300 304 214 213,222, 232, 304 214 214 214 214,216 214 214 214,304 214 214,304 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215
13.26 13.27-30 13.31-32 13.31 13.32 13.33-34 14 14.7 14.9-11 14.10 14.13-14 14.14 14.16 14.19-20 14.21 14.29-31 16.3 16.4 16.16 16.28-21.29 16.29-33 17-19 17 17.8-24 17.9-10 17.17 17.20 171.18 18 18.19-20 18.21-39 18.22 18.31 19-20 19.1-18 19.8 20 20.1-21 20.4 20.7 20.12 20.13 20.16 20.21 20.22-30 20.24 20.28
215 215 215,232 215 215 215 313 298, 305 298 305 298 305 305 298 362 298 305 305 305 300 297 90 297 335 335 336 335 303 193 297 215 297 162 235 215 269 294, 295, 304,313 221 304 297, 304 283, 285 228 283, 285 298 221 298 228
386 1 Kings (cont.) 20.29 298 20.30-43 218 20.30-34 218,221 20.30-33 218 20.30 218 20.31-32 219 20.31 219,304 20.32-43 232 20.32-33 219 20.32 219 20.33-34 219 20.33 219 20.34 218,219, 310 20.35-43 219,221 20.35-37 219 20.35-36 219,222 20.35 219,221 20.36 219 20.37 219 20.38-40 219 20.38 219, 304 20.39-40 220 20.39 220, 304 20.40 220 20.41-43 220 20.41 219,220 20.42 220,221, 298 20.43 220 21 218,297, 309 218 21.1-19 309 21.1-16 21.17-24 309 314 21.19 21.25-26 309 21.27-29 218 21.27 309 21.28-29 309 311 21.29 22 185, 29497, 299301,303, 304, 306, 309,310, 313,314
God's Word for Our World 22.1-38 22.1-8 22.1-4 22.1-3 22.1-2 22.1 22.2-38 22.2-4 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5-28 22.5-9 22.5
22.6 22.7 22.8
22.9 22.10-13 22.10-12 22.10 22.11 22.12 22.13-17 22.13 22.14 22.15-18 22.15 22.16 22.17 22.18 22.19-25 22.19-23 22.19-22 22.19-20 22.19
295, 296 294 310 300 295, 300 221,310 301 294, 295 298, 304 300, 304 295, 299, 304,310 294, 299 294, 295 299, 304, 310 297, 299, 304,310 299,310 297-99, 304,311, 312 304,311 235 295,311 298, 299, 304 298 295, 304, 311 294 295, 298, 305,311 295, 298, 311 295 298, 304, 311 304,311 299,312 295, 299, 304,312 235 312 295 295 151,298, 300
22.20
22.39 22.40-42 22.40 22.44
295, 297300, 305, 309,312 295 300 312 295 298 298 295 312 298, 304, 312 305,312 295, 298, 299,312 294 295 298, 299, 304,312, 313 299, 304, 312 313 304 299, 304 304 299, 304, 313 314 295, 304, 314 295 314 223, 304 295,314 297, 298, 314 298 297 298,314 310
2 Kings 1 1.2-17 1.3-4 1.6
304 213 298 305
22.21-25 22.22 22.23 22.24-25 22.24 22.25 22.26-28 22.26-27 22.26 22.27 22.28 22.29-37 22.29-35 22.29
22.30 22.31-33 22.31 22.32 22.33 22.34 22.35-38 22.35 22.36-37 22.36 22.37 22.38 22.39-40
387
Index of References 1.9 1.11 1.15 1.16 2 2.23-24 3.4 3.5 3.9 3.10 3.13 4.1-44 4.13 5 5.1-27 5.1-2 5.1 5.2-8 5.2-5 5.2-3 5.2 5.3 5.4-5 5.4 5.5
5.6-8 5.6-7 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9-19 5.9-14 5.9-10 5.9 5.10 5.11-12 5.11 5.12 5.13-14 5.13 5.14 5.15-19 5.15-16 5.15 5.16 5.17-18
305 305 304 298 193, 300 223 304 304 304 304 297 223 305 223, 232 223 226 223 223 223 223 223, 226 223, 227 223 223 223, 227, 304 224 224 224, 304 156,224 224, 227, 304 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 225 225 225 155,225 225, 228 225
5.17 5.18 5.19-27 5.19-24 5.19-20 5.19 5.20 5.21-24 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25-27 5.25 5.26-27 5.26 5.27 6 6.9 6.11 6.12 6.24-7.17 6.26 7.6 8 8.1-6 8.5 8.18 8.26 9.8 9.18 9.19 9.24 10.13 10.32-33 12.12 12.13 12.23 12.28 13.15-19 13.16 13.18 14.13 14.25 16.7 18-19 18.1-14 18.4
225 225 225 225 225 225 225, 228 225 225 226 226 226 226 226 226 224, 226 226 304 304 304 304 215 304 304 304 223 304 310 310 305 305 305 223 305 223 284 284 362 305 298 304 304 320 242 304 212 235 233
18.13-36 18.13-18 18.13 18.14-16 18.17-19.37 18.17-32 18.17-25 18.17 18.18 18.19-31 18.19-25 18.19-24 18.19-22 18.19-20 18.21-22 18.21 18.22 18.23-24 18.23 18.24 18.25 18.26-36 18.26-27 18.26 18.27 18.28-35 18.28-32 18.28 18.31-32 18.31 18.32-35 18.32 18.36-37 18.36 18.37-19.9 18.37-19.4 18.37-19.1 19.1-8 19.2-4 19.2 19.3-4 19.3 19.4 19.5-7 19.5-6 19.6 19.7
229 229 229 192, 229 295 229 229 230 230 231 230 233 230 230 230 230 230, 233 230 230 230 230,233, 235 230 230 230 230 231 149 231 231 231 231 231 229,231 231 231 231 231 229 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 298 231
388 2 Kings (cont.) 232 19.8-9 19.8 232 229 19.9-37 235 19.9-35 235 19.9-13 19.9 232, 235 19.11-13 231 19.14-19 235 19.15 151 298 19.20-31 19.20 235 19.32-34 235 19.35 235 19.36-37 232 19.36 232 19.37 232 298 20.5 20.12-19 218 20.17-18 235 235 20.20-21 22 305 284 22.6 22.8-23.3 92 22.20 305 23.1-2 216 23.8-9 216 216 23.15-19 23.16-17 216 23.22 216 23.32 216 24.8 143 24.10-17 201 24.13-17 205 25.4 287 25.10 288 29.19 236 29.21-28 235 29.29-31 236 29.32-34 236 37.8 232 / Chronicles 1-9 349-51, 357 1.1 363, 371 2.3 361 2.17 362
God's Word for Our World 3 3.1-24 3.17-20 3.19-24 3.19 3.21 3.22 3.24 9.2-17 9.17 10 12.1-23 14.11 15-16 15.16-21 16.4-42 16.8-22 16.31 21.27 23-27 25.1-31 26.18 28 28.11 29.1-19 29.7
2 Chronicles 1.11 1.12 2.12-13 6.21 7.1-4 8.11 12.13-14 12.13 12.14 13.13-17 15.5 16.9 17.2 18 18.1-2 20.22-30
371 370 143 348, 363, 368,371 141, 142, 362 364 364 366, 36871 348 369 352, 357 349,351 320 349,351 358 358 149 151 347 349-51 358 347 351 347 348 347, 348, 370
358 357, 358 362 151 363 362 362 362 362 363 348 348 310 299, 300 300 363
24.26 25.23 26.6-8 26.15 28 30.9 34 35 35.1-36.23 35.1 36 36.6-7 36.20 36.22-23 36.23
362 320 363 355 187 348 352 313 352 352 357 358 142 348 363, 371
Ezra 1-10 2.2 2.42 2.45 3.1^.4 3.2 3.8 3.13 4.2-3 4.7 4.12-13.21 5.2 6.10 6.14 7.7-8 9-10 10.10-44
352 142, 143 369 369 143 362 142, 362 352 142 350 350 142, 362 209 350 350 356, 361 206
Nehemiah 1.3 1.5 2.1 2.5-8 2.12 2.13 2.17 2.18 2.19-20 2.19 2.20 3.35
288 287 350 288 288 287, 288 287, 288 288 356 288 287 320
389
Index of References 4.1-2 4.1 4.7 5.1-5 5.11-12 5.14 6 6.1 6.6 6.16 7.7 7.45 8 8.7 8.15 9.37 10.28-31 11.3-19 12.1 12.10-11.23 13.1-3 13.1-2 13.6 13.23-27 13.24 13.26
356 287, 288 287 288 288 350 356 284, 287 288 288 142 369 352 369 283 288 206 348 142, 362 350 356,361 249 350 356,361 356 362
Esther 3.9 4.7 8.3 9.7-10
347 347 133 99
Job 1.11 2.5 4.5 4.17 12.13-16 19.8 27.18 27.23 32.9 32.10 32.19 39.15 40.9 42.15
44 44 283 104 110 284 283 51 104 104 104, 105 104 53 331
Psalms 8.3 8.4 10.4 13.1 14.1 14.7 18.2 19.14 20.8 20.9 25.6-7 27.5 27.9 28.1 30.8 30.12 31.2 35.1 36.12 36.13 42.7 42.8 43.1 44.2-3 44.3-4 50.4 51.18 51.20 53.2 57.12 60.6-9 60.6 62.2 68.8 69.18 71.3 74.22 77.5 11.1 77.12 79.11 80.8 80.9 80.13 80.14-15 80.15-16 82
43,52 43,52 155 166 155 162 160 160 110,279 279 153 286, 287 166 160 166 267 160 164, 166 279 279 130 130 166 52 52 151 288 288 155 151 285 285 160 151 166 160 166 153 152 152 49 50 50 320 50 50 156
89.11 89.41 90.1-2 94.22 95.7-11 96.1-13 102.3 102.26 105.1-15 105.25 106.7 106.47-48 107.1 107.39 115.16 119.21 119.73 122.5 122.7 132.13-17 135.4 135.14 136.12 137 137.7 143.7 144.2
151 320 160 160 297 358 166 151 149, 358 267 153 358 358 125 151 50 50 287 288 287 162 163 42 205, 290 280, 289 166 160
Proverbs
10.1 24.16 30.18-19 31.10-31
110 151 81 20 160 20 110 279 188 330
Ecclesiastes 1.11 5.18 6.2
153 357 357,358
3.9 3.19 6.34-35 8 8.22-26 9
Song of Songs 104 4.12
390 Isaiah 1-39 1-31 1-5 1-4 1
1.1 1.2-20 1.2-4 1.2-3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5-66.24 1.5 1.8 1.13 1.19-20 1.20 1.27-28 2.2-4 2.3 2.5 3.2 4.6 5 5.1-2 5.1 5.3-7 5.5 5.6 5.9 6
6.1-13
6.1-8 6.1 6.8-13 6.8 6.9-11 6.9 6.10 6.11-13
God's Word for Our World 163 171 185 139 148, 170, 178 185 124 152 136 148, 151, 153 151 155 182 182 283 124, 125 138 153 138 142, 149 141, 142 142 234 283 136 137 136, 145 137 320 124, 125 137 136-38, 145, 178, 183-85 136, 137, 145 237 183,211 312 144 186 144, 181, 182,211 186 139
6.11 6.12 6.13 7 7.1-17 7.1-6 7.1-3 7.1-2 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.9 7.10-14 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15-17 7.16-17 7.16 8 8.1-9.7 8.1-9.6 8.1-18 8.1-4 8.2 8.3-4 8.5-10 8.11-15 8.16-18 8.16 8.18 8.19 8.20 9-12 9.1-5 9.2 9.6 9.12 9.17
9.21 10.4 10.20 11 117.1 12.1-3
211 186 186 137, 178, 187 137 135 237 138 187 138 187 187 237 187 187 138, 198 137 187 188 136, 140, 145 178, 189 189 136 237 139 190 138 138 139 141, 190 190 190 141 139 191 191 191,198 165 124, 125, 165 165 165 162 363 299 136
13-27 13-14 13.13 13.19 14.2 14.22 143.5 16 16.5 16.9-12 18-33 18.1 18.2 18.17 19.1 19.21 20 20.3 21 21.1-10 21.9 21.11-12 21.13-17 21.18 21.20 21.28 21.29 22
22.1-14 22.2 22.5 22.6 22.8 22.12 22.15-25 22.20 22.25 24 24.2 24.5 24.16-18 24.20 25 25.1-5
139 205 151 265-67 163 124 152 146 287 136, 139 139 299 299 299 299 299 135 163, 167 136, 145, 146 136, 139 287 136, 139 136, 139 299 299 299 299 136, 145, 146, 178, 191 136, 139 191 191 191 191 191 191,230 163, 167, 191 191 145, 146 163 141 136, 139 283 136 136, 139,
Index of References 25.12 25.15-29 28.23 28.24-29 29 29.5 29.9-16 29.9 29.23 30.13 30.29 30.33 32-66 32-35 33.7-9 33.9 33.14 33.21 34-48 35.1-10 35.8 36-39 36-37 36 36.1-37.9 36.2 36.9 36.10 36.11 36.12-17 36.37-38 37 37.4 37.7 37.9-37 37.9-36 37.16-20 37.24 37.35 37.36 37.37-38 37.38 38 38.10-20 38.12 38.16
145 128 164 131, 132 131 133 133 132 131, 132 162 128, 284 103 128 171 281 131 128,131 107 104 139 126 125 135,235, 237 192,212 178, 229 192,229 192 163 234 163 149 229 178 193 193 235 192 193 163 163, 167 193 192 232 131 131 131, 133 131
39.1-8 40-55 40-53 40-48 40 40.1-11 40.1 40.18 40.19-20 40.22 40.25 40.27
40.31 41.1-4 41.1 41.4 41.6-7 41.8 41.9 41.21-24 41.22 41.23 41.24 41.28 41.29 42 42.1 42.4 42.8 42.9 42.10 42.13 42.17 42.18-21 42.18 42.19-21 42.19
42.21 42.24 43.9 43.10
218 147, 170, 171 163 136 140, 156, 235 290 163 155 157, 167 151 155 137, 162, 166 166 156 150 154, 167 157, 167 163, 167 163, 167 157, 167 152 158 157, 158 154 157 142 163, 167 141 155 152, 153 106 165 157, 158, 167 140 140 140 135, 138, 143-46, 163, 167 141 141 153 155, 163, 167
391 43.11-13 43.13 43.18-19 43.18 44.1 44.2 44.6 44.7-8 44.8 44.9-20
44.17 44.21 44.23 44.24-45.13 44.24-45.7 44.24 44.26-28 44.26 44.27 44.28 45.1 45.2-3 45.4 45.5-6 45.5 45.6-7 45.7 45.8 45.9-17 45.9-11 45.9-10 45.11-12 45.11 45.12 45.13 45.14 45.15 45.16 45.21 45.22 46.4
155 155, 165 153 152, 153, 167 163, 167 162, 163, 167 155, 167 153 159, 167 157, 158, 167 158 152, 163, 167 151, 152, 167 178, 194 151 151,194 290 154, 163, 167, 194 194 195 139, 195 195 163, 167 155, 197 155, 195 156 156, 167 151, 152, 167 167 159, 160 157, 195 195 195 151,292 195, 290 155 166 157 155, 167 155 155
392 Isaiah (cont.) 46.5-7 167 46.7 157 152, 153, 46.8-9 167 46.9 153, 155 46.10 153 46.13 290 47.3 164, 165, 167 47.8 155 47.9 333 47.10 155 152, 153 48.3-5 48.3 153 48.5 157, 167 152 48.6-8 48.12 155 48.13 52, 151 48.14 165 136 48.16 48.20 139, 163, 167 48.21 167 149 48.22 49.1-12 151 49.1-4 136, 137, 139 150 49.1 49.2 166 49.3 163, 167 136 49.5-7 136, 139 49.5-6 49.5 163, 167 49.6 163, 167 49.7 163, 167 49.13 151, 167 151 49.14-26 49.14-21 290 49.14 137, 159, 160, 167 160 49.15 290 49.16-19 51 49.16 284, 291 49.19 165 49.24-25 164, 167 49.25-26 166 49.25
God's Word for Our World 49.26 50.4-9 50.7-12 50.7-10 50.8 50.9-11 50.10 50.11 51 51.1-2 51.1 51.2 51.3 51.4-5 51.4 51.5 51.6 51.7 51.8 51.11 51.12 51.13
51.16 51.17-23 51.17 51.19 52.1-2 52.2 52.6 52.9 52.10 52.13-53.12 52.13 53.1 53.8 53.10 53.11 54-66 54.1-3 54.4 54.5 54.8 54.11-14 54.16
165 136, 139, 145 136, 146 144 164 166 163, 167 165 160 161,167 150, 159, 160 152 163, 290 160 141 165 151, 160 141 160 290 155 151, 15961, 167 151 164, 290 165 125 290 165 155 290 165 125, 198 163, 166, 167 153, 165 125, 133 166 163, 167 163 289, 290 110 128 166 290 157, 167
54.17 55-66 55-60 55-56 55.11 56-66 56.6 57.17 57.21 58.5 58.11-14 58.12 58.14 59.2 59.20 60-62 60.10-16 60.10-12 60.12-16 60.21 61 61.1-6 61.1 61.3-4 61.4 61.10-11 62 62.1-12 62.1-7 62.6 62.8-9 63.1-6 63.7-64.12
63.9 63.11 63.12 63.17 64.7 64.8 64.9 65-66 65.1-16 65.1 65.2 65.8 65.9
163, 167 144, 171 139 143 166 148 163, 167 166 149 110 171 284, 288 153 166 290 144 290 290 289 50 136 136, 140 136 290 288 136, 140 136 290 136 288 290 280 136, 140, 143, 145, 146 154 154 154 163, 167 166 153 153 139 143 107 107 163, 167 163, 167
Index of References 65.13 65.14 65.15 65.16-17 65.18-25 65.19-21 65.20 65.22-25 66 66.1 66.6-13 66.14 66.20 66.22 66.24 Jeremiah 1-23 1 1.10 1.11-12 1.13-19 2 2.4 2.28 2.32 3.2 4.10 5.20-31 6.1-8 6.7
6.8 6.14 7.16 8.11 8.13 10.1-16 11.14 11.18-12.5 12.15 13.1-7 14.11 14.13 15.5-9 15.10-21 16.1-9 16.5
163, 167 163, 167 163, 167 153 290 290 290 290 144 151 290 163, 167 290 151 182
201 136 203,281 237 237 136 162 158 160 126, 133 207 203 126 121, 126, 127 127 149, 207 208 149, 207 320 157 208 136 292 237 208 207 203 136 208 208
17.5 17.14-18 18.1-4 18.7-8 18.7 18.9 18.13-17 18.19-23 20.1-7 20.1-3 20.7-18 20.7-13 20.8 20.16 21.5 23.3 23.17 23.18-22 24-32 24.1-10 24.5 24.6-7 24.6 25.1-14 25.11-12 25.15-17 25.27 26 26.1-24 26.3 27-29 27 27.1 27.2-7 27.6-7 27.8-15 27.8-11 27.12-22 27.14-16 28.1-17 28.1-4 28.9 29 29.1-9 29.1-3 29.1 29.2 29.4-7
53 136 237 273 203 203 203 136 202 237 136 127 126, 127 265 54 204, 205 207 207,312 201 203 281 204 281 207 365 237 279 201 237 273 200, 201 201 237 201 365 149 201 201 201 237 201 207 200-202 200 237 202 201 202, 203
393 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 29.9-29 29.10-15 29.10 29.11-14 29.15-32 29.16 29.17 29.21 29.22 29.24-27 29.25 29.28 29.30-30.3 29.32 30.1-3 30.2 30.8-9 30.10 30.12-17 30.12-15 30.13 30.16-17 30.18 30.19 30.24 31.13 31.27-30 31.28 31.38 32.1-16 32.21-24 32.21 33.6-11 33.6 33.14-26 36.9-32 37.3 37.6-10 38.1-28 38.1-13 38.2
202 202-204 204, 205 201,206, 207, 209 201,202 202 201 201, 202, 365 201 201 202 202 202 67 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 290 162 128 128 128 128 290 204, 205 153 267 203 281 290, 291 237 54 42 290 208 290 237 209 209 237 208 208
394
God's Word for Our World
Jeremiah (cont.) 38.4 208 39.1-18 237 39.8 288 40.1-16 237 41.1-18 237 42.1-43.13 237 42.2 209 42.4 209 42.7-43.7 209 42.10 281 44.1 237 44.15-19 237 45.4-5 203 45.4 203,281 46.10 165 50-51 205 50.32 279 51.5 333 51.8 287 51.44 287 51.59-64 237 52.3 203 52.14 288 Lamentations 1.20 2.6 3.7-9 4.21-22
267 286 284 280, 289
Ezekiel 1-5 1.1-3.15 3.16-21 3.20 3.22-5.17 6 7 7.4 7.5 7.17 7.19 8-11 8-10 8-9 8.1-4 8.1
237 238 238 43 238 238 238 43 43 43 43 238 237 212 238 238
8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5-18 8.5-6 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.9-10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14-15 8.14 8.15 8.16-18 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 9.1-11 9.1-7 9.1-2 9.1 9.2 9.3-7 9.3-4 9.3 9.4 9.5-7 9.5-6 9.6 9.7 9.8-10 9.8 9.9-10 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.15 10.1-11.25 10.1 10.2 10.3-4 10.5-6 10.7 10.8-17 10.18
238 238 238 238 238 238 43, 239 239 239 239 239, 242 239 239 239 43, 239 239 239 239 239 43 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 43, 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240, 242 240, 242 240, 242 240 240 43 240 240 241 241 241 241 241 241
10.19 10.20-22 11.1-12 11.14-22 11.23 11.24-25 11.24 11.25 12.1-16 12.17-20 12.21-25 12.26-28 13 13.5 14.1-11 14.9 14.12-23 14.15 14.31 15 16 17 17.22-24 18 18.16 18.45 19 20-45-21.7 20 20.5-6 20.15 20.28 20.33 20.34 20.42 21.8-17 21.14-17 21.17 21.18-32 21.18-22 21.21-23 21.22 22.1-16 22.13 22.17-22 22.23-31 22.30 23
241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 238 238 238 238 238 284 238 280 238 43 43 238 238 238 290 238 107 107 238 238 238 43 43 43 42 42 43 238 45 51 238 45 310 51 238 51 238 238 284 238
395
Index of References 23.1-22 24.1-14 24.15-24 24.17-20 25 25.12-14 25.14 26 27 28.1-10 28.11-19 28.20-26 29.1-16 29.17-21 30.1-19 30.20-26 31 32.1-16 32.17-32 33.1-20 33.21-22 33.23-29 33.30-33 34 34.23-24 35 35.1-15 36.1-15 36.16-38 37.1-14 37.1-10 37.15-28 37.24-25 38-39 39.17-20 39.17 39.19 39.23 39.24 39.25 39.29 40-48 40.1-43.9 40.1^3.3 44.1-4 46.19-24 47.1-6
237 238 237 238 238 280 280 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 290 238 280 238 238 238, 242 237 238 290 238 165 165 165 166 166 162 166 238 238 237 237 237 237
Daniel 1.1-21 1.2 2-6 3.29 5.5 9.2 11.14
358 358 358 155 51 365 291
Hosea
1.1 1.2-9 1.12-15 2 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.21 2.23 3 3.1-2 4.2 5.14 7.13-16 7.15 11.8 12.2-6 12.3-7 12.4 12.5 14.4-8
237 237 237 132 132 284 132 284 132 151 149, 151 136 237 320 156 132 128, 132 267 133 133 133 133 281
Joel 1.10 1.13 1.16 2.10 2.11 2.30 2.31 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.16-21 3.16 4.1
130 130 130 151 133 290 133 290 133 290 290 291 290
4.16-21 4.16 4.17-20 4.18-21 4.19-21
290 291 291 281 289
Amos
1.1 1.2 1.11-12 2.4-5 2.4 2.16 3.10 3.11 4.2 4.3 4.6-10 4.9 4.11 5.2 5.11 5.26 5.27 6.1-7 6.1 6.4-7 6.7 6.8 6.14 7-8 7.1-9 7.10-15 7.10-13 7.16 7.17 8.2 8.3 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.13 8.14 9.4 9.11-15
9.11-12
281 290, 291 280 281 278, 289 277 126, 127 289 277 284 289 149 265, 266 278, 279 278, 289 285, 291 289 130 281 277 289 130, 133 289 237 136 281 216 277 289 278 277 211
267 277 277 279 289 275-79, 281,282, 289-93 276, 288
396
God's Word for Our World
Amos (cont.) 9.11 275, 27779, 28292 9.12 277, 278, 288, 289 9.13-15 276, 277, 288 9.13 277, 28890 9.14-15 288 9.14 278, 280, 288, 289 9.15 277, 278, 280,281, 289 24.20 279 Obadiah 11-14 15-21 17-21 17 19-21 20 21 Jonah 1.1-2.10 1.1-3 1.1-2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4-16 1.4-5 1.4 1.5-6 1.5 1.7-10 1.7 1.8-9 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11-16 1.11-13
289 281 289 289 281 289 289
243 243 243 270 262, 265, 268 243 243 243 271 243 271 243 243 243 243 243 243 244 244
1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14-16 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 2.1-9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.10 3 3.1^.11 3.1-5 3.1-3 3.3-4 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6-9 3.6 3.7-9 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10-4.4 3.10
4.1-4 4.1 4.2-3 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5-11 4.5 4.6 4.7-8 4.7 4.8-9 4.8 4.9 4.10-11 4.10
124 244 244, 271 244 244,271 244,271 244,271 244 244 265 130 130 244 270 244 244 244 244 242, 265, 270 262-64, 274 244 244 244 244 244 244, 266, 271 244 244 244,271, 273 244 244, 272 244 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245
4.11 5 9 Micah 1-5 1-3 1-2 1.1-7.20 1.1 1.2-7.20
1.2-16 1.5 1.12-13 2 2.1-5.14 2.1-13 2.1-5
2.1-2 2.1 2.2 2.3-5 2.3 2.4 2.6-11 2.7 2.12-13
2.12 3 3.1-5.15 3.1-5.14 3.1-8 3.1 3.4 3.9-5.14 3.9-12 4-7 4-5
4 4.1-5.14 4.1-5
245 303 303
317 315,317, 321,322 317,322 325 321,325 322, 323, 325 322-25 162 324 316,317, 322, 324 323, 325 322-25 128,316, 317,319, 320 317 318,322 128 317 318 318 316-18, 320 319 315-19, 321,325 162 322 325 323, 325 323-25 323, 325 166 323, 325 323, 325 321,322 316,321, 322 322, 323 323, 325 325
397
Index of References 4.1-3 4.6-5.14 4.6-7
4.8-5.14 4.8-14 4.10 5 5.1-14 5.1-5 5.1-3 5.4-5 5.6 5.7-8 5.9-14 6-7 6 6.1-16
6.1 6.3-5 6.5 6.9-16 6.12 7 7.1-20 7.8-20 7.8
149 325 315,316, 319,321, 324, 326 326 326 325 322, 323 326 325 326 326 326 326 326 321,322 323 323, 324, 326 323 249 153 129 129 323 323, 324, 326 281 279
1.12 2.4-5 2.10-12 3.2 3.8 4 4.10 6.9-14 6.12 7.5 8.1-8 8.10 8.12 8.15 9-14 9.9-10 9.15 10.2 11.4-14 13.7 13.9 14.10-12
365 290 290 290 290 142 348 237 290 365 290 348 149 290 144 290 165 312 237 312 149 290
Malachi 1.2-5 1.9 3.1 3.21 3.22 4.3
280 348 141 278 141 278
1 Maccabees 4.36-61 355
Acts 15.16
292
New Testament Mark 6.26 120
Romans 9.14-18 13.1-7
9 209
Luke 11.20
44
1 Timothy 2.1-2
209
John 12.41
185
1 Peter 2.13-17
209
Habakkuk
1.3 2.6 3 3.11 3.17
126, 128 128, 129 129 128, 129 149
Zephaniah 1.2 1.3 3.14-20 3.19-20 3.19 3.20
319,320 319 281,290 130 131 131
Haggai
1.1 1.12 1.14 2.2 2.4 2.17 2.20-23 2.21 2.22 2.23
142, 362 362 142, 362 142, 362 142 149 290 142 267 142, 362
Zechariah 1-6 1.12-17
136, 143 290
OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES Apocrypha/DeuteroCanonical Books 1 Esdras 3.13-4.63 142 5.30 369 Wisdom of Solomon 15 11-19 15.5-16.21 15 Ecclesiasticus 4.8-10 358 284,291 49.13
398
God's Word for Our World
2 Peter 2.15-16
249
Megillah 16b
99
Jude 11
249
Pesahim 95b
103
Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 17-37 238 Qumran 4QFlor 1.12 CD 7.14-21 7.15-21 7.20-21
Mishnah Ednyyot 5.6
Sanhedrin 89b
267
Talmuds b. Baba Batra 15a 348 291
b. Baba Qamma 38b 362 285 291 291
369
Josephus Antiquities 2.346 3.2 4.302-303 7.305
Classical Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.153 358 Virgil Georgics 11.192
117
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Codex Hammurapi 131 57 132 57 Lament of Ur 122-23 287 125-32 287
101 142 101 102
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Ackerman, S. 330,343 Ackroyd,P.R. 38,351,360 Albright, W.F. 97, 98, 349, 359, 364 Allen, L.C. 360 Alter, R. 97,99, 111,257 Amir,Y. 101 Andersen, F.I. 128-30,315,317,321 Ashley, T.R. 247,251 Ashtor, E. 104 Avishur, Y. 126-28, 130 Baab,O.J. 327,343 Bal,M. 263,264 Baldick,C. 118 Baltzer,K. 148, 160, 161, 166 Bar-Efrat,S. 307 Earth, J. 263 Barton,!. 135 Batten, L.W. 354 Baumgartner, W. 344 Beck,D.R. 303 Becking, B. 366 Behler,G.M. 136 Ben Koreisch, R.J. 105 Ben Saruq, M. 104, 105 BenZvi,E. 315,317 Bendor, S. 338,343 Bennett, H.V. 342,343 Bentzen, A. 360,364 Benzinger, I. 363 Bergman, J.W. 38 Berlin, A. 98,99, 109, 111 Bertheau,E. 349,353 Bickerman, E. 360 Bird, P. 343 Blank, S. 136 Blenkinsopp, J. 276, 282, 345 Borger, R. 369 Borowski, O. 283
Braun, R.L. 352,361,363 Brichto, H.C. 56, 57, 69, 78, 336, 343 Bright,!. 207,301,310 Brin,G. 316 Brongers, H.A. 118,122 Brueggemann, W. 200,301 Cahill, !.M. 288 Camp,C. 336,343 Campbell, A.F. 296 Carmody,D.L. 336,343 Carroll, R.P. 127,201,281,291 Cassuto, U. 42,44,96-98 Gazelles, H. 147 Chapman, B. 85,90 Childs, B.S. 1-3, 38, 155, 276, 282 Clements, R.E. 85, 169, 201, 236, 279 Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. 367, 368 Coats, G.W. 343 Coggins,RJ. 276,281,282,313 Cohn,G.H. 265 Collins,!.!. 291,329,345,358 Colson,F.H. 100, 101 Conrad, E.W. 135 Coogan,M.D. 369 Coote,R.B. 276,282,283 Couroyer, B. 38,44 Cowley,A. 366,368 Crenshaw, !.L. 357 Cross, P.M. !r 46, 50, 350, 352, 366 Curtis, E.L. 347,354,364 Dallenbach, L. 263,264 Dana,!. 105 Davies,E.W. 247 Davies,P.R. 84 De Vries, S.!. 3, 161, 171, 201, 215, 220, 221, 229, 250, 277, 281, 294, 295, 297,301,310,322,360
400
God's Word for Our World
Delcor,M. 350,354 Dijk, J.J.A. van 53 Dillard, R.B. 300,352 Dillman, C.F.A. 349 Dirksen, P.B. 360 Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W. 286, 287 Dozeman, T.B. 251,254,258 Driver, S.R. 339, 344, 353, 364 Eissfeldt, O. 97, 98, 276, 350, 360 Elliger, K. 137 Elmslie, W.A.L. 347, 354, 364 Evans, C.A. 138 Ewald, G.H.A. 349 Feldman, L.H. 101 Fensham, F.C. 327,344 Finkelstein, I. 7 Fisch,H. 148, 153,170, Fisch,R.H. 344,336 Fishbane, M. 56, 57, 66, 171 Fitzmyer, J.A. 292 Fohrer, G. 144,354 Foster, J.A. 160 Frankfort, H. 45 Freedman, D.N. 46,49-51, 123, 129, 130, 315,317,321,350,352 Fried, L. 136, 139, 140 Friedman, R. 274 Frymer-Kensky, T. 56-59,69-71,78 Fuchs, L. 367 Gall, A. von 27 Galling, K. 355 Gerleman, G. 358 Giesen, G. 57 Glass, Z.P. 340,344 Goerwitz, R.L. 73 Goldin,J. 102 Good, E.M. 123 Goody,J. 328,331,344 Gottwald, N.K. 341,344 Gray, G.B. 102, 103, 110 Greene, J.T. 248,249 Greenfield, J.C. 99, 110 Greenstein, E.L. 262-64 Grintz,Y.M. 359
Habermann, A.M. 96 Hagstrom, D.G. 316,317,321 Hahn, E.A. 116 Hallo, W.W. 53 Halpera, B. 274 Hamilton, J.M. 297,310-13 Hamilton, V.P. 334,344 Hammershaimb, E. 276, 277, 282 Hanel,J. 359,364,365 Hanson, P.O. 352 Harner,P.B. 137 Harper, W.R. 282 Harrelson, WJ. 282,286 Harris, R. 334,344 Harrison, R.K. 360 Hauser,A.J. 272,274 Hayes, J.H. 276, 279, 282, 300, 301 Hayward, C.T.R. 291 Hermissen, H.-J. 144 Hiebert, P.S. 344 Killers, D. 316 Hirschfield, H. 105 Hoffmeier, J.K. 38 Hoftijzer, J. 336, 338, 344 Holladay, W.L. 54, 126, 200-202, 207 Holter, K. 158 Hooker, P.K. 359 Horbury,W. 363,367,369 Houtman, C. 27 Hrushovski, B. 97 Hudson, D.M. 306,314 Huffmon, H.B. 296 Huk,M. 96 Humbert, P. 38,42 Hurvitz, A. 347 Hyatt, J.P. 147 Im,T.S. 363 Ittmann, N. 136 Jackson, B.S. 337,344 Jacobs, M.R. 315,316,321,323 Jacobsen, T. 287 Jakobson, R. I l l Japhet,S. 300,349,351,354,361 Jefferson, A. 263 Jeremias, J. 144, 276, 278, 280-82 Johnson, D.M. 351
Index of Authors
401
Johnstone, W. 360 Jones, B.C. 158 Jones, G.H. 296,301,356
Lopata, H.Z. 345 Lowth,R. 109,110 Luckenbill, D.D. 366
Kaiser, O. 355 Kalimi, I. 348-50,356-58,361-63 Kalmin,R. 338,344 Kamphausen, A. 365 Katz,M. 105 Kaufmann,Y. 112,359 Kegler,J. 353 Keil, C.F. 349,351 Kellerman,U. 281 Keown, G.L. 200 Kermode, F. 114, 119 Kittel, R. 354,364 Klein, R.W. 359 Klingbeil, G.A. 38,44 Knierim,R.P. 55,321 Knight, G.A.F. 148, 162, 163 Knohl, I. 68 Knoppers, G.N. 83, 354, 356, 357 Knowles,M.P. 160 Koch,K. 282 Kock,K. 276 Koehler, L. 344 Kohn,R.L. 141, 144 Koole,J.L. 140 Kottsieper, I. 366 Kraeling, E.G. 367,369 Kropat, A. 347 Kugel,J. 96, 109, 111 Kutsch,E. 144
Madsen, A.A. 347, 354, 364 Malamat, A. 357 Mann, T.W. 49,53 Margaliot, M. 248 Margonet, J. 272 Mauchline, J. 282 Mayes,A.D.H. 156 Mays, J.L. 276,280,282,316,317 Mazar, B. 360 McBride, S.D. 340,345 McCarthy, B.R. 6 McConville, J.G. 83 McKane,W. 69,81,126,315,317,318, 322 McKenzie, S.L. 350,352 McNeill,J.T. 176 Mendenhall, G. 45, 168 Metzner, G. 315,317 Merendino, R.P. 338,345 Meyer, E. 366,367 Meyers, C. 329,345 Meyers, E.M. 143 Milgrom, J. 56-59, 64, 65, 67-70, 78, 247,249, 253, 256 Miller, J.M. 294, 300, 301 Miller, P.O. 39, 44, 152, 200, 201 Miriam, J. 119 Montgomery, J. 295 Moore, M.S. 248 Morgan, R. 135 Mosis,R. 348,361 Mowinckel, S. 136, 144 Muilenberg, J. 152 Myers, J.M. 350,359
Laato, A. 144 Labuschagne, C.J. 38 Laffey,A.L. 336,344 Lambdin, T.O. 120, 121 Leech,G.N. 115 Leibowitz, N. 44 Levi, I. 284 Levine,B. 56,247,249,251-55,258 Levinson, B.M. 341,345 Licht,Y.S. 97 Lidzbarski, M. 367,368 Liver, J. 351,367 Lods,S. 354 Lohfink,N. 47, 138, 340, 341, 345 Long,B.O. 296,297
Neusner, J. 102 Newsome, J.D. Jr 350, 352 Niditch,S. 336,345 Nogalski, J.D. 149, 282, 286, 288, 289 Noth, M. 83,300,301,350,354 Noy,D. 367,369 O'Brien, M.A. 296 O'Connor, K.M. 136 O'Connor, M. 65, 121
402
God's Word for Our World
O'Connor, M.P. 46 Oeming, M. 354 Olson, D.T. 169,247 Orlinsky, H.M. 145 Ottli, S. 353 Otto, E. 345 Otwell, J.H. 328,345 Overholt, T.W. 201 Palache, J.I. 136, 141 Paul, S.M. 130,276-80,282 Peleg,Y. 273 Perdue, L.G. 329,345 Petersen, D.L. 352 Pfeiffer, P.H. 354 Pietersma, A. 25 Pike,D.M. 296 Pleins,J.D. 341,345 Polley,M.E. 276,282 Polzin,R. 347 Pomykala, K.E. 275, 290, 292 Pressler,C. 339,345 Propp,W.H.C. 39,46,47,141,144 Pury, A. de 83, 84 Quinn,K. 115, 116, 118, 134
Rad, G. von 166 Rehm,M. 295,301,310 Reinhartz, A. 306-309 Renaud, B. 316 Rendtorff, R. 276,281,282 Reuss,E. 172, 176 Revell,E.J. 303-305 Richardson, H.N. 282, 283, 285, 286 Riley.W. 360 Rimmon-Kenan, S. 264 Roberts, J.J.M. 38, 39, 44, 148 Robertson, D. 296 Rofe,A. 347,360 Romer, T. 83,84 Rosenthal, E.I.J. 104 Roth, W. 294 Rothstein, J.W. 359, 364, 365 Rouiller,G. 263 Rudolph, W. 276,279,280,282,316, 350,351,359,362 Ryle, H.E. 101
Sakenfeld, K.D. 255,256 Sanders, P. 151, 168 Sansone, D. 116, 117 Sarna,N.M. 52,97 Sasson, J.M. 267 Scalise, P.J. 200 Schafer-Lichtenberger, C. 91 Schlitt,A. 101, 136 Schmidt, H. 144 Schniedewind, W.M. 276, 280, 282, 285, 289 Schoors, A. 145 Schiirer, E. 367 Scott, W.R. 202 Seebass,H. 296,314 Seeden, H. 48 Seely,D.R. 38,42,43 Segal, M.H. 97, 101-103, 109, 112 Seitz,G. 338,345 Selman,M.J. 360 Shaw, C.S. 321 Shepperd, G.T. 141 Siegfried, C. 101 Silberman, L.H. 292 Silberman, N.A. 7 Simon, A. 262,272 Ska,J.L. 263 Smend, R. 84 Smothers, TJ. 200 Sneed, M. 340,345 Soden, J.W. von 38 Soggin,J.A. 276,282 Sommer, B.D. 147, 149 Sonnet, J.-P. 88,263 Soulen, R.K. 120 Soulen, R.N. 120 Speiser, E.A. 122 Spolsky,E. 114 Staley.LL. 303 Stamm, J.J. 44,344 Steinberg, N. 329, 340, 345 Steins, G. 355 Steinberg, M. 271,272,301,302 Stuart, D. 276,282 Suiter, D.E. 350 Sweeney, M.A. 147, 276, 282, 315, 31719,321
Index of Authors Talshir,D. 361 Tarler, D. 288 Thompson, D. 336,346 Thompson, J.A. 201 Thompson, T. 336, 346 Thronveit, M.A. 352,361 Toorn, K. van der 334, 346 Torrey, C.C. 354 Trible, P. 124,301 Tuell, S.S. 352 Tull,P. 149 Uffenheimer, B. 350,352 Vaux, R. de 350, 354 Wagenaar, J.A. 315,317,318,320 Walter, N. 358 Waltke, B.K. 65, 121 Warshaw, T.S. 262 Watson, A. 337,346 Watson, W.G.E. 96, 118, 125, 129 Watts, J.D.W. 141 Wegner,J.R. 338,346 Weinberg, J. 108, 109 Weinfeld, M. 147, 340, 346 Weippert,H. 296,297,301,314 Weiss, M. Ill Welch, A.C. 350,352 Wellhausen, J. 275,353
403
Wells, R.D. Jr 147 Welten,P. 354,355 Westbrook,R. 331,336,346 Westermann, C. 122, 152, 317 Wevers, J.W. 30 Whybray,R.N. 145 Whyte,M.K. 331,346 Wildberger, H. 148 Willey,P.K. 336,346 Willey,P.T. 147 Willi,T. 351,353 Willi-Plein, I. 316,318 Williams, R.J. 121 Williamson, H.G.M. 351,355,360 Willis, J.T. 322 Winkle, D.W. van 310-12 Wolff, H.W. 127, 276, 277-82, 317, 318 Wolfson,H.A. 101 Woude, A. van der 318 Wright, G.T. 114,116,117,119 Wurthwein, E. 294,295 Yadin, Y. 285, 356 Young, E.J. 349,359,364 Zackowitz, I. 262, 265, 272 Zimmerli, D.W. 69, 144 Zinberg, I. 108 Zunz, L. 347,354
