The 'Foreignness' of the Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1-9: A Study of the Origin and Development of a Biblical Motif (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 381)

Nancy Nam Hoon Tan The ‘Foreignness’ of the Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1-9

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Herausgegeben von John Barton · Reinhard G. Kratz Choon-Leong Seow · Markus Witte

Band 381

≥ Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Nancy Nam Hoon Tan

The ‘Foreignness’ of the Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1-9 A Study of the Origin and Development of a Biblical Motif

≥ Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI 앪 to ensure permanence and durability.

ISBN 978-3-11-020063-8 ISSN 0934-2575 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. 쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin

Forewordȱ ȱ Forȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ lastȱ century,ȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ tendedȱ toȱ isolateȱ Jewishȱ wisdomȱliteratureȱfromȱotherȱbiblicalȱsources,ȱpreferringȱtoȱreadȱProvȬ erbs,ȱinȱparticular,ȱmoreȱinȱtheȱlightȱofȱEgyptianȱanaloguesȱthanȱinȱconȬ nectionȱwithȱmoreȱ“mainstream”ȱHebrewȱtexts.ȱIfȱthisȱhasȱhelpedȱusȱtoȱ understandȱmoreȱclearlyȱsomeȱaspectsȱofȱthatȱbook,ȱitȱhas,ȱallȱtheȱsame,ȱ obscuredȱ someȱ potentiallyȱ significantȱ linksȱ andȱ dependencies.ȱ Asȱ thisȱ valuableȱstudyȱamplyȱdemonstrates,ȱthereȱisȱmuchȱtoȱbeȱgainedȱbyȱrecȬ ognizingȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ wisdomȱ literatureȱ drawsȱ onȱ themesȱ andȱ motifsȱfromȱotherȱJewishȱtexts;ȱindeed,ȱthatȱrecognitionȱcanȱhelpȱusȱtoȱaȱ betterȱ understandingȱ notȱ onlyȱ ofȱ wisdomȱ literature,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ ofȱ thoseȱ otherȱ texts.ȱ Herȱ lexicalȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ termsȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ “foreignȱ woman”ȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱleadsȱTanȱintoȱaȱmuchȱbroaderȱexaminationȱofȱ foreignȱ women,ȱ andȱ theirȱ characterizationȱ inȱ otherȱ biblicalȱ works,ȱ whichȱ identifiesȱ aȱ significantȱ Deuteronomisticȱ theme,ȱ andȱ tracesȱ itsȱ influenceȱthroughȱEzraȬNehemiahȱandȱProverbs,ȱbeforeȱitsȱsubsequentȱ reȬinterpretationȱinȱmuchȱlaterȱliterature.ȱAlthoughȱthereȱare,ȱperhaps,ȱ noȱ otherȱ instancesȱ quiteȱ soȱ strikingȱ asȱ thisȱ motif,ȱ itȱ opensȱ upȱ theȱ wayȱ forȱaȱmuchȱbroaderȱconsiderationȱofȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱProverbsȱcanȱbeȱ readȱasȱaȱhistoricallyȱintegralȱpartȱofȱtheȱbiblicalȱcorpus,ȱandȱnotȱsimplyȱ asȱaȱresidentȱalien.ȱIndeed,ȱhavingȱhadȱtheȱprivilegeȱofȱsupervisingȱthisȱ work,ȱ duringȱ itsȱ earlierȱ incarnationȱ asȱ aȱ doctoralȱ thesisȱ atȱ Durham,ȱ Iȱ haveȱhadȱtheȱopportunityȱtoȱmakeȱgoodȱuseȱofȱTan’sȱresultsȱinȱmyȱownȱ attemptsȱtoȱdoȱjustȱthat.ȱThisȱisȱaȱwork,ȱthen,ȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱofȱparticularȱ interestȱ toȱ specialistȱ studentsȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ wisdomȱ literature,ȱ butȱ itȱ adȬ dressesȱ muchȱ broaderȱ questions,ȱ andȱ suggests,ȱ indeed,ȱ thatȱ suchȱ stuȬ dentsȱmayȱneedȱtoȱexpandȱtheirȱhorizonsȱratherȱfurther.ȱ ȱ StuartȱWeeksȱ Durhamȱ Aprilȱ2008ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ ȱ Forewordȱ ....................................................................................................... ȱvȱ TableȱofȱContentsȱ........................................................................................ȱviiȱ Acknowledgementȱ ...................................................................................... ȱxiȱ Abbreviationsȱ ............................................................................................ ȱxiiiȱ ȱ ChapterȱOne:ȱInterpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness”ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱ WomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ ............................................................................... ȱ1ȱ Introductionȱ .................................................................................................. ȱ1ȱ ȱ 1.1ȱ SurveyȱofȱtheȱScholarlyȱLiteratureȱ............................................... ȱ3ȱ ȱ1.2ȱ Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness”ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ .................................................................................. ȱ13ȱ ȱ 1.2.1ȱȱTheȱOccurrencesȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱinȱtheȱOTȱ ........................ ȱ13ȱ ȱ 1.2.2ȱȱBoströmȱonȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱInterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ ............................. ȱ19ȱ ȱ 1.2.3ȱȱHumbertȱonȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱInterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ ............................. ȱ21ȱ ȱ 1.2.4ȱȱSnijdersȱonȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱInterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ ............................. ȱ23ȱ ȱȱ 1.2.5ȱȱLangȱonȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱInterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ ............................. ȱ33ȱ ȱ 1.2.6ȱȱSectionȱConclusionȱ............................................................. ȱ42ȱ ȱ ChapterȱTwo:ȱ“Foreignness”ȱandȱtheȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱȱ PostȬExilicȱTextsȱ ......................................................................................... ȱ44ȱ 2.1ȱ TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEzraȱ ................................. ȱ44ȱ 2.2ȱ TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱNehemiahȱ....................... ȱ52ȱ 2.3ȱ Theȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱandȱtheȱDeuteronomicȱProhibitionsȱ .... ȱ55ȱ 2.4ȱ TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱMalachiȱ ........................... ȱ59ȱ 2.5ȱ ChapterȱConclusionȱ ..................................................................... ȱ63ȱ ȱ ChapterȱThree:ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱȱ Literatureȱ..................................................................................................... ȱ65ȱ 3.1ȱ QueenȱJezebel,ȱtheȱArchetypalȱ“ForeignȱWife” ........................ ȱ65ȱ 3.2ȱ “ForeignȱWives”ȱandȱtheȱBadȱJudahiteȱKingsȱ.......................... ȱ72ȱ 3.3ȱ ChapterȱConclusionȱ ..................................................................... ȱ79ȱ

viiiȱ

ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱFour:ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ........ ȱ81ȱ ȱ 4.1ȱ IntroductionȱtoȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ....................................................... ȱ82ȱ ȱ 4.2ȱ PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ ............................... ȱ84ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ4.2.1ȱȱProverbsȱ2:16Ȭ19ȱ ................................................................. ȱ84ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ4.2.2ȱȱProverbsȱ5:1Ȭ23ȱ ................................................................... ȱ88ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ4.2.3ȱȱProverbsȱ6:20Ȭ35ȱ ................................................................. ȱ94ȱ ȱ ȱ4.2.4ȱȱProverbsȱ7:1Ȭ27ȱ ................................................................... ȱ96ȱ ȱ ȱ4.2.5ȱȱProverbsȱ9:13Ȭ18ȱ ............................................................... ȱ100ȱ ȱ GeneralȱSummaryȱandȱConclusionȱ........................................................ ȱ103ȱ ȱ ChapterȱFive:ȱDirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱȱȱȱȱȱ inȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ ................................................................... ȱ106ȱ ȱ 5.1ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱȱȱȱȱȱ ofȱtheȱOTȱ...................................................................................... ȱ107ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ5.1.1ȱȱTheȱʺʥʸʦȱinȱProverbsȱ22:14ȱ ............................................... ȱ107ȱ ȱ ȱ5.1.2ȱȱTheȱʤʩʸʫʰȱinȱProverbsȱ23:26Ȭ28ȱ ........................................ ȱ108ȱ ȱ 5.1.3ȱȱTheȱʤʹʠʤȱinȱEcclesiastesȱ7:26ȱ........................................... ȱ110ȱ 5.2ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱ............................ ȱ112ȱ ȱ ȱ5.2.1ȱȱTheȱTextȱofȱ4Q184ȱ ............................................................ ȱ112ȱ ȱ 5.2.2ȱȱTheȱInterpretationsȱofȱtheȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱ ................ ȱ115ȱ 5.3ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ ... ȱ121ȱ ȱ 5.3.1ȱȱPreliminariesȱ..................................................................... ȱ121ȱ ȱ ȱ5.3.2ȱȱPresentationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9 ....................................................................... ȱ123ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5.3.2.1ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ2:12Ȭ22 ................................. 124ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5.3.2.2ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ5:3Ȭ20ȱ ................................. ȱ126ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5.3.2.3ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ6:24Ȭ35ȱ ............................... ȱ127ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5.3.2.4ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ7:4Ȭ23ȱ ................................. ȱ129ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5.3.2.5ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ9:13Ȭ18dȱ............................. ȱ130ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5.3.2.6ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ22:14ȱ .................................. ȱ132ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5.3.2.7ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ23:27Ȭ28ȱ ............................. ȱ132ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5.3.2.8ȱSectionȱConclusionȱ............................................... ȱ133ȱ 5.4ȱȱChapterȱConclusionȱ ................................................................... ȱ134ȱ ȱ ChapterȱSix:ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱȱ WisdomȱLiteratureȱ ................................................................................... ȱ135ȱ ȱ 6.1ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ......................... ȱ135ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.1.1ȱȱIntroductionȱtoȱBenȱSiraȱ .................................................. ȱ135ȱ ȱ ȱ6.1.2ȱȱTheȱHebrewȱtextsȱofȱ41:20Ȭ21ȱandȱ9:3ȱ............................ ȱ138ȱ ȱ ȱ6.1.3ȱȱTheȱGreekȱTextsȱofȱ9:3ȱandȱ41:20Ȭ21ȱ .............................. ȱ145ȱ ȱ ȱȱ 6.1.4ȱȱTheȱOtherȱPortrayalsȱofȱBadȱWomenȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ ........ ȱ150ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

ixȱ

ȱ6.2ȱ ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱWisdomȱofȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Solomonȱ....................................................................................... ȱ154ȱ ȱ ȱ6.2.1ȱȱTheȱThemeȱofȱ1:1Ȭ6:11ȱ...................................................... ȱ156ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ 6.2.2ȱȱTheȱThemeȱofȱ10:1Ȭ19:22ȱ.................................................. ȱ160ȱ ȱ 6.3ȱ ChapterȱConclusionȱandȱSummaryȱ ......................................... ȱ162ȱ ȱ ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ ................................................................ ȱ165ȱ ȱ Appendix:ȱOtherȱForeignȱWomenȱandȱIntermarriagesȱinȱtheȱOTȱ ..... ȱ173ȱ ȱ Bibliographyȱ ............................................................................................. ȱ183ȱ ȱ IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ....................................................................................... ȱ203ȱ ȱ IndexȱofȱAuthorsȱ ...................................................................................... ȱ207ȱ ȱ IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferencesȱ .................................................................... ȱ211ȱ ȱ IndexȱofȱNonȬBiblicalȱReferencesȱ ........................................................... ȱ223ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Acknowledgementȱ ȱ Iȱ amȱ overwhelmedȱ withȱ gratitudeȱ byȱ theȱ generosityȱ ofȱ allȱ whoȱ haveȱ helpedȱmeȱinȱeveryȱwayȱsoȱthatȱIȱmayȱaccomplishȱthisȱtask.ȱForȱeveryȱ encouragingȱ word,ȱ gestureȱ andȱ prayer,ȱ theyȱ areȱ allȱ warmlyȱ receivedȱ andȱappreciated.ȱThereȱareȱtooȱmanyȱpeopleȱtoȱthankȱandȱtheȱlistȱhereȱ isȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱexhaustive.ȱȱ Toȱbegin,ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱthankȱtheȱeditorsȱofȱBZAWȱforȱacceptingȱ myȱ monograph,ȱ andȱ makingȱ possibleȱ itsȱ publication,ȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ someȱ slightȱ revisionȱ ofȱ myȱ doctorateȱ thesis.ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ endearingȱ thanksȱ goȱtoȱSabinaȱDabrowskiȱforȱherȱmeticulousȱeffortȱtoȱensureȱeveryȱdetailȱ fallsȱintoȱplace.ȱButȱaboveȱandȱbeyondȱallȱtheȱtechnicalȱadvice,ȱsheȱhasȱ becomeȱaȱfriend,ȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱfailȱtoȱextendȱherȱtenderȱlovingȱkindnessȱ toȱmyȱgeneralȱwelfare.ȱ TheȱsecondȱgroupȱgoesȱtoȱmyȱteachersȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱDurham:ȱ ProfessorsȱRobertȱHayward,ȱLorenȱStuckenbrück,ȱWalterȱMoberly,ȱandȱ especiallyȱ myȱ supervisor,ȱ theȱ youngestȱ ofȱ themȱ all,ȱ Dr.ȱ Stuartȱ D.E.ȱ Weeksȱ–ȱforȱtheirȱpassionȱtowardsȱscholarshipȱandȱexcellence,ȱIȱdeeplyȱ oweȱmyȱeducationȱandȱinspiration.ȱȱ Aboveȱ all,ȱ myȱ dearestȱ husband,ȱ Laurenceȱ andȱ myȱ adorableȱ son,ȱ Linus,ȱ whoȱ keepȱ cheeringȱ meȱ onȱ toȱ completeȱ thisȱ task.ȱ Whenȱ Iȱ comȬ pletedȱmyȱthesisȱinȱ2004,ȱLaurenceȱfeltȱthatȱitȱshouldȱbeȱdedicatedȱtoȱtheȱ oneȱwhoȱappreciatedȱtheȱworkȱtheȱmost,ȱthatȱis,ȱtoȱStuart.ȱIȱdedicatedȱitȱ toȱ Laurenceȱinstead,ȱinȱ appreciationȱ forȱ allȱ theȱ sacrificesȱ heȱ hadȱmadeȱ forȱme,ȱevenȱthoughȱheȱhardlyȱknewȱwhatȱIȱwasȱwritingȱallȱtheseȱyears.ȱ Therefore,ȱforȱthisȱbook,ȱIȱshallȱdedicateȱitȱtoȱStuart:ȱforȱyourȱdedicationȱ andȱcarefulȱnurtureȱofȱthisȱ“foreignȱwoman”,ȱsoȱthatȱsheȱmayȱnowȱbeȬ longȱ“inside”ȱwithȱyouȱinȱthisȱacademia.ȱȱ Iȱwouldȱalsoȱlikeȱtoȱthankȱtheȱsupportȱofȱtheȱdelightfulȱcommunityȱ ofȱ Divinityȱ Schoolȱ ofȱ Chungȱ Chiȱ College,ȱ Theȱ Chineseȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Hongȱ Kong,ȱ whereȱ Iȱ nowȱ belong.ȱ Theȱ studentshipȱ andȱ scholarshipȱ fundsȱhaveȱalsoȱenabledȱsomeȱstudentsȱtoȱhelpȱmeȱwithȱtheȱindexing.ȱ Lastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱthisȱbookȱisȱalsoȱdedicatedȱinȱlovingȱmemoryȱofȱ myȱ devotedȱ father,ȱ Tanȱ Chongȱ Chiedȱ (1926Ȭ2001),ȱ aȱ compassionateȱ Chineseȱ physicianȱ whoȱ didȱ notȱ failȱ toȱ helpȱ theȱ poor.ȱ Althoughȱ oldȬ fashionedȱ andȱ conservativeȱ aboutȱ women’sȱ roleȱ andȱ theirȱ achieveȬ ments,ȱheȱapprovedȱandȱsupportedȱmyȱpursuitȱforȱfurtherȱstudies.ȱȱ ȱ ByȱHisȱGraceȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Abbreviationsȱ ȱ ABȱ ABDȱ AfOȱ ALGHJȱ AnBibȱ ANETȱ Ant.ȱ AOATȱ APOTȱ ASORȱ AZGJUȱ BASORȱ BBRȱ BDBȱ BEATȱ BETLȱ BHSȱ Bibȱ BIOSCSȱ BISȱ BJȱ BJPESȱ BKATȱ BSȱ BTȱ BWANTȱ

AnchorȱBibleȱȱ DavidȱNoelȱFreedmanȱ(ed.),ȱAnchorȱBibleȱDictionary,ȱ6ȱvols.ȱȱȱ (GardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1992)ȱ ArchivȱfürȱOrientforschung:ȱInternationaleȱZeitschriftȱfürȱdieȱ WissenschaftȱvomȱVorderenȱOrientȱȱ ArbeitenȱzurȱLiteraturȱundȱGeschichteȱdesȱhellenistischenȱ Judentumsȱ Analectaȱbiblicaȱ JamesȱB.ȱPritchardȱ(ed.),ȱAncientȱNearȱEasternȱTextsȱRelatingȱtoȱ theȱOldȱTestamentȱ(Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1950)ȱ Josephus,ȱJewishȱAntiquitiesȱ AlterȱOrientȱundȱAltesȱTestamentȱȱ R.H.ȱCharlesȱ(ed.),ȱApocryphaȱandȱPseudepigraphaȱofȱtheȱOldȱ TestamentȱinȱEnglishȱ(2ȱvols.;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1913)ȱ AmericanȱSchoolsȱofȱOrientalȱResearchȱ ArbeitenȱzurȱGeschichteȱdesȱantikenȱJudentumsȱundȱdesȱ Urchristentumsȱȱ BulletinȱofȱtheȱAmericanȱSchoolsȱofȱOrientalȱResearchȱȱ BibleȱinȱBiblicalȱResearchȱ F.ȱBrown,ȱS.R.ȱDriver,ȱandȱC.A.ȱBriggs,ȱAȱHebrewȱandȱEnglishȱ LexiconȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ(Oxford:ȱClaredonȱPress,ȱ1907)ȱ BeiträgeȱzurȱErforschungȱdesȱAltenȱTestamentsȱundȱdesȱ antikenȱJudentumsȱ Bibliothecaȱephemeridumȱtheologicarumȱlovaniensiumȱȱ K.ȱElligerȱandȱW.ȱRudolphȱ(eds.),ȱBibliaȱhebraicaȱstuttgartensia,ȱȱ (Stuttgart,ȱ4thȱedn.ȱ1990)ȱ Biblicaȱȱ BulletinȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱOrganizationȱforȱSeptuagintȱandȱ CognateȱStudiesȱ BiblicalȱInterpretationȱSeriesȱȱ BrownȱJudaicȱStudiesȱȱ BulletinȱofȱtheȱJewishȱPalestineȱExplorationȱSocietyȱ BiblischerȱKommentar.ȱAltesȱTestamentȱ BiblicalȱSeminarȱȱ TheȱBibleȱTranslatorȱ BeiträgeȱzurȱWissenschaftȱvomȱAltenȱundȱNeuenȱTestamentȱȱ

xivȱ BZȱ BZAWȱ CADȱ CBȱ CBQȱ CBQMSȱ CJASȱ CRINTȱ DDDȱ DJDȱ EncJudȱ ETLȱ FRLANTȱ GKȱ HALOTȱ

HARȱ HATȱ HRȱ HTRȱ HUCAȱ ICCȱ IEJȱ Intȱ JANESȱ JAOSȱ JBLȱ JJSȱ JNESȱ JPSȱ

JQRȱ

Abbreviationsȱ

BiblischeȱZeitschriftȱȱ BeihefteȱzurȱZeitschriftȱfürȱdieȱalttestamentlicheȱWissenschaftȱȱ TheȱAssyrianȱDictionaryȱofȱtheȱOrientalȱInstituteȱofȱtheȱUniversityȱ ofȱChicagoȱ(1956Ȭ)ȱ TheȱCambridgeȱBibleȱforȱschoolsȱandȱcolleges,ȱNewȱEnglishȱ Bibleȱ CatholicȱBiblicalȱQuarterlyȱȱ CatholicȱBiblicalȱQuarterly,ȱMonographȱSeriesȱ ChristianityȱandȱJudaismȱinȱAntiquityȱSeriesȱ CompendiaȱRerumȱIudaicarumȱadȱNovumȱTestamentumȱȱ KarelȱvanȱderȱToorn,ȱB.ȱBecking,ȱP.W.ȱvanȱderȱHorst,ȱ DictionaryȱofȱDeitiesȱandȱDemonsȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2ndȱedn,ȱ1999)ȱ DiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱJudaeanȱDesertȱofȱJordanȱȱ EncyclopediaȱJudaicaȱ(16ȱvols.;ȱJerusalem,ȱNewȱYork,ȱ1971Ȭ2)ȱ Ephemeridesȱtheologicaeȱlovaniensesȱ ForschungenȱzurȱReligionȱundȱLiteraturȱdesȱAltenȱundȱNeuenȱ Testamentsȱȱ E.ȱKautschȱ(ed.),ȱGesenius’ȱHebrewȱGrammarȱ(rev.ȱandȱtrans.ȱ A.E.ȱCowley;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1910)ȱ LudwigȱKoehlerȱandȱWalterȱB.ȱBaumgartner,ȱTheȱHebrewȱandȱ AramaicȱLexiconȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ(trans.ȱM.E.J.ȱRichardsonȱ (5ȱvols.;ȱLeiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1967Ȭ1995)ȱ HebrewȱAnnualȱReviewȱȱ HandbuchȱzumȱAltenȱTestamentȱ EdwinȱHatchȱandȱHenryȱRedpath,ȱAȱConcordanceȱtoȱtheȱ Septuagintȱ(2ȱvols;ȱOxford,ȱClarendon:ȱ1897)ȱ HarvardȱTheologicalȱReviewȱ HebrewȱUnionȱCollegeȱAnnualȱȱ InternationalȱCriticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱHolyȱScripturesȱofȱ theȱOldȱandȱNewȱTestamentsȱ IsraelȱExplorationȱJournalȱ Interpretationȱȱ JournalȱofȱtheȱAncientȱNearȱEasternȱSocietyȱofȱColumbiaȱ Universityȱȱ JournalȱofȱtheȱAmericanȱOrientalȱSocietyȱȱ JournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱȱ JournalȱofȱJewishȱStudiesȱȱ JournalȱofȱNearȱEasternȱStudiesȱ JPSȱTorahȱCommentary:ȱtheȱTraditionalȱHebrewȱtextȱwithȱtheȱ newȱJPSȱtranslationȱ[and]ȱcommentaryȱ(Philadelphia:ȱJewishȱ PublicationȱSociety,ȱ1989Ȭ1996)ȱ JewishȱQuarterlyȱReviewȱȱ

ȱ

Abbreviationsȱ

JSJSupȱ JSOTȱ JSOTSupȱ JSPSupȱ KBȱ LSȱ

LUÅȱ MTȱ NASBȱ NCBȱ NICOTȱ NIDOTEȱ

NIBȱ NKJVȱ NRSVȱ OBOȱ OBTȱ OLAȱ OTȱ OTGȱ OTLȱ OTSȱ RBȱ RelSRevȱ RevQȱ RHPRȱ RTLȱ SBLȱ SBTȱ SBLDSȱ SBSȱ SJȱ SJLAȱ SJOTȱ SJTȱ

xvȱ

SupplementsȱtoȱtheȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱJudaismȱȱ JournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱȱ JournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱSupplementȱSeriesȱȱ JournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱtheȱPseudepigraphaȱSupplementȱ Seriesȱȱ LudwigȱKoehlerȱandȱWalterȱBaumgartnerȱ(eds.),ȱLexiconȱinȱ VeterisȱTestamentiȱlibrosȱ(Leiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1953)ȱ HenryȱGeorgeȱLiddell,ȱRobertȱScottȱandȱH.ȱStuartȱJones,ȱ GreekȬEnglishȱLexiconȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendon,ȱ9thȱedn,ȱrev.ȱ supplement,ȱ1996)ȱ Lundsȱuniversitetsȱårsskriftȱ MasoreticȱTextȱ NewȱAmericanȱStandardȱBibleȱ NewȱCenturyȱBibleȱCommentaryȱ NewȱInternationalȱCommentaryȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ (Michigan:ȱEerdmans;ȱLondon:ȱHodderȱandȱStoughton)ȱ WillemȱA.ȱVanGemerenȱ(ed.),ȱNewȱInternationalȱDictionaryȱofȱ OldȱTestamentȱTheologyȱandȱExegesisȱ(5ȱvols.;ȱGrandȱRapids:ȱ Zondervan,ȱ1997)ȱ NewȱInternationalȱVersionȱ(British)ȱ NewȱKingȱJamesȱVersionȱ NewȱRevisedȱStandardȱVersionȱ OrbisȱBiblicusȱetȱOrientalisȱȱ OverturesȱtoȱBiblicalȱTheologyȱȱ OrientaliaȱLovaniensiaȱAnalectaȱȱ OldȱTestamentȱ OldȱTestamentȱGuidesȱ OldȱTestamentȱLibraryȱȱ OudtestamentischeȱStudiënȱȱ Revueȱbibliqueȱȱ ReligiousȱStudiesȱReviewȱ RevueȱdeȱQumranȱȱ Revueȱd’histoireȱetȱdeȱphilosophieȱreligieuseȱ RevueȱtheologiqueȱdeȱLouvainȱ SocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱȱ StudiesȱinȱBiblicalȱTheologyȱ SocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱDissertationȱSeriesȱȱ StuttgarterȱBibelstudienȱ Studiaȱjudaicaȱ StudiesȱinȱJudaismȱinȱLateȱAntiquityȱ ScandinavianȱJournalȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱȱ ScottishȱJournalȱofȱTheologyȱȱ

xviȱ STȱ STDJȱ TDOTȱ TLOTȱ TSAJȱ TZȱ VTȱ VTSupȱ WBCȱ WMANTȱ WOȱ WUNTȱ ZAWȱ ZBATȱ

ȱ

Abbreviationsȱ

StudiaȱTheologicaȱ StudiesȱonȱtheȱTextsȱofȱtheȱDesertȱofȱJudahȱȱ G.J.ȱBotterweckȱandȱH.ȱRingrenȱ(eds.),ȱTheologicalȱDictionaryȱofȱ theȱOldȱTestamentȱ(GrandȱRapids:ȱEerdmans,ȱ1974Ȭ)ȱ ErnstȱJenniȱandȱClausȱWestermannȱ(eds.),ȱTheologicalȱLexiconȱ ofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ(3ȱvols.,ȱPeabody,ȱMassachusetts,ȱ1997)ȱ TexteȱundȱStudienȱzumȱantikenȱJudentumȱȱ TheologischeȱZeitschriftȱȱ VetusȱTestamentumȱȱ VetusȱTestamentum,ȱSupplementsȱȱ WordȱBiblicalȱCommentaryȱȱ WissenschaftlicheȱMonographienȱzumȱAltenȱundȱNeuenȱ Testamentȱȱ WeltȱdesȱOrientȱ WissenschaftlicheȱUntersuchungenȱzumȱNeuenȱTestamentȱȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱdieȱalttestamentlicheȱWissenschaftȱȱ ZürcherȱBibelkommentare.ȱAltesȱTestamentȱȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱOne:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness”ȱofȱtheȱ ForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱȱȱ Introductionȱ TheȱsubjectȱofȱthisȱthesisȱisȱtheȱwomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱwhoȱisȱfamouslyȱ identifiedȱ byȱ theȱ adjectivesȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰ.ȱ Theȱ thesisȱ willȱ attemptȱ toȱ uncoverȱ theȱ historicalȱ backgroundȱ toȱ herȱ appearanceȱ inȱ thatȱ textȱ andȱ willȱtraceȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱaȱ“foreignȱwoman”ȱmotifȱinȱsubsequentȱ literature.ȱȱ Previousȱscholarshipȱhasȱdefinedȱandȱinterpretedȱthisȱwomanȱinȱallȱ sortsȱ ofȱ ways.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ persistentȱ claimsȱ areȱ thatȱ sheȱ isȱ anȱadulteressȱ andȱ aȱ ”socialȱ outsider”,ȱ whoȱ isȱ promiscuous.ȱ So,ȱ whileȱ itȱ isȱ acknowȬ ledgedȱthat,ȱinȱcasesȱlikeȱRuthȱ2:10ȱandȱ1ȱKgsȱ11:1,ȱ8,ȱtheȱfeminineȱformȱ ofȱʩʸʫʰ mustȱbeȱunderstoodȱtoȱreferȱtoȱaȱ“foreignȱwoman”ȱandȱ“foreignȱ wives”ȱ respectively,ȱ theȱ veryȱ sameȱ wordȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ whenȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ womanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱisȱgenerallyȱtakenȱtoȱindicateȱsomethingȱotherȱ thanȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ sheȱ isȱ “foreign”.ȱ Thisȱ raisesȱ generalȱ lexicographicalȱ questionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ semanticȱ rangeȱ toȱ beȱ attributedȱ toȱ thisȱ word,ȱ butȱ thereȱareȱhistoricalȱquestionsȱtoo:ȱasȱsomeȱrecentȱscholarsȱhaveȱpointedȱ out,ȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ isȱ generallyȱ takenȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ productȱ ofȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ contextȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ wereȱ atȱ theȱ centreȱ ofȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ intermarriage,ȱsoȱcrucialȱinȱEzraȬNehemiahȱandȱelsewhere.ȱOneȱcannotȱ helpȱ butȱ wonderȱ howȱ theȱ veryȱ sameȱ wordȱ shouldȱ haveȱ suchȱ comȬ pletelyȱdifferentȱmeaningsȱinȱtheȱsameȱgeneralȱperiod,ȱandȱwhetherȱitȱisȱ reallyȱconceivableȱthatȱtheȱwriterȱorȱreadersȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱcouldȱhaveȱ disassociatedȱ theȱ figureȱ inȱ theȱ bookȱ fromȱ suchȱ aȱ significantȱ recentȱ controversy.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ seriousnessȱ ofȱ theȱ intermarriageȱ problemȱresultingȱinȱtheȱexclusionȱorȱsevereȱpunishmentȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱ marriedȱ theȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ accordingȱ toȱ Ezraȱ (Ezraȱ 10:2Ȭ3,ȱ 7Ȭ8),ȱ andȱ publicȱ humiliationȱandȱexcommunicationȱbyȱNehemiahȱ(Nehȱ13:25,ȱ28),ȱwouldȱ seemȱ toȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ ʤʩʸʫʰ,ȱ whenȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ generalȱ periodȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱunderstoodȱbyȱtheȱaudienceȱtoȱhaveȱaȱspecificȱ socialȱ referenceȱ ratherȱ thanȱ someȱquiteȱ differentȱ technicalȱ senseȱofȱ theȱ word,ȱasȱcommonlyȱproposedȱinȱpreviousȱscholarshipȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱ Inevitably,ȱ theȱ situationȱ isȱ alsoȱ obscuredȱ byȱ theȱ otherȱ adjective,ȱ ʤʸʦ,ȱ

2ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

whichȱisȱusedȱforȱthisȱwomanȱinȱtheȱbook.ȱTheȱbroaderȱmeaningȱofȱʤʸʦ,ȱ whichȱ doesȱ encompassȱ aȱ widerȱ spectrumȱ ofȱ “otherness”,ȱ hasȱ offeredȱ scholarshipȱ someȱ licenseȱ toȱ interpretȱ herȱ asȱ otherȱ thanȱ simplyȱ “forȬ eign”.ȱ Bothȱ words,ȱ therefore,ȱ willȱ requireȱ closeȱ scrutinyȱ fromȱ theȱ outȬ set.ȱȱ Weȱshall,ȱtherefore,ȱstartȱbyȱlookingȱinȱsomeȱdepthȱatȱtheȱmeaningȱ ofȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ inȱ theȱ OT,ȱ especiallyȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ usedȱ inȱ conjuctionȱ withȱ ʸʦ.ȱ Beyondȱ simpleȱ lexicography,ȱ thisȱ alsoȱ involvesȱ understandingȱ whatȱ “foreignness”ȱ meansȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ andȱ especiallyȱ whatȱ itȱ mightȱ meanȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ behaviourȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ weȱ willȱ needȱ toȱ addressȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ study,ȱ theȱ identificationȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ withȱ adultery,ȱ aȱ linkȱwhichȱisȱsoȱcentralȱtoȱtheȱassumptionsȱmadeȱinȱmuchȱscholarship.ȱ Since,ȱinȱthisȱarea,ȱthereȱisȱaȱdistinctionȱtoȱbeȱmadeȱbetweenȱtheȱForeignȱ Womanȱ andȱ theȱ imageryȱ ofȱ theȱ adulteressȱ foundȱ inȱ someȱ propheticȱ literature,ȱ ourȱ studyȱ willȱ haveȱ toȱ focusȱ notȱ onlyȱ onȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignness”ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱbutȱalsoȱonȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ differsȱ fromȱ otherȱ portrayalsȱ ofȱ “badȱ women”ȱinȱtheȱOT.ȱ Theȱfirstȱthreeȱchaptersȱofȱtheȱthesisȱthen,ȱdealȱwithȱtheȱbackgroundȱ toȱ theȱ understandingȱ ofȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ postȬexilicȱ period.ȱ Chapterȱ Oneȱ surveysȱ theȱ scholarship,ȱ reȬexaminesȱ theȱ definitionsȱ andȱ interȬ pretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ andȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ “foreign”ȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ womanȱ mustȱ beȱ reȬasserted.ȱ Chapterȱ Twoȱ studiesȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ postȬexilicȱ periodȱ asȱ theȱ contextȱ forȱ bothȱ theȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ andȱ theȱ Foreignȱ WomanȱofȱProverbs,ȱasȱwellȱasȱexaminingȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱ inȱtheȱotherȱtextsȱrelatedȱtoȱintermarriage.ȱChapterȱThreeȱthenȱtracesȱtheȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ vilificationȱ ofȱ theȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ toȱ theȱ DeuteȬ ronomisticȱportrayalsȱofȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱinȱtheȱbooksȱofȱKings.ȱFinally,ȱ Chapterȱ Fourȱ considersȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ theȱ previousȱ chaptersȱ asȱ theȱ backdropȱ ofȱ theȱ motifȱ andȱ interpretsȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman’sȱ roleȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱ Theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ herȱ “foreign”ȱ identityȱ doesȱ notȱ endȱ here,ȱ however.ȱTheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱfoundȱinȱlaterȱworks,ȱandȱ thisȱ thesisȱ pursuesȱ itȱ intoȱ theȱ subsequentȱ wisdomȱ literature.ȱ Chapterȱ Fiveȱ dealsȱ withȱ thoseȱ passagesȱ inȱ otherȱ literatureȱ whichȱ apparentlyȱ referȱ directlyȱ toȱ theȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Hebrewȱ Benȱ Siraȱ wouldȱ fallȱ intoȱ thatȱ category,ȱ butȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ convenience,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ groupedȱ withȱ theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ inȱ Chapterȱ Six.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ posesȱ anȱ intriguingȱ problem,ȱ notȱ throughȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ motif,ȱ butȱ onȱ accountȱ ofȱ itsȱ absence.ȱ Thisȱ thesisȱ willȱ

ȱ

SurveyȱofȱtheȱScholarlyȱLiteratureȱ

3ȱ

showȱhowȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱinȱtheȱmotifȱmayȱcontributeȱinȱ someȱwayȱtowardsȱexplainingȱthisȱmystery.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ includedȱ anȱ Appendixȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ thesis,ȱ whichȱ isȱ crucialȱ toȱ theȱ overallȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ understandingȱ theȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ “foreignȱwomen”ȱandȱintermarriagesȱinȱtheȱOT,ȱbutȱwhich,ȱifȱincludedȱ inȱtheȱchapters,ȱwouldȱinterruptȱtheȱflowȱofȱtheȱmainȱargument.ȱ

1.1ȱSurveyȱofȱtheȱScholarlyȱLiteratureȱ Theȱ questȱ forȱ theȱ historicalȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ seemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱabandonedȱbyȱrecentȱscholars,ȱdespiteȱaȱcontinuingȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ interpretationȱ andȱ theologisingȱ ofȱ herȱ role.ȱ Thisȱ lackȱ ofȱ historicalȱ studyȱ canȱ beȱ attributedȱ firstȱ toȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ earlierȱ lexicalȱ studiesȱ ofȱ theȱ adjectivesȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ andȱ ʸʦ,ȱ andȱ exegeticalȱ studiesȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱhaveȱresolvedȱtheȱissueȱconclusively.ȱSecondly,ȱthereȱhasȱ beenȱ aȱ surgeȱ ofȱ recentȱ interestȱ inȱ feministȱ andȱ postȬmodernȱ interȬ pretations,ȱwhichȱtendȱtoȱemphasiseȱtheȱdiverseȱandȱcomplexȱnatureȱofȱ theȱ figureȱ asȱ aȱ “marginalisedȱ woman”.ȱ Bothȱ factorsȱ haveȱ complicatedȱ andȱdiscouragedȱattemptsȱtoȱgraspȱherȱfirmlyȱandȱstudyȱherȱagainstȱherȱ originalȱ background.ȱ Indeed,ȱ mostȱ recentȱ scholarshipȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ contentȱwithȱinterpretingȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱasȱoneȱaspectȱinȱaȱmultiȬ facetedȱ biblicalȱ representationȱ ofȱ “badȱ women”.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ earlierȱ works,ȱ onȱ whichȱ manyȱ recentȱ studiesȱ depend,ȱ haveȱ notȱ beenȱ sufȬ ficientlyȱ evaluatedȱ andȱ challenged;ȱ asȱ mentionedȱ already,ȱ thereȱ areȱ certainȱ seriousȱ problemsȱ aboutȱ theȱ meaningsȱ imputedȱ toȱ theȱ termȱ “Foreignȱ Woman”.ȱ Weȱ shallȱ nowȱ lookȱ atȱ someȱ ofȱ theseȱ keyȱ worksȱ whichȱtendȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱrepresentativeȱinȱscholarship.ȱ Theȱideaȱthatȱʤʩʸʫʰȱimpliesȱ“foreignness”ȱisȱnotȱaȱnewȱone,ȱbutȱhasȱ beenȱ purportedȱ byȱ someȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ tendȱ toȱ associateȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱwithȱtheȱideaȱthatȱsheȱspecificallyȱrepresents,ȱandȱbelongsȱto,ȱaȱ foreign,ȱnonȬYahwisticȱcult.ȱTheȱmostȱfamousȱproponentȱofȱthisȱideaȱisȱ Gustavȱ Boström,ȱ whoȱ interpretsȱ herȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ devoteeȱ ofȱ theȱ Ishtarȱ cultȱ associatedȱ withȱ culticȱ prostitution, 1ȱ whileȱ othersȱ suchȱ asȱ Ursȱ Winter,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

G.ȱ Boström,ȱ Proverbiastudien:ȱ dieȱ Weisheitȱ undȱ dasȱ fremdeȱ Weibȱ inȱ Sprücheȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ (LUÅȱ N.F.ȱ Avd.1,ȱ 30,ȱ 3;ȱ Lund:ȱ C.W.K.ȱ Gleerup,ȱ 1935).ȱ Inȱ hisȱ surveyȱ ofȱ scholarship,ȱ heȱ acknowledgesȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ Heinrichȱ Oortȱ whoȱ firstȱ associatesȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Provȱ 6:24ȱ andȱ 7ȱ withȱ theȱ dismissalȱ ofȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ inȱ Ezraȱ andȱ Nehemiah,ȱ seeȱ Boström,ȱpp.ȱ33Ȭ36.ȱTherefore,ȱOortȱtranslatesȱʤʸʦȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰȱinȱProverbsȱasȱ“strange”ȱ andȱ “foreign”ȱ respectively;ȱ inȱ H.ȱ Oort,ȱ Spreukenȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ (Theologishȱ Tijdschrift,ȱ 19;ȱ Leiden,ȱ1885).ȱ(However,ȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱunableȱtoȱaccessȱthisȱbook).ȱBoströmȱcriticisesȱ OortȱunreservedlyȱforȱfailingȱtoȱdateȱProvȱ6ȱandȱ7ȱandȱrelateȱtheseȱchaptersȱtoȱProvȱ2ȱ

4ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

haveȱpresentedȱvariationsȱonȱtheȱsameȱtheme,ȱbyȱarguingȱthatȱsheȱisȱanȱ archetypalȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ theȱ foreignȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ OT,ȱ whoȱ isȱ theȱ “demonisedȱcultȱadmirer”.2ȱȱ Aȱ slightlyȱ differentȱ approachȱ whichȱ hasȱ someȱ superficialȱ simiȬ larities,ȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ Richardȱ Clifford’sȱ commentary.3ȱ Heȱ seesȱ theȱ ForeignȱWomanȱnotȱasȱaȱworshipperȱofȱaȱforeignȱcult,ȱbutȱasȱtheȱreflexȱ ofȱ theȱ foreignȱ femaleȱ deitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ Nearȱ East.ȱ Sheȱ isȱ aȱ reȬ presentationȱofȱtheȱdangerousȱgoddessesȱinȱancientȱmythology.ȱWhileȱitȱ isȱ beyondȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ thisȱ thesisȱ toȱ examineȱ howȱ validȱ isȱ Clifford’sȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ mythsȱ lieȱ behindȱ theȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ ProȬ verbs,ȱ hisȱ approachȱ doesȱ raiseȱ manyȱ problemsȱ ofȱ methodȱ andȱ interȬ pretationȱforȱtheȱbookȱofȱProverbsȱasȱaȱwhole.4ȱ Thereȱareȱthreeȱotherȱscholarsȱtoȱbeȱmentionedȱhere,ȱalthoughȱtheyȱ differȱ radicallyȱ fromȱ Boströmȱ inȱ theirȱ approach.ȱ Ralphȱ Marcus’sȱ evaȬ luationȱ ofȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ wisdomȱ asȱ hypostasisȱ mentions,ȱ almostȱ inȱ passing,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ anȱ allegoryȱ ofȱ foreignȱ religion.5ȱ Normanȱ Habel,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ takesȱ thisȱ furtherȱ andȱ specifiesȱthatȱʤʸʦȱindicatesȱtheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱforeignȱ cults,ȱespeciallyȱthoseȱofȱtheȱmythicȱgoddesses.6ȱHeȱinterpretsȱProverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ inȱ aȱ moreȱ symbolicȱ andȱ poeticȱ way:ȱ itȱ presentsȱ lifeȱ asȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ choiceȱ betweenȱ twoȱ ways,ȱ guidedȱ byȱ twoȱ kindsȱ ofȱ heartȱ andȱ acȬ companiedȱ byȱ twoȱ typesȱ ofȱ women.ȱ Theseȱ pairsȱ representȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ 4ȱȱ

5ȱȱ

6ȱȱ

andȱ5,ȱandȱtoȱexplainȱwhyȱadulteryȱwithȱforeignȱwomenȱcouldȱbeȱasȱdetrimentalȱasȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱdescribes.ȱSeeȱ1.2.2ȱforȱmoreȱdiscussionȱofȱBoström’sȱwork.ȱ U.ȱ Winter,ȱ Frauȱ undȱ Göttin:ȱ Exegetischeȱ undȱ ikonographischeȱ Studienȱ zumȱ weiblichenȱ Gottesbildȱ imȱ altenȱ Israelȱ undȱ inȱ dessenȱ Umweltȱ (OBO,ȱ 53;ȱ Freiburg,ȱ Schweiz:ȱ Universitätsverlag,ȱ1983),ȱpp.ȱ613Ȭ25.ȱHowever,ȱhisȱonlyȱsupportȱforȱthisȱhypothesisȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ wordȱ ʺʩʹȱ inȱ Provȱ 7:10,ȱ whichȱ heȱ claimsȱ isȱ anȱ ornamentȱ forȱ cultȱ worshippers.ȱForȱanȱevaluationȱofȱWinter’sȱthesis,ȱseeȱHennieȱMarsman,ȱ“Womenȱinȱ Ancientȱ Israel”,ȱ inȱ Athalyaȱ Brennerȱ andȱ J.W.ȱ Vanȱ Hentenȱ (eds.),ȱ Recyclingȱ Biblicalȱ Figures:ȱPapersȱReadȱatȱaȱNOSTERȱColloquiumȱinȱAmsterdam,ȱ12Ȭ13ȱMayȱ1997ȱ(Studiesȱ inȱTheologyȱandȱReligionȱSeries,ȱ1;ȱLeiden:ȱDeoȱPublishing,ȱ1999),ȱpp.ȱ28Ȭ49.ȱ R.J.ȱClifford,ȱProverbs:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL;ȱNorwich,ȱEngland:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱpp.ȱ 48,ȱ70Ȭ72,ȱ84Ȭ90.ȱ SeeȱaȱcriticismȱofȱthisȱinterpretationȱbyȱMichaelȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱ withȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ19;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ2000),ȱ p.ȱ136.ȱAlso,ȱStuartȱD.E.ȱWeeks,ȱ“ReviewȱofȱRichardȱClifford,ȱProverbs:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ1999)”,ȱJSOTȱ89ȱ(2000),ȱp.ȱ71.ȱ R.ȱ Marcus,ȱ “Onȱ Biblicalȱ Hypostasesȱ ofȱ Wisdom”,ȱ HUCAȱ 23ȱ (1950Ȭ51),ȱ pp.ȱ 157Ȭ71.ȱ Thisȱ essayȱ isȱ aȱ criticalȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ Helmerȱ Ringgren’sȱ hypothesisȱ thatȱ Womanȱ WisdomȱisȱaȱhypostatisationȱofȱYahweh.ȱTheȱlatterȱhasȱusedȱhisȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ byȱ Boströmȱ asȱ supportȱ forȱ hisȱ thesisȱ thatȱ theȱ backgroundsȱ ofȱ theȱ womenȱfiguresȱareȱnecessarilyȱforeignȱandȱcultic.ȱSeeȱH.ȱRinggren,ȱWordȱandȱWisdom:ȱ StudiesȱinȱtheȱHypostatizationȱofȱDivineȱQualitiesȱandȱFunctionsȱinȱtheȱAncientȱNearȱEastȱ (Lund:ȱH.ȱOhlsson,ȱ1947).ȱ N.ȱHabel,ȱ“TheȱSymbolismȱofȱWisdomȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9”,ȱIntȱ26ȱ(1972),ȱpp.ȱ131Ȭ57.ȱ

ȱ

SurveyȱofȱtheȱScholarlyȱLiteratureȱ

5ȱ

theȱ wiseȱ orȱ foolish:ȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ isȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ Yahwismȱ whichȱ leadsȱ oneȱ toȱ life,ȱ whileȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ leadsȱ toȱ apostasy.ȱHabel’sȱinterpretationȱisȱalongȱtheȱsameȱlinesȱasȱR.B.Y.ȱScott,ȱ whoȱseesȱherȱasȱsymbolicȱofȱtheȱforeignȱcultȱofȱAstarteȱpractisedȱbyȱtheȱ women.7ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱthinkȱthatȱtheȱethnicityȱofȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱanȱ issueȱatȱallȱinȱtheseȱpassages.ȱ Therefore,ȱtheȱearlierȱstudiesȱwhichȱacknowledgeȱtheȱ“foreignness”ȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ haveȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ makeȱ thatȱ characteristicȱ secondaryȱ toȱ aȱ moreȱ significantȱ association,ȱ eitherȱ directlyȱ withȱ aȱ foreignȱcult,ȱorȱmoreȱbroadlyȱwithȱreligiousȱandȱmythologicalȱmotifs.ȱ Overȱ andȱ againstȱ thisȱ acknowledgementȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman’sȱ “foreignness”,ȱthereȱareȱaȱnumberȱofȱstudiesȱwhichȱessentiallyȱdenyȱit,ȱ andȱ whichȱ haveȱ beenȱ moreȱ influentialȱ onȱ recentȱ discussion.ȱ Theseȱ studies,ȱ mostȱ notablyȱ thoseȱ byȱ Paulȱ Humbert,8ȱ L.A.ȱ Snijders9ȱ andȱ BernhardȱLang10ȱhaveȱusedȱaȱlexicalȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱadjectivesȱʩʸʫʰȱand ʸʦȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ theȱ womanȱ isȱ notȱ“foreign”,ȱ butȱanȱ Israeliteȱ whoȱisȱanȱ adulteressȱ andȱ hasȱ madeȱ herselfȱ anȱ “outsider”ȱ throughȱ herȱ immoralȱ behaviour.ȱEachȱofȱtheseȱworksȱwillȱbeȱdealtȱwithȱatȱlengthȱinȱtheȱnextȱ sectionȱbelow.ȱ Sufficeȱ toȱ note,ȱ thisȱ ideaȱ isȱ foundȱ asȱ earlyȱ asȱ C.H.ȱ Toy’sȱ comȬ mentary,ȱwhereȱheȱexpressesȱhisȱpuzzlementȱatȱtheȱuseȱofȱʤʩʸʫʰȱandȱʤʸʦȱ forȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.11ȱHeȱadmitsȱthatȱwhenȱtheseȱtwoȱwordsȱappearȱ togetherȱ inȱ allȱ theȱ occurrencesȱ ofȱ theȱ OT,ȱ theyȱ shouldȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ “foreigner”.ȱ However,ȱ heȱ findsȱ theȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ resemblesȱthatȱofȱanȱadulteressȱratherȱthanȱaȱ“foreignȱwoman”.ȱHenceȱ heȱthinksȱthatȱʤʸʦȱtakesȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ”strangeȱbehaviours”ȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰ,ȱ “wifeȱ ofȱ another”.ȱ Theȱ subsequentȱ worksȱ followȱ suit,ȱ withȱ theȱ twoȱ Hebrewȱ wordsȱ assumedȱ toȱ beȱ noȱ longerȱ denotingȱ “foreignness”ȱ andȱ theȱ Womanȱ anȱ Israelite.ȱ Eachȱ scholarȱ maintainsȱ differingȱ opinionsȱ ofȱ whetherȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ promiscuityȱ liesȱ inȱ theȱ wordȱ ʤʸʦȱ orȱ ʤʩʸʫʰ.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱB.ȱGemserȱandȱNormanȱWhybrayȱthinkȱotherwiseȱfromȱToy’sȱ position.ȱGemserȱbelievesȱthatȱʤʩʸʫʰȱisȱintendedȱtoȱbeȱaȱderogatoryȱtermȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 7ȱȱ

R.B.Y.ȱScott,ȱProverbs.ȱEcclesiastes:ȱIntroduction,ȱTranslationȱandȱNotesȱ(AB,ȱ18;ȱGardenȱ City,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1965),ȱp.ȱ43.ȱ 8ȱȱ P.ȱ Humbert,ȱ “Lesȱ Adjectifsȱ ’zâr’ȱ etȱ ‘nokrî’ȱ etȱ laȱ ‘Femmeȱ Étrangère’ȱ desȱ Proverbesȱ Bibliques”,ȱinȱMélangesȱSyriensȱoffertsȱàȱM.ȱRenéȱDussandȱIȱ(Paris:ȱLibrairieȱOrientaliseȱ PaulȱGeuthner,ȱ1939),ȱpp.ȱ259Ȭ66.ȱ 9ȱȱ L.A.ȱSnijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament:ȱAnȱexegeticalȱStudy”,ȱOTSȱ 10ȱ(1954),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ154;ȱ“ʸ˒ʦ/ʸʕʦ”,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ53Ȭ57.ȱ 10ȱȱ B.ȱLang,ȱ“ʸʫʰ”,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIX,ȱpp.ȱ425Ȭ29.ȱ 11ȱȱ C.H.ȱ Toy,ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ andȱ Exegeticalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ (ICC;ȱ EdinȬ burgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1899),ȱpp.ȱ45Ȭ46.ȱ

6ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

forȱ “hooker”ȱ becauseȱ onlyȱ foreignersȱ practiceȱ sexualȱ offences.12ȱ WhyȬ bray’sȱcommentaryȱwhichȱisȱbasedȱonȱNRSV,ȱwhereȱʤʩʸʫʰȱisȱtranslatedȱ asȱ “adventurousȱ woman”,ȱ takesȱ theȱ wordȱ toȱ beȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ promiscuousȱ inclinationȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ toȱ defyȱ theȱ moralȱ standardsȱofȱtheȱcommunity.13ȱWhybrayȱconsidersȱtheȱwarningsȱagainstȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ areȱ forȱ theȱ youthsȱ inȱ theȱ communityȱ toȱ cautionȱ themȱagainstȱtheȱimmoralȱwomanȱandȱadulteress.ȱ Weȱalsoȱfindȱotherȱscholarsȱwhoȱtendȱtoȱplaceȱtheȱemphasisȱofȱtheȱ wordsȱ asȱ denotingȱ herȱ statusȱ asȱ anotherȱ man’sȱ wifeȱ withȱ theȱ desȬ criptionȱ ofȱ herȱ behaviourȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ asȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ adulteress,ȱ forȱ exȬ ample,ȱ Michaelȱ Fox14ȱ andȱ Arndtȱ Meinhold.15ȱ Bothȱ thinkȱ thatȱ theseȱ warningsȱ areȱ likeȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ adulteryȱ inȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ instructions.ȱ Anotherȱ propositionȱ withȱ aȱ slightlyȱ differentȱ nuanceȱ isȱ thatȱofȱKarelȱvanȱderȱToorn,ȱwhoȱseesȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱasȱoneȱwhoȱ resortsȱtoȱoccasionalȱprostitutionȱinȱorderȱtoȱpayȱherȱvows.16ȱHowever,ȱ thereȱisȱaȱlackȱofȱevidenceȱthatȱsuchȱpracticesȱbecameȱcommonȱatȱallȱinȱ Israel.ȱ Alongsideȱtheseȱstudies,ȱthereȱareȱothersȱwhoȱmakeȱaȱlinkȱwithȱtheȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ butȱ nevertheless,ȱ denyȱ herȱ ethȬ nicity.ȱJosephȱBlenkinsoppȱisȱinfluencedȱbyȱSnijders’sȱlexicalȱworkȱthatȱ theȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ isȱ aȱ “socialȱ outsider”ȱ andȱ ʸʦȱ isȱ aȱ termȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ priestlyȱ literatureȱinȱpolarityȱtoȱYahweh’sȱcult.17ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ isȱnoneȱotherȱthanȱtheȱsymbolismȱofȱgoddessȱworshippersȱcondemnedȱ inȱIsaȱ57:3Ȭ13,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱofȱEzraȬNehemiah.ȱTheseȱwomenȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 12ȱȱ B.ȱ Gemser,ȱ Sprücheȱ Salomosȱ (HAT,ȱ 16;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ Mohr,ȱ 2ndȱ edn,ȱ 1963),ȱ p.ȱ 5.ȱ Thisȱ assumptionȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ firstȱ introducedȱ byȱ A.ȱ Bertholet,ȱ Dieȱ Stellungȱ derȱ IsraelitenȱundȱderȱJudenȱzuȱdenȱFremdenȱ(Freiburgȱi.ȱB.,ȱLeipzig:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohr,ȱ1896),ȱp.ȱ 24.ȱItȱisȱanȱassumedȱfactȱfoundȱinȱ“ʩʸʍʑ ʫʕʰ”,ȱBDBȱ(p.ȱ649),ȱwhereȱitȱsuggestsȱthatȱʤʩʸʫʰȱisȱaȱ technicalȱ termȱ forȱ harlotsȱ becauseȱ theyȱ wereȱ chieflyȱ foreigners.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ BerȬ tholet’sȱ laterȱ workȱ onȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ prostitution,ȱ thisȱ assumptionȱ wasȱ notȱ menȬ tioned.ȱSeeȱA.ȱBertholet,ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱHebrewȱCivilisationȱ(trans.ȱDallas,ȱA.K.;ȱLondon:ȱ GeorgeȱG.ȱHarrap,ȱ1926),ȱp.ȱ233.ȱTheȱassumptionȱalsoȱfindsȱitsȱwayȱtoȱJohsȱPedersen,ȱ Israel:ȱ Itsȱ Lifeȱ andȱ Cultureȱ (trans.ȱ Mrs.ȱ Aslaugȱ Møller;ȱ London:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1926),ȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ28Ȭ30,ȱ45.ȱȱ 13ȱȱ R.N.ȱ Whybray,ȱ Proverbsȱ (NCB;ȱ London:ȱ Marshallȱ Pickering,ȱ 1994),ȱ pp.ȱ 53Ȭ55.ȱ Also,ȱ seeȱ Kathleenȱ Farmer,ȱ “Theȱ Misleadingȱ Translationsȱ inȱ theȱ Newȱ Revisedȱ Standardȱ VersionȱofȱProverbs”,ȱTheȱFeministȱPilgrimȱ(1995),ȱpp.ȱ38Ȭ41.ȱSheȱchidesȱtheȱNRSVȱforȱ inconsistencyȱandȱinaccuracyȱinȱitsȱtranslationȱofȱʤʸʦȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰ.ȱ 14ȱȱ Fox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ120.ȱ 15ȱȱ A.ȱ Meinhold,ȱ Dieȱ Sprücheȱ (ZBAT,ȱ 16;ȱ Zürich:ȱ Theologischerȱ Verlag,ȱ 1991),ȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 69.ȱ 16ȱȱ K.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Toorn,ȱ Fromȱ herȱ Cradleȱ toȱ Herȱ Grave:ȱ Theȱ Roleȱ ofȱ Religionȱ inȱ theȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ IsraeliteȱandȱtheȱBabylonianȱWomanȱ(BS,ȱ23;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱpp.ȱ93Ȭ110.ȱȱ 17ȱȱ J.ȱBlenkinsopp,ȱ“TheȱSocialȬContextȱofȱtheȱSoȬcalledȱOutsiderȬWomanȱinȱProverbsȱIȬ IX”,ȱBibȱ72ȱ(1991),ȱpp.ȱ457Ȭ73.ȱ

ȱ

SurveyȱofȱtheȱScholarlyȱLiteratureȱ

7ȱ

areȱ allȱ Israeliteȱ butȱ deemedȱ “socialȱ outsiders”ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ idolatries.ȱ Thus,ȱ Blenkinsopp’sȱ positionȱ isȱ noȱ differentȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ Boström’s.ȱ Haroldȱ Washington,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ tiesȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ moreȱ generallyȱ toȱ theȱ communityȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ whoȱ continuedȱtoȱliveȱinȱPalestineȱafterȱtheȱfallȱofȱJudah,ȱandȱwereȱrejectedȱ byȱ theȱ returnees.18ȱ Arguingȱ fromȱ theȱ historicalȱ andȱ socioȬeconomicalȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ postȬexilicȱ era,ȱ whichȱ assumesȱ theȱ economicȱ afȬ fluenceȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱremainedȱinȱtheȱland,ȱheȱbelievesȱthatȱJewishȱmenȱ wereȱ temptedȱ toȱ marryȱ theȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ upgradeȱ theirȱ economicȱ status.ȱ Heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ passagesȱ againstȱ theȱ Foreignȱ WomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱareȱneitherȱunitaryȱnorȱcomposedȱatȱtheȱsameȱ timeȱ forȱ theȱ sameȱ purpose.ȱ Onȱ theȱ whole,ȱ theȱ warningsȱ areȱ againstȱ adultery,ȱconcurringȱwithȱHumbert’sȱpropositionȱthatȱtheȱmeaningsȱofȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ referȱ toȱ anotherȱ man’sȱ wife.ȱ However,ȱ heȱ alsoȱ takesȱ theȱ meaningȱofȱʤʸʦȱfurtherȱasȱusedȱbyȱtheȱauthorȱinȱProvȱ2:16Ȭ19ȱandȱ5:1Ȭ23ȱ toȱidentifyȱtheȱstrangerȱwhoȱisȱtheȱ“outsider”ȱandȱtheȱ“foreign”ȱenemyȱ ofȱ theȱ returnedȱ community.ȱ Theȱ remainingȱ passagesȱ concernedȱ withȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Provȱ 6:24Ȭ35ȱ andȱ 7:6Ȭ27ȱ areȱ preȬexilicȱ comȬ positionsȱ patternedȱ afterȱ theȱ ancientȱ NEȱ warningsȱ againstȱ immoralȱ women.ȱHeȱexplainsȱthatȱtheȱintroductoryȱwarningȱinȱProvȱ7:5ȱisȱaȱlaterȱ additionȱ attemptingȱ toȱ putȱ allȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ theȱ womanȱ toȱ beȱ avoidedȱ togetherȱ inȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ asȱ aȱ campaignȱ againstȱexogamousȱmarriageȱinȱtheȱpostȬexilicȱperiod.ȱ Bothȱscholarsȱraiseȱissuesȱaboutȱtheȱveryȱnatureȱofȱwhatȱisȱ“foreign”ȱ forȱaȱJewȱinȱthisȱperiod,ȱaȱmatterȱtoȱwhichȱweȱshallȱhaveȱtoȱreturnȱlater,ȱ bothȱ Blenkinsoppȱ andȱ Washingtonȱ tendȱ toȱ fallȱ generallyȱ intoȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ tieȱ theȱ Woman’sȱ “foreignness”ȱ toȱ herȱ beȬ haviour,ȱorȱtoȱperceptionsȱofȱherȱmoralityȱandȱsocialȱstatus.ȱȱ Thereȱisȱanotherȱgroupȱofȱstudiesȱwhichȱembracesȱallȱtheȱmeaningsȱ mentionedȱ aboveȱ forȱ bothȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ andȱ interpretsȱ theȱ Foreignȱ WomanȱasȱaȱmultiȬfacetedȱfigureȱrepresentingȱallȱtheȱbadȱwomenȱinȱtheȱ community.ȱProbablyȱtheȱfirstȱproponentȱofȱthisȱviewȱisȱClaudiaȱCamp.ȱ Sheȱ arguesȱ thatȱ bothȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ areȱ analogiesȱofȱtheȱlivesȱofȱwomenȱinȱtheȱexperiencesȱinȱIsrael’sȱhistory.19ȱ Sheȱ categorisesȱ allȱ theȱ goodȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ asȱ representedȱ byȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ badȱ womenȱ byȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱȱ H.ȱWashington,ȱ“TheȱStrangeȱWomanȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ/ȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ)ȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱandȱPostȬExilicȱ JudeanȱSociety”,ȱinȱTamaraȱEskenaziȱandȱK.H.ȱRichardsȱ(eds.),ȱSecondȱTempleȱStudiesȱ 2ȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 175;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ JSOTȱ Press,ȱ 1994),ȱ pp.ȱ 217Ȭ42.ȱ Heȱ claimsȱ thatȱ hisȱ essayȱ wasȱwrittenȱbeforeȱheȱhadȱaccessȱtoȱBlenkinsopp’sȱarticleȱonȱtheȱsameȱsubject.ȱ 19ȱȱ C.ȱCamp,ȱWisdomȱandȱFeminineȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱProverbsȱ(BibleȱandȱLiteratureȱSeries,ȱ11;ȱ Sheffield:ȱAlmondȱPress,ȱ1985),ȱpp.ȱ265Ȭ71.ȱȱ

8ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

way,ȱtheȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱcondemnedȱinȱtheȱearlyȱpostȬexilicȱperiodȱandȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ areȱ related.ȱ Camp’sȱ thesis,ȱ however,ȱ placesȱ theȱ emphasisȱonȱWomanȱWisdomȱratherȱthanȱonȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱInȱaȱ laterȱ essay,ȱ Campȱ noȱ longerȱ considersȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱofȱtheȱearlyȱpostȬexilicȱperiod.20ȱBasedȱonȱSnijders’sȱ definitionȱofȱʩʸʫʰȱand ʸʦ,ȱsheȱgoesȱonȱtoȱproposeȱthatȱallȱwomenȱareȱlikeȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ “outsiders”ȱ inȱ theȱ patriarchalȱ order.21ȱ Sheȱ arguesȱ thatȱ inȱ Provȱ 7,ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ theȱ emȬ bodimentȱofȱevil,ȱseducingȱmenȱtoȱdefyȱtheȱlawsȱofȱTorahȱandȱsymbolicȱ ofȱtheȱforceȱagainstȱtheȱpatriarchalȱstructuresȱofȱYahwism.ȱTheȱForeignȱ Womanȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ voiceȱ inȱ defianceȱ ofȱ theȱ patriarchalȱ orderȱ ofȱ society.ȱ Therefore,ȱ herȱ antithesis,ȱ Womanȱ Wisdom,ȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ metaȬ phoricalȱwomanȱwhoȱspeaksȱforȱtheȱpatriarchs.ȱInȱanotherȱwork,ȱCampȱ interpretsȱ theȱ twoȱ womanȬfiguresȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ femaleȱ genderȱinȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱtricksterȱcommonȱinȱfolklore.22ȱSheȱarguesȱthatȱ womenȱ whoȱ couldȱ notȱ functionȱ withinȱ theȱ patriarchalȱ systems,ȱ usedȱ theirȱfemaleȱpowersȱasȱtrickstersȱtoȱachieveȱtheirȱownȱgoalsȱ–ȱeitherȱforȱ goodȱorȱbad. Christlȱ Maierȱ followsȱ theȱ sameȱ lineȱ ofȱ argument,ȱ whichȱ isȱ alsoȱ basedȱonȱSnijders’sȱlexicalȱstudies.23ȱHerȱthesisȱconcentratesȱonȱunderȬ standingȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱfromȱaȱsocioȬhistoricalȱpointȱofȱviewȱandȱ attemptsȱtoȱgiveȱmoreȱliteraryȱevidenceȱthatȱtheȱdateȱforȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱisȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ postȬexilicȱ era,ȱ possiblyȱ nearerȱ toȱ theȱ popularisingȱ ofȱ Hellenisticȱ influence.ȱ Sheȱ thinksȱ thatȱ theȱ emphasisȱ inȱ someȱ earlierȱ work,ȱonȱdeterminingȱwhetherȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱasȱanȱ actualȱfigureȱorȱmerelyȱaȱpoeticȱfigure,ȱisȱmisplaced,ȱandȱbelievesȱthatȱ theȱ womanȱ isȱ intendedȱ toȱ representȱ theȱ differentȱ lifeȱ situationsȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 20ȱȱ C.ȱ Camp,ȱ Wise,ȱ Strangeȱ andȱ Holy:ȱ Theȱ Strangeȱ Womanȱ andȱ theȱ Makingȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 320:ȱ Gender,ȱ Cultureȱ Theory,ȱ 9;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 2000),ȱp.ȱ32.ȱȱ 21ȱȱ C.ȱ Camp,ȱ “Theȱ Strangeȱ Womanȱ ofȱ Proverbs”,ȱ inȱ Wise,ȱ Strangeȱ andȱ Holy,ȱ pp.ȱ 40Ȭ71.ȱ Thisȱ essayȱ isȱ aȱ revisedȱ versionȱ ofȱ anȱ earlierȱ work,ȱ “What’sȱ soȱ Strangeȱ aboutȱ theȱ Strangeȱ Woman?”ȱ inȱ Davidȱ Jobling,ȱ Peggyȱ Dayȱ andȱ Geraldȱ Sheppardȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ BibleȱandȱtheȱPoliticsȱofȱExegesis:ȱEssaysȱinȱHonorȱofȱNormanȱK.ȱGottwaldȱonȱHisȱSixtyȬfifthȱ Birthdayȱ(Cleveland,ȱOhio:ȱPilgrimȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱpp.ȱ17Ȭ32.ȱȱ 22ȱȱ C.ȱCamp,ȱ“WiseȱandȱStrange:ȱWomanȱasȱTricksterȱinȱProverbs”,ȱinȱWise,ȱStrangeȱandȱ Holy,ȱpp.ȱ72Ȭ89.ȱ 23ȱȱ C.ȱ Maier,ȱ Dieȱ “fremdeȱ Frau”ȱ inȱ Proverbienȱ 1Ȭ9:ȱ eineȱ exegetischeȱ undȱ socialgeschichtlicheȱ Studieȱ (OBO,ȱ 144;ȱ Göttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ &ȱ Ruprecht,ȱ 1995).ȱ Idem,ȱ “Conflictingȱ Attractions:ȱ Parentalȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ ‘Strangeȱ Woman’ȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9”,ȱ inȱ A.ȱ Brennerȱ andȱ C.ȱ Fontaineȱ (eds.),ȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ Psalmsȱ (2ndȱ series;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 1998),ȱ pp.ȱ 92Ȭ108.ȱ Maierȱ opposesȱ thoseȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ interpretȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ asȱ aȱ toolȱ ofȱ genderȱ prejudiceȱ becauseȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ portraysȱ veryȱ stupidȱyoungȱmenȱwhoȱwouldȱeasilyȱsuccumbȱtoȱanyȱtemptationȱtoo.ȱȱ

ȱ

SurveyȱofȱtheȱScholarlyȱLiteratureȱ

9ȱ

womenȱandȱtheirȱpositionsȱinȱsociety.ȱSheȱchartsȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ inȱ threeȱ ofȱ herȱ functions:ȱ asȱ adulteress,ȱ asȱ opponentȱ toȱ Womanȱ Wisdom,ȱ andȱ asȱ parallelȱ toȱ theȱ evilȱ men.ȱ Inȱ herȱ roleȱ asȱ adulȬ teress,ȱ Provȱ 5ȱ linksȱ herȱ toȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ mixedȱ marriagesȱ inȱ EzraȬ Nehemiah,ȱ andȱ Provȱ 6:24Ȭ35ȱ toȱ theȱ ethicsȱ ofȱ Torah.ȱ Maierȱ doesȱ notȱ thinkȱ thatȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ isȱ aȱ directȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ inȱ EzraȬ Nehemiah,ȱbutȱtheȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱinȱProvȱ5ȱis.ȱThisȱisȱbecauseȱProvȱ6:20Ȭ35ȱisȱaȱ caseȱofȱadulteryȱthatȱcouldȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱanyȱwomanȱwhoȱisȱJewishȱorȱ anȱethnicȱforeigner.ȱProvȱ7ȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱculticȱbackdropȱhighlightingȱtheȱ aggressiveȱsexualityȱofȱforeignȱwomenȱwhoȱareȱdestructive.ȱInȱherȱroleȱ asȱ anȱ opponentȱ toȱ Womanȱ Wisdom,ȱ Womanȱ Follyȱ inȱ Provȱ 9:13Ȭ18,ȱ isȱ portrayedȱasȱaȱprostituteȱreminiscentȱofȱtheȱaphroditicȱgoddessesȱofȱtheȱ ancientȱ Nearȱ East.ȱ Maierȱ saysȱ thatȱ thisȱ passageȱ givesȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ culticȱ contextsȱ inherentȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ concerningȱ theȱ ForeignȱWoman.ȱTheȱlanguageȱofȱdeathȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ originatesȱinȱtheȱculticȱbackground.ȱThen,ȱinȱherȱroleȱasȱaȱparallelȱtoȱtheȱ evilȱmen,ȱsheȱisȱshownȱbyȱtheȱteachersȱtoȱbeȱanotherȱtrapȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱ youngȱmenȱmayȱsuccumb.ȱTheseȱevilȱmenȱencourageȱtheȱyoungȱtoȱrebelȱ againstȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ religious,ȱ theȱ familialȱ andȱ theȱ societalȱ structuresȱwhichȱteachȱthemȱtoȱadhereȱtoȱtheȱTorah,ȱpracticeȱfilialȱpietyȱ andȱ honourȱ theȱ eldersȱ inȱ theȱ Yehudȱ community.ȱ Maierȱ alsoȱ explainsȱ howȱ theȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ societyȱ areȱ taughtȱ toȱ conformȱ toȱ theȱ positiveȱ imageȱ ofȱ theȱ faithfulȱ andȱ devotedȱ wife,ȱ andȱ theȱ teachingȱ motherȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theseȱ chapters.ȱ Theseȱ positiveȱ imagesȱ areȱ intendedȱ toȱ restrainȱwomenȱfromȱbecomingȱtheȱundesirableȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱ community. Maier’sȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱactuallyȱpicksȱupȱtheȱ variousȱstrandsȱofȱearlierȱscholarshipȱdiscussedȱpreviously.ȱSheȱdoesȱitȱ byȱ allocatingȱ eachȱ passageȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ toȱ theȱ variousȱ possibilitiesȱofȱinterpretation.ȱThisȱmethodȱresemblesȱthatȱofȱWashingȬ ton’s,ȱ andȱ bothȱ agreeȱ thatȱ Provȱ 5ȱ isȱ linkedȱ toȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ andȱ Provȱ 6:20Ȭ35ȱ toȱ theȱ commonȱ warningsȱ againstȱ adultery.ȱ Herȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Provȱ 7ȱ andȱ 9:13Ȭ18ȱ isȱ anȱ echoȱ ofȱ Boström’s.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ theȱ “foreignness”ȱ ofȱ theȱ Womanȱ isȱ notȱ deȬ pendentȱonȱʤʸʦȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰȱasȱitȱhasȱbeenȱdesignated,ȱbutȱonȱtheȱcontextȱofȱ itsȱappearances. Thereȱ areȱ fourȱ otherȱ commentatorsȱ whoȱ interpretȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱasȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱallȱtheȱbadȱwomenȱinȱtheȱcommunity.ȱ AlthoughȱWilliamȱMcKaneȱacceptsȱSnijders’sȱdefinitionȱforȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱʸʦ,ȱ heȱthinksȱthatȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱshouldȱbeȱretainedȱforȱʤʩʸʫʰȱ becauseȱitȱdepictsȱtheȱWoman’sȱlocationȱoutsideȱherȱcommunity,ȱwhichȱ allowsȱ herȱ toȱ doȱ anythingȱ withoutȱ fearȱ ofȱ punishmentȱ withinȱ thatȱ

10ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

community.24ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ thinkȱ thatȱ herȱ ethnicȱ originȱ orȱ cultȱ isȱ theȱ importantȱ issue,ȱ thereforeȱ heȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ allȱ foreignȱ womenȱ areȱ perceivedȱ asȱ promiscuous.ȱ Whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ explainingȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Provȱ 7,ȱ heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ sheȱ isȱ aȱ marriedȱ womanȱ whoȱ isȱ aȱ prostitute.25ȱHence,ȱtheȱpassagesȱonȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱareȱlikeȱoneȱofȱ theȱ commonȱ warningsȱagainstȱ promiscuousȱ women,ȱ whichȱariseȱfromȱ theȱ “international”ȱ instructionȱ literatureȱ ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ Nearȱ East,ȱ onȱ whichȱseeȱmyȱdiscussionȱinȱ1.2.5ȱonȱLangȱbelow.ȱ RonaldȱMurphy,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱprefersȱtoȱtakeȱaȱnonȬcommittalȱ stance.26ȱWhileȱheȱagreesȱwithȱSnijdersȱandȱHumbertȱthatȱʤʩʸʫʰȱdoesȱnotȱ meanȱ“foreign”ȱforȱForeignȱWoman,ȱbutȱrefersȱtoȱ“theȱwifeȱofȱanother”,ȱ heȱ proposesȱ thatȱ sheȱ isȱ aȱ metaphor,ȱ andȱ therefore,ȱ openȱ toȱ differentȱ interpretations.ȱ Inȱ particularȱ forȱ him,ȱ sheȱ depictsȱ aȱ dangerȱ whichȱ resultsȱ inȱ deathȱ andȱ isȱ seeminglyȱ moreȱ frighteningȱ thanȱ theȱ conȬ sequencesȱofȱtheȱevilȱmen.ȱOnȱtheȱwhole,ȱheȱinterpretsȱtheȱpassagesȱofȱ theȱForeignȱWomanȱasȱreferringȱtoȱwarningsȱagainstȱadultery.ȱ Ottoȱ Plögerȱ similarlyȱ feelsȱ thatȱ theȱ debateȱ aboutȱ ethnicȱ “forȬ eignness”ȱ inȱ theȱ wordsȱ ofȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ andȱ ʤʸʦȱ hasȱ beenȱ givenȱ undueȱ emȬ phasis.27ȱ Heȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ portrayedȱ amȬ biguouslyȱinȱProvȱ2:16Ȭ19ȱsoȱasȱtoȱsuggestȱallȱtheȱpossibleȱimagesȱofȱtheȱ womenȱ toȱ beȱ avoidedȱ inȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ community.ȱ Plögerȱ doesȱ notȱ excludeȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ “foreignness”ȱ forȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ howȬ ever,ȱandȱthinksȱthatȱProvȱ5ȱisȱintendedȱtoȱbeȱaȱspecificȱwarningȱagainstȱ intermarriageȱ withȱ foreigners.ȱ Provȱ 6:20Ȭ35,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ warnsȱ moreȱgenerallyȱagainstȱtheȱadulteress,ȱwhileȱProvȱ7:6Ȭ27ȱwarnsȱagainstȱ theȱadulteress,ȱtheȱforeignȱgoddessȱandȱtheȱdevoteeȱofȱtheȱforeignȱcult.ȱ Plögerȱhasȱsimplyȱembracedȱallȱtheȱinterpretationsȱofȱtheȱearlierȱworks,ȱ atȱ theȱ expenseȱ ofȱ findingȱ anyȱ whollyȱ consistentȱ interpretationȱ forȱ theȱ work.ȱ Anotherȱ similarȱ viewȱ toȱ Plöger,ȱ butȱ withȱ aȱ slightlyȱdifferentȱ interȬ pretationȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ commentaryȱ ofȱ Leoȱ Perdue.28ȱ Perdueȱ makesȱ theȱ linkȱ ofȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 24ȱȱ W.ȱMcKane,ȱProverbs:ȱAȱNewȱApproachȱ(OTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCM,ȱ1970),ȱp.ȱ285.ȱ 25ȱȱ McKane,ȱpp.ȱ338Ȭ39.ȱ 26ȱȱ R.ȱ Murphy,ȱ Proverbsȱ (WBC,ȱ 22;ȱ Waco,ȱ Texas:ȱ Wordȱ Books,ȱ 1998),ȱ pp.ȱ 16Ȭ17,ȱ 278Ȭ87.ȱ HeȱcitesȱMaierȱextensivelyȱbutȱheȱisȱsilentȱaboutȱMaier’sȱinterpretationȱforȱProvȱ2:16Ȭ 22ȱandȱ5:1Ȭ20ȱconcerningȱtheirȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱforeignȱwivesȱinȱEzraȬNehemiah.ȱ 27ȱȱ O.ȱ Plöger,ȱ Sprücheȱ Salomosȱ (Proverbia)ȱ (BKAT,ȱ 17;ȱ Neukirchen:ȱ Neukirchenȱ Verlag,ȱ 1984),ȱp.ȱ56.ȱ 28ȱȱ L.ȱPerdue,ȱProverbsȱ(Interpretation;ȱLouisville,ȱKentucky:ȱJohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ2000),ȱpp.ȱ 91Ȭ93,ȱ118Ȭ22,ȱ132Ȭ36,ȱ148,ȱ153Ȭ54.ȱPerdueȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱpoliticalȱtensionsȱconstituteȱ theȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Heȱ interpretsȱ theȱ foolsȱ andȱ scoffersȱ asȱ thoseȱ whoȱ

ȱ

SurveyȱofȱtheȱScholarlyȱLiteratureȱ

11ȱ

Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱwithȱthatȱofȱEzraȬNehemiahȱandȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱtextsȱareȱ teachingsȱ favourableȱ onlyȱ toȱ theȱ hierocraticȱ party.ȱ Heȱ interpretsȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ variouslyȱ inȱ allȱ theȱ passages:ȱ inȱ Provȱ 2:16Ȭ18ȱ sheȱ isȱ aȱ metaphorȱforȱtheȱpersonificationȱofȱextraȬIsraeliteȱcultureȱandȱreligion;ȱ inȱ Provȱ 5:3Ȭ20ȱ sheȱ isȱ aȱ prostitute,ȱ adulteress,ȱ fertilityȱ priestess,ȱ foreignȱ goddessȱ andȱ theȱ abstractȱ notionȱ ofȱ folly,ȱ andȱ possiblyȱ theȱ chapterȱ intendsȱ toȱ warnȱ againstȱ anyȱ associationȱ withȱ foreignersȱ orȱ aliens;ȱ inȱ Provȱ6:20Ȭ35ȱsheȱisȱtheȱadulteressȱandȱwifeȱofȱanotherȱmanȱandȱinȱProvȱ 7:6Ȭ27,ȱsheȱisȱtheȱfertilityȱpriestessȱorȱforeignȱgoddess,ȱtheȱmetaphorȱforȱ foreignȱ religionȱ andȱ culture.ȱ Womanȱ Follyȱ inȱ Provȱ 9:13Ȭ18ȱ isȱ theȱ inȬ carnationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱtheȱseductionȱtoȱforeignȱreligionȱandȱ culture.ȱ

SectionȱConclusionȱ Fromȱtheȱaboveȱdiscussion,ȱthereȱareȱsomeȱobservationsȱtoȱbeȱmade.ȱItȱ seemsȱthatȱwhenȱʤʩʸʫʰȱisȱtakenȱtoȱmeanȱ“foreignȱwoman”,ȱsheȱrefersȱtoȱaȱ femaleȱ deityȱ (Clifford),ȱ andȱ depictingȱ goddessȱ worship,ȱ whetherȱ inȱ realityȱ (Boström,ȱ Winterȱ andȱ Blenkinsopp),ȱ orȱ asȱ aȱ symbolicȱ repreȬ sentationȱofȱitȱ(HabelȱandȱScott).ȱHowever,ȱmoreȱoftenȱthanȱnot,ȱʤʩʸʫʰȱisȱ notȱ takenȱ toȱ meanȱ “foreignȱ woman”,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ passageȱ inȱ Provȱ 6:20Ȭ35ȱ whichȱ depictsȱ adultery.ȱ Hence,ȱ aȱ linkȱ isȱ madeȱ notȱ withȱ “forȬ eignness”,ȱbutȱwithȱ“outsideȬness”ȱinȱtermsȱofȱherȱsocialȱbehaviour,ȱorȱ withȱ perceptionsȱ ofȱ herȱ moralityȱ andȱ socialȱ statusȱ (Camp,ȱ McKane,ȱ Meinhold,ȱFox,ȱetȱcetera).ȱThisȱview,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseenȱaboveȱisȱtheȱmostȱ popularȱ oneȱ andȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ conclusionsȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ lexicalȱ studiesȱofȱHumbert,ȱSnijdersȱandȱLang.ȱConcerningȱʤʸʦ,ȱhowever,ȱmostȱ ofȱtheȱrecentȱscholarsȱunderstandȱitȱtoȱmeanȱ“foreignȱwoman”ȱinȱProvȱ5ȱ andȱ itsȱ useȱ ofȱ “foreignness”ȱ isȱ equivalentȱ toȱ theȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ inȱ EzraȬ Nehemiah,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ similarȱ depictionȱ ofȱ theȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ losingȱ one’sȱ propertiesȱ toȱ foreignersȱ inȱ bothȱ textsȱ (Washingtonȱ andȱ Maier).ȱ Aȱ differentȱ wayȱ ofȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ wordȱ isȱ toȱ understandȱ itȱ asȱ priestlyȱvocabularyȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱpolarityȱtoȱtheȱcultȱofȱYahweh.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ depictingȱ herȱ involvementȱ withȱtheȱforeignȱcultȱ(BlenkinsoppȱandȱPerdue).ȱOtherwise,ȱtheȱattemptȱ toȱdetermineȱtheȱdefiniteȱmeaningsȱofȱʤʸʦȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰȱisȱrelinquished,ȱandȱ theyȱ areȱ treatedȱ ambiguously,ȱ thusȱ adoptingȱ anȱ openȬendedȱ interȬ pretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ(PlögerȱandȱMurphy).ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ rejectȱ theȱ Persianȱ colony,ȱ whilstȱ theȱ wickedȱ areȱ thoseȱ militantsȱ whoȱ attemptȱ toȱ overthrowȱtheȱPersianȱrule.ȱ

12ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

Inȱgeneral,ȱscholarshipȱseemsȱtoȱgiveȱtheȱimpressionȱthatȱforȱʤʩʸʫʰȱinȱ particular,ȱ itsȱ meaningȱ isȱ somethingȱ whichȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ renderȱ intoȱ Englishȱ orȱ otherȱ modernȱ languages.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ whyȱ thereȱ isȱ littleȱ conȬ sistencyȱinȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱwordȱevenȱwithinȱsingleȱworks,ȱneverȱ mindȱ withinȱ scholarshipȱ asȱ aȱ whole.ȱ Atȱ times,ȱ theȱ understandingȱ isȱ clearlyȱ linkedȱ simplyȱ toȱ anȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ specificȱ passageȱ inȱ whichȱtheȱtermȱoccurs.ȱTheȱtableȱbelowȱpresentsȱsomeȱgoodȱexamples:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Toyȱ

Snijdersȱ

Scottȱ

2:16ȱ

ʤʹʠ ʤʸʦ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ

lewdȱ womanȱ harlotȱ

looseȱ womanȱ unknownȱ womanȱ

adulȬ teressȱ

strangerȱ womanȱ strangerȱ 5:3ȱ ʤʸʦȱ harlotȱ (notȱȱ mentioned)ȱ womanȱ 5:20ȱ ʤʸʦȱ strangerȱ lasciviousȱ strangerȱ womanȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ anotherȱ unknownȱ foreignȬ womanȱ erȱ 6:24ȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ another’sȱ unknownȱ strangerȱ wifeȱ womanȱ 7:5ȱ ʤʹʠ adulȬ (notȱȱ adulȬ teressȱ mentioned)ȱ teressȱ ʤʸʦȱ (notȱȱ strangerȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ adulȬ teressȱ mentioned)ȱ womanȱ lasciviousȱ harlotsȱ 22:14ȱ ʺʥʸʦȱ adulȬ teressȱ outsiderȱ strangeȱ 23:27ȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ adulȬ teressȱ womanȱ

Whybray ȱ looseȱ womanȱ

Murphyȱ

advenȬ turessȱ

outsiderȱ

looseȱ womanȱ looseȱ womanȱ

strangerȱ

advenȬ turessȱ advenȬȱ turessȱ

outsiderȱ

looseȱ womanȱ

strangerȱ

advenȬ turessȱ

outsiderȱ

looseȱ womanȱ

strangersȱ

advenȬ turessȱ

strangerȱ

strangerȱ

strangerȱ

strangerȱ

Tableȱ1.1:ȱExamplesȱofȱhowȱsomeȱScholarsȱTranslateȱʤʸʦȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰȱ

Despiteȱtheȱvariationȱinȱtheȱtranslation,ȱhowever,ȱitȱshouldȱbeȱobviousȱ thatȱtheȱexplanationsȱgivenȱbyȱallȱtheȱscholarsȱquoted,ȱnotȱonlyȱinȱthisȱ table,ȱ butȱ inȱwhatȱ hasȱ goneȱ before,ȱ agreeȱ thatȱ theȱ generalȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ anȱ adulteress,ȱ whetherȱ sheȱ isȱ anȱ ethnicȱ “foreigner”ȱ orȱ Israelite.ȱ Thisȱ alsoȱ probablyȱ explainsȱ whyȱ notionsȱ ofȱ sexualȱ promiscuityȱ areȱ somehowȱ imputedȱ toȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰ,ȱ asȱ weȱ canȱ seeȱ fromȱ theȱ tableȱ above.ȱ Someȱ thenȱ takeȱ itȱ toȱ explainȱ thatȱ theȱ sexualȱ promiscuityȱ ofȱ theȱ Womanȱ isȱ linkedȱ toȱ foreignȱ culticȱ worship.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ theȱ linkȱ withȱ theȱ imageryȱ ofȱ theȱ adulteressȱ depictedȱ inȱ theȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

13ȱ

propheticȱliteratureȱofȱtheȱwhoringȱwifeȱofȱYahweh,ȱIsrael,ȱisȱmade.ȱTheȱ traitȱ ofȱ sexualȱ unfaithfulnessȱ inȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ is,ȱ therefore,ȱsingingȱtoȱtheȱsameȱtuneȱofȱapostasyȱasȱinȱtheȱimageryȱofȱtheȱ adulteress.ȱ Theȱ cruxȱ ofȱ theȱ problemȱ isȱ inȱ understandingȱ whatȱ “forȬ eignness”ȱ meansȱ forȱ theȱ OT,ȱ andȱ inȱ particularȱ forȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ andȱ thatȱ bringsȱ usȱ toȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ question:ȱ whatȱ areȱ theȱmeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱasȱtheyȱareȱusedȱinȱtheȱOT?ȱ

1.2ȱReclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness”ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ Inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ weȱ shallȱ reȬexamineȱ theȱ majorȱ lexicalȱ studiesȱ ofȱ ʸʦȱ andȱ ʩʸʫʰ,ȱ beginningȱ withȱ Boström,ȱ andȱ thenȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ worksȱ ofȱ HumbertȱandȱSnijders,ȱwhichȱareȱdirectȱresponsesȱtoȱBoström’sȱthesis;ȱ Langȱwillȱbeȱdealtȱwithȱlast,ȱasȱhisȱdefinitionȱandȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ inȱ turn,ȱ toȱ someȱ extentȱ reliantȱ onȱ theȱ conclusionsȱ madeȱ byȱ Humbertȱ andȱ Snijders.ȱ First,ȱ though,ȱ weȱ shallȱ runȱ brieflyȱ throughȱtheȱusageȱofȱtheȱtwoȱterms.ȱ

1.2.1ȱTheȱOccurrencesȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱinȱtheȱOTȱȱ Someȱdictionaries,ȱsuchȱasȱBDB,ȱHALOTȱandȱTDOTȱrecogniseȱtwoȱrootsȱ forȱ ʸʫʰ;29ȱ oneȱ incorporatesȱ ideasȱ ofȱ recognitionȱ andȱ acknowledgement,ȱ theȱotherȱideasȱofȱforeignness.30ȱTheȱprimaryȱderivativesȱareȱtheȱnoun ʸʕʫʒʰ,ȱ usedȱ exclusivelyȱ inȱ constructȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ description,ȱ andȱ theȱ adjective ʩʸʍʫʕʰ.31ȱMostȱofȱtheȱoccurrencesȱareȱinȱtheȱexpressionsȱʩʸʫʰ ʩʰʡ/ʯʡȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 29ȱ BDB,ȱpp.ȱ647Ȭ49;ȱHALOT,ȱpp.ȱ699Ȭ700;ȱandȱTDOT,ȱp.ȱ424.ȱ(TDOTȱnumbersȱtheȱrootȱinȱ aȱdifferentȱorderȱfromȱtheȱotherȱtwo).ȱKBȱ(pp.ȱ617Ȭ18)ȱandȱTLOTȱ(pp.ȱ739Ȭ41),ȱonȱtheȱ otherȱhand,ȱrecogniseȱonlyȱoneȱroot.ȱ 30ȱ Theȱnoun,ȱʸʕʫʒʰ,ȱoccurringȱinȱJobȱ31:3ȱandȱObadȱ12,ȱwhichȱprobablyȱmeansȱ“calamity”,ȱ isȱassignedȱtoȱthisȱrootȱbyȱBDB,ȱHALOTȱandȱTDOT.ȱHowever,ȱitȱsitsȱuncomfortablyȱ besideȱtheȱotherȱwords,ȱwhichȱderivesȱfromȱit.ȱAsȱforȱKBȱandȱTLOT,ȱitȱisȱonlyȱlistedȱ asȱoneȱofȱtheȱderivativesȱofȱʸʫʰ.ȱ 31ȱ Thereȱisȱaȱgroupȱofȱoccurrencesȱwhichȱʸʫʰȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱinȱtheȱverbalȱforms,ȱnamelyȱ inȱniphalȱ(Provȱ26:24);ȱhithpaelȱ(Genȱ42:7;ȱ1ȱKgsȱ14:5);ȱandȱpielȱ(Jerȱ19:4;ȱDeutȱ32:27;ȱ1ȱ Samȱ 23:7).ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ consideredȱ byȱ BDB,ȱ whichȱ isȱ followedȱ byȱ TDOTȱ andȱ TLOT,ȱ asȱ aȱ verbalȱ denominativeȱ ofȱ theȱ rootȱ dealingȱ withȱ ideasȱ ofȱ “foreignness”.ȱ HALOTȱ classifiesȱ themȱ underȱ theȱ otherȱ root,ȱ whichȱ usuallyȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ hiphil,ȱ thusȱ belongingȱ toȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ derivativesȱ occurringȱ inȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ KBȱ alsoȱ dealsȱ withȱtheseȱoccurrencesȱinȱtheȱsameȱway.ȱIfȱweȱlookȱintoȱeachȱofȱtheseȱoccurrencesȱinȱ theirȱcontexts,ȱ1ȱSamȱ23:7ȱisȱprobablyȱanȱerrorȱ(noteȱBHS);ȱJerȱ19:4,ȱatȱleastȱdealsȱwithȱ

14ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

andȱ ʸʫʰ ʩʤʬʠ/ʬʠȱ –ȱ broadly,ȱ “foreigner”ȱ andȱ “foreignȱ god”ȱ respectively.ȱ Fourȱtimesȱʸʫʰȱisȱusedȱwithȱotherȱnouns:ȱʸʫʰ ʩʬʡʤʡ asȱ“foreignȱidols”ȱ(Jerȱ 8:19), ʸʫʰʤ ʺʥʧʡʦʮȱ“foreignȱaltars”ȱ(2ȱChrȱ14:3ȱ[MTȱ14:2]), ʺʮʣʠ ʸʫʰ “foreignȱ land”ȱ (Psȱ 137:4),ȱ and ʸʫʰ ʬʫʮ “allȱ foreignȱ things”ȱ (Nehȱ 13:30).ȱ Theȱ adjectiveȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ isȱ usedȱ bothȱ toȱ qualifyȱ nounsȱ andȱ absolutely,ȱ asȱ aȱ subȬ stantive.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ is,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ moreȱ common,ȱ asȱ theȱ overallȱ pictureȱ isȱ distortedȱ byȱ theȱ multipleȱ occurrencesȱ ofȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ inȱ EzraȬNehemiah.ȱ Eitherȱ way,ȱ theȱ termȱ isȱ usually,ȱ thoughȱ notȱ exclusively,ȱ appliedȱ toȱ people.ȱTheȱexceptionsȱareȱExodȱ2:22;ȱ18:3ȱ(aȱland);ȱJudgȱ19:12ȱ(aȱcity);ȱ Isaȱ 28:21ȱ (divineȱ actsȱ ofȱ judgement);ȱ Jerȱ 2:21ȱ (aȱ vine);ȱ andȱ Zephȱ 1:8ȱ (clothing). Weȱ shallȱ examineȱ theȱ nuancesȱ ofȱ theȱ usageȱ inȱ moreȱ detailȱ below,ȱ butȱitȱshouldȱbeȱsaidȱstraightȱawayȱthatȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ“foreignness”,ȱifȱ notȱ understoodȱ tooȱ preciselyȱ inȱ modernȱ nationalȱ terms,ȱ isȱ quiteȱ appropriateȱ asȱ aȱ translationȱ forȱ almostȱ allȱ contextsȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ nounȱ andȱadjectiveȱappear.ȱThisȱisȱsometimesȱexplicit,ȱasȱwhenȱtheȱIsraelitesȱ separateȱ themselvesȱ fromȱ ”sonsȱ ofȱ foreignness”ȱ (Nehȱ 9:2),ȱ whenȱ theȱ kingȱmustȱnotȱbeȱaȱ“foreigner”,ȱ“whoȱisȱnotȱyourȱbrother”ȱ(Deutȱ17:15),ȱ orȱ whenȱ theȱ referenceȱ isȱ toȱ peopleȱ fromȱ otherȱ landsȱ orȱ nationsȱ worshippingȱYahwehȱ(forȱexample,ȱ1ȱKgsȱ8:41,ȱ43ȱ=ȱ2ȱChrȱ6:32,ȱ33;ȱIsaȱ 56:3,ȱ6;ȱcf.ȱdifferently,ȱEzekȱ44:7,ȱ9).ȱFrequently,ȱtheȱreferenceȱisȱnotȱsoȱ muchȱ toȱ peopleȱ fromȱ farȱ awayȱ asȱ toȱ nonȬIsraelitesȱ withȱ whomȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ comeȱ intoȱ frequentȱ contact,ȱ forȱ whichȱ provisionȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ madeȱ inȱ theȱ lawsȱ (forȱ example,ȱ Genȱ 17:12,ȱ 27;ȱ Exodȱ 21:8;ȱ Deutȱ 14:21;ȱ 15:3;ȱ 23:20).ȱ Inȱ theȱ sameȱ vein,ȱ theȱ termȱ ʸʫʰ ʩʤʬʠ/ʬʠȱ usuallyȱ refersȱ toȱ deitiesȱworshippedȱbyȱorȱamongȱtheȱIsraelites,ȱnotȱtoȱtheȱgodsȱofȱcitiesȱ orȱ nationsȱ elsewhereȱ (forȱexample,ȱ Genȱ35:2,ȱ4;ȱ Deutȱ31:16;ȱ Joshȱ24:23;ȱ Jerȱ 5:19).ȱ Theȱ termsȱ doȱ notȱ excludeȱ geographicalȱ distanceȱ (cf.ȱ theȱ famousȱreferenceȱtoȱBabylonȱasȱ“foreignȱland”ȱinȱPsȱ137:4,ȱorȱtoȱEgyptȱ inȱExodȱ2:22;ȱ18:3),ȱbutȱtheȱprimaryȱsenseȱisȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱgeographicalȱ asȱ ethnic,ȱ orȱ religiousȱ (asȱ inȱ theȱ particularȱ senseȱ ofȱ “nonȬYahwistic”).ȱ Thisȱ canȱalsoȱ beȱ linkedȱ toȱ someȱ placesȱwhichȱ dealsȱwithȱ inheritanceȱ –ȱ theȱʩʸʫʰȱisȱparȱexcellenceȱtheȱpersonȱtoȱwhomȱone’sȱpropertyȱshouldȱnotȱ passȱ (cf.,ȱ atȱ theȱ personalȱ level,ȱ Provȱ 5:10;ȱ Ecclȱ 6:2;ȱ andȱ atȱ theȱ nationalȱ level,ȱLamȱ5:2;ȱObadȱ11).ȱAȱpersonȱisȱalsoȱtreatedȱasȱʩʸʫʰ,ȱwhenȱexcludedȱ fromȱone’sȱhouseholdȱ(Genȱ31:15;ȱJobȱ19:15;ȱcf.ȱPsȱ69:8).ȱOnce,ȱinȱProvȱ 27:2,ȱtheȱsenseȱisȱextendedȱtoȱmeanȱ”someoneȱotherȱthanȱoneself”,ȱandȱ inȱ Isaȱ 28:21,ȱ theȱ referenceȱ isȱ probablyȱ toȱ theȱ “unfamiliar”ȱ characterȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ actsȱ ofȱ “makingȱ foreign”;ȱ theȱ otherȱ occurrencesȱ seemsȱ toȱ dealȱ withȱ ideasȱ ofȱ recognitionȱ andȱ acknowledgement.ȱ Although,ȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ occurrencesȱ inȱ Genȱ 42:7,ȱ theȱ latterȱ mightȱ beȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ “treatingȱ asȱ aȱ stranger”,ȱ henceȱ theȱ rootȱ associatedȱwithȱ“foreignness”.ȱȱȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

15ȱ

theȱ divineȱ action.ȱ Theȱ emphasisȱ isȱ stillȱ onȱ differentiationȱ fromȱ theȱ immediateȱsubjectȱinȱtheseȱextendedȱmeanings,ȱratherȱthanȱonȱaȱsenseȱ ofȱ exclusion.ȱ Also,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ specificȱ ethicalȱ orȱ moralȱ connotationȱ inȱ anyȱ ofȱ theȱ usage,ȱ althoughȱ Jerȱ 2:21,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ beenȱ takenȱ atȱ timesȱ toȱ implyȱthisȱsense,ȱinȱfactȱmerelyȱcontrastsȱtheȱvineȱbecomingȱʤʩʸʫʰȱwithȱ theȱoriginsȱofȱthatȱvineȱinȱaȱ“pureȱseed”.32ȱ Therefore,ȱ ʸʫʰȱ isȱ notȱ exclusivelyȱ aȱ “nationalistic”ȱ term,ȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ confinedȱ toȱ definingȱ termsȱ suchȱ asȱ land,ȱ countryȱ orȱ government,ȱ whichȱareȱthemselvesȱmodernȱconceptsȱthatȱaroseȱafterȱWorldȱWarȱII.33ȱ Ifȱ “foreignness”ȱ isȱ understoodȱ onlyȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “nationhood”,ȱitȱimpliesȱseriousȱproblemsȱinȱOTȱstudy,ȱbecauseȱboundȬ aryȱ limitsȱ ofȱ Israelȱ inȱ Palestineȱ varyȱ considerablyȱ inȱ theȱ differentȱ historicalȱ epochsȱ ofȱ Israelȱ inȱ theȱ biblicalȱ periods.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ shouldȱ theȱinhabitantsȱofȱLibnahȱconsiderȱthemselvesȱasȱ“foreigners”ȱtoȱJudahȱ becauseȱ theyȱ rebelledȱ duringȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Jehoramȱ (cf.ȱ 2ȱ Kgsȱ 7:22),ȱ althoughȱtheyȱwereȱunderȱtheȱsovereignshipȱofȱJudahȱfromȱtheȱtimeȱofȱ Joshuaȱ (10:29Ȭ33;ȱ 12:15;ȱ 21:13),ȱ andȱ theirȱ landȱ wasȱ recognisedȱ asȱ belongingȱ toȱ Judah?ȱ Theȱ factȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ claimsȱ madeȱ regardingȱ theȱ geographicalȱ boundariesȱ ofȱ Israelȱ duringȱ thisȱ periodȱ areȱ stillȱ aȱ debateȱ amongȱarchaeologistsȱtoday.34ȱ Perhapsȱ ʸʫʰ,ȱ inȱ itsȱ senseȱ ofȱ “foreignness”,ȱ shouldȱ thusȱ beȱ underȬ stoodȱ asȱ anȱ “ethnic”ȱ term.ȱ Aȱ conciseȱ definitionȱ forȱ “ethnicity”ȱ isȱ asȱ follows:ȱ ȱ Ethnicityȱ isȱ anȱ aspectȱ ofȱ socialȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ agentsȱ whoȱ considerȱ themselvesȱ asȱ culturallyȱ distinctiveȱ fromȱ membersȱ ofȱ otherȱ groupsȱ withȱ whomȱ theyȱ haveȱ aȱ minimumȱ ofȱ regularȱ interaction.ȱ Itȱ canȱ thusȱ alsoȱ beȱ definedȱ asȱ aȱ socialȱ identityȱ (basedȱ onȱ aȱ contrastȱ visȬàȬvisȱ others)ȱ chaȬ racterizedȱ byȱ metaphoricȱ orȱ fictiveȱ kinship.ȱ Whenȱ culturalȱ differencesȱ regularlyȱmakeȱaȱdifferenceȱinȱinteractionȱbetweenȱmembersȱofȱgroups,ȱtheȱ socialȱrelationshipȱhasȱanȱethnicȱelement.ȱEthnicityȱrefersȱbothȱtoȱaspectsȱofȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱȱ AlsoȱnoteworthyȱisȱPssȱ144:ȱ7,ȱ11,ȱwhichȱseemȱtoȱimplyȱaȱmoralȱsenseȱinȱthe ʸʫʰ ʩʰʡ,ȱ butȱtheȱpsalmȱtakenȱasȱwhole,ȱisȱaȱprayerȱforȱdeliveranceȱforȱtheȱpeopleȱwhoȱworshipȱ Yahweh,ȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ doȱ not.ȱ Hence,ȱ aȱ religiousȱ differentiationȱ ratherȱ thanȱaȱmoralȱone.ȱ 33ȱȱ Theseȱ conditionsȱ areȱ keyȱ elementsȱ inȱ theȱ modernȱ definitionȱ agreedȱ byȱ theȱ interȬ nationalȱ bodies.ȱ Seeȱ “Woodrowȱ Wilsonȱ andȱ theȱ Fourteenȱ Points”ȱ whichȱ statesȱ theȱ principlesȱ protectingȱ theȱ rightsȱ andȱ claimsȱ ofȱ aȱ nation,ȱ inȱ Christieȱ Clive,ȱ Raceȱ andȱ Nation:ȱ Aȱ Readerȱ (Taurisȱ Historyȱ Readers;ȱ London:ȱ I.B.ȱ Tauris,ȱ 1998),ȱ especiallyȱ pp.ȱ 89Ȭ90;ȱandȱ79Ȭ97.ȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ Seeȱ Nielsȱ Lemche,ȱ Theȱ Israelitesȱ inȱ Historyȱ andȱ Traditionȱ (Libraryȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Israel;ȱ London:ȱ SPCK,ȱ 1998);ȱ andȱ Williamȱ Dever,ȱ “’Willȱ theȱ Realȱ Israelȱ Pleaseȱ Standȱ Up?’ȱ PartȱII:ȱArchaeologyȱandȱtheȱReligionsȱofȱAncientȱIsrael”,ȱBASORȱ298ȱ(1995),ȱpp.ȱ37Ȭ 58.ȱItȱmayȱbeȱhelpfulȱforȱusȱtoȱbeȱremindedȱthatȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱgeographicalȱboundaryȱ forȱaȱgivenȱcountryȱisȱanȱunresolvedȱproblemȱevenȱforȱourȱpresentȱtime.ȱȱ

16ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

gainȱ andȱ lossȱ inȱ interaction,ȱ andȱ toȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ meaningȱ inȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ identity.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ wayȱ itȱ hasȱ aȱ political,ȱ organizationalȱ aspectȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ aȱ symbolicȱone.ȱ Ethnicȱ groupsȱ tendȱ toȱ haveȱ mythsȱ ofȱ commonȱ originȱ andȱ theyȱ nearlyȱ alwaysȱ haveȱ ideologiesȱ encouragingȱ endogamy,ȱ whichȱ mayȱ neverthelessȱ beȱofȱhighlyȱvaryingȱpracticalȱimportance.35ȱ

ȱ Inȱthisȱway,ȱtoȱputȱitȱsimply,ȱ“foreignness”ȱisȱexpressedȱinȱtermsȱofȱselfȬ consciousnessȱconcerningȱone’sȱsenseȱofȱbelonging,ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱexerciseȱ ofȱ definingȱ whoȱ isȱ theȱ “foreigner”ȱ isȱ dependentȱ onȱ whatȱ oneȱ underȬ standsȱoneselfȱtoȱbeȱpartȱof.ȱThisȱdefinitionȱallowsȱtheȱflexibilityȱweȱfindȱ inȱ theȱ OT,ȱ whereȱ thereȱ areȱ “shiftingȱ boundaries”ȱ ofȱ “foreignness”.ȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ OT,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ whoȱ theȱ “foreigner”ȱ toȱ Israelȱ isȱ andȱ isȱ notȱ (whoeverȱ theyȱ claimȱ themselvesȱ toȱ be)ȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ constantȱ entity.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ fourthȱ generationȱ ofȱ theȱ EgypȬ tiansȱandȱ Edomitesȱ canȱqualifyȱ toȱ becomeȱ aȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ “Israelite”ȱ communityȱ (Deutȱ 23:8),ȱ butȱ thoseȱ priorȱ areȱ notȱ eligible.ȱ Weȱ alsoȱ haveȱ theȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱinȱEzraȱ9Ȭ10ȱwhoȱareȱtheȱ“peoplesȱofȱtheȱland”ȱidentifiedȱ withȱ thoseȱ notȱ exiledȱ andȱ consideredȱ asȱ theȱ “outȬgroup”.ȱ Theseȱ textsȱ willȱbeȱdealtȱwithȱlater,ȱandȱinȱorderȱnotȱtoȱjumpȱaheadȱofȱmyselfȱinȱtheȱ discussion,ȱ itȱ willȱ beȱ pointedȱ outȱ forȱ presentȱ purposesȱ thatȱ whateverȱ happenedȱinȱEzraȬNehemiahȱconcerningȱtheseȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱandȱtheȱ exclusionȱofȱtheȱ“peopleȱofȱtheȱland”,ȱisȱsomethingȱveryȱstrictȱandȱitȱisȱ notȱ foundȱ elsewhereȱ inȱ theȱ OT.ȱ Thisȱ eventȱ erasesȱ theȱ provisionȱ menȬ tionedȱ atȱ anȱ earlierȱ periodȱ inȱ Deutȱ 23:8,ȱ makingȱ allȱ theȱ generationsȱ ofȱ theȱEgyptiansȱandȱEdomitesȱillegitimateȱtoȱadmitȱtheȱcongregation.ȱTheȱ examplesȱ aboveȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ toȱ defineȱ whoȱ constitutesȱ theȱ “foreigner”ȱinȱtheȱOTȱisȱdependentȱonȱwhoȱdecidesȱtheyȱshouldȱbe,ȱandȱ itȱalsoȱvariesȱinȱtheȱhistoricalȱperiods.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱisȱnotȱtheȱplaceȱtoȱ engageȱ inȱ aȱ discussionȱ onȱ suchȱ aȱ hugeȱ topicȱ asȱ “nationalism”ȱ andȱ “ethnicity”.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ materialȱ whichȱ weȱ areȱ dealingȱ withȱ isȱ notȱ appropriateȱ forȱ handlingȱ theseȱ subjects.36ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ inȱ tryingȱ toȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 35ȱȱ Thomasȱ Ericksen,ȱ “Ethnicity,ȱ raceȱ andȱ nation”,ȱ inȱ Montserratȱ Guibernauȱ andȱ Johnȱ Rexȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Ethnicityȱ Reader:ȱ Nationalism,ȱ Multiculturalismȱ andȱ Migrationȱ (CamȬ bridge:ȱPolityȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱp.ȱ39.ȱItȱisȱunfortunateȱthatȱethnicityȱcameȱtoȱbeȱassociatedȱ withȱ“race”ȱduringȱtheȱWorldȱWarȱII,ȱbutȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱhasȱbeenȱ madeȱ everȱ since.ȱ Seeȱ T.ȱ Eriksen,ȱ “Ethnicity,ȱ Class,ȱ Raceȱ andȱ Nation”,ȱ inȱ Johnȱ Hutchinsonȱ andȱ Anthonyȱ Smithȱ (eds.),ȱ Ethnicityȱ (Oxfordȱ Readers;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1996),ȱ p.ȱ 28;ȱ Ashleyȱ Montagu,ȱ Man’sȱ Mostȱ Dangerousȱ Myth:ȱ Theȱ FallacyȱofȱRaceȱ(London:ȱAltamiraȱPress,ȱ6thȱedn,ȱ1997);ȱandȱClive,ȱpp.ȱ40Ȭ48.ȱ 36ȱȱ SeeȱKentonȱSparks,ȱEthnicityȱandȱIdentityȱinȱAncientȱIsrael:ȱProlegomenaȱtoȱtheȱstudyȱofȱ ethnicȱ sentimentsȱ andȱ theirȱ expressionȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ (Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Indiana:ȱ Eisenbrauns,ȱ1998).ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

17ȱ

understandȱ“foreignness”,ȱitȱisȱessentialȱtoȱmentionȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱ theseȱterms,ȱandȱinevitably,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱʸʫʰ inȱtheȱOT.ȱ Anotherȱusageȱ ofȱʸʫʰȱ isȱ theȱ occurrenceȱ ofȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ,ȱusedȱinȱ1ȱ Kgsȱ 11:ȱ1,ȱ8ȱofȱSolomon’sȱforeignȱwives,ȱinȱEzraȱ10:2,ȱ10,ȱ11,ȱ14,ȱ17,ȱ18,ȱ44ȱofȱ theȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱofȱtheȱJews;ȱandȱinȱNehȱ13:26,ȱ27,ȱwhichȱlinksȱtheȱ twoȱ setsȱ ofȱ wives.ȱ Inȱ 1ȱ Kingsȱ 11,ȱ theȱ wivesȱ areȱ clearlyȱ nonȬIsraelites,ȱ andȱtheyȱareȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱtheȱnonȬIsraeliteȱcultsȱ inȱ Judah;ȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ theyȱ areȱ connectedȱ toȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ “peoplesȱofȱtheȱland”.ȱ Weȱ shallȱ nowȱ considerȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ ʸʦ.ȱ Dictionariesȱ identifyȱ threeȱ roots:ȱIʸʥʦȱwithȱtheȱmeaningȱ“toȱpressȱout”ȱinȱqalȱ(Judgȱ6:38;ȱIsaȱ1:6;ȱ59:5;ȱ Jobȱ 39:15);ȱ IIʸʥʦȱ withȱ theȱ meaningȱ “toȱ turnȱ aside,ȱ goȱ away”;ȱ andȱ IIIʸʥʦȱ withȱtheȱmeaningȱ“toȱstinkȱorȱhate”ȱ– ʤʸʦ (onlyȱinȱJobȱ19:17).37ȱMostȱofȱ theȱ occurrencesȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ areȱ derivedȱ fromȱ IIʸʥʦ.ȱ Theȱ verbalȱ formsȱappearȱnotȱmanyȱtimes:ȱinȱqalȱ(Psȱ78:30;ȱJobȱ19:13);ȱinȱniphalȱ(Psȱ 58:4;ȱEzekȱ14:5;ȱIsaȱ1:4);ȱandȱinȱhophalȱ(Psȱ69:9).ȱForȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱ occurrences,ȱseventyȬoneȱ inȱ total,ȱ itȱusuallyȱappearsȱasȱaȱ noun,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱparticiple,ȱfromȱwhichȱtheȱadjectiveȱisȱderived.ȱAlmostȱhalfȱofȱtheseȱ occurrencesȱ haveȱ directȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ foreignȱ enemiesȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ depictedȱ asȱ plunderersȱ (forȱ example,ȱ Isaȱ 1:7;ȱ 29:5;ȱ Jerȱ 51:2,ȱ 51;ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ Ezekȱ 7:21;ȱ 11:9;ȱ 28:7,ȱ 10;ȱ 30:12;ȱ 31:12)ȱ andȱ toȱ foreignȱ deitiesȱ (forȱexample,ȱDeutȱ32:16;ȱIsaȱ43:12;ȱJerȱ3:13;ȱPssȱ44:21;ȱ81:10).ȱFourȱtimesȱ inȱProverbsȱitȱappearsȱinȱtheȱcontextȱregardingȱwarningsȱagainstȱtakingȱ suretyȱ(Provȱ6:1;ȱ11:15;ȱ20:16;ȱ27:13).ȱLike ʸʫʰ,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱalwaysȱreferȱtoȱ personsȱ andȱ sometimes,ȱ althoughȱ notȱ frequently,ȱ canȱ beȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱ otherȱ things,ȱ suchȱ asȱ plantsȱ (Isaȱ 17:10),ȱ theȱ divineȱ worksȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ (Isaȱ 28:21),ȱ watersȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 19:24;ȱ Jerȱ 18:14),ȱ andȱ evenȱ thingsȱ (Provȱ 23:33;ȱ Hosȱ 8:12).ȱ Itȱ appearsȱ severalȱ timesȱ inȱ theȱ priestlyȱ textsȱ toȱ warnȱagainstȱofferingȱ“strangeȱincense”ȱ(Exodȱ30:9)ȱandȱ”strangeȱfire”ȱ (Levȱ10:1;ȱNumȱ3:4;ȱ26:61)ȱtoȱYahweh,ȱwhichȱwhenȱifȱdone,ȱisȱpunishedȱ withȱinstantȱdeath. Weȱshallȱ nowȱ examineȱ theȱ nuancesȱ ofȱ theȱ usage.ȱWhereȱʸʦȱ depictsȱ foreignersȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ nonȬIsraelites,ȱ theȱ contextȱ alwaysȱ specifiesȱ (forȱ example,ȱ Joelȱ 4:17,ȱ cf.ȱ 4:12;ȱ Ezekȱ 7:21,ȱ cf.ȱ 7:24;ȱ Obadȱ 11).ȱ Likeȱ ʸʫʰ,ȱ mostȱofȱtheseȱreferencesȱdoȱnotȱusuallyȱreferȱtoȱforeignersȱfarȱaway,ȱbutȱ toȱ thoseȱ nonȬIsraelitesȱ withȱ whomȱ Israelȱfrequentlyȱcameȱintoȱ contact.ȱ However,ȱ unlikeȱ ʸʫʰ,ȱ ʸʦȱ doesȱ notȱ alwaysȱ haveȱ nonȬIsraelitesȱ inȱ mind.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Deutȱ 25:5ȱ refersȱ toȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ familyȱofȱtheȱwidow’sȱlateȱhusband;ȱHosȱ5:7ȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱ“illegitimateȱ children”ȱgivenȱbirthȱbyȱHosea’sȱwife,ȱGomer;ȱandȱPsȱ109:11ȱprobablyȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 37ȱȱ SeeȱBDB,ȱpp.ȱ266Ȭ67;ȱHALOTȱvol.ȱIII,ȱp.ȱ267;ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱVI,ȱp.ȱ52;ȱKB,ȱpp.ȱ253Ȭ54.ȱ

18ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

refersȱtoȱgodlessȱandȱwickedȱpeople.ȱInȱaȱfewȱcases,ȱitȱisȱusedȱtoȱdenoteȱ someoneȱotherȱthanȱoneself,ȱasȱinȱProvȱ14:10;ȱ27:2;ȱ1ȱKgsȱ3:18;ȱandȱonceȱ itȱ refersȱ toȱ someoneȱ whoȱ canȱ beȱ treatedȱ asȱ suchȱ byȱ theirȱ familyȱ (Jobȱ 19:15).ȱItȱisȱnoteworthyȱthatȱaȱlargeȱgroupȱofȱoccurrencesȱwhichȱdoȱnotȱ haveȱ theȱ nonȬIsraeliteȱ inȱ mindȱ appearȱ inȱ theȱ priestlyȱ textsȱ asȱ well.ȱ There,ȱ theȱ termȱ isȱ usedȱ frequentlyȱ toȱ denoteȱ thoseȱ whoȱ cannotȱ participateȱ inȱ someȱ respectsȱ ofȱ theȱ cultȱ (forȱ example,ȱ theȱ ʸʦȱ isȱ bannedȱ fromȱeatingȱtheȱholyȱfoodȱofȱtheȱpriestsȱinȱLevȱ22:13;ȱandȱevenȱaȱpriest’sȱ daughterȱ whoȱ marriesȱ oneȱ isȱ prohibitedȱ fromȱeatingȱ suchȱ foodȱinȱ Levȱ 22:12,ȱ13;ȱaȱpersonȱisȱalsoȱaȱʸʦȱifȱanyoneȱfromȱIsraelȱputsȱtheȱanointingȱ perfumesȱ reservedȱ onlyȱ forȱ theȱ priestsȱ onȱ himȱ asȱ inȱ Exodȱ 30:33).ȱ Probably,ȱtheȱmostȱcommonȱoccurrencesȱareȱfoundȱinȱNumbers,ȱwhereȱ theȱtextsȱcontinuallyȱandȱsolemnlyȱwarnȱagainstȱtheȱʸʦȱwhoȱattemptsȱtoȱ encroachȱonȱtheȱtabernacleȱ(Numȱ1:51;ȱ3:10,ȱ38;ȱ16:40;ȱ18:4,ȱ7;ȱ26:61). Thus,ȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ ʸʦȱ isȱ notȱ asȱ consistentȱ asȱ thatȱ ofȱ ʸʫʰ.ȱ Theȱ immediateȱ contextȱ usuallyȱ suppliesȱ theȱ informationȱ neededȱ whetherȱ theȱoccurrenceȱisȱintendedȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱnonȬIsraeliteȱorȱnot.ȱHowever,ȱ sometimesȱ theȱ contextȱ itselfȱ isȱ notȱ clearȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ bestȱ toȱ leaveȱ itȱ unȬ determinedȱ (forȱ example,ȱ Jobȱ 15:19).ȱ Thereȱ isȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ occurrencesȱ wherebyȱʸʦȱisȱusedȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱʸʫʰ:ȱIsaȱ28:21;ȱ61:5;ȱJerȱ5:19;ȱPssȱ 69:8;ȱ81:10;ȱJobȱ19:15;ȱProvȱ2:16;ȱ5:10;ȱ20:16;ȱ27:2,ȱ13;ȱObadȱ11;ȱLamȱ5:2.ȱ Asȱweȱhaveȱdiscussedȱalready,ȱwhileȱʸʦȱisȱfluidȱandȱisȱdependentȱonȱtheȱ immediateȱ contextȱ toȱ determineȱ whoȱ isȱ beingȱ referredȱ to,ȱ andȱ ʸʫʰȱ isȱ undoubtedlyȱ theȱ “foreigner”ȱ toȱ Israel,ȱ itȱ isȱ thereforeȱ rightȱ toȱ concludeȱ thatȱ inȱ theseȱ occurrences,ȱ ʸʫʰȱ determinesȱ theȱ referentȱ ofȱ ʸʦȱ asȱ theȱ “forȬ eigner”.ȱ Soȱweȱcanȱsummariseȱbrieflyȱfromȱourȱstudyȱthatȱtheȱusagesȱofȱʸʫʰȱ andȱ ʸʦȱ areȱ notȱ similarȱ andȱ theyȱ denoteȱ ideasȱ whichȱ areȱ quiteȱ nuancedȱ fromȱeachȱother,ȱalthoughȱsometimesȱtheyȱmeetȱandȱseemȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱ sameȱ thing.ȱ Weȱ concludeȱ thatȱ theȱ derivativesȱ ofȱ ʸʫʰȱ fromȱ theȱ rootȱ denotingȱ“foreignness”,ȱdemonstrateȱaȱconsistentȱdepictionȱofȱthatȱidea.ȱ Noȱethicalȱorȱmoralȱaspectȱofȱtheȱwordȱisȱimpliedȱandȱitsȱusageȱalwaysȱ emphasisesȱtheȱsenseȱofȱdifferentiationȱfromȱitsȱimmediateȱsubject,ȱasȱinȱ IsraelitesȱversusȱnonȬIsraelites,ȱorȱYahwisticȱcultȱversusȱnonȬYahwisticȱ cult.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ itȱ isȱmoreȱ anȱ “ethnic”ȱ term,ȱ thanȱ aȱ“nationalistic”ȱ term,ȱinȱtheȱmodernȱdefinitionsȱofȱtheȱword.ȱAsȱforȱʸʦ,ȱspecificallyȱthoseȱ occurrencesȱ derivingȱ fromȱ IIʸʥʦ,ȱ itȱ encompassesȱ aȱ broaderȱ senseȱ ofȱ “otherness”ȱ –ȱ sometimesȱ extendingȱ fromȱ oneself,ȱ toȱ outsideȱ one’sȱ family,ȱ socialȱ andȱ religiousȱ groups,ȱandȱ country.ȱHowever,ȱ theȱ immeȬ diateȱ contextȱalwaysȱ determinesȱ theȱ specificȱ referenceȱ theȱ textȱ intendsȱ toȱmake.ȱItȱisȱthereforeȱaȱfluidȱtermȱandȱreliesȱheavilyȱonȱtheȱtextȱforȱitsȱ meaning.ȱHence,ȱwhenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱthoseȱoccurrencesȱwhenȱtheyȱappearȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

19ȱ

together,ȱ weȱ concludeȱ thatȱ ʸʦȱ drawsȱ itsȱ meaningȱ fromȱ ʸʫʰ,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ determinateȱtermȱforȱ“foreigner”.ȱFollowingȱsuchȱaȱconclusion,ȱweȱshallȱ nowȱ lookȱ atȱ thoseȱ fourȱ influentialȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ haveȱ shapedȱ theȱ perceptionȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ ofȱ modernȱ scholarship,ȱ andȱ seeȱ howȱ theirȱ worksȱ measureȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ studyȱweȱhaveȱmadeȱsoȱfar.ȱȱ

1.2.2ȱBoströmȱonȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱ theȱForeignȱWomanȱ Itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ Boström’sȱ analysisȱ ofȱ ʸʦȱ andȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ conclusionsȱ weȱ haveȱ madeȱ aboutȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ theseȱ wordsȱ inȱ theȱ OT.ȱ Heȱ disagreesȱ withȱ earlierȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ hadȱ optedȱ forȱ otherȱ meaningsȱ forȱbothȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰ,ȱbyȱshowingȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱneedȱtoȱdoȱso,ȱespeciallyȱ whenȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ inȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ OTȱ certainlyȱ meansȱ “foreigner”.38ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ agreesȱthatȱʸʦȱdoesȱnotȱalwaysȱreferȱtoȱtheȱ“ethnicȱforeigner”,ȱbutȱwhenȱ itȱ isȱusedȱ inȱparallelȱ withȱ ʩʸʫʰ,ȱ itȱ derivesȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ“foreignness”ȱ throughȱʩʸʫʰ.39ȱHence,ȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱcertainlyȱaȱ“foreigner”.ȱ Boströmȱ thenȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ showȱ whatȱ kindȱ ofȱ aȱ “foreigner”ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ is,ȱ andȱ hereȱ hisȱ analysisȱ becomesȱ lessȱ straightȬ forwardlyȱ rootedȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ usage.ȱ Heȱ believesȱ thatȱ sheȱ isȱ aȱ repreȬ sentativeȱofȱtheȱwivesȱofȱtheȱforeignersȱwhoȱliveȱinȱJerusalem40ȱandȱofȱ theȱ devoteesȱ ofȱ theȱ Ishtarȱ cultȱ ofȱ theȱ Astarteȱ version.41ȱ Heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ passagesȱaboutȱ theȱ ForeignȱWomanȱinȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱareȱ concernedȱ notȱsoȱmuchȱwithȱadulteryȱasȱwithȱherȱeffortsȱtoȱfulfilȱherȱvowsȱtoȱtheȱ goddess.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Boström,ȱ Provȱ 7ȱ isȱ theȱ keyȱ textȱ forȱ underȬ standingȱwhoȱsheȱreallyȱis.42ȱThere,ȱsheȱisȱtheȱethnicȱforeigner,ȱtheȱwifeȱ ofȱ aȱ foreignȱ merchant,ȱ whoȱ isȱ seekingȱ aȱ victimȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ fulfilȱ thoseȱ vowsȱ byȱ havingȱ aȱ sexualȱ relationshipȱ withȱ aȱ manȱ otherȱ thanȱ herȱ husband.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱsexually,ȱbutȱreligiouslyȱandȱculturallyȱmotivated.ȱ Keyȱ toȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ isȱ Herodotus’sȱ reportȱ ofȱ womenȱ waitingȱ inȱ theȱ Templeȱ courtȱ toȱ beȱ “deflowered”ȱ beforeȱ theirȱ marriageȱ (Histories,ȱ 1.199),ȱ whichȱ Boströmȱ arguesȱ fromȱ thisȱ andȱ otherȱ evidenceȱ theȱ exȬ istenceȱofȱtempleȱprostitutesȱinȱtheȱAstarteȱcult.43ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 38ȱȱ 39ȱȱ 40ȱȱ 41ȱȱ 42ȱȱ

Boström,ȱpp.ȱ47Ȭ52.ȱ Boström,ȱp.ȱ52.ȱ Boström,ȱpp.ȱ134Ȭ35.ȱ Boström,ȱpp.ȱ108Ȭ33.ȱ Boström,ȱ p.ȱ 47ȱ andȱ repeatedlyȱ elsewhere.ȱ Heȱ discussesȱ Provȱ 7ȱ inȱ hisȱ chapterȱ 4,ȱ pp.ȱ 103Ȭ32.ȱ 43ȱȱ Boström,ȱpp.ȱ111Ȭ14.ȱ

20ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

TheȱfoulestȱBabylonianȱcustomȱisȱthatȱwhichȱcompelsȱeveryȱwomanȱofȱtheȱ landȱ toȱ sitȱ inȱ theȱ templeȱ ofȱ Aphroditeȱ andȱ haveȱ intercourseȱ withȱ someȱ strangerȱonceȱinȱherȱlife.ȱManyȱwomenȱwhoȱareȱrichȱandȱproudȱandȱdisdainȱ toȱmingleȱwithȱtheȱrest,ȱdriveȱtoȱtheȱtempleȱinȱcoveredȱcarriagesȱdrawnȱbyȱ teams,ȱ andȱstandȱ thereȱ withȱ aȱ greatȱ retinueȱ ofȱ attendants.ȱ [2]ȱButȱ mostȱsitȱ downȱinȱtheȱsacredȱplotȱofȱAphrodite,ȱwithȱcrownsȱofȱcordȱonȱtheirȱheads;ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ greatȱ multitudeȱ ofȱ womenȱ comingȱ andȱ going;ȱ passagesȱ markedȱ byȱ lineȱ runȱ everyȱ wayȱ throughȱ theȱ crowd,ȱ byȱ whichȱ theȱ menȱ passȱ andȱ makeȱ theirȱ choice.ȱ [3]ȱOnceȱ aȱ womanȱ hasȱ takenȱ herȱ placeȱ there,ȱ sheȱ doesȱ notȱgoȱawayȱtoȱherȱhomeȱbeforeȱsomeȱstrangerȱhasȱcastȱmoneyȱintoȱherȱlap,ȱ andȱ hadȱ intercourseȱ withȱ herȱ outsideȱ theȱ temple;ȱ butȱ whileȱ heȱ castsȱ theȱ money,ȱ heȱ mustȱ say,ȱ “Iȱ inviteȱ youȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ Mylitta”ȱ (thatȱ isȱ theȱ AssyrianȱnameȱforȱAphrodite).ȱ[4]ȱItȱdoesȱnotȱmatterȱwhatȱsumȱtheȱmoneyȱ is;ȱtheȱwomanȱwillȱneverȱrefuse,ȱforȱthatȱwouldȱbeȱaȱsin,ȱtheȱmoneyȱbeingȱ byȱ thisȱ actȱ madeȱ sacred.ȱ Soȱ sheȱ followsȱ theȱ firstȱ manȱ whoȱ castsȱ itȱ andȱ rejectsȱnoȱone.ȱAfterȱtheirȱintercourse,ȱhavingȱdischargedȱherȱsacredȱdutyȱtoȱ theȱ goddess,ȱ sheȱ goesȱ awayȱ toȱ herȱ home;ȱ andȱ thereafterȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ bribeȱ howeverȱgreatȱthatȱwillȱgetȱher.ȱ[5]ȱSoȱthenȱtheȱwomenȱthatȱareȱfairȱandȱtallȱ areȱ soonȱ freeȱ toȱ depart,ȱ butȱ theȱ uncomelyȱ haveȱ longȱ toȱ waitȱ becauseȱ theyȱ cannotȱ fulfillȱ theȱ law;ȱ forȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ remainȱ forȱ threeȱ years,ȱ orȱ four.ȱ ThereȱisȱaȱcustomȱlikeȱthisȱinȱsomeȱpartsȱofȱCyprus.44ȱ

ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ authorȱ presentsȱ theȱ Foreignȱ WomanȱinȱantithesisȱtoȱWomanȱWisdom,ȱwhoȱisȱherselfȱpresentedȱasȱaȱ brideȱ(Provȱ7:4,ȱ5),ȱindicatesȱthatȱthereȱareȱovertonesȱofȱsacredȱmarriageȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.45ȱ Heȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ althoughȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱherselfȱisȱnotȱprimarilyȱseekingȱtoȱmarryȱ theȱIsraeliteȱyouth,ȱsheȱisȱportrayedȱasȱaȱrepresentativeȱofȱtheȱcultȱofȱtheȱ loveȬgoddess.ȱ Correspondingly,ȱ theȱ Israeliteȱ canȱ beȱ savedȱ fromȱ theȱ ForeignȱWomanȱbyȱtakingȱWomanȱWisdomȱasȱhisȱwife.ȱ Boström’sȱthesisȱhasȱbeenȱmuchȱcriticisedȱforȱthisȱinterpretationȱofȱ Provȱ7,ȱandȱthoseȱcriticismsȱneedȱnotȱbeȱrepeatedȱhere.46ȱHisȱemphasisȱ onȱ elementsȱ inȱ theȱ chapterȱ whichȱ pointȱ toȱ aȱ culticȱ victimȬmealȱ motif,ȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ sexualȱ ritesȱ ofȱ aȱ specificȱ cultȱ seemȱ tooȱ farȬfetched,ȱ atȱ leastȱ sinceȱ theȱ declineȱ ofȱ theȱ mythȬandȬritualȱ approachȱ inȱ OTȱ scholarship.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ Herodotusȱ (trans.ȱ byȱ A.D.ȱ Godley;ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1920);ȱ exȬ tractedȱfromȱhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgiȬbin/ptext?lookup=Hdt.+1.199.1,ȱ(1/10/ȱ 07).ȱȱȱ 45ȱȱ Heȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ aspectȱ ofȱ bridalȱ imageryȱ ofȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱinȱhisȱconcludingȱpart,ȱseeȱBoström,ȱpp.ȱ156Ȭ74.ȱ 46ȱȱ Seeȱexample,ȱMcKane,ȱpp.ȱ334Ȭ41;ȱandȱforȱaȱconciseȱevaluationȱofȱculticȱprostitution,ȱ seeȱ Maryȱ Beardȱ andȱ Johnȱ Henderson,ȱ “Withȱ Thisȱ Bodyȱ Iȱ Theeȱ Worship:ȱ Sacredȱ ProstitutionȱinȱAntiquity”,ȱGenderȱandȱHistoryȱ9ȱ(1997),ȱpp.ȱ480Ȭ503.ȱInȱthisȱarticle,ȱtheȱ historiographyȱofȱHerodotusȱwithȱparticularȱreferenceȱtoȱHistories,ȱ1.199ȱisȱcriticallyȱ examinedȱinȱcomparisonȱtoȱotherȱsimilarȱtextsȱandȱarchaeologicalȱevidence.ȱAlso,ȱcf.ȱ 1.2.5.ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

21ȱ

Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ oneȱ shouldȱ notȱ throwȱ theȱ babyȱ outȱ withȱ theȱ bathȱ water.ȱ Boström’sȱ argumentsȱ forȱ retainingȱ theȱ meaningsȱ ofȱ ʸʦȱ andȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ whichȱ accordȱ withȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theirȱ OTȱ occurrencesȱ areȱ valid,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ whatȱ heȱ thenȱ makesȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignness”ȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ cerȬ tainlyȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱreȬevaluated.ȱȱ

1.2.3ȱHumbertȱonȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱ theȱForeignȱWomanȱ HumbertȱhasȱwrittenȱtwoȱessaysȱinȱresponseȱtoȱBoström’sȱthesis,ȱinȱoneȱ ofȱwhichȱheȱformulatesȱaȱdifferentȱdefinitionȱforȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰ,ȱandȱappliesȱ thisȱtoȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbs,ȱcontraryȱtoȱ Boström’s;ȱinȱtheȱother,ȱaȱlexicalȱstudyȱofȱtheȱmeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰ,ȱheȱ attemptsȱ straightforwardlyȱ toȱ disproveȱ Boström’sȱ definitionȱ ofȱ theȱ words.47ȱ Inȱtheȱlexicalȱstudy,ȱHumbertȱrejectsȱBoström’sȱunderstandingȱofȱʸʦȱ andȱʩʸʫʰ,ȱasȱ“strange”ȱandȱ“foreign”ȱrespectively,ȱandȱalsoȱhisȱviewȱthatȱ whenȱtheȱtermsȱareȱusedȱtogether,ȱʸʦȱisȱgivenȱspecificityȱbyȱʩʸʫʰ.ȱRather,ȱ Humbertȱargues,ȱbothȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱhaveȱaȱgeneralȱmeaningȱofȱ“belongingȱ toȱ another”ȱ andȱ doȱ notȱ causeȱ eachȱ otherȱ toȱ deriveȱ someȱ nuanceȱ ofȱ “foreignness”.48ȱ Heȱ classifiesȱ theȱ occurrencesȱ ofȱ ʸʦȱ andȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ andȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱtermsȱusuallyȱmeanȱ“foreign”ȱonlyȱinȱtheȱpropheticȱ literature;49ȱ elsewhere,ȱ theyȱ usuallyȱ justȱ meanȱ “other”.ȱ Heȱ furtherȱ assertsȱthatȱthisȱisȱparticularlyȱtrueȱforȱtheirȱusageȱinȱwisdomȱliterature,ȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ mustȱ thereforeȱ meanȱ “other”ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ thatȱ text’sȱ genre.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ becauseȱ heȱ assumesȱ Proverbsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ preȬexilicȱcomposition,ȱheȱadducesȱfurtherȱevidenceȱforȱsupposingȱthatȱ ʤʸʦȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰȱcannotȱmeanȱ“foreign”ȱbasedȱonȱaȱgeneralȱargumentȱthatȱ thisȱsenseȱappearsȱonlyȱinȱpostȬexilicȱliterature.50ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 47ȱȱ P.ȱHumbert,ȱ“LaȱfemmeȱétrangèreȱduȱlivreȱdesȱProverbes”,ȱRevueȱdesȱetudesȱsémitiquesȱ (1937),ȱpp.ȱ49Ȭ64;ȱandȱ“Lesȱadjectifsȱ‘zâr’ȱetȱ‘nokrî’ȱetȱlaȱ‘FemmeȱÉtrangère’ȱdesȱProȬ verbesȱBibliques”,ȱpp.ȱ259Ȭ66,ȱrespectively.ȱ 48ȱȱ Humbert,ȱ“Lesȱadjectifsȱ‘zâr’ȱetȱ‘nokrî’ȱetȱlaȱ‘FemmeȱÉtrangère’ȱdesȱProverbesȱBibliȬ ques”,ȱpp.ȱ264Ȭ65.ȱ 49ȱȱ Humbert,ȱ“Lesȱadjectifsȱ‘zâr’ȱetȱ‘nokrî’ȱetȱlaȱ‘FemmeȱÉtrangère’ȱdesȱProverbesȱBibliȬ ques”,ȱpp.ȱ261Ȭ63.ȱ 50ȱȱ HumbertȱcommentsȱthatȱtheȱresultsȱofȱtheȱclassificationȱheȱmakesȱshowȱthatȱtheȱmaȬ jorityȱ ofȱ theȱ meaningsȱ forȱ ʸʦȱ areȱ notȱ “foreign”ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ ethnic,ȱ politicalȱ andȱ geoȬ graphicalȱsense.ȱHeȱsaysȱthatȱȱwhenȱʸʦȱoccursȱinȱtheȱpreȬexilicȱandȱexilicȱliterature,ȱitȱ mustȱ meanȱ “other”;ȱ “Lesȱ adjectifsȱ ‘zâr’ȱ etȱ ‘nokrî’ȱ etȱ laȱ ‘Femmeȱ Étrangère’ȱ desȱ ProȬ verbesȱBibliques”,ȱpp.ȱ261Ȭ62,ȱandȱemphasisedȱagainȱinȱp.ȱ263.ȱ

22ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

Forȱ Humbert,ȱ thereȱ areȱ fourȱ crucialȱ textsȱ whichȱ determineȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱ asȱ “theȱ womanȱ ofȱ others”ȱ andȱ notȱ theȱ “foreignȱ 51ȱ woman”:ȱEzekȱ16:32;ȱJerȱ5:19;ȱPsȱ81:10ȱandȱHosȱ5:7. ȱ Ezekȱ16:3252ȱȱ Adulterousȱwife,ȱwhoȱreceivesȱstrangersȱ(ʭʩʸʦʚʺʠ)ȱinsteadȱofȱherȱhusband!ȱ ȱ Jerȱ5:19ȱ Andȱ whenȱ yourȱ peopleȱ say,ȱ “Whyȱ hasȱ theȱ LORDȱ ourȱ Godȱ doneȱ allȱ theseȱ thingsȱtoȱus?”ȱyouȱshallȱsayȱtoȱthem,ȱ“Asȱyouȱhaveȱforsakenȱmeȱandȱservedȱ foreignȱgodsȱinȱyourȱland,ȱsoȱyouȱshallȱserveȱstrangersȱ(ʭʩʸʦ)ȱinȱaȱlandȱthatȱ isȱnotȱyours.”ȱ ȱ Psȱ81:10ȱȱ Thereȱshallȱbeȱnoȱstrangeȱ(ʸʦ)ȱgodȱamongȱyou;ȱyouȱshallȱnotȱbowȱdownȱtoȱaȱ foreignȱgod.ȱ ȱ Hosȱ5:7ȱȱ TheyȱhaveȱdealtȱfaithlesslyȱwithȱtheȱLORD;ȱforȱtheyȱhaveȱborneȱillegitimateȱ childrenȱ (ʭʩʸʦ).ȱ Nowȱ theȱ newȱ moonȱ shallȱ devourȱ themȱ alongȱ withȱ theirȱ fields.ȱ

ȱ Itȱisȱnotȱeasy,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱacceptȱtheȱlogicȱofȱHumbert’sȱinterpretationȱ ofȱtheseȱtexts.ȱFirstȱandȱforemost,ȱallȱtheseȱreferencesȱdoȱactuallyȱreferȱ toȱ peopleȱ orȱ godsȱ thatȱ areȱ notȱ Israelite.ȱ ʭʩʸʦʚʺʠȱ inȱ Ezekȱ 16:32ȱ presentsȱ textualȱproblems53ȱwhichȱHumbertȱdoesȱnotȱaddress;ȱitȱshouldȱprobablyȱ beȱdiscountedȱfromȱtheȱdiscussion.ȱTheȱcontextsȱofȱbothȱEzekȱ16:32ȱandȱ Hosȱ 5:7,ȱ however,ȱ describeȱ inȱ metaphoricalȱ languageȱ Israel’sȱ unȬ faithfulness,ȱ displayedȱ inȱ foreignȱ alliancesȱ andȱ idolatrousȱ practices.ȱ “Foreignness”ȱ isȱ indeedȱ veryȱ muchȱ theȱ backdropȱ ofȱ theseȱ texts.ȱ Likewise,ȱ Jerȱ 5:19ȱ andȱ Psȱ 81:10ȱ bothȱ referȱ toȱ nonȬIsraeliteȱ gods,ȱ andȱ HumbertȱfailsȱtoȱshowȱanyȱgoodȱreasonȱforȱreȬinterpretingȱtheȱcontextsȱ asȱ Israelite,ȱ orȱ toȱ justifyȱ hisȱ translationȱ ofȱ ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱ asȱ “theȱ womanȱ ofȱ others”.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Humbertȱ proposesȱ thatȱ theȱ termsȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ areȱtoȱbeȱdifferentiatedȱbetweenȱwhenȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWoman:ȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱindicates,ȱnegatively,ȱthatȱtheȱmanȱcannotȱrecogniseȱtheȱwomanȱasȱ belongingȱtoȱhim;ȱwhileȱʤʸʦȱstates,ȱpositively,ȱthatȱsheȱisȱtheȱlegitimateȱ wifeȱ ofȱ someoneȱ else54ȱ –ȱ hence,ȱ theȱ ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱ isȱ “womanȱ ofȱ others”ȱ (heȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 51ȱȱ Humbert,ȱ“Lesȱadjectifsȱ‘zâr’ȱetȱ‘nokrî’ȱetȱlaȱ‘FemmeȱÉtrangère’ȱdesȱProverbesȱBibliȬ ques”,ȱp.ȱ263.ȱ 52ȱȱ AllȱbiblicalȱcitationsȱareȱtakenȱfromȱNRSVȱunlessȱstatedȱotherwise.ȱ 53ȱȱ TheȱMTȱnotesȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱʭʩʰʰʺʠȱinsteadȱofȱʭʩʸʦʚʺʠȱasȱattestedȱbyȱtheȱSeptuagint,ȱ ΐ΍ΗΌЏΐ΅Θ΅ .ȱ 54ȱȱ Humbert,ȱ“Lesȱadjectifsȱ‘zâr’ȱetȱ‘nokrî’ȱetȱlaȱ‘FemmeȱÉtrangère’ȱdesȱProverbesȱBibliȬ ques”,ȱp.ȱ265.ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

23ȱ

believesȱ thatȱ theȱ senseȱ isȱ pluralȱ ratherȱ thanȱ singular),ȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ isȱ anȱ “otherȱwoman”.55ȱInȱthisȱway,ȱbothȱadjectivesȱseparatelyȱimplicateȱherȱ asȱanȱadulteress. However,ȱtakenȱthisȱway,ȱHumbert’sȱtranslationȱseemsȱtoȱsuggestȱaȱ strangeȱ understandingȱ ofȱ adulteryȱ withȱ whichȱ theȱ OTȱ isȱ quiteȱ unȬ familiar,ȱ whereȱ aȱ manȱ canȱ onlyȱ commitȱ “adultery”ȱ withȱ aȱ womanȱ marriedȱtoȱsomeoneȱelse,ȱnotȱsimplyȱbecauseȱsheȱisȱanȱ“otherȱwoman”ȱ orȱ “womanȱ ofȱ others”ȱ whomȱ theȱ manȱ cannotȱ recognise,ȱ orȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱbelongȱtoȱhim.ȱInȱaddition,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱHumbertȱisȱputtingȱtheȱcartȱ beforeȱtheȱhorseȱbyȱusingȱtheȱperceptionȱofȱtheȱwomanȱasȱanȱadulteressȱ toȱ overrideȱ theȱ strongȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ otherȱ OTȱ usage.ȱ Besides,ȱ theȱ asȬ sertionȱ heȱ makesȱ thatȱ anȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ meaningsȱ ofȱ wordsȱ differȱ whenȱ theyȱ occurȱ inȱ differentȱ genresȱ canȱ beȱ usedȱ toȱ justifyȱ findingȱ aȱ wholeȱnewȱmeaningȱforȱaȱwordȱisȱquestionable.ȱ

1.2.4ȱSnijdersȱonȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱ theȱForeignȱWomanȱ Perhapsȱtheȱmostȱinfluentialȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱdiscussionȱhasȱbeenȱtheȱ detailedȱ lexicalȱ studyȱ byȱ Snijders,ȱ publishedȱ inȱ 1954,ȱ whichȱ laterȱ becameȱtheȱbasisȱforȱhisȱshorterȱarticleȱonȱʸʥʦȱinȱTDOT.56ȱConcerningȱtheȱ meaningȱof ʸʫʰ ,ȱSnijdersȱfromȱtheȱveryȱstartȱavoidsȱtheȱwordȱ“foreign”ȱ andȱoptsȱinsteadȱforȱ“outside”ȱandȱ“unknown”.57ȱOneȱcanȱsenseȱthatȱforȱ Snijders,ȱ theȱ wordȱ “foreign”ȱ denotesȱ nuancesȱ incompatibleȱ withȱ hisȱ understandingȱofȱtheȱOTȱtexts,ȱwhichȱheȱdoesȱnotȱclearlyȱspecifyȱinȱhisȱ work.ȱForȱthatȱreason,ȱitȱseemsȱsensibleȱtoȱbeginȱbyȱtryingȱtoȱelucidateȱ Snijders’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “foreign”.ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ theȱ followingȱ citationȱisȱprobablyȱaȱgoodȱstart:ȱ Theȱ translationȱ “foreignȱ countries”ȱ mustȱ inȱ variousȱ casesȱ beȱ notedȱ asȱ anȱ anachronism.ȱAtȱanyȱrateȱoneȱmustȱguardȱagainstȱtheȱviewȱthatȱespeciallyȱ inȱ theȱ timeȱ beforeȱ theȱ kingsȱ Israelȱ wasȱ aȱ regionȱ withȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ fixedȱ boundariesȱ andȱ aȱ uniformȱ formȱ ofȱ government.ȱ Theȱ menȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ environments,ȱ withinȱ theȱ circuitȱ ofȱ aȱ town,ȱ theȱ sphereȱ ofȱ aȱ leader,ȱ theyȱ gatheredȱintoȱaȱfamilyȱorȱtribe.58

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 55ȱȱ Humbert,ȱ“Lesȱadjectifsȱ‘zâr’ȱetȱ‘nokrî’ȱetȱlaȱ‘FemmeȱÉtrangère’ȱdesȱProverbesȱBibliȬ ques”,ȱp.ȱ264.ȱ 56ȱȱ L.A.ȱSnijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ154;ȱandȱ“ʸ˒ʦ/ʸʕʦ”,ȱpp.ȱ 53Ȭ57.ȱ 57ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ62.ȱ 58ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ62.ȱ

24ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

Inȱotherȱwords,ȱSnijdersȱtakesȱ“foreign”ȱtoȱmeanȱ“memberȱofȱaȱforeignȱ nation”.ȱ Therefore,ȱ heȱ believesȱ thatȱ forȱ preȬmonarchicalȱ Israel,ȱ termsȱ suchȱ asȱ “foreignȱ countries”ȱ andȱ “foreigners”ȱ cannotȱ beȱ usedȱ forȱ thoseȱ periodsȱ whenȱ Israelȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ “nation”ȱ withȱ itsȱ ownȱ land,ȱ geographicalȱ boundaryȱandȱcentralȱgovernment;ȱandȱcorrespondingly,ȱtheȱtermsȱareȱ alsoȱ inappropriateȱ toȱ describeȱ thoseȱ nonȬIsraelitesȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ haveȱ theirȱownȱnation.59ȱByȱhisȱreckoning,ȱtwoȱconditionsȱmustȱapplyȱforȱoneȱ toȱ qualifyȱasȱaȱ“foreigner”ȱ toȱ Israelȱ–ȱ Israelȱ mustȱ haveȱ aȱ definedȱland,ȱ andȱ theȱ “foreigner”ȱ mustȱ himselfȱ beȱ expressedȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ wordsȱ denotingȱ(his)ȱlandȱ(forȱexample, ʺʮʣʠ and ʵʸʠ).ȱHence,ȱtheȱoccurrencesȱ ofȱ ʸʫʰȱ inȱ Nehȱ 13:30,ȱ and ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ inȱ Ezraȱ 9Ȭ10ȱ proveȱ toȱ himȱ thatȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ doesȱ notȱ referȱ toȱ “foreigners”ȱ becauseȱ theseȱ peopleȱ areȱ amongȱ theȱ Israelites,ȱ livingȱ inȱ andȱ belongingȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ land.60ȱ Thisȱ underȬ standingȱofȱ“foreign”ȱisȱalsoȱcarriedȱintoȱhisȱusageȱofȱotherȱwordsȱsuchȱ asȱ “country”,ȱ “nation”,ȱ “nonȬIsraelite”,ȱ “Israeliteȱ territory”,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ “nonȬethnicalȱsense”.ȱ Snijders’ȱpredicamentȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱideasȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱ takesȱ usȱ backȱ toȱ ourȱ discussionȱ onȱ ʸʫʰȱ above.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ notedȱ justȱ asȱ Snijdersȱdid,ȱthatȱ“foreignness”ȱisȱnotȱconfinedȱtoȱgeographicalȱboundȬ aries.ȱHowever,ȱSnijdersȱhasȱbasedȱhisȱdefinitionȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱonȱaȱ narrowlyȱmodernȱ“nationalist”ȱperspective,ȱwhichȱisȱdeterminedȱbyȱtheȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ land,ȱ geographicalȱ boundaryȱ andȱ centralȱ government.ȱ Theȱconceptȱofȱ“foreignness”,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱisȱmoreȱanȱ ethnicȱ concept,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ “nationalistic”ȱ one.ȱ Itȱ describesȱ thoseȱ outsideȱ theȱ ethnos,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ confinedȱ toȱ geographicalȱ boundariesȱ andȱ government.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ Snijdersȱ failsȱ toȱ pickȱ upȱ theȱ nuancesȱ inȱ theȱ meaningsȱ andȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ theȱ termsȱ “nationalism”ȱ andȱ “ethnicity”ȱ andȱ doesȱ notȱ attemptȱ toȱ showȱ whetherȱ theyȱ canȱ fitȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ orȱ not,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ doneȱ above.ȱ Snijdersȱ actuallyȱ assumesȱ thatȱ theyȱ allȱ meanȱ theȱ sameȱ thing,ȱ althoughȱ heȱ offersȱ noȱ definitionȱ ofȱ theȱ terms,ȱ andȱ usesȱ themȱ inȱ aȱ superficialȱ way.ȱ Thisȱ forcesȱ himȱ toȱ rejectȱ ideasȱ ofȱ “foreignness”ȱ forȱ ʸʫʰȱ andȱ toȱ takeȱ theȱ onlyȱ optionȱ leftȱ forȱ himȱ whichȱ isȱ toȱ lookȱ intoȱ theȱ semanticȱ rangeȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ andȱ heȱ decidesȱ thatȱtheȱessentialȱmeaningȱisȱ“otherness”.ȱHeȱthenȱrecommendsȱthatȱtheȱ onlyȱ wayȱ toȱ defineȱ theȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ moreȱ adequatelyȱ isȱ byȱ whatȱ heȱ callsȱ “theȱ varyingȱdegreesȱofȱtheȱcommunalȱcircle”,ȱwhichȱheȱdefinesȱasȱtheȱworldȱ outsideȱ theȱ family,ȱ tribeȱ andȱ nation. 61ȱ Theȱ contextȱ forȱ eachȱ occurrenceȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 59ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱpp.ȱ62Ȭ63,ȱn.ȱ8.ȱ 60ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ63.ȱ 61ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ64.ȱHeȱbuildsȱtheseȱvariousȱ worldsȱ onȱ fiveȱ verses:ȱ Deutȱ 17:15ȱ andȱ 23:20ȱ –ȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ “notȱ yourȱ brother”,ȱ quantifiesȱhisȱtwoȱworldsȱofȱfamilyȱandȱtribe;ȱandȱDeutȱ29:22;ȱ1ȱKgsȱ8:41;ȱ2ȱChrȱ6:32ȱ–ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

25ȱ

ofȱ ʸʫʰȱ andȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ willȱ thenȱ determineȱ whichȱ communalȱ circleȱ isȱ beingȱ referredȱto.ȱSo,ȱinȱtextsȱsuchȱasȱGenȱ17:12,ȱ27;ȱ31:15;ȱ35:2,ȱ4,ȱʸʫʰȱrefersȱtoȱ someoneȱ outsideȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ “family”ȱ andȱ “tribe”,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ “nation”.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱthisȱ“innovative”ȱmethodȱwhichȱSnijdersȱ comesȱ up,ȱ withȱ failsȱ toȱ takeȱ intoȱ acountȱ theȱ complexȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱtheȱtermȱʡʠȱʺʩʡ,ȱʤʧʴʹʮ, ʨʡʹ andȱʳʬʠ.ȱWhenȱandȱhowȱtheȱHebrewȱ textȱunderstandsȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱfamilyȱandȱtheȱtribeȱisȱanȱ inconclusiveȱdebateȱinȱitself,62ȱandȱnowhereȱinȱSnijders’sȱthesisȱdoesȱheȱ offerȱanȱexplanationȱhowȱtheseȱtermsȱshouldȱbeȱinterpretedȱinȱorderȱforȱ oneȱ toȱ classifyȱ theȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ accordingly.ȱ Onȱ theȱ whole,ȱ thisȱ methodȱ ofȱ definingȱ ʸʫʰȱ byȱ “theȱ varyingȱ degreesȱ ofȱ theȱ communalȱ circle”ȱ justȱ makesȱhisȱtheoryȱmeaningless.ȱ Weȱ shallȱ nowȱ lookȱ atȱ howȱ Snijdersȱ understandsȱ ʸʦ.ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ acceptȱ Humbert’sȱ definitionȱ ofȱ ʸʦȱ toȱ simplyȱ meanȱ “other”,ȱ andȱ heȱ rightlyȱcriticisesȱHumbertȱforȱequatingȱtheȱtermȱwithȱʸʧʠ.63ȱSnijdersȱalsoȱ effectivelyȱ arguesȱ forȱ someȱ specificȱ technicalȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ term,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱpriestlyȱliterature,ȱbyȱdrawingȱoutȱtheȱnuanceȱofȱ “illicit”,ȱ“unqualified”ȱandȱ“deviating”.64ȱHowever,ȱheȱseemsȱtoȱgoȱtooȱ farȱinȱassertingȱthatȱtheȱpriestsȱareȱtoȱtreatȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱasȱ ʸʦ,ȱandȱheȱsimplyȱdividesȱtheȱcommunityȱintoȱtheȱnonȬpriestsȱwhoȱareȱ ʸʦ,ȱandȱtheȱpriestlyȱcasteȱwhoȱareȱtheȱnonȬʸʦ.65ȱAlso,ȱheȱextendsȱthisȱideaȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

62ȱȱ

63ȱȱ 64ȱȱ 65ȱȱ

theȱmentionȱofȱ“comingȱfromȱaȱdistantȱland”,ȱquantifiesȱtheȱworldȱofȱ“nation”.ȱTheseȱ categoriesȱhappenȱtoȱcoincideȱwithȱtheȱclassificationȱBDBȱusesȱtoȱexplainȱtheȱcontextsȱ ofȱtheȱoccurrencesȱofȱʩʸʫʰ,ȱseeȱBDB,ȱp.ȱ648.ȱ SeeȱespeciallyȱJ.W.ȱRogerson,ȱAnthropologyȱandȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ(GrowingȱPointsȱinȱ Theology;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Basilȱ Blackwell,ȱ 1978),ȱ pp.ȱ 86Ȭ101.ȱ Heȱ discussesȱ theȱ variousȱ inȬ conclusiveȱ attemptsȱ inȱ OTȱ studyȱ toȱ tryȱ toȱ understandȱ theseȱ termsȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ anthropology.ȱAlso,ȱseeȱS.ȱBendor,ȱTheȱSocialȱStructureȱofȱAncientȱIsrael:ȱTheȱInstitutionȱ ofȱtheȱFamilyȱ(Beitȱ`Ab)ȱfromȱtheȱSettlementȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱMonarchyȱ(JerusalemȱBiblicalȱ Studies,ȱ7;ȱJerusalem:ȱSimor,ȱ1996).ȱHisȱworkȱisȱbasedȱonlyȱonȱtheȱHebrewȱtext,ȱandȱ doesȱ notȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ theȱ socioȬanthropologicalȱ modelsȱ orȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ evidence.ȱTheȱcomplexȱsituationȱofȱcomingȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱtheȱHebrewȱunderstandingȱ ofȱfamilyȱandȱtribeȱisȱsomewhatȱexpressedȱin:ȱBendor,ȱpp.ȱ45Ȭ118.ȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱpp.ȱ75Ȭ78;ȱ103Ȭ104.ȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱpp.ȱ111Ȭ54.ȱ Snijders,ȱ “Theȱ Meaningȱ ofȱ z¬rȱ inȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament”,ȱ pp.ȱ 124Ȭ45,ȱ 151.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱJacobȱMilgromȱexplainsȱthatȱtheȱcontextsȱofȱtheȱoccurrencesȱofȱʸʦȱinȱpriestlyȱ textsȱareȱallȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱworshipȱofȱYahwehȱandȱhisȱprescriptions,ȱandȱtheȱʸʦ isȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ “encroach”ȱ onȱ properȱ worship.ȱ Theȱ priestsȱ haveȱ notȱ beenȱ reȬ commendedȱtoȱregardȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱasȱʸʦ.ȱJ.ȱMilgrom,ȱStudiesȱinȱLeviticalȱ Terminology,ȱI:ȱTheȱEncroacherȱandȱtheȱLevite.ȱTheȱ Termȱ`Abodaȱ(NearȱEasternȱStudies,ȱ 14;ȱBerkeley,ȱLosȱAngeles:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1970),ȱp.ȱ5ȱn.ȱ6.ȱMilgrom’sȱ explanationȱ isȱ alsoȱ repeatedȱ inȱ hisȱ commentary,ȱ Numbersȱ (JPSȱ Torahȱ Commentary;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱJPS,ȱ1990),ȱpp.ȱ342Ȭ43.ȱ

26ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

intoȱhisȱanalysisȱofȱBenȱSira.66ȱOnȱtheȱwhole,ȱalthoughȱSnijdersȱisȱrightȱ toȱemphasiseȱthatȱʸʦȱdoesȱnotȱalwaysȱhaveȱtheȱnonȬIsraeliteȱinȱmind,ȱheȱ doesȱnotȱunfortunately,ȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱaȱbetterȱwayȱtoȱdefineȱitsȱsenseȱofȱ “otherness”ȱ thanȱ throughȱ “theȱ varyingȱ degreesȱ ofȱ theȱ communalȱ cirȬ cles”.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ strangeȱ thatȱ heȱ choosesȱ toȱ ignoreȱ theȱ commonȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ otherȱ dictionariesȱ understand ʸʦ,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ fluidȱ termȱ andȱ isȱ totallyȱdependentȱonȱtheȱcontextȱforȱitsȱreference.67ȱ WeȱhaveȱlookedȱatȱtheȱwayȱSnijdersȱperceivesȱandȱtreatsȱtheȱusagesȱ ofȱʸʫʰȱandȱʸʦȱseparately.ȱNowȱweȱwillȱexamineȱhowȱheȱinterpretsȱthoseȱ occurrencesȱwhenȱtheȱtermsȱappearȱtogether,ȱasȱtheyȱdoȱforȱtheȱForeignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Snijdersȱ makesȱ theȱ sameȱ assumptionȱ asȱ Humbertȱ thatȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ differentȱ genresȱ ofȱ theȱ OT,ȱ wordsȱ takeȱ onȱ differentȱ meanings.ȱ Heȱ believesȱ that,ȱ exceptȱ forȱ thoseȱ ocȬ currencesȱ inȱ theȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ whereȱ bothȱ termsȱ doȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ “ethnicȱnonȬIsraelite”,ȱelsewhereȱtheyȱdoȱnot.68ȱTheȱtextsȱwhichȱservesȱ himȱasȱevidenceȱare:ȱPsȱ69:9;ȱProvȱ20:16;ȱ27:2,ȱ13ȱandȱJobȱ19:15;ȱtoȱwhichȱ heȱ alsoȱ addsȱ Genȱ 31:15ȱ andȱ Ecclȱ 6:2ȱ toȱ giveȱ furtherȱ supportȱ toȱ hisȱ argument.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ lookȱ closelyȱ atȱ theseȱ texts,ȱ weȱ canȱ groupȱ themȱ intoȱ threeȱsubjectȱmatters,ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱweȱshallȱdealȱwithȱbelow.ȱPsȱ69:9;ȱ Provȱ27:2;ȱandȱJobȱ19:15ȱdealȱwithȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱselfȱandȱotherȱ people;ȱ Provȱ 20:16ȱ andȱ 27:13ȱ withȱ mattersȱ onȱ givingȱ surety;ȱ andȱ Genȱ 31:15ȱandȱEcclȱ6:2ȱwithȱmattersȱonȱinheritance.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 66ȱȱ Inȱparticular,ȱforȱSirȱ45:18,ȱSnijdersȱgoesȱsoȱfarȱasȱtoȱclaimȱthatȱBenȱSiraȱplacesȱKorahȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ position,ȱ afterȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ ʭʩʸʦ followedȱ byȱ Dathanȱ andȱ Abiramȱ becauseȱ theȱ latterȱ twoȱ areȱ nonȬpriests.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ Numȱ 16:1ȱ clearlyȱ specifiesȱ thatȱ Korahȱ isȱ aȱ Levite.ȱ Ifȱ thatȱ wasȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ intention,ȱ orȱ hisȱ understandingȱ ofȱ ʭʩʸʦ,ȱ heȱ mightȱasȱwellȱnotȱmentionȱKorah.ȱTheȱotherȱproblemȱisȱthatȱafterȱSnijdersȱcategorisesȱ ʸʦȱ asȱ occurringȱ inȱ Sirȱ 8:18;ȱ 14:4;ȱ 20:9ȱ (thisȱ occurrenceȱ isȱ notȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ extant,ȱ cf.ȱ Pancratiusȱ Beentjes,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Benȱ Siraȱ inȱ Hebrew:ȱ Aȱ Textȱ Editionȱ ofȱ Allȱ ExtantȱHebrewȱManuscriptsȱandȱaȱSynopsisȱofȱAllȱParallelȱHebrewȱBenȱSiraȱTextsȱ[VTSup,ȱ 68;ȱLeiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1997],ȱp.ȱ182)ȱasȱanȱoutsiderȱinȱtheȱ“neutralȱcontext”,ȱandȱ45:13,ȱ 18ȱ asȱ referringȱ toȱ thoseȱ notȱ ofȱ theȱ Aaroniteȱ descentȱ orȱ priesthood,ȱ followedȱ byȱ Sirȱ 11:32;ȱ39:24;ȱ49:9ȱasȱ“theȱstrangerȱinȱaȱreligiousȬethicalȱaspect,ȱtheȱapostate”,ȱSnijdersȱ explainsȱthatȱinȱtheȱcommunalȱcirclesȱrangingȱfromȱjustȱanȱoutsiderȱtoȱoneȱwhoȱisȱnotȱ religious,ȱtheȱimplicationȱofȱtheȱ“depreciation”ȱisȱatȱhomeȱwithȱtheȱwisdomȱliteratureȱ becauseȱtheȱnormsȱofȱdailyȱlivingȱfallsȱbackȱonȱtheȱ“ToraȱofȱJhwh”,ȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱ God.ȱHeȱthereforeȱconcludesȱthatȱtheȱʸʦȱisȱ“’theȱother’,ȱwhoȱisȱoutsideȱtheȱcommunityȱ andȱnotȱoneȱofȱtheȱcircleȱofȱtheȱpious”.ȱSeeȱSnijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱ Testament”,ȱ pp.ȱ 104Ȭ109.ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ isȱ problematical,ȱ becauseȱ noȱ sequentialȱorderȱofȱ“depreciating”ȱvalueȱcanȱbeȱdiscernedȱwithȱtheȱoccurrencesȱofȱʸʦȱ inȱ Benȱ Sira.ȱ Theȱ occurrencesȱ areȱ sporadicȱ andȱ theȱ orderȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ Snijders’sȱ sysȬ tematisationȱofȱtheȱdefinitionsȱheȱimputesȱtoȱtheȱwordȱʸʦ.ȱ 67ȱȱ KB,ȱp.ȱ265;ȱ“ʸ˒ʦ”,ȱBDB,ȱpp.ȱ266Ȭ67.ȱR.ȱMartinȬArchardȱemphasisesȱtheȱnuanceȱofȱhosȬ tilityȱandȱthreatȱinȱtheȱword;ȱcf.ȱR.ȱMartinȬArchard,ȱ“ʸʕʦȱz¬rȱfremd”,ȱTLOTȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ 520Ȭ22.ȱ 68ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ64.ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

27ȱ

Psȱ69:9ȱȱ Iȱ haveȱ becomeȱ aȱ strangerȱ (ʸʦʥʮ)ȱ toȱ myȱ kindred,ȱ anȱ alienȱ (ʩʸʫʰ)ȱ toȱ myȱ mother’sȱchildren.ȱ ȱ Provȱ27:2ȱȱ Letȱanotherȱ(ʸʦ)ȱpraiseȱyou,ȱandȱnotȱyourȱownȱmouthȬȬȱaȱstrangerȱ(ʩʸʫʰ),ȱandȱ notȱyourȱownȱlips.ȱ ȱ Jobȱ19:15ȱȱ theȱguestsȱinȱmyȱhouseȱhaveȱforgottenȱme;ȱmyȱservingȱgirlsȱcountȱmeȱasȱaȱ strangerȱ(ʸʦʬ);ȱIȱhaveȱbecomeȱanȱalienȱ(ʩʸʫʰ)ȱinȱtheirȱeyes.ȱ

Concerningȱ theȱ firstȱ groupȱ ofȱ occurrences,ȱ Snijdersȱ andȱ Humbertȱ assertȱthatȱbecauseȱallȱtheȱotherȱreferencesȱplacedȱtogetherȱwithȱʸʫʰȱandȱ ʸʦȱareȱrelatedȱintimatelyȱtoȱoneselfȱandȱone’sȱhousehold,ȱʸʫʰȱandȱʸʦȱmustȱ simplyȱ meanȱ “oneȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ family”.69ȱ Theȱ twoȱ scholarsȱ seemȱ toȱ treatȱtheseȱtextsȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱintendedȱforȱ theȱ soleȱ purposeȱ ofȱ definingȱ theȱ ʸʫʰȱ andȱ ʸʦ,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ howȱ theȱ twoȱ termsȱareȱbeingȱusedȱtoȱbringȱoutȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱItȱisȱclearȱthatȱ rhetoricȱisȱatȱplayȱinȱtheseȱoccurrences,ȱandȱwhileȱPsȱ69:9ȱandȱJobȱ19:15ȱ isȱmakingȱtheȱpointȱthatȱtheȱhouseholdersȱnoȱlongerȱviewȱtheȱsubjectsȱ asȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱsameȱhousehold,ȱbutȱareȱtotalȱstrangers,70ȱProvȱ27:2ȱ isȱsayingȱthatȱpraiseȱisȱonlyȱvaluableȱfromȱsomeoneȱquiteȱdifferentȱfromȱ theȱ subject.71ȱ Inȱ theseȱ occurrences,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ strongȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ ethnicȱdifferenceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱandȱʸʫʰȱandȱʸʦ,ȱbutȱaȱdisconnectionȱofȱtheȱ subjectȱfromȱtheȱhouseholdȱandȱselfȱrespectively.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱSnijdersȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ determinedȱ beforehandȱ toȱ establishȱ aȱ specificȱ contextȱ ofȱ exclusion,ȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ nonȬhouseholdȱ andȱ nonȬdependentȱ andȱ itȱ hasȱ deterredȱ himȱ fromȱ appreciatingȱ theȱ colourful,ȱ poeticȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱwhenȱtheyȱareȱexploitingȱtheȱideaȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱinȱorderȱtoȱgiveȱ anȱexaggeratedȱlackȱofȱconnection.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 69ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱpp.ȱ64Ȭ66,ȱ74Ȭ75;ȱandȱHumbert,ȱ “Lesȱ adjectifsȱ ‘zâr’ȱ etȱ ‘nokrî’ȱ etȱ laȱ ‘Femmeȱ Étrangère’ȱ desȱ Proverbesȱ Bibliques”,ȱ p.ȱ 262.ȱ 70ȱȱ Forȱinstance,ȱseeȱL.C.ȱAllen,ȱ“TheȱValueȱofȱRhetoricalȱCriticismȱinȱPsalmȱ69”,ȱJBLȱ105ȱ (1986),ȱ pp.ȱ 577Ȭ98;ȱ andȱ Marvineȱ Tate,ȱ Psalmsȱ 51Ȭ100ȱ (WBC,ȱ 20;ȱ Waco,ȱ Texas:ȱ Wordȱ Books,ȱ1990),ȱpp.ȱ189Ȭ202.ȱ 71ȱȱ Snijdersȱoverȱemphasisesȱonȱ“relative”ȱvalueȱofȱpraiseȱandȱmakingȱaȱslidingȱscaleȱoutȱ ofȱtheȱtext,ȱassertingȱthatȱtheȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱmustȱbeȱsomeoneȱindependentȱofȱtheȱpersonȱ inȱ question,ȱ likeȱ aȱ neighbourȱ andȱ theȱ circleȱ ofȱ friends,ȱ butȱ notȱ hisȱ servantsȱ orȱ children.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱexplainȱwhyȱthatȱ“someone”,ȱonȱtheȱcontrary,ȱcannotȱbeȱaȱtotalȱ strangerȱ ofȱ ethnicȱ difference.ȱ Cf.ȱ Snijders,ȱ “Theȱ Meaningȱ ofȱ z¬rȱ inȱ theȱ Oldȱ TesȬ tament”,ȱpp.ȱ74Ȭ75.ȱ

28ȱ

ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

Provȱ20:16ȱȱ Takeȱtheȱgarmentȱofȱoneȱwhoȱhasȱgivenȱsuretyȱforȱaȱstrangerȱ(ʸʦ);ȱseizeȱtheȱ pledgeȱgivenȱasȱsuretyȱforȱforeignersȱ(ʭʩʸʫʰ).ȱ ȱ Provȱ27:13ȱȱ Takeȱtheȱgarmentȱofȱoneȱwhoȱhasȱgivenȱsuretyȱforȱaȱstrangerȱ(ʸʦ);ȱseizeȱtheȱ pledgeȱgivenȱasȱsuretyȱforȱforeignersȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ).72ȱ

Asȱ forȱ Provȱ 20:16ȱ andȱ 27:13,ȱ Snijdersȱ devotesȱ elevenȱ pagesȱ toȱ exȬ plainingȱwhyȱallȱtheȱpersonsȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱtransactionȱdoȱnotȱinvolveȱ anyȱ“foreigner”.73ȱUsingȱProvȱ6:1ȱwhichȱisȱaȱtextȱwarningȱagainstȱgivingȱ surety,ȱ heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ sinceȱ ʲʸȱ andȱ ʸʦ areȱ inȱ synonymousȱ parallelism,ȱ theyȱmustȱreferȱtoȱtheȱsameȱpersonȱandȱthatȱtheȱsenseȱisȱtrue,ȱtherefore,ȱ forȱ Provȱ 20:16ȱ andȱ 27:13:ȱ allȱ theȱ peopleȱ involvedȱ areȱ justȱ associatesȱ involvedȱinȱcommerce.ȱThisȱargumentȱfromȱsynonymousȱparallelismȱis,ȱ ofȱcourse,ȱhighlyȱquestionableȱ–ȱespeciallyȱgivenȱthatȱtheȱparallelismȱinȱ Provȱ6:1ȱmayȱnotȱbeȱstrictlyȱsynonymous.ȱTheȱverseȱisȱprobablyȱstatingȱ thatȱoneȱshouldȱbeȱworriedȱafterȱgivingȱsurety,ȱwhetherȱitȱisȱgivenȱforȱ one’sȱ closeȱ friendȱ orȱ mostȱ distantȱ foreigner.ȱ Inȱ Proverbs,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ generalȱconsensusȱthatȱgivingȱsuretyȱforȱanyoneȱisȱaȱriskyȱbusiness,ȱandȱ weȱfindȱsimilarȱwarningsȱinȱProvȱ17:18ȱandȱ22:26.74ȱConsequently,ȱthereȱ isȱnothingȱinȱProvȱ20:16ȱandȱ27:13ȱtoȱimplyȱthatȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱor ʤʩʸʫʰ couldȱ notȱmeanȱ“foreigners”.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱitȱisȱlogicalȱthatȱbecauseȱtheseȱ peopleȱdoȱnotȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱcommunityȱofȱIsrael,ȱtheȱIsraelitesȱshouldȱ 75 ȱbeȱallȱtheȱmoreȱcautiousȱinȱtheirȱdealingsȱwithȱtheȱʩʸʫʰ. ȱ Genȱ31:15ȱȱ Areȱweȱnotȱregardedȱbyȱhimȱasȱforeignersȱ(ʺʥʩʸʫʰ)?ȱForȱheȱhasȱsoldȱus,ȱandȱ heȱhasȱbeenȱusingȱupȱtheȱmoneyȱgivenȱforȱus.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 72ȱȱ However,ȱoneȱmanuscriptȱhasȱʭʩʸʫʰ.ȱ 73ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱpp.ȱ78Ȭ88.ȱIȱdoȱnotȱthinkȱthatȱ Snijdersȱhasȱgivenȱaȱcorrectȱexplanationȱofȱtheȱmeaningsȱofȱʡʸʲȱand ʲʷʺ.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱ heȱ makesȱ theseȱ wordsȱ giveȱ theȱ mereȱ connotationȱ ofȱ “toȱ meddleȱ with”ȱ soȱ thatȱ theyȱ implyȱdealingsȱandȱtransactionsȱcommonȱinȱdailyȱlivingȱinvolvingȱsomeȱrisksȱforȱtheȱ Israeliteȱ contextȱ only.ȱ Forȱ aȱ moreȱ accurateȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ word,ȱ seeȱ E.ȱ LipiÚski,ȱ “ʡʸʲ”,ȱinȱTDOTȱvol.ȱXI,ȱpp.ȱ329Ȭ30.ȱȱ 74ȱȱ AndreasȱScherer’sȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱtextsȱconcerningȱsuretyȱalsoȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱrisksȱinȬ volvedȱ inȱ standingȱ surety.ȱ Heȱ concludesȱ thatȱ theseȱ warningsȱ areȱ intendedȱ toȱ emȬ phasiseȱ responsibleȱ thoughtȱ andȱ behaviourȱ inȱ considerationȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ welfareȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ thoseȱ inȱ hisȱ household.ȱ Oneȱ shouldȱ notȱ riskȱ hisȱ sustenanceȱ inȱ carelessȱ undertakings.ȱ A.ȱ Scherer,ȱ “Isȱ theȱ Selfishȱ Manȱ Wise?ȱ Considerationsȱ ofȱ Contextȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ10:1Ȭ22:16ȱwithȱSpecialȱRegardȱtoȱSurety,ȱBriberyȱandȱFriendship”,ȱJSOTȱ76ȱ (1997),ȱpp.ȱ59Ȭ70.ȱ 75ȱȱ SeeȱMcKane,ȱpp.ȱ542Ȭ43;ȱandȱBoström,ȱp.ȱ38.ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

29ȱ

Ecclȱ6:2ȱȱ thoseȱtoȱwhomȱGodȱgivesȱwealth,ȱpossessions,ȱandȱhonor,ȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱlackȱ nothingȱofȱallȱthatȱtheyȱdesire,ȱyetȱGodȱdoesȱnotȱenableȱthemȱtoȱenjoyȱtheseȱ things,ȱbutȱaȱstrangerȱ(ʩʸʫʰ)ȱenjoysȱthem.ȱThisȱisȱvanity;ȱitȱisȱaȱgrievousȱill.ȱ

ȱ Snijders’sȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱotherȱtwoȱtexts,ȱGenȱ31:15ȱandȱEcclȱ6:2,ȱ drawsȱ onȱ theȱ conclusionsȱ reachedȱ inȱ hisȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ theȱ previousȱ passages.76ȱ Inȱ theseȱ twoȱ passages,ȱ theȱ mainȱ themeȱ isȱ inheritance,ȱ andȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ itȱ shouldȱ passȱ onȱ toȱ someoneȱ whoȱ hasȱ noȱ linkȱ withȱ theȱ subject’sȱheritageȱisȱaȱtragedy.ȱThisȱideaȱisȱalsoȱstronglyȱestablishedȱinȱ biblicalȱdescriptionsȱofȱnationalȱdestructionȱ(Deutȱ28:33;ȱIsaȱ1:7;ȱHosȱ8:7;ȱ Lamȱ 5:2;ȱ Obadȱ 11).ȱ Ecclȱ 6:2ȱ echoesȱ thisȱ idea.ȱ However,ȱ Snijdersȱ takesȱ thisȱ textȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ punishmentȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ oneȱ mentionedȱ inȱ Jobȱ 31:8.ȱ Heȱ takesȱ the ʩʸʫʰ toȱ beȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ isȱ“outsideȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ family”,ȱ andȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ connotationȱ inȱ theȱ “ethnic”ȱ sense.77ȱAsȱforȱGenȱ31:15,ȱRachelȱandȱLeahȱareȱstatingȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheirȱ fatherȱ hasȱ treatedȱ themȱ asȱ ʤʩʸʫʰ,ȱ havingȱ noȱ rightȱ toȱ hisȱ inheritance.ȱ Snijdersȱ andȱ Humbertȱ take ʤʩʸʫʰ toȱ meanȱ hereȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ beingȱ treatedȱ asȱ socialȱ outsiders.78ȱ Snijders’sȱ pointȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ inȱ thisȱ contextȱ alsoȱ hasȱ noȱ referenceȱ toȱ aȱ “nonȬethnicȱ sense”,ȱ andȱ refersȱ toȱ someoneȱ whoȱ belongsȱ justȱ “outsideȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ family”.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ twoȱtexts,ȱbothȱscholarsȱagainȱmissȱtheȱrhetoricalȱandȱpoeticȱforce.ȱTheȱ sameȱconsiderationsȱshouldȱapplyȱinȱtheseȱtextsȱasȱinȱJobȱ19:15ȱandȱPsȱ 69:9.ȱ Theȱ rhetoricalȱ forceȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ derivesȱ fromȱ theȱ assertionȱ ofȱ distanceȱfromȱtheȱfamily,ȱwithȱallȱitsȱemotionalȱovertones,79ȱratherȱthanȱ merelyȱfromȱ“notȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱfamily”.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 76ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱpp.ȱ64Ȭ65.ȱ 77ȱȱ Unfortunately,ȱC.L.ȱSeow,ȱdependsȱonȱSnijders’sȱthesisȱforȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱʩʸʫʰ,ȱandȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ “outsider”,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ “foreigner”.ȱ Butȱ heȱ conȬ sidersȱtheȱʩʸʫʰȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱsameȱgroupȱinȱEzraȬNehemiahȱwhichȱthreatenȱtheȱrightsȱ ofȱinheritanceȱofȱtheȱlandȱforȱtheȱreturnedȱcommunity;ȱC.L.ȱSeow,ȱEcclesiastes:ȱAȱNewȱ Translationȱ withȱ Introductionȱ andȱ Commentaryȱ (AB,ȱ 18C;ȱ Gardenȱ City,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ1997),ȱp.ȱ210.ȱIȱshallȱexamineȱtheȱoccurrencesȱofȱʩʸʫʰȱinȱEzraȬNehemiahȱinȱ ChapterȱTwo.ȱ 78ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ “Theȱ Meaningȱ ofȱ z¬rȱ inȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament”,ȱ p.ȱ 65ȱ n.ȱ 11.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ theȱ unȬ certaintyȱofȱtheȱmeaningȱscholarsȱgiveȱtoȱʤʩʸʫʰȱ(asȱseenȱaboveȱandȱinȱtheȱdiscussionȱ here),ȱcommentatorsȱthinkȱthatȱwhatȱitȱmeansȱinȱthisȱtextȱisȱdependentȱonȱtheȱclaimȱ thatȱ“Forȱheȱ(Laban)ȱhasȱsoldȱus,ȱandȱheȱhasȱbeenȱusingȱupȱtheȱmoneyȱgivenȱforȱus.”ȱ However,ȱnoȱscholarȱcouldȱcomeȱtoȱaȱdefiniteȱconclusionȱconcerningȱtheȱnatureȱandȱ typeȱofȱmarriageȱcontractȱthatȱLabanȱandȱJacobȱmake.ȱSeeȱClausȱWestermann,ȱGeneȬ sisȱ12Ȭ36:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(trans.ȱJohnȱJ.ȱScullion;ȱMinneapolis:ȱAugsburgȱPress,ȱ1985),ȱ p.ȱ 492;ȱ Gordonȱ Wenham,ȱ Genesisȱ 16Ȭ50ȱ (WBC,ȱ 2;ȱ Waco,ȱ Texas:ȱ Wordȱ Books,ȱ 1987),ȱ pp.ȱ 272Ȭ73;ȱ andȱ Victorȱ Hamilton,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Genesisȱ (NICOT;ȱ Grandȱ Rapids:ȱ EerdȬ mans,ȱ1995),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ289.ȱȱ 79ȱȱ Westermann,ȱp.ȱ492.ȱ

30ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

Allȱ ofȱ theseȱ passagesȱ reflectȱ theȱ weaknessȱ inȱ Snijders’sȱ arguȬ mentation.ȱ Whereȱ theyȱuseȱ termsȱ implyingȱ extremeȱ disconnection,ȱforȱ poeticȱeffectȱifȱnotȱactualȱethnicȱdifference,ȱSnijdersȱconsistentlyȱreducesȱ thisȱ toȱ aȱ slightȱ disconnection,ȱ makingȱ theȱ completeȱ strangerȱ intoȱ oneȱ justȱ outsideȱ theȱ household,ȱ theȱ friend,ȱ orȱ acquaintanceȱ fromȱ anotherȱ family,ȱwhoseȱsocialȱtiesȱwithȱtheȱsubjectȱareȱjustȱaȱlittleȱdistanceȱaway.ȱ Aȱfurtherȱweaknessȱisȱintroducedȱinȱhisȱconclusionȱtoȱtheȱsection:ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Theȱz¬rȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱdeviatesȱfromȱtheȱcharacterȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱandȱstanȬ dardsȱ outsideȱ theȱ primaryȱ relationshipsȱ ofȱ life.ȱ Inȱ theȱ placesȱ whereȱ bothȱ adjectivesȱoccurȱ(Isaȱxxvii,ȱ2;ȱlxi,ȱ5;ȱObadȱ11,ȱPsȱlxix,ȱ9;ȱJobȱxix,ȱ15;ȱProvȱii,ȱ 16;ȱ v,ȱ 10,ȱ 20;ȱ vii,ȱ 5;ȱ xx,ȱ 16ȱ &ȱ xxvii,ȱ 2,ȱ 13),ȱ nçkriȱ isȱ alwaysȱ placedȱ afterȱ z¬rȱ whereȱ itȱ statesȱ inȱ aȱ negativeȱ mannerȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ unknownȱ one,ȱ theȱ oneȱ withȱwhomȱoneȱdoesȱnotȱassociate.80ȱ

Exceptȱinȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱpriestlyȱlegislation,ȱSnijdersȱhasȱdoneȱ littleȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ termsȱ implyȱ specificȱ devianceȱ fromȱ aȱ norm,ȱ orȱ referȱtoȱpeopleȱwhoȱareȱdeliberatelyȱavoided.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱheȱhasȱ madeȱ theȱ termsȱ toȱ denoteȱ concepts,ȱ fromȱ oneȱ ofȱ beingȱ outsideȱ aȱ particularȱ communityȱ orȱ socialȱ unit,ȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ deliberateȱ exileȱ orȱ exclusionȱ fromȱ thatȱ unit.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thisȱ shiftingȱ conceptȱ whichȱ heȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱandȱhasȱbeenȱcitedȱwidelyȱinȱsubsequentȱ literature,81ȱbutȱitȱintroducesȱethicalȱandȱotherȱconceptsȱwithȱlittleȱorȱnoȱ ȱbasisȱinȱhisȱexegesisȱofȱtheȱotherȱmaterials.ȱȱ Anȱ’iššaȱzaraȱisȱaȱwomanȱwhoȱleavesȱtheȱcommunityȱandȱtheȱrulesȱinȱforceȱ thereȱ(iiȱ17).ȱSheȱisȱ“strange”ȱinȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱrightȱmarriageȱviz.ȱwithȱtheȱ womanȱwhomȱoneȱisȱgivenȱinȱyouthȱ(vȱ18).ȱSheȱactsȱindependentlyȱtowardsȱ theȱyoungȱmanȱandȱmakesȱhimȱherȱvictimȱ(viiȱ22ȱff.)ȱSheȱisȱcalledȱnokriyyaȱ likeȱ aȱ zonaȱ (xxiiiȱ 27)ȱ orȱ anȱ ’¾šetȱ raзȱ (viȱ 24),ȱ aȱ badȱ woman,ȱ becauseȱ sheȱ isȱ aȱ heterogeneousȱ womanȱ withȱ whomȱ oneȱ doesȱ notȱ associate,ȱ anȱ unknownȱ woman.82ȱ Inȱ ourȱ opinion,ȱ zaraȱ indicatesȱ theȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ “deviating”,ȱ theȱ unȬ faithfulnessȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ herȱ “house”,ȱ communityȱ andȱ Jhwh.ȱ nokriyyahȱ says:ȱ sheȱ representsȱ aȱ strangeȱ world,ȱ sheȱ isȱ anȱ unknownȱ one,ȱ whomȱ oneȱ mustȱavoid.83ȱȱ

ȱ Snijders’sȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱthatȱsheȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱ socialȱoutsiderȱbecauseȱofȱherȱsexualȱpromiscuousness,ȱandȱthatȱthisȱisȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 80ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ78.ȱ 81ȱȱ Thisȱ listȱ isȱ unending,ȱ seeȱ 1.1;ȱ andȱ toȱ citeȱ aȱ few:ȱ McKane,ȱ p.ȱ 285;ȱ Plöger,ȱ p.ȱ 56;ȱ J.A.ȱ Söggin,ȱ “Jezabel,ȱ oderȱ dieȱ fremdeȱ Frau”,ȱ inȱ A.ȱ Caquotȱ (ed.),ȱ Mèlangesȱ bibliquesȱ etȱ orientauxȱenȱl’honneurȱdeȱM.ȱHenriȱCazellesȱ(AOAT,ȱ212;ȱKevelaar:ȱButzonȱandȱBercker,ȱ 1981),ȱpp.ȱ453Ȭ59.ȱ 82ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ96.ȱ 83ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ104.ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

31ȱ

impliedȱinȱtheȱtwoȱadjectivesȱthatȱdescribeȱher.ȱHowȱdoesȱheȱreachȱsuchȱ aȱconclusion?ȱ Ifȱ Snijders’sȱ workȱ isȱ readȱ carefully,ȱ itȱ becomesȱ clearȱ thatȱ hisȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ veryȱ muchȱ dependentȱ onȱ hisȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Provȱ 23:27,ȱ whereȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ isȱ usedȱ inȱ parallelismȱ withȱ ʤʰʥʦ.84ȱ Againȱ asȱ before,ȱ Snijders’sȱ onlyȱ understandingȱ ofȱ synonymousȱ parallelismȱisȱinȱtermsȱofȱcomplete,ȱdirectȱequivalence.ȱFromȱthisȱverse,ȱ heȱ triesȱ toȱ findȱ aȱ linkȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ explainingȱ theȱ associationȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ words,ȱ andȱarguesȱ thatȱ theȱ onlyȱ wayȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ parallelismȱ ofȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱandȱʤʰʥʦȱinȱProvȱ23:27ȱisȱthroughȱtheȱaccountȱofȱRahabȱinȱtheȱbookȱ ofȱ Joshua.ȱ Whileȱ heȱ properlyȱ discountsȱ theȱ assumptionȱ inȱ muchȱ earlyȱ twentiethȬcenturyȱ scholarshipȱ thatȱ allȱ prostitutesȱ wereȱ foreignȱ woȬ men,85ȱ yetȱȱ facedȱ withȱ theȱproblemȱ ofȱexplainingȱ whyȱ theȱʤʩʸʫʰȱ isȱhereȱ identifiedȱwithȱaȱprostituteȱthroughȱtheȱparallelism,ȱheȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱ wordȱʤʰʥʦ.86ȱHeȱsaysȱofȱRahab,ȱ“evenȱinȱherȱownȱhometownȱofȱJericho,ȱ sheȱ livedȱ byȱ herselfȱ inȱ aȱ houseȱ onȱ theȱ wallȱ ofȱ Jerichoȱ (Joshȱ 2:15);ȱ andȱ laterȱafterȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱJerichoȱsheȱisȱlocatedȱoutsideȱtheȱcampȱofȱ Israelȱ (Joshȱ 6)”.87ȱ Theȱ wordȱ “outside”ȱ becomesȱ crucialȱ here.ȱ Snijdersȱ interpretsȱ itȱ asȱ meaningȱ that,ȱ althoughȱ Rahabȱ becomesȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Israeliteȱcommunity,ȱsheȱisȱnotȱexactlyȱaȱparticipant,ȱsinceȱsheȱisȱlocatedȱ outsideȱ theȱ camp.ȱ Heȱ understandsȱ this,ȱ furthermore,ȱ asȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ herȱ socialȱ location,ȱ andȱ arguesȱ thatȱ certainȱ Israelitesȱ areȱ classifiedȱ similarlyȱ inȱ Levȱ 21:7ȱ whereȱ theȱ priestȱ isȱ forbiddenȱ toȱ marryȱ theȱ “iššaȱ zaraȱ[sic]ȱorȱaȱdishonouredȱorȱrepudiatedȱwife”,ȱandȱinȱLevȱ21:4ȱwhereȱaȱ widowȱ isȱ alsoȱ forbiddenȱ toȱ beȱ wifeȱ ofȱ theȱ highȱ priest.ȱ Thisȱ listȱ forȱ Snijders,ȱisȱcomposedȱofȱtheȱ“sociallyȱdisqualifiedȱgroups”.88ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 84ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱpp.ȱ66Ȭ68.ȱ 85ȱȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱbasisȱforȱsuchȱanȱassumption,ȱasȱmentionedȱinȱcf.ȱn.ȱ12.ȱȱ 86ȱȱ S.ȱErlandsson,ȱ“ʤʰʦ”,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ99Ȭ104.ȱʤʰʥʦȱisȱtheȱqalȱparticipleȱof ʤʰʦ,ȱtheȱrootȱ occursȱ oneȱ hundredȱ andȱ thirtyȬnineȱ timesȱ inȱ theȱ OT.ȱ Approximatelyȱ twoȬthirdsȱ ofȱ theseȱ occurrencesȱ areȱ inȱ theȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ andȱ areȱ usedȱ metaphoricallyȱ toȱ denoteȱIsrael’sȱincorrigibleȱunfaithfulnessȱtoȱYahweh.ȱTheȱverbȱformsȱdoȱnotȱalwaysȱ denoteȱ theȱ actȱ ofȱ prostitution,ȱ butȱ alwaysȱ referȱ toȱ illicitȱ sex,ȱ andȱ alsoȱ appearȱ inȱ contextsȱofȱadultery.ȱTheȱqalȱparticiple,ȱdoesȱgenerallyȱreferȱtoȱprostitutes.ȱHowever,ȱ thereȱ areȱ notȱ manyȱ womenȱ specificallyȱ identifiedȱ asȱ prostitutesȱ inȱ theȱ OT:ȱ Tamarȱ (Genȱ 38:15),ȱ becauseȱ sheȱ receivesȱ paymentȱ forȱ theȱ sexualȱ transaction;ȱ Rahabȱ (Joshȱ 2:1;ȱ6:17,ȱ22Ȭ23,ȱ25);ȱJephthah’sȱmotherȱ(Judgȱ11:1);ȱandȱSamson’sȱfriendȱ(Judgȱ16:1).ȱ Theȱ otherȱ threeȱ textsȱ inȱ whichȱ aȱ prostituteȱ isȱ mentionedȱ involveȱ illegitimateȱ candidatesȱ forȱ theȱ marriageȱ ofȱ theȱ Leviticalȱ priestsȱ inȱ Levȱ 21:7,ȱ theȱ twoȱ prostitutesȱ appearingȱ inȱ Kingȱ Solomon’sȱ courtȱ inȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 3:18,ȱ andȱ theȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ theȱ priceȱ oneȱpaysȱforȱaȱprostituteȱandȱanȱadulteressȱinȱProvȱ6:26.ȱ 87ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ “Theȱ Meaningȱ ofȱ z¬rȱ inȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament”,ȱ p.ȱ 67.ȱ Heȱ refusesȱ toȱ citeȱ theȱ verseȱ forȱ thisȱ lastȱ reference.ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ thinkȱ thisȱ omissionȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ carelessnessȱ asȱ muchȱasȱheȱisȱcertainȱwhatȱheȱisȱaboutȱtoȱsayȱcannotȱbeȱsupported.ȱSeeȱbelow.ȱ 88ȱȱ Snijders,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament”,ȱp.ȱ67.ȱ

32ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

Contraryȱ toȱ Snijders’sȱ conclusion,ȱ theȱ firstȱ mentionȱ ofȱ Rahab’sȱ locationȱonȱtheȱcityȱwallȱhasȱnothingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱherȱsocialȱlocation,ȱbutȱ herȱprofessionalȱlocation.89ȱJoshȱ6:23,ȱfurthermore,ȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱphysicalȱ locationȱofȱRahabȱandȱherȱfamilyȱafterȱtheirȱrescue,ȱandȱnotȱtheirȱsocialȱ locationȱ inȱ Israel.ȱ Theȱ verseȱ statesȱ thatȱ Rahabȱ andȱ herȱ familyȱ areȱ broughtȱoutȱfromȱtheȱcityȱofȱJericho,ȱtoȱtheȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱcampȱofȱIsrael.ȱ Theȱ nextȱ verseȱ explainsȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ moveȱ whichȱ isȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ couldȱ setȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Jerichoȱ onȱ fireȱ (v.ȱ 24)ȱ andȱ itȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ describeȱ whatȱ happensȱ toȱ Rahabȱ andȱ herȱ father’sȱ householdȱ –ȱ theyȱ wentȱonȱtoȱliveȱ“inȱtheȱmidstȱofȱ(ʡʸʷʡ)ȱIsraelȱeverȱsince”ȱ(v.ȱ25).ȱThereȬ fore,ȱ theȱ placingȱ ofȱ Rahabȱ outsideȱ theȱ campȱ isȱ aȱ temporaryȱ measureȱ duringȱ theȱ actualȱ destructionȱ ofȱ Jerichoȱ andȱ isȱ linkedȱ withȱ theȱ usualȱ practiceȱforȱallȱprisonersȱofȱwarȱ(cf.ȱNumȱ31:13,ȱ19).ȱTheȱstoryȱconcludesȱ notȱ inȱ v.ȱ 23ȱ butȱ inȱ v.ȱ 25,ȱ whereȱ sheȱ andȱ herȱ familyȱ becameȱ fullȱ communityȱmembersȱofȱIsrael.90ȱȱ Toȱ implyȱ thenȱ thatȱ Joshȱ 6ȱ refersȱ toȱ Rahab’sȱ socialȱ locationȱ inȱ theȱ communityȱ isȱ flawed,ȱ andȱ anywayȱ Rahabȱ becomesȱ Israel’sȱ heroine,ȱ hardlyȱ aȱ socialȱ outsider.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ “sociallyȱ disqualifiedȱ groups”ȱ whichȱ Snijdersȱ identifiesȱ areȱ notȱ “disqualified”ȱ byȱ society.ȱ Aȱ moreȱ appropriateȱ termȱ forȱ thisȱ groupȱ mightȱ beȱ “disqualifiedȱ asȱ wivesȱ forȱ priests”,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ consideredȱ “disqualified”ȱ forȱ theȱ wholeȱ community.ȱNowhereȱinȱtheseȱtextsȱareȱtheȱpriestsȱtoldȱtoȱtreatȱthemȱasȱ “disqualified”ȱ membersȱ ofȱ society,ȱ andȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ disqualifyingȱ themȱ asȱ wivesȱ ofȱ priestsȱ isȱ probablyȱ tiedȱ toȱ issuesȱ ofȱ paternityȱ andȱ preservationȱofȱtheȱpurityȱofȱtheȱpriestlyȱline.ȱ Weȱ shallȱ examineȱ theȱ juxtapositionȱ ofȱ “foreignȱ woman”ȱ andȱ proȬ stituteȱinȱProvȱ23:27ȱatȱaȱlaterȱstage,ȱdisconnectedȱfromȱSnijders’sȱinterȬ pretationȱofȱtheȱRahabȱstoryȱandȱhisȱtheoryȱaboutȱsocialȱexclusion.ȱOnȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ Snijders’sȱ theoryȱ hasȱ provedȱ attractiveȱ toȱ manyȱ subsequentȱ scholars,ȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ anȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ exclusionȱofȱwomenȱatȱaȱratherȱdifferentȱlevel.ȱItȱisȱclearȱfromȱourȱbriefȱ surveyȱthatȱSnijders’sȱ“outsider”ȱhasȱlittleȱbasisȱevenȱinȱhisȱownȱlexicalȱ study.ȱApartȱfromȱtheȱtechnicalȱpriestlyȱconcept,ȱheȱhasȱsimplyȱusedȱaȱ fewȱ textsȱ whereȱ ethnicȱ connotationsȱ ofȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ areȱ rhetoricalȱ orȱ metaȬ phorical,ȱ andȱ usedȱ themȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱ canȱ beȱ appliedȱ toȱ distinctionsȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ purelyȱ ethnic.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ notȱ impossible,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ poeticȱ passages,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ true,ȱ ifȱ atȱ all,ȱ onlyȱ inȱ aȱ tinyȱ minorityȱ ofȱ instances.ȱ Fromȱ this,ȱ however,ȱ heȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ suggestȱ theȱ ideaȱthatȱtheȱʤʩʸʫʰ mayȱbelongȱtoȱaȱsociallyȱexcludedȱclass,ȱratherȱthanȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 89ȱȱ ElaineȱA.ȱGoodfriend,ȱ“Prostitution”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱV,ȱpp.ȱ505Ȭ13ȱ(507).ȱ 90ȱȱ Forȱfurtherȱreference,ȱseeȱ“ʡʸʓʓ ʷ”,ȱHALOTȱvol.ȱIV,ȱp.ȱ1136.ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

33ȱ

sayingȱ thatȱ sheȱ doesȱ notȱ belongȱ toȱ someȱ particularȱ category.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ aȱ moralȱ dimensionȱ isȱ introduced,ȱ whichȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ Provȱ 23:27ȱ andȱhisȱdubiousȱexegesisȱofȱJoshȱ6ȱalongȱwithȱsomeȱsuppositionsȱmadeȱ ofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱSuddenly,ȱtheȱʤʩʸʫʰȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱ someoneȱ outsideȱ theȱ Israeliteȱ ethnicȱ orȱ religiousȱ group,ȱ asȱ theȱ overȬ whelmingȱ majorityȱ ofȱ usesȱ forȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ suggest,ȱ norȱ isȱ sheȱ evenȱ justȱ someȬ oneȱoutsideȱaȱhouseholdȱorȱfamilyȱgroup,ȱbutȱsheȱhasȱbecomeȱsomeoneȱ excludedȱ fromȱ societyȱ forȱ herȱ behaviour.ȱ Oneȱ wondersȱ howȱ allȱ thoseȱ whoȱhaveȱfollowedȱSnijdersȱappreciateȱjustȱhowȱtenuousȱhisȱargumentȱ forȱthatȱconclusionȱreallyȱis?ȱ

1.2.5ȱLangȱonȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱʸʦȱandȱʩʸʫʰȱandȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱtheȱ ForeignȱWomanȱ Likeȱ Snijders,ȱ Langȱ hasȱ publishedȱ hisȱ viewsȱ onȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theȱ ForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱinfluentialȱTDOT,ȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱhisȱmoreȱgeneralȱ writingsȱ onȱ Proverbs.91ȱ Theȱ approachȱ heȱ takesȱ isȱ veryȱ differentȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ Snijders.ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ crystallisationȱ ofȱ aȱ muchȱ olderȱ approachȱ toȱ Proverbsȱ whichȱ readsȱitȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ similarȱ ancientȱ NearȱEasternȱ material,ȱ andȱ takesȱ thatȱ contextȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ importantȱ thanȱ theȱ OT.92ȱ Correspondingly,ȱLangȱrestsȱhisȱcaseȱnotȱonȱaȱlexicalȱsurveyȱofȱbiblicalȱ usage,ȱbutȱonȱaȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱbelongsȱtoȱaȱwidespreadȱ ancientȱ motif,ȱ although,ȱ heȱ doesȱ supportȱ thisȱ claimȱ withȱ aȱ shortȱ etymologicalȱstudy,ȱwhichȱisȱofȱdubiousȱvalue.93ȱHeȱgoesȱonȱtoȱciteȱfourȱ ancientȱ Nearȱ Easternȱ textsȱ toȱ supportȱ thisȱ claim:ȱ theȱ Instructionȱ ofȱ Ptahhotepȱ 277Ȭ288;ȱ Counselsȱ ofȱ Wisdom,ȱ 72Ȭ79;ȱ Hesiodȱ Worksȱ 328f.;ȱ andȱtheȱInstructionȱofȱAniȱ3,ȱ13Ȭ17.94ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 91ȱȱ B.ȱLang,ȱ“ʸʫʰ”,ȱpp.ȱ425Ȭ29;ȱDieȱweisheitlicheȱLehrrede:ȱeineȱUntersuchungȱvonȱSprücheȱ1Ȭ7ȱ (SBS,ȱ 54;ȱ Stuttgart:ȱ KBWȱ Verlag,ȱ 1977);ȱ andȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbs:ȱ Anȱ IsraeliteȱGoddessȱRedefinedȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPilgrimȱPress,ȱ1986).ȱ 92ȱȱ Forȱ theȱ subjectȱ onȱ theȱ “international”ȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Proverbs,ȱ seeȱ McKane,ȱ Proverbs,ȱ andȱ forȱ anȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ thisȱ view,ȱ S.D.E.ȱ Weeks,ȱ Earlyȱ Israeliteȱ Wisdomȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ 93ȱȱ Langȱ makesȱ aȱ listȱ ofȱ theȱ possibleȱ meaningsȱ ofȱ ʸʫʰ,ȱ whichȱ isȱ basedȱ onlyȱ withȱ aȱ correspondingȱusageȱofȱtheȱwordȱinȱtheȱotherȱSemiticȱlanguagesȱsuchȱasȱAkkadian,ȱ Ugariticȱ orȱ Arabic.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ ʸʫʰȱ inȱ Provȱ 5:10,ȱ 20;ȱ 27:2ȱ andȱ Ecclȱ 6:2ȱ mustȱ meanȱ “other”ȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱusageȱinȱtheȱKeretȱEpic;ȱandȱʸʫʰȱmustȱalsoȱmeanȱ“foreigner”ȱinȱ textsȱsuchȱasȱDeutȱ15:13,ȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱcontextȱwhichȱdealsȱwithȱdebtsȱforȱitȱisȱsimilarȱ toȱthatȱofȱtheȱEdictȱofȱAmidsaduqa.ȱȱȱȱ 94ȱȱ Asȱ mentionedȱ earlier,ȱ thisȱ claimȱ isȱ notȱ new.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Johannesȱ Fichtner,ȱ whoȱ arguesȱ fromȱ aȱ philosophicalȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ congruentȱ developmentȱ ofȱ “Chokma”ȱthoughtsȱinȱtheȱwisdomȱliteraturesȱofȱtheȱancientȱNearȱEastȱandȱthoseȱofȱ Israel,ȱ believesȱ thatȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ areȱ similarȱ toȱ thoseȱ

34ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

TheȱInstructionȱofȱPtahhotepȱ(277Ȭ288)95ȱ Ifȱyouȱwantȱfriendshipȱtoȱendureȱ Inȱaȱhouseȱyouȱenterȱ Asȱmaster,ȱbrother,ȱorȱfriend,ȱ Inȱwhateverȱplaceȱyouȱenter,ȱ Bewareȱofȱapproachingȱtheȱwomen!ȱ Unhappyȱisȱtheȱplaceȱwhereȱitȱisȱdone,ȱ Unwelcomeȱisȱheȱwhoȱintrudesȱonȱthem.ȱ Aȱthousandȱmenȱareȱturnedȱawayȱfromȱtheirȱgood:ȱ Aȱshortȱmomentȱlikeȱaȱdream,ȱ Thenȱdeathȱcomesȱforȱhavingȱknownȱthem.ȱ Poorȱadviceȱisȱ“shootȱtheȱopponent,”ȱ Whenȱoneȱgoesȱtoȱdoȱit,ȱtheȱheartȱrejectsȱit.ȱ Heȱwhoȱfailsȱthroughȱlustȱofȱthem,ȱ Noȱaffairȱofȱhisȱcanȱprosper.ȱ

ȱ Itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ thisȱ maximȱ doesȱ notȱ dealȱ withȱ adulteryȱ perȱ se,ȱ butȱ isȱ essentiallyȱaȱwarningȱaboutȱselfȬcontrolȱandȱone’sȱdutyȱtoȱshowȱrespectȱ toȱ theȱ ownerȱ ofȱ theȱ houseȱ oneȱ entersȱ byȱ notȱ approachingȱ anyȱ ofȱ theȱ women.ȱ Itȱ appliesȱ toȱ anyȱ formȱ ofȱ sexualȱ relations,ȱ includingȱ rape,ȱ fornicationȱ orȱ adultery.ȱ Theȱ womenȱ inȱ thisȱ maximȱ remainȱ inȱ theȱ passive.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ indicationȱ thatȱ theȱ womenȱ areȱ seductiveȱ orȱ proȬ miscuous,ȱ orȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ treatedȱ asȱ “foreigners”.ȱ Theȱ passageȱ isȱ dealingȱ withȱwarningsȱagainstȱaȱman’sȱlustȱforȱwomen.ȱApartȱfromȱtheȱwarningȱ concerningȱ theȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ death,ȱ thisȱ maximȱ hasȱ hardlyȱ anyȱ resemblanceȱ toȱ theȱ warningsȱ weȱ findȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ whereȱ theȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ warningsȱagainstȱillicitȱrelationshipsȱwithȱwomenȱfoundȱthroughoutȱtheȱancientȱNE.ȱ Seeȱ J.ȱ Fichtner,ȱ Dieȱ altorientalischeȱ Weisheitȱ inȱ ihrerȱ israelitischȬjüdischenȱ Ausprägung:ȱ eineȱ Studieȱ surȱ Nationalisierungȱ derȱ Weisheitȱ inȱ Israelȱ (BZAW,ȱ 62;ȱ Giessen:ȱ Alfredȱ Töpelmann,ȱ1933),ȱpp.ȱ2Ȭ3,ȱ19Ȭ20.ȱBasedȱonȱFichtner’sȱstudyȱandȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ InstructionȱofȱAni,ȱGemserȱ(p.ȱ19)ȱconcludesȱthatȱ“foreignȱwomen”ȱwarnedȱagainstȱ inȱtheseȱliteratureȱindicateȱthatȱtheyȱareȱusuallyȱresponsibleȱforȱsexualȱoffencesȱinȱtheȱ society.ȱTheseȱearlyȱworksȱareȱcornerstonesȱforȱinterpretingȱtheȱwarningsȱagainstȱtheȱ ForeignȱWomanȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱancientȱNEȱinstructionȱliterature.ȱ 95ȱȱ Theȱ followingȱ linesȱ areȱ takenȱ fromȱ theȱ translationȱ byȱ Miriamȱ Lichtheim,ȱ Ancientȱ Egyptianȱ Literatureȱ (Berkeley,ȱ Losȱ Angeles:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ California,ȱ 1976),ȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 68.ȱȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

35ȱ

“foreignness”ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱemphasisedȱandȱsheȱseducesȱtoȱ 96ȱȱȱ enticeȱandȱtrapȱherȱvictims. ȱ CounselsȱofȱWisdomȱ(72Ȭ79)97ȱ Doȱnotȱmarryȱaȱprostituteȱ(‫ې‬arimtu),ȱwhoseȱhusbandsȱareȱlegion,ȱ Aȱištaritu98ȱwhoȱisȱdedicatedȱtoȱaȱgod,ȱ Aȱkulmašituȱwhoseȱfavoursȱareȱmany.ȱ Inȱyourȱtroubleȱsheȱwillȱnotȱsupportȱyou,ȱ Inȱyourȱdisputeȱsheȱwillȱbeȱaȱmocker;ȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱreverenceȱorȱsubmissivenessȱwithȱher.ȱ Evenȱifȱsheȱdominateȱyourȱhouse,ȱgetȱherȱout,ȱ Forȱsheȱhasȱdirectedȱherȱattentionȱelsewhere.ȱ Variant:ȱ Sheȱ willȱ disruptȱ theȱ houseȱ sheȱ enters,ȱ andȱ herȱ partnerȱ willȱ notȱ assertȱhimself.ȱ

ȱ Theȱ warningȱ hereȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ kindsȱ ofȱ womenȱ oneȱ shouldȱ avoidȱ marryingȱ orȱ keepingȱ asȱ wives.ȱ Theȱ lastȱ lineȱ explainsȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ treatingȱ theseȱ womenȱ harshly,ȱ whichȱ isȱ becauseȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ supportȱ andȱ submitȱ toȱ theirȱ husbands.ȱ Theȱ ištarituȱ andȱ kulmašituȱ areȱ probablyȱ placedȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ prostituteȱ (‫ې‬arimtu)ȱ asȱ aȱ groupȱ becauseȱ theyȱ shareȱsomethingȱinȱcommonȱ–ȱtheirȱprofessionȱdemandsȱtheȱsameȱkindȱ ofȱ commitmentȱ toȱ manyȱ clients.ȱ Unlikeȱ theȱ commonȱ women,ȱ theȱ womenȱ mentionedȱ hereȱ areȱ usedȱ toȱ theȱ worldlyȱ affairsȱ outsideȱ theȱ homeȱ andȱ theirȱ undividedȱ loyaltyȱ toȱ theirȱ husbandsȱ afterȱ marriageȱ isȱ doubted.ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ notȱ rightȱ toȱ classifyȱ allȱ theȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ asȱ promiscuous,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ ištarituȱ andȱ kulmašituȱ areȱ not.ȱ Moreover,ȱ nothingȱinȱtheȱtextȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheyȱshouldȱbeȱtreatedȱasȱ“foreigners”.ȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱdoesȱnotȱwarnȱagainstȱmarryingȱtheȱprostituteȱorȱgoingȱtoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 96ȱȱ Fox,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱarguesȱthatȱitȱdescribesȱtheȱintentȱofȱtheȱwarningsȱagainstȱtheȱ ForeignȱWoman,ȱinȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ141.ȱ 97ȱȱ TheȱfollowingȱtranslationȱisȱtakenȱfromȱW.G.ȱLambert,ȱBabylonianȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ (Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1960),ȱp.ȱ103.ȱ 98ȱȱ Lambertȱhasȱtranslatedȱištarituȱasȱ“templeȱprostitute”ȱandȱkulmašituȱasȱ“courtesans”.ȱ Anȱ importantȱ essayȱ onȱ thisȱ subjectȱ isȱ writtenȱ byȱ E.M.ȱ Yamauchi,ȱ “Culticȱ ProȬ stitution”,ȱ inȱ Harryȱ Hoffnerȱ (ed.),ȱ Orientȱ andȱ Occident:ȱ Essaysȱ Presentedȱ toȱ Cyrusȱ H.ȱ Gordonȱ onȱ theȱ Occasionȱ ofȱ Hisȱ SixtyȬfifthȱ Birthdayȱ (AOAT,ȱ 22;ȱ NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱ NeukirchenerȱVerlag,ȱ1973),ȱpp.ȱ213Ȭ21.ȱHeȱexplainsȱthatȱtheȱhistoricalȱproofȱforȱtheȱ existenceȱ ofȱ templeȱ prostitutesȱ isȱ doubtful.ȱ Seeȱ also,ȱ “ištaritu”ȱ andȱ “kulmašitu”ȱ inȱ CADȱ vol.ȱVII,ȱ pp.ȱ270Ȭ71ȱandȱvol.ȱVIII,ȱp.ȱ526ȱrespectively.ȱTheyȱ wereȱwomenȱwhoȱ servedȱ inȱ temples,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ priestessesȱ ofȱ someȱ sort,ȱ butȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ sexȱ trade.ȱ Forȱ anȱ overviewȱ ofȱ theȱ debateȱ onȱ thisȱ subject,ȱ seeȱ BeardȱandȱHenderson,ȱ“WithȱthisȱBodyȱIȱTheeȱWorship”,ȱpp.ȱ480Ȭ503.ȱ

36ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

theȱ prostitutes.99ȱ Neitherȱ doesȱ theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ marryingȱprostitutesȱandȱculticȱdevotees,ȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ languageȱ ofȱ “foreignness”,ȱ entrapment,ȱ death,ȱ andȱ lossȱ ofȱ propertiesȱinȱCounselsȱofȱWisdomȱasȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱ ȱ HesiodȱWorksȱ(328f.)100ȱ …ȱwhoȱgoesȱupȱtoȱhisȱbrother’sȱbedȱ andȱcommitsȱunnaturalȱsinȱinȱlyingȱwithȱhisȱwife.ȱ

ȱ Thisȱclauseȱisȱfoundȱamongȱtheȱlistȱofȱbadȱthingsȱthatȱanȱevilȱmanȱdoesȱ (linesȱ327Ȭ332).ȱTheyȱalsoȱincludeȱtheȱillȱtreatmentȱofȱstrangers,ȱorphansȱ andȱagedȱparents.ȱItȱisȱnotȱaȱwarningȱaboutȱanyȱkindȱofȱbadȱwomanȱorȱ “foreigner”.ȱ Again,ȱ theȱ “wife”ȱ isȱ theȱ passiveȱ subjectȱ wherebyȱ someȬ thingȱ badȱ isȱ doneȱ toȱ her.ȱ Itȱ condemnsȱ anȱ actȱ ofȱ adulteryȱ byȱ one’sȱ brotherȱ withȱ hisȱ wife.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ povertyȱ andȱ theȱ impendingȱ punishmentȱ byȱ Zeusȱ depictedȱ inȱ linesȱ 333Ȭ335ȱ areȱ notȱ reservedlyȱ forȱ theȱ sinȱ ofȱ adulteryȱ inȱ linesȱ 328Ȭ329,ȱ butȱ forȱ allȱ theȱ sinsȱ listedȱinȱtheȱpassage.ȱThereȱisȱnothingȱinȱthisȱwarningȱandȱpassageȱthatȱ isȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱwarningsȱagainstȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱ Theȱ caseȱ ofȱ adulteryȱ mentionedȱ inȱ thisȱ textȱ isȱ alsoȱ unique,ȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ withȱanyȱmarriedȱwomen,ȱbutȱtheȱwifeȱofȱone’sȱbrother.ȱ ȱ

TheȱInstructionȱofȱAniȱ(16,ȱ13Ȭ17,ȱ1)101ȱ Bewareȱofȱaȱwomanȱwhoȱisȱaȱstranger,ȱ Oneȱnotȱknownȱinȱherȱtown102;ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 99ȱȱ Althoughȱ ȱ Boströmȱ (p.ȱ 40)ȱ rightlyȱ pointsȱ outȱ thatȱ ifȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ aȱ proȬ stitute,ȱ Provȱ 7:10ȱ needȱ notȱ differentiateȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ fromȱ theȱ prostitute,ȱ McKaneȱ (p.ȱ 329)ȱ chidesȱ himȱ forȱ ignoringȱ similarȱ warningsȱ inȱ theȱ ancientȱ Nearȱ Easternȱtextsȱagainstȱsuchȱwomen,ȱconsidersȱtheȱCounselsȱofȱWisdomȱasȱaddressingȱ theȱ sameȱ issueȱ asȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ andȱ interpretsȱ herȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ marriedȱ womanȱ whoȱisȱaȱprostitute.ȱȱ 100ȱȱ Hesiod:ȱ Theȱ Homericȱ Hymnsȱ andȱ Homericaȱ withȱ anȱ Englishȱ Translationȱ byȱ Hughȱ G.ȱ EvelynȬWhiteȱ(WorksȱandȱDays;ȱCambridge,ȱMA.,ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress;ȱLondon,ȱ Williamȱ Heinemann,ȱ 1914)ȱ extractedȱ fromȱ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgibin/ȱ ptext?lookup=Hes.+WD+1ȱ(01/10/07).ȱForȱaȱbriefȱcommentaryȱonȱtheseȱlines,ȱseeȱT.A.ȱ Sinclair,ȱHesiodȱWorksȱandȱDaysȱ(London:ȱMacmillan,ȱ1932),ȱpp.ȱ36Ȭ37;ȱandȱM.L.ȱWest,ȱ HesiodȱWorksȱandȱDaysȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1978),ȱp.ȱ46.ȱ 101ȱ Theȱ followingȱ translationȱ isȱ takenȱ fromȱ M.ȱ Lichtheim,ȱ Ancientȱ Egyptianȱ Literatureȱ (1976),ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 137.ȱ Noteȱ thatȱ theȱ textȱ numberingȱ followsȱ theȱ orderȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ editionȱofȱtheȱpapyrusesȱusedȱbyȱEgyptologists.ȱItȱdiffersȱfromȱtheȱcitationsȱgivenȱbyȱ LangȱaccordingȱtoȱANET.ȱȱ 102ȱȱ Itȱhasȱbeenȱsuggested,ȱ“whoȱisȱnotȱrespectedȱinȱtheȱcity”ȱisȱpreferredȱbecauseȱitȱisȱaȱ figureȱofȱspeechȱforȱthisȱphraseȱinȱtheȱNewȱKingdomȱperiod.ȱSeeȱJoachimȱQuack,ȱDieȱ LehrenȱDesȱAni:ȱEinȱneuägyptischerȱWeisheitstextȱinȱseinemȱkulturellenȱUmfeldȱ(OBO,ȱ141;ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

37ȱ

Don’tȱstareȱatȱherȱwhenȱsheȱgoesȱby,ȱ Doȱnotȱknowȱherȱcarnally.ȱ Aȱdeepȱwaterȱwhoseȱcourseȱisȱunknown,ȱ Suchȱisȱaȱwomanȱawayȱfromȱherȱhusband.ȱ “Iȱamȱpretty”ȱsheȱtellsȱyouȱdaily,ȱ Whenȱsheȱhasȱnoȱwitnesses;ȱ Sheȱisȱreadyȱtoȱensnareȱyou,ȱȱ Aȱgreatȱdeadlyȱcrimeȱwhenȱitȱisȱheard.ȱ …ȱ103ȱ

ȱ Theȱwomanȱwhoȱisȱwarnedȱagainstȱinȱthisȱmaximȱisȱnotȱaȱforeignerȱofȱ Egypt,ȱbutȱaȱwomanȱwhoȱtravelsȱtoȱanotherȱtown.104ȱSheȱisȱanȱEgyptian.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ notȱ uncommonȱ forȱ aȱ womanȱ toȱ travelȱ inȱ Egypt,ȱ forȱ inȱ theȱ twentiethȱDynasty,ȱRamsesȱIIIȱissuedȱaȱdecreeȱtoȱensureȱtheȱprotectionȱ andȱ safetyȱ ofȱ travellingȱ women.105ȱ Thereȱ areȱ twoȱ pointsȱ ofȱ similarityȱ betweenȱ thisȱ maximȱ andȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9:ȱtheȱfearȱofȱstrangers106ȱandȱtheȱportrayalȱofȱaȱdangerous,ȱ seductiveȱ woman.107ȱ However,ȱ thereȱ isȱ nothingȱ inȱ thisȱ maximȱ toȱ suggestȱthatȱthisȱseductiveȱwomanȱshouldȱbeȱtreatedȱasȱaȱ“foreigner”ȱasȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Göttingenȱ:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1994),ȱp.ȱ213;ȱandȱAnnetteȱDepla,ȱ“Womanȱinȱ AncientȱEgyptianȱWisdomȱLiterature”,ȱinȱLeonieȱArcher,ȱSusanȱFischler,ȱandȱMariaȱ Wykeȱ(eds.),ȱWomenȱinȱAncientȱSocietiesȱ–ȱAnȱIllusionȱofȱtheȱNightȱ(London:ȱMacmillan,ȱ 1994),ȱpp.ȱ24Ȭ52ȱ(34).ȱ 103ȱȱ Lichtheimȱendsȱherȱtranslationȱhereȱbecauseȱtheȱlinesȱareȱobscure.ȱSeeȱQuack,ȱp.ȱ93ȱ andȱbelow.ȱȱ 104ȱȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ L.J.ȱ Lesko,ȱ ed.ȱ Aȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ Lateȱ Egyptianȱ (California:ȱ B.C.ȱ Scribe,ȱ 1982),ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ pp.ȱ 405,ȱ 599Ȭ600.ȱ Also,ȱ Hannesȱ Buchberger,ȱ “Zumȱ Ausländerȱ inȱ derȱ altägyptischenȱLiteratureȱ–ȱeineȱKritik”,ȱWOȱ20Ȭ21ȱ(1989Ȭ90),ȱpp.ȱ5Ȭ34ȱ(9).ȱHowever,ȱ Gemserȱ (p.ȱ 19)ȱ andȱ McKaneȱ (pp.ȱ 285Ȭ86)ȱ understandȱ itȱ asȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ ethnicȱ foreigner.ȱ 105ȱȱ C.J.ȱ Eyre,ȱ “Crimeȱ andȱ Adulteryȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Egypt”,ȱ JEAȱ 70ȱ (1984),ȱ pp.ȱ 92Ȭ105ȱ (98).ȱ ThisȱdecreeȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱPapyrusȱHarrisȱI,ȱ78,ȱ8Ȭ9.ȱȱ 106ȱȱ Depla,ȱpp.ȱ34,ȱ46.ȱSheȱelucidatesȱtheȱxenophobicȱnatureȱofȱtheȱEgyptiansȱthroughoutȱ theirȱ history.ȱ Particularlyȱ duringȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Kingdom,ȱ whenȱ theȱ kingȬ domȱ isȱ brokenȱ downȱ intoȱ manyȱ independentȱ states,ȱ literatureȱ ofȱ thatȱ eraȱ notȱ onlyȱ discouragesȱtravel,ȱbutȱstrangersȱinȱtheȱcommunityȱareȱseenȱasȱaȱformȱofȱthreatȱandȱ chaos.ȱAlso,ȱM.ȱLichtheim,ȱAncientȱEgyptianȱLiteratureȱ(1980),ȱvol.ȱIII,ȱpp.ȱ207Ȭ208.ȱ 107ȱȱ Depla,ȱ p.ȱ 49.ȱ Sheȱ explainsȱ thatȱ thisȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ aȱ seductiveȱ womanȱ inȱ Instructionȱ literatureȱisȱonlyȱfoundȱhere,ȱandȱbeginsȱtoȱbeȱcommonȱbyȱtheȱGraecoȬRomanȱperiod.ȱ SeeȱalsoȱR.ȱRobins,ȱ”someȱimagesȱofȱwomanȱinȱNewȱKingdomȱartȱandȱliterature”,ȱinȱ Barbaraȱ Leskoȱ (ed.),ȱ Women’sȱ Earliestȱ Record:ȱ Fromȱ Ancientȱ Egyptȱ andȱ Westernȱ Asia,ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ Conferenceȱ onȱ Womenȱ inȱ theȱ Ancientȱ Nearȱ East,ȱ 1987,ȱ Brownȱ Universityȱ (Atlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱpp.ȱ105Ȭ16ȱ(101).ȱ

38ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

Langȱ claims.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ whileȱ thisȱ warningȱ depictsȱ aȱ marriedȱ womanȱ solicitingȱ forȱ anȱ adulterousȱ affair,ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱisȱnotȱanȱadulteress.ȱȱȱ Whatȱ Langȱ hasȱ failedȱ toȱ prove,ȱ byȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ onlyȱ theseȱ fourȱ texts,ȱ isȱ thatȱ womanȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ commonȱ subjectȱ inȱ ancientȱ Nearȱ Easternȱ literature,ȱ notwithstandingȱ warningsȱ againstȱ her.108ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ whatȱ Langȱ associatesȱ withȱ “commonplace”ȱ hasȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ promiscuousȱ womanȱ andȱ treatingȱ herȱ asȱ aȱ “foreigner”.ȱ However,ȱ exceptȱforȱtheȱInstructionȱofȱAni,ȱandȱtheȱmentionȱofȱprostitutesȱinȱtheȱ CounselȱofȱWisdom,ȱnotȱonlyȱdoȱnoneȱofȱtheȱotherȱtextsȱportrayȱthoseȱ womenȱ asȱ promiscuous,ȱ butȱ noneȱ ofȱ themȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ “foreignness”,ȱorȱofȱtheȱtreatmentȱofȱanyoneȱasȱ“foreign”,ȱwithȱtheȱlinkȱ toȱ women’sȱ promiscuityȱ aside.ȱ Aboveȱ all,ȱ analysesȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ textsȱ showȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ hardlyȱ anyȱ similaritiesȱ betweenȱ themȱ andȱ thoseȱ warningsȱfoundȱagainstȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱ Recently,ȱanȱEgyptologist,ȱJohannȱQuack,ȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱoriginȱofȱ theȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱliesȱinȱtheȱmaximȱofȱtheȱInstructionȱ ofȱ Ani.109ȱ Itȱ isȱ noteworthyȱ thatȱ althoughȱ thisȱ ideaȱ isȱ notȱ new,ȱ andȱ hasȱ beenȱmentionedȱbyȱmanyȱbiblicalȱscholars,110ȱQuackȱisȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱmakeȱ anȱanalyticalȱlistȱofȱtheȱsimilaritiesȱofȱtheȱtwoȱtexts,ȱwhichȱIȱhaveȱcitedȱ 111ȱ below: ȱ Aniȱȱȱ:ȱWatchȱoutȱforȱ(Or:ȱProtectȱyourselfȱfrom)ȱtheȱwomanȱfromȱtheȱȱȱȱȱȱ foreignȱpart,ȱȱ Whoȱisȱnotȱrespectedȱinȱtheȱcity.ȱȱ ȱ Provȱ:ȱInȱorderȱtoȱsaveȱyouȱfromȱtheȱstrangeȱ(ʤʸʦ)112ȱwomanȱ(Prȱ2,16a),ȱȱ Inȱorderȱtoȱprotectȱyouȱfromȱtheȱstrangeȱ(ʤʸʦ)ȱwomanȱ(Prȱ7,5a)ȱȱ TheȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ(ʤʸʩʫʰ [sic])ȱ(Prȱ2,16b;ȱ7,5ȱb)ȱȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 108ȱ Depla,ȱpp.ȱ24Ȭ25.ȱ 109ȱȱ Quack,ȱpp.ȱ213Ȭ14.ȱ 110ȱ Forȱexample,ȱHumbert,ȱRecherchesȱsurȱlesȱSourcesȱÉgyptiennesȱdeȱlaȱLittératureȱSapienȬ tialeȱ D’Israelȱ (Neuchatelȱ University,ȱ 7;ȱ Neuchatel:ȱ Neuchatelȱ University,ȱ 1929),ȱ reachesȱtheȱconclusionȱinȱhisȱresearch,ȱwhenȱcomparingȱtheȱinstructionȱliteratureȱofȱ Egyptȱ withȱ theȱ OT,ȱ thatȱ theȱ resultsȱ giveȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ Egypt’sȱ continuousȱ andȱ directȱ influenceȱ onȱ Israel’sȱ wisdomȱ literature,ȱ especiallyȱ onȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Proverbs.ȱ Heȱ believesȱthatȱtheȱsimilaritiesȱinȱtheȱwarningsȱagainstȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱandȱthatȱofȱ theȱInstructionȱofȱAniȱareȱfurtherȱsupportingȱevidenceȱofȱthisȱdirectȱinfluence.ȱAlso,ȱ seeȱMcKane,ȱpp.ȱ284Ȭ86.ȱ 111ȱȱ Quack,ȱpp.ȱ213Ȭ14.ȱ 112ȱȱ Quackȱconsistentlyȱusesȱfremdeȱforȱbothȱ ʤʸʦȱandȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱinȱhisȱtranslation.ȱIȱ haveȱusedȱ “strange”ȱforȱʤʸʦȱinȱtheȱaboveȱtranslationȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱclarification.ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

39ȱ

Aniȱȱȱ:ȱDoȱnotȱwinkȱatȱherȱbehindȱtheȱbackȱofȱherȱcompanion!ȱȱ Provȱ:ȱDoȱnotȱhaveȱyourselfȱovercomeȱbyȱherȱeyelashesȱ(ʴʲʴʲȱ[sic])(Prȱ6,25b)ȱ ȱ Aniȱȱȱ:ȱDoȱnotȱknowȱherȱunlawfully!ȱ Provȱ:ȱAndȱwhy,ȱmyȱson,ȱdoȱyouȱerrȱwithȱtheȱstrangeȱwoman,ȱȱ embracedȱinȱtheȱlapȱofȱtheȱtheȱForeignȱWoman?ȱ(Prȱ5,20)ȱ ȱ Aniȱ :ȱAȱdeepȱwater,ȱthatȱoneȱcannotȱorbit,ȱ Provȱ:ȱBecauseȱaȱdeepȱpitȱisȱtheȱstrangeȱwomanȱ(ʤʸʦ!)ȱ AndȱaȱnarrowȱwellȱtheȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ(ʤʸʩʫʰȱ[sic])ȱ(Prȱ23,27)ȱ ȱ Aniȱȱȱ:ȱSuchȱaȱwomanȱisȱdistantȱfromȱherȱhusband.ȱ Provȱ:ȱBecauseȱtheȱmanȱisȱnotȱinȱhisȱhouse,ȱ Onȱtheȱdayȱofȱtheȱfullȱmoon,ȱheȱwillȱreturnȱtoȱhisȱhouse.ȱ(Prȱ7,19)ȱ ȱ Aniȱȱȱ:ȱ“Iȱamȱsmooth,”ȱsheȱsaysȱtoȱyouȱeveryday,ȱ Provȱ:ȱHerȱwordsȱareȱmadeȱsmoothȱ(Prȱ2,16b;ȱ7,5b)ȱ Andȱherȱpalateȱisȱsmootherȱthanȱoilȱ(Prȱ5,3b)ȱ Beforeȱtheȱsmoothȱtongueȱofȱtheȱforeignerȱ(Prȱ6,ȱ24b)ȱ Throughȱtheȱsmoothnessȱofȱtheȱlips,ȱsheȱtemptsȱhimȱ(Prȱ7,21)ȱ ȱ Aniȱȱȱ:ȱwhileȱsheȱhasȱnoȱwitness.ȱ Provȱ:ȱInȱtheȱtwilight,ȱasȱitȱbecameȱevening,ȱȱ atȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱnightȱandȱtheȱdark.ȱ(Prȱ7,9)ȱ ȱ Aniȱȱȱ:ȱYouȱwillȱstandȱthere,ȱȱ caughtȱinȱaȱgreatȱdeadlyȱcrime,ȱȱ ifȱsheȱisȱmarried,ȱȱ althoughȱyouȱwereȱignorant.ȱȱ Aȱhumanȱbeingȱisȱsavedȱfromȱeachȱcrime,ȱȱ exceptȱthisȱalone.ȱ Provȱ:ȱJustȱlikeȱaȱbirdȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱthatȱitȱisȱaboutȱitsȱlife,ȱȱ hurriesȱintoȱtheȱnet.ȱ(Prȱ7,23)ȱ

40ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

Oneȱdoesȱnotȱdespiseȱtheȱthiefȱwhoȱstealsȱinȱorderȱtoȱfillȱhisȱmouthȱ becauseȱheȱisȱhungry.ȱ Andȱwhenȱcaught,ȱheȱreplacesȱsevenȬfold,ȱandȱgivesȱtheȱwholeȱȱȱȱ fortuneȱofȱhisȱhouse.ȱ Butȱtheȱadultererȱhasȱnoȱmind,ȱheȱwhoȱdoesȱitȱisȱaȱdestroyerȱofȱhisȱȱȱ ownȱlife.ȱ(Prȱ6,30Ȭ32)ȱ

ȱ Itȱ isȱ obviousȱ thatȱ theȱ similaritiesȱ listedȱ aboveȱ areȱ tortuous,ȱ andȱ evenȱ Quackȱ himselfȱ admitsȱ twiceȱ thatȱ theȱ similaritiesȱ areȱ indirect.113ȱ Theȱ portrayalȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱisȱmoreȱcomplexȱthanȱ thisȱ shortȱ maximȱ inȱ Ani,ȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ quantity.ȱ Theȱ comparisonȱ showsȱ thatȱ theȱ Proverbsȱ textȱ doesȱ notȱ followȱ theȱ linesȱ ofȱ thisȱ maximȱ inȱ sequence.ȱBesides,ȱtheȱsimilaritiesȱareȱsimplyȱbasedȱonȱprobablyȱsimilarȱ wordsȱ orȱ ideasȱ whichȱ occurȱ inȱ bothȱ texts.ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ line,ȱ Aniȱ warnsȱ againstȱ theȱ womanȱ whoȱ travelsȱ andȱ isȱ notȱ knownȱ inȱ theȱ city,ȱ whileȱ Proverbsȱ warnsȱ ofȱ theȱ ethnicȱ “foreigner”ȱ inȱ theȱ community.ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱline,ȱAniȱcautionsȱagainstȱmakingȱeyesȱatȱtheȱwomanȱinȱsecret,ȱ butȱ Proverbsȱ warnsȱ againstȱ beingȱ attractedȱ toȱ theȱ eyelashesȱ ofȱ theȱ woman.ȱTheȱthirdȱlineȱofȱAniȱisȱaȱvetitiveȱwhileȱProverbsȱisȱaȱrhetoricalȱ question,ȱandȱtheȱformerȱexpressesȱtheȱillegitimacyȱofȱtheȱaffair,ȱwhileȱ theȱlatterȱonlyȱquestionsȱtheȱvalueȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱwoman.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱ lineȱ ofȱ Aniȱ expressesȱ theȱ secrecyȱ andȱ deepȬseatedȱ motiȬ vationȱofȱtheȱwomanȱwhileȱtheȱdescriptionsȱofȱdepthsȱinȱProvȱ23:27ȱareȱ euphemismsȱ forȱ graves.ȱ Inȱ theȱ fifthȱ line,ȱ theȱ womanȱ seducesȱ byȱ referringȱ toȱ herȱ smoothȱ bodyȱ whileȱ theȱ womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ makesȱ noȱ suchȱ claims,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ teacherȱ whoȱ warnsȱ againstȱ herȱ seductiveȱ speech.ȱTheȱsixthȱlineȱofȱAniȱisȱaboutȱtheȱwomanȱmakingȱherȱseductiveȱ movesȱ whenȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ witness,ȱ butȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Provȱ 7:9ȱ hasȱ theȱ teacherȱasȱtheȱwitnessȱtoȱtheȱsceneȱofȱtemptationȱbyȱtheȱwoman.ȱInȱtheȱ lastȱ comparison,ȱ Aniȱ depictsȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ beingȱ caughtȱ inȱ theȱ deadlyȱconsequenceȱofȱadulteryȱbecauseȱtheȱoffenderȱwasȱignorantȱthatȱ sheȱwasȱmarried,ȱwhileȱProvȱ7:23ȱisȱaboutȱtheȱentrapmentȱofȱdeathȱledȱ onȱ byȱ theȱ woman,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ fearȱ ofȱ beingȱ caught,ȱ andȱ inȱ Provȱ 6:30Ȭ32ȱtheȱadultererȱisȱawareȱofȱtheȱmaritalȱstatusȱofȱhisȱlover.ȱ Quack’sȱ conclusionȱ fromȱ theȱ aboveȱ analysisȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ knowsȱ ofȱ aȱ Canaaniteȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ Aniȱ textȱ andȱ reȬworksȱ it. 114ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ appreciateȱ Quack’sȱ proposition,ȱ itȱ isȱ incumbentȱ toȱ knowȱhisȱpresuppositionsȱinȱhisȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱProverbs.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 113ȱȱ Quack,ȱp.ȱ212.ȱ 114ȱȱ Quack,ȱp.ȱ213.ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

41ȱ

Earlierȱinȱhisȱwork,ȱheȱarguesȱforȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱprincipleȱthatȱwhenȱ aȱtextȱhasȱbeenȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱobscureȱevenȱinȱitsȱownȱculture,ȱoneȱshouldȱ lookȱ beyondȱ itsȱ culturalȱ contextȱ forȱ aȱ similarȱ textȱ toȱ understandȱ it,ȱ providingȱ itȱ fulfilsȱ theȱ conditionȱ permittedȱ byȱ theȱ historicalȱ datingȱ inȱ theȱ transmissionȱ ofȱ theseȱ texts.115ȱ Toȱ Quack,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ ForeignȱWomanȱhasȱprovenȱtoȱbeȱobscureȱbecauseȱscholarsȱsuchȱasȱR.J.ȱ Cliffordȱ haveȱ resortedȱ toȱ foreignȱ traditionsȱ toȱ interpretȱ her,116ȱ sheȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ accuratelyȱ interpretedȱ byȱ thisȱ hermeneuticalȱ principle.ȱ InȬ cidentally,ȱ theȱ Instructionȱ ofȱ Aniȱ fulfilsȱ theȱ historicalȱ datingȱ forȱ transȬ missionȱandȱtoȱhimȱthereȱareȱsufficientȱsimilaritiesȱinȱtheȱtextsȱtoȱqualifyȱ forȱ thisȱ theoryȱ toȱ work.ȱ Therefore,ȱ Clifford’sȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ asȱ theȱmythologicalȱ goddessȱ ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ Nearȱ Eastȱ mustȱbeȱabandonedȱbecauseȱinȱtheȱInstructionȱofȱAniȱliesȱtheȱskeletonȱ pointingȱtoȱtheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ withȱ Quack’sȱ hypothesisȱ isȱ thatȱ itȱ failsȱ toȱ evaluateȱ whetherȱorȱnotȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱisȱculturallyȱobscureȱinȱ theȱ OTȱ beforeȱ havingȱ hisȱ hermeneuticalȱ principleȱ applied.ȱ Quackȱ simplyȱbasesȱhisȱjudgementȱonȱanyȱbiblicalȱscholarȱwhomȱheȱchoosesȱtoȱ disagreeȱwith.ȱHeȱomitsȱaȱfairȱdebateȱwithȱtheȱotherȱscholarsȱwhoȱinsistȱ onȱ anȱ Israeliteȱ contextȱ forȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Gemser,ȱ Humbert,ȱ Snijdersȱ andȱ Toy.ȱ Therefore,ȱ Quack’sȱ conclusionȱ isȱ unȬ founded.ȱ Theȱ similaritiesȱ whichȱ heȱ hasȱ claimedȱ inȱ hisȱ ownȱ wordsȱ asȱ “indirect”,ȱareȱinȱfactȱaȱconglomerationȱofȱaȱmessyȱpuzzleȱfromȱvariousȱ clausesȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱandȱ23:27ȱtoȱfitȱintoȱtheȱlinesȱofȱtheȱInstructionȱ ofȱ Ani.ȱ Theȱ citationsȱ ofȱ theȱ linesȱ fromȱ Proverbsȱ aboveȱ doȱ notȱ portrayȱ theȱsameȱmeaningȱasȱtheȱlinesȱinȱtheȱmaxim.ȱBothȱtextsȱareȱmeaningfulȱ onlyȱ inȱ theirȱ ownȱ contexts,ȱ purposeȱ andȱ culture.ȱ Similarly,ȱ whileȱ thisȱ maximȱ isȱ meaningfulȱ toȱ theȱ overallȱ structureȱ andȱ contentȱ ofȱ theȱ Instructionȱ ofȱ Ani,ȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ areȱ meaningfulȱinȱtheȱbookȱofȱProverbsȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱscriptures.ȱ Theȱ attemptsȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ OTȱ textsȱ andȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱwordsȱthroughȱforeignȱevidenceȱasȱourȱdiscussionȱhasȱshown,ȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱ ancientȱ Nearȱ Eastȱ isȱ aȱ single,ȱ monotonousȱ entityȱ wherebyȱ historically,ȱ whetherȱ inȱ diachronicȱ orȱ chronologicȱ termsȱ itȱ isȱ constant,ȱ andȱ also,ȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ civilisation,ȱ culturallyȱ static.ȱ ConȬ sequently,ȱsuchȱattemptsȱnotȱonlyȱundermineȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱOT,ȱbutȱ alsoȱofȱtheȱancientȱNearȱEasternȱcivilisation.ȱTherefore,ȱtheseȱattempts,ȱ withȱ theirȱquestȱ ofȱ“internationalȱ wisdom”,ȱandȱ theirȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱofȱProverbsȱasȱsomeȱforeignȱwork,ȱessentiallyȱalienȱtoȱtheȱOT,ȱandȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 115ȱȱ Quack,ȱp.ȱ206.ȱ 116ȱȱ Quack,ȱp.ȱ213;ȱinȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱcommentaryȱbyȱClifford,ȱProverbs.ȱ

42ȱ

Interpretationsȱofȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

especiallyȱtheirȱconsequentȱattemptsȱtoȱdefineȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱHebrewȱ wordsȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱnonȬHebrewȱtexts,ȱwithoutȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱnorȬ malȱHebrewȱmeanings,ȱareȱunnecessaryȱandȱunfounded.ȱ ȱ 1.2.6ȱSectionȱConclusionȱ TheȱstudyȱweȱhaveȱmadeȱinȱthisȱsectionȱconfirmsȱthatȱinȱtheȱOT,ȱtheȱuseȱ ofȱ ʸʫʰȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ tiedȱ upȱ withȱ ideasȱ ofȱ “foreignness”,ȱ and ʸʦ isȱ aȱ flexibleȱ termȱ usedȱ toȱ denoteȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ “otherness”,ȱ whichȱ isȱ totallyȱ dependentȱonȱtheȱcontextȱforȱitsȱspecificȱreferent.ȱWhenȱbothȱtermsȱareȱ usedȱinȱconjunction,ȱtheyȱessentiallyȱreferȱtoȱtheȱ“foreigner”ȱbecause ʸʫʰ providesȱ theȱ determinantȱ forȱ theȱ context.ȱ Weȱ alsoȱ concludeȱ thatȱ theȱ OT’sȱ ideaȱ ofȱ“foreignness”ȱ isȱ notȱ boundȱ byȱ geographicalȱ proximityȱ orȱ notionsȱofȱtheȱmodernȱdefinitionsȱofȱ“nationhood”,ȱbutȱitȱisȱessentiallyȱ tiedȱupȱwithȱideasȱofȱ“ethnicity”.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ reȬexaminingȱ theȱ influentialȱ worksȱ ofȱ Humbert,ȱ SnijdersȱandȱLang,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱnoneȱofȱthemȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱarrivedȱatȱ theȱsameȱconclusionsȱasȱweȱhave.ȱBoströmȱhoweverȱdoes.ȱButȱalthoughȱ heȱ takesȱ theȱ lexicalȱ contextsȱ andȱ occurrencesȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ seriously,ȱ heȱ finallyȱbasesȱhisȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱonȱhisȱreadingȱofȱ Provȱ7ȱinȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱculticȱcontexts,ȱinsteadȱofȱtheȱOTȱcontexts.ȱ Asȱ forȱ Humbert,ȱ heȱ simplyȱ basesȱ hisȱ argumentȱ onȱ theȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ theȱ passagesȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ haveȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ adultery.ȱ Hisȱ readingȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ isȱ madeȱ beforeȱ hisȱ lexicalȱ studiesȱ ofȱ theȱ occurrencesȱofȱʸʫʰȱandȱʸʦȱinȱtheȱOT.ȱSnijders,ȱonȱhisȱpart,ȱsimplyȱassertsȱ allȱtheȱwayȱthatȱideasȱofȱ“nationalism”ȱareȱnotȱpresentȱinȱtheȱOT,ȱandȱ assumesȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ hasȱ theȱ sameȱ connotationȱ asȱ “ethnicity”,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱthatȱʸʫʰȱhasȱnothingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ“foreignness”,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ “outsideness”.ȱ Heȱ thenȱ linksȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “outsideness”,ȱ withȱtheȱideaȱofȱsocialȱexclusion,ȱandȱfinallyȱaddsȱtoȱtheȱideaȱtheȱreasonȱ forȱtheȱexclusion.ȱThus, ʤʩʸʫʰ ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱisȱaȱ “socialȱ outsider”ȱ becauseȱ sheȱ isȱ promiscuous.ȱ Langȱ assumesȱ anȱ interȬ nationalȱ contextȱ forȱ hisȱ studyȱ onȱ ʸʫʰ.ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ considerȱ theȱ OTȱ contextȱasȱprimary,ȱnotwithstandingȱtakingȱtheȱoccurrencesȱofȱʸʫʰȱwithȱ utmostȱimportance.ȱAllȱtheseȱscholars,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱreȬexaminedȱthem,ȱinȱ fact,ȱeitherȱdoȱnotȱconsiderȱtheȱlexicalȱoccurrencesȱofȱtheȱtwoȱtermsȱinȱ theȱ OTȱ seriously,ȱ norȱ theȱ contextsȱ ofȱ theȱ OTȱ asȱ crucialȱ toȱ theȱ interȬ pretationȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ Asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ inȱ ourȱ lexicalȱ study,ȱ frequentȱ occurrencesȱ ofȱ theȱ feminine ʩʸʫʰ ȱareȱfoundȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱ1ȱKgsȱ11,ȱandȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱ ofȱ whichȱ Nehemiahȱ formsȱ aȱ directȱ linkȱ betweenȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 11ȱ

ȱ

Reclaimingȱtheȱ“Foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

43ȱ

andȱ Ezra.ȱ Thisȱ phenomenonȱ shouldȱ beȱ takenȱ seriously,ȱ andȱ theȱ ocȬ currencesȱofȱʤʩʸʫʰ inȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱcanȱandȱwillȱbeȱstudiedȱinȱtheȱcontextsȱ ofȱtheseȱOTȱtexts,ȱinȱtheȱchaptersȱtoȱfollow. ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱTwo:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ “Foreignness“ȱandȱtheȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ inȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱȱ ȱ Whileȱscholarsȱfindȱsomeȱdifferentȱmeaningsȱandȱsenseȱforȱʤʩʸʫʰȱsuchȱasȱ socialȱ exclusionȱ orȱ moralȱ status,ȱ itȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ ignoreȱ theȱ strongȱ evidenceȱ fromȱ otherȱ OTȱ usageȱ thatȱ itȱ indicatesȱ “foreignness“ȱ inȱ someȱ specificȱ way.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ usages,ȱ whichȱ occurȱ moreȱ frequentlyȱ thanȱ anywhereȱelse,ȱisȱthatȱofȱtheȱ“foreignȱwoman“ȱinȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱwhoȱ playsȱ aȱ keyȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ eventsȱ followingȱ theȱ returnȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ fromȱ exile.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ highlyȱ probableȱ thatȱ thoseȱ eventsȱ wouldȱ shapeȱ theȱ unȬ derstandingȱ ofȱ aȱ “foreignȱ woman“ȱ inȱ anyȱ laterȱ Jewishȱ literature,ȱ andȱ therefore,ȱaȱcloserȱstudyȱofȱthisȱusageȱisȱextremelyȱimportant.ȱȱ

2.1ȱTheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱinȱEzraȱ Ezraȱ9Ȭ10ȱisȱsetȱinȱtheȱprecinctsȱofȱtheȱTemple,ȱandȱdescribesȱhow,ȱafterȱ theȱ leadersȱ complainedȱ toȱ Ezraȱ concerningȱ theȱ intermarriagesȱ whichȱ haveȱtakenȱplaceȱamongȱtheȱpriestsȱandȱtheȱleadersȱwithȱtheȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰȱʭʩʹʰ,ȱ whoȱ areȱ ofȱ theȱ “peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ land”,ȱ Ezraȱ immediatelyȱ tookȱ onȱ theȱ postureȱofȱmourningȱinȱrepentanceȱandȱfasting,ȱinducingȱtheȱleadersȱtoȱ hatchȱ theȱ planȱ ofȱ marshallingȱ theȱ wholeȱ communityȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ coȬ venantȱ toȱ divorceȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ andȱ banishȱ theirȱ children.ȱ Theȱ episodeȱ endsȱ withȱ aȱ longȱ listȱ ofȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ theȱ priestsȱ whoȱ haveȱ committedȱ theȱ offenseȱandȱ theȱ presentationȱ ofȱ guiltȱofferingsȱ byȱ themȱ inȱtheȱTemple.ȱ Theȱtermȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱdoesȱnotȱoccurȱatȱallȱuntilȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ episode,ȱ whereȱ itȱ isȱ equatedȱ withȱ anotherȱ term,ȱ “peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ land”ȱ (ʵʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ,ȱ 10:2,ȱ 11).ȱ Theȱ episodeȱ startedȱ withȱ theȱ accusationȱ thatȱ theȱ leadersȱofȱIsraelȱhaveȱintermarriedȱwithȱtheȱdaughtersȱofȱtheȱ“peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ lands”ȱ (ʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ),ȱ withȱ theirȱ abominationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Canaaniteȱ nationsȱandȱthoseȱofȱtheȱAmmonites,ȱMoabites,ȱandȱEgyptians.ȱ ȱ Ezraȱ9:1Ȭ2ȱ 1ȱAfterȱtheseȱthingsȱhadȱbeenȱdone,ȱtheȱofficialsȱapproachedȱmeȱandȱsaid,ȱ “Theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ theȱ priests,ȱ andȱ theȱ Levitesȱ haveȱ notȱ separatedȱ themselvesȱ fromȱ theȱ peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ landsȱ (ʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ)ȱ withȱ theirȱ

ȱ

TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱinȱEzraȱ

45ȱȱ

abominations,ȱ fromȱ theȱ Canaanites,ȱ theȱ Hittites,ȱ theȱ Perizzites,ȱ theȱ JebuȬ sites,ȱtheȱAmmonites,ȱtheȱMoabites,ȱtheȱEgyptians,ȱandȱtheȱAmorites.ȱȱ 2ȱForȱtheyȱhaveȱtakenȱsomeȱofȱtheirȱdaughtersȱasȱwivesȱforȱthemselvesȱandȱ forȱtheirȱsons.ȱThusȱtheȱholyȱseedȱhasȱmixedȱitselfȱwithȱtheȱpeoplesȱofȱtheȱ landsȱ(ʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ),ȱandȱinȱthisȱfaithlessnessȱtheȱofficialsȱandȱleadersȱhaveȱledȱ theȱway.“ȱȱȱ ȱ Ezraȱ9:11Ȭ14ȱ 11ȱ…ȱwhichȱyouȱcommandedȱbyȱyourȱservantsȱtheȱprophets,ȱsaying,ȱ“Theȱ landȱthatȱyouȱareȱenteringȱtoȱpossessȱisȱaȱlandȱuncleanȱwithȱtheȱpollutionsȱ ofȱtheȱpeoplesȱofȱtheȱlandsȱ(ʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ),ȱwithȱtheirȱabominations.ȱTheyȱhaveȱ filledȱitȱfromȱendȱtoȱendȱwithȱtheirȱuncleanness.ȱȱ 12ȱ Thereforeȱ doȱ notȱ giveȱ yourȱ daughtersȱ toȱ theirȱ sons,ȱ neitherȱ takeȱ theirȱ daughtersȱforȱyourȱsons,ȱandȱneverȱseekȱtheirȱpeaceȱorȱprosperity,ȱsoȱthatȱ youȱ mayȱ beȱ strongȱ andȱ eatȱ theȱ goodȱ ofȱ theȱ landȱ andȱ leaveȱ itȱ forȱ anȱ inȬ heritanceȱtoȱyourȱchildrenȱforever.“ȱȱ 13ȱ Afterȱ allȱ thatȱ hasȱ comeȱ uponȱ usȱ forȱ ourȱ evilȱ deedsȱ andȱ forȱ ourȱ greatȱ guilt,ȱ seeingȱ thatȱ you,ȱ ourȱ God,ȱ haveȱ punishedȱ usȱ lessȱ thanȱ ourȱ iniquitiesȱ deservedȱandȱhaveȱgivenȱusȱsuchȱaȱremnantȱasȱthis,ȱȱ 14ȱ shallȱ weȱ breakȱ yourȱ commandmentsȱ againȱ andȱ intermarryȱ withȱ theȱ peoplesȱwhoȱpracticeȱtheseȱabominations?ȱWouldȱyouȱnotȱbeȱangryȱwithȱusȱ untilȱyouȱdestroyȱusȱwithoutȱremnantȱorȱsurvivor?ȱ ȱ Ezraȱ10:2ȱ Shecaniahȱ sonȱ ofȱ Jehiel,ȱ ofȱ theȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ Elam,ȱ addressedȱ Ezra,ȱ sayȬ ing,ȱ“WeȱhaveȱbrokenȱfaithȱwithȱourȱGodȱandȱhaveȱmarriedȱforeignȱwomenȱ (ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ)ȱfromȱtheȱpeoplesȱofȱtheȱlandȱ(ʵʸʠʤ ʩʮʲʮ),ȱbutȱevenȱnowȱthereȱisȱ hopeȱforȱIsraelȱinȱspiteȱofȱthis.ȱ ȱ Ezraȱ10:11ȱ NowȱmakeȱconfessionȱtoȱtheȱLORDȱtheȱGodȱofȱyourȱancestors,ȱandȱdoȱhisȱ will;ȱseparateȱyourselvesȱfromȱtheȱpeoplesȱofȱtheȱlandȱ(ʵʸʠʤ ʩʮʲʮ)ȱandȱfromȱ theȱforeignȱwivesȱ(ʺʥʩʸʫʰʤ ʭʩʹʰʤʚʯʮʥ).“ȱ

ȱ Theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ areȱ expressedȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ “peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ lands”ȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 9:1,ȱ 2ȱ andȱ 11;ȱ andȱ theȱ “peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ land”ȱinȱEzraȱ10:2,ȱ11.ȱThereȱisȱanotherȱterm,ȱʵʸʠʤ ʭʲȱwhichȱisȱfoundȱinȱ Ezraȱ 4:4,ȱ andȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theseȱ termsȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ probablyȱ deȬ servesȱsomeȱclarification.ȱWeȱshallȱfirstȱlookȱatȱʵʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ.ȱ Inȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ OT,ȱ ʵʸʠʤ ʩʮʲȱ alwaysȱ referȱ toȱ foreigners,ȱ andȱ theyȱ areȱusedȱinȱtheȱcontextȱinȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱknowledgeȱorȱrecognitionȱofȱ Godȱ(forȱexample,ȱDeutȱ28:10;ȱJoshȱ4:24ȱandȱEstȱ8:171).ȱInȱNehemiah,ȱitȱ isȱfoundȱinȱtheȱstatementȱofȱtheȱcovenantȱwhichȱtheȱpeopleȱhaveȱsigned,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱ

Otherȱreferencesȱinclude:ȱ1ȱKgsȱ8:43,ȱ44,ȱ60;ȱEzekȱ31:12;ȱZephȱ3:20;ȱ1ȱChrȱ5:25;ȱ2ȱChrȱ 6:33;ȱ32:19.ȱ

ȱ 46ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

thatȱtheyȱwillȱnotȱintermarryȱwithȱthem,ȱorȱdoȱtradeȱwithȱthemȱonȱtheȱ Sabbathȱ(cf.ȱNehȱ10:31,ȱ32).ȱ ȱ Nehȱ10:31,ȱ32ȱ 31ȱ...ȱandȱifȱtheȱpeoplesȱofȱtheȱlandȱ(ʵʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ)ȱbringȱinȱmerchandiseȱorȱanyȱ grainȱonȱtheȱsabbathȱdayȱtoȱsell,ȱweȱwillȱnotȱbuyȱitȱfromȱthemȱonȱtheȱsabȬ bathȱorȱonȱaȱholyȱday;ȱandȱweȱwillȱforegoȱtheȱcropsȱofȱtheȱseventhȱyearȱandȱ theȱexactionȱofȱeveryȱdebt.ȱ 32ȱWeȱalsoȱlayȱonȱourselvesȱtheȱobligationȱtoȱchargeȱourselvesȱyearlyȱoneȬ thirdȱofȱaȱshekelȱforȱtheȱserviceȱofȱtheȱhouseȱofȱourȱGod:ȱ

ȱ ʵʸʠʤ ʭʲ,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱinȱanȱoverwhelmingȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱoccurȬ rences,ȱalwaysȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱIsraelȱ(forȱexample,ȱLevȱ20:2,ȱ4;ȱ2ȱ Kgsȱ11:14;ȱ16:15;ȱetȱcetera),ȱexceptȱforȱaȱfewȱoccasions:ȱGenȱ23:7,ȱ12,ȱ13ȱtoȱ theȱ Hittites;ȱ Genȱ 42:6ȱ toȱ thoseȱ foreignȱ toȱ Egypt;ȱ Numȱ 14:9ȱ toȱ theȱ CaȬ naanites;ȱandȱEzraȱ4:4ȱtoȱthoseȱ“foreign”ȱtoȱtheȱreturnedȱcommunity.ȱ ȱ Ezraȱ4:4ȱ Thenȱ theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ theȱ landȱ (ʵʸʠʤʚʭʲ)ȱ discouragedȱ theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Judahȱ (ʤʣʥʤʩʚʭʲ),ȱandȱmadeȱthemȱafraidȱtoȱbuild,ȱ

ȱ Apparently,ȱbyȱtheȱHellenisticȱperiod,ȱʵʸʠʤʚʭʲȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱusedȱ derogativelyȱ ofȱ farmersȱ andȱ theȱ uneducatedȱ commonȱ people,ȱ whoseȱ observanceȱ ofȱ theȱ lawȱ wasȱ careless.2ȱ H.G.M.ȱ Williamsonȱ believesȱ thatȱ forȱ theȱ occurrenceȱ ofȱ Ezraȱ 4:4,ȱ itȱ isȱ usedȱ withȱ aȱ significantȱ purpose.3ȱ There,ȱ theȱ termȱ isȱ usedȱ toȱ contrastȱ theȱ ʤʬʥʢʤȱ “returnedȱ exileȱ comȬ munity”,ȱ andȱ theȱ ʤʣʥʤʩʚʭʲȱ “peopleȱ ofȱ Judah”,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ identicalȱ toȱ orȱ associatedȱwithȱtheȱ“adversariesȱofȱJudahȱandȱBenjamin”ȱ(4:1),ȱbroughtȱ inȱtoȱsettleȱtheȱlandȱofȱtheȱexiledȱNorthernȱkingdomȱduringȱtheȱtimeȱofȱ theȱ Assyriansȱ (4:2).4ȱ Thisȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ theȱ ʵʸʠʤʚʭʲȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ perceivedȱtoȱconsistȱbothȱofȱthoseȱJudahitesȱwhoȱwereȱnotȱexiledȱandȱofȱ theȱ nonȬnativeȱ populationsȱ inȱ theȱ North,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ professedȱ toȱ beȱ Yahwehȱ worshippers,ȱ butȱ wereȱ deemedȱ byȱ theȱ prophetsȱ toȱ beȱ notȱ “true”ȱ worshippersȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 17:24Ȭ41;ȱ Jerȱ 41:5;ȱ Ezraȱ 4:1Ȭ4).ȱ Itȱ isȱ here,ȱ inȱ Ezraȱ4:4ȱthatȱʵʸʠʤʚʭʲȱisȱusedȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱtoȱdiscriminateȱbetweenȱ groupsȱ ofȱ Israelitesȱ andȱ toȱ associateȱ oneȱ groupȱ withȱ foreignersȱ (albeitȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱ 3ȱ 4ȱ

Solomonȱ Zeitlin,ȱ “Theȱ ’Amȱ HaȬaretz’”,ȱ JQRȱ 23ȱ (1932),ȱ pp.ȱ 45Ȭ61.ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ mentionsȱ thatȱtheȱusageȱresultedȱinȱclassȱdistinctionȱandȱdiscrimination.ȱȱ H.G.M.ȱ Williamson,ȱ Ezra,ȱ Nehemiahȱ (WBC,ȱ 16;ȱ Waco,ȱ Texas:ȱ Wordȱ Books,ȱ 1985),ȱ p.ȱ 131;ȱcf.ȱp.ȱ46.ȱ Inȱ2ȱKgsȱ17ȱtheseȱpeopleȱareȱnotȱregardedȱasȱtheȱdescendantsȱofȱJacob,ȱandȱalthoughȱ theyȱ attemptȱ toȱ worshipȱ Yahweh,ȱ theyȱ areȱ syncretisticȱ andȱ idolatrousȱ asȱ well.ȱ Theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Kingsȱ isȱ alsoȱ alwaysȱ criticalȱ ofȱ theȱ worshipȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ inȱ theȱ Northernȱ kingdomȱafterȱtheȱdivision.ȱTheyȱneverȱseemȱtoȱworshipȱYahwehȱasȱaccuratelyȱandȱ completelyȱasȱtheyȱshould,ȱcf.ȱ2ȱKgsȱ17:24Ȭ41ȱandȱJerȱ41:5;ȱseeȱWilliamson,ȱp.ȱ49.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱinȱEzraȱ

47ȱȱ

foreignȱ worshippersȱ ofȱ Yahweh).5ȱ Williamsonȱ alsoȱ suspectsȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲȱ(“peoplesȱofȱtheȱlands”)ȱhasȱtheȱsameȱconnotationȱwhenȱ usedȱinȱEzraȬNehemiah.6ȱ Asȱ forȱ ʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ,ȱ itȱ onlyȱ occursȱ inȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ textsȱ ofȱ EzraȬ Nehemiahȱ (Ezraȱ 3:3;ȱ 9:1,ȱ 2,ȱ 11;ȱ Nehȱ 9:30;ȱ 10:28)ȱ andȱ Chroniclesȱ (2ȱ Chrȱ 13:9;ȱ32:13).ȱInȱNehȱ9:30,ȱitȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱ“enemies”ȱandȱ“adversaries”ȱofȱ theȱpostȬexilicȱcommunityȱinȱtheȱPersianȱempire7ȱwhomȱtheyȱmustȱlaterȱ pledgeȱ toȱ separateȱ themselvesȱ fromȱ inȱ Nehȱ 10:28.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ likelyȱ thatȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ references,ȱ evenȱ includingȱ thoseȱ inȱ Chronicles,8ȱ mightȱ haveȱtheȱsameȱreference.ȱȱ ȱ Nehȱ9:30ȱ Manyȱyearsȱyouȱwereȱpatientȱwithȱthem,ȱandȱwarnedȱthemȱbyȱyourȱspiritȱ throughȱ yourȱ prophets;ȱ yetȱ theyȱ wouldȱ notȱ listen.ȱ Thereforeȱ youȱ handedȱ themȱoverȱtoȱtheȱpeoplesȱofȱtheȱlandsȱ(ʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ).ȱ ȱ Nehȱ10:28ȱ Theȱrestȱofȱtheȱpeople,ȱtheȱpriests,ȱtheȱLevites,ȱtheȱgatekeepers,ȱtheȱsingers,ȱ theȱtempleȱservants,ȱandȱallȱwhoȱhaveȱseparatedȱthemselvesȱfromȱtheȱpeoȬ plesȱofȱtheȱlandsȱ(ʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲʮ)ȱtoȱadhereȱtoȱtheȱlawȱofȱGod,ȱtheirȱwives,ȱtheirȱ sons,ȱtheirȱdaughters,ȱallȱwhoȱhaveȱknowledgeȱandȱunderstanding,ȱ

ȱ Itȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱthisȱtermȱisȱusedȱasȱaȱslurȱforȱȱʵʸʠʤ ʩʮʲȱandȱȱʵʸʠʤȱʭʲ,ȱtoȱ denoteȱthoseȱ“foreign”ȱtoȱtheȱworshipȱofȱYahweh.ȱ Hence,ȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱepisode,ȱtheȱIsraelitesȱareȱaccusedȱofȱ marryingȱtheȱdaughtersȱofȱtheȱ“peoplesȱofȱtheȱlands”ȱ(ʺʥʶʸʠʤ ʩʮʲ)9ȱwhoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱ

6ȱ 7ȱ 8ȱ

9ȱ

Aharonȱ Oppenheimerȱ isȱ ofȱ theȱ opinionȱ thatȱ theȱ derogatoryȱ useȱ ofȱ ʵʸʠʤʚʭʲȱ beginsȱ withȱEzraȱ4:4,ȱseeȱA.ȱOppenheimer,ȱTheȱ’AmȱHaȬaretz’:ȱAȱStudyȱinȱtheȱSocialȱHistoryȱofȱ theȱJewishȱPeopleȱinȱtheȱHellenisticȬRomanȱPeriodȱ(trans.ȱI.H.ȱLevine;ȱALGHJ,ȱ8;ȱLeiden:ȱ E.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1977),ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ12,ȱ83Ȭ84.ȱ Williamson,ȱp.ȱ131.ȱ J.ȱ Blenkinsopp,ȱ EzraȬNehemiah:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press,ȱ 2000),ȱ p.ȱ 306.ȱ MindfulȱthatȱtheȱChroniclerȱhasȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱinterpretȱtheȱhistoricalȱaccountȱinȱhisȱ newȱcontext,ȱ2ȱChrȱ13:39ȱevokesȱ1ȱKgsȱ12:31,ȱonȱtheȱsinȱofȱtheȱNorthernȱkingdom,ȱviaȱ Jeroboam’sȱ erectionȱ ofȱ theȱ goldenȱ calvesȱ andȱ installingȱ priestsȱ forȱ theȱ cult,ȱ andȱ theȱ referenceȱinȱ2ȱChrȱ32:13ȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱunderstoodȱtoȱreferȱtoȱthoseȱneighbouringȱ peoplesȱofȱJudah,ȱthisȱdeductionȱcanȱbeȱreasonablyȱassumed.ȱSeeȱSaraȱJaphet,ȱIȱ&ȱIIȱ Chronicles:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱpp.ȱ23Ȭ27,ȱ693.ȱAsȱforȱtheȱ occurrenceȱinȱEzraȱ3:3,ȱnoteȱtheȱuseȱofȱʤʮʩʠȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱsentimentȱofȱtheȱreturneesȱ towardsȱtheseȱpeople.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ questionsȱ whichȱ arisesȱ inȱ theȱ episodeȱ againstȱ intermarriagesȱ inȱ EzraȬ Nehemiahȱ isȱ whyȱ areȱ onlyȱ theȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ condemnedȱ butȱ notȱ theȱ “foreignȱ men”ȱ whoȱ marriedȱ theȱ daughtersȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ community?ȱ Shayeȱ Cohenȱ repliesȱ thisȱ succintly,ȱ “Ifȱ Israeliteȱ menȱ areȱ incitedȱ byȱ theirȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ toȱ abandonȱ theȱ worshipȱ ofȱ theȱ trueȱ God,ȱ theȱ resultȱ wouldȱ beȱ catastrophic;ȱ ifȱ Israeliteȱ womenȱ areȱ turnedȱ astray,ȱ whoȱ wouldȱ notice?”ȱ Seeȱ S.ȱ Cohen,ȱ Theȱ Beginningsȱ ofȱ Jewishness:ȱ Boundaries,ȱVarieties,ȱUncertaintiesȱ(HellenisticȱCultureȱandȱSociety,ȱ31;ȱBerkeley,ȱLosȱ

ȱ 48ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

areȱ abominableȱ toȱ Yahweh.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ describedȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ termsȱ asȱ theȱ listȱ ofȱ theȱ originalȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ theȱ land,ȱ likeȱ thoseȱ commonlyȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ (forȱ example,ȱ Genȱ 15:19Ȭ21;ȱ Exodȱ 3:8),ȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱAmmonites,ȱMoabitesȱandȱEgyptians,ȱwhichȱhaveȱnoȱ connectionȱwithȱtheȱinhabitantsȱofȱIsrael’sȱland.ȱTheȱformerȱgroupȱhadȱ beenȱfamouslyȱknownȱinȱtheȱOTȱforȱtheirȱabominationsȱwhichȱresultedȱ inȱYahwehȱcausingȱthemȱtoȱbeȱreplacedȱbyȱIsrael,ȱwhileȱtheȱlatterȱgroupȱ seemsȱ toȱ recallȱ theȱ prohibitionsȱ onȱ admissionȱ toȱ theȱ congregation.ȱ Therefore,ȱmanyȱcommentatorsȱclaim,ȱmoreȱspecifically,ȱthatȱthisȱlistȱinȱ Ezraȱ 9:1ȱ isȱ derivedȱ fromȱ aȱ combinationȱ ofȱ Deutȱ 7:1Ȭ6ȱ andȱ 23:4Ȭ9,ȱ andȱ thereȱ seemsȱ littleȱ reasonȱ toȱ doubtȱ thatȱ Deuteronomyȱ isȱ theȱ primaryȱ sourceȱforȱtheȱtextȱhere.10ȱ(Pleaseȱseeȱbelow,ȱTableȱ2.1:ȱAȱComparisonȱofȱ ListsȱonȱtheȱNations.)ȱ WeȱshallȱreturnȱtoȱdiscussȱtheseȱDeuteronomicȱtextsȱlater,ȱbutȱitȱisȱ noteworthyȱ thatȱ theȱ listȱ isȱ anachronistic,ȱ andȱ probablyȱ refersȱ deliȬ beratelyȱasȱwellȱtoȱtheȱlistsȱelsewhereȱ(forȱexample,ȱGenȱ15:19Ȭ21;ȱExodȱ 3:8,ȱ17,ȱ33:2,ȱ34:11;ȱDeutȱ20:17;ȱJudgȱ3:5).ȱNielsȱLemcheȱisȱprobablyȱrightȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ theȱ listȱ isȱ givenȱ forȱ itsȱ symbolicȱ value.11ȱ Apparently,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ priestlyȱ textsȱ (especiallyȱ Levȱ 18:24Ȭ25),ȱ whateverȱ isȱ impureȱandȱpollutedȱisȱbeyondȱcleansingȱandȱrepentanceȱandȱmustȱbeȱ removed,ȱbutȱifȱanȱIsraeliteȱisȱsomehowȱcontaminated,ȱandȱheȱrepentsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Angeles:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱp.ȱ266.ȱItȱsimplyȱemphasisesȱthatȱtheȱ Yahwisticȱ cultȱ isȱ dependentȱ onȱ theȱ patriarchalȱ system,ȱ forȱ whichȱ itsȱ survivalȱ isȱ threatenedȱ withoutȱ itsȱ maleȱ gender.ȱ Blenkinsoppȱ suspectsȱ thatȱ thisȱ episodeȱ conȬ tributesȱ inȱ someȱ wayȱ toȱ theȱ adoptionȱ ofȱ theȱ matrilinealȱ principleȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ centuryȱCE,ȱwherebyȱanȱoffspringȱofȱaȱgentileȱmotherȱisȱconsideredȱaȱgentile,ȱandȱtheȱ offspringȱofȱaȱJewishȱmotherȱregardlessȱtheȱethnicityȱofȱtheȱfather,ȱisȱaȱJew.ȱTheȱfirstȱ halfȱofȱthisȱprincipleȱisȱwhatȱEzraȱtriesȱtoȱlegislateȱandȱsupposedlyȱtoȱhaveȱfailed.ȱSeeȱ Blenkinsopp,ȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ p.ȱ 177.ȱ Solomonȱ Zeitlinȱ isȱ ofȱ theȱ opinionȱ thatȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ matrilinealȱ principleȱ wasȱ inȱ operationȱ sinceȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Ezra.ȱ Seeȱ S.ȱ Zeitlin,ȱ “Offspringȱ ofȱ Intermarriage”,ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Earlyȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Judaismȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Ktav;ȱ 1974),ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ pp.ȱ 418Ȭ24.ȱ However,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ analysesȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ templeȱ periodȱ literatureȱ andȱ afterȱ byȱ Cohen,ȱ thereȱ isȱ moreȱ evidenceȱ whichȱ provesȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ matrilinealȱ principleȱ wasȱ notȱ inȱ operation.ȱ Seeȱ Cohen,ȱ BeginningsȱofȱJewishness,ȱp.ȱ265.ȱȱ 10ȱ Seeȱ Jacobȱ M.ȱ Myers,ȱ Ezraȱ Nehemiah:ȱ Introduction,ȱ Translationȱ andȱ Notesȱ (AB,ȱ 14;ȱ Gardenȱ City,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ 1965),ȱ p.ȱ 76.ȱ Williamson,ȱ p.ȱ 131.ȱ Blenkinsoppȱ opinesȱ thatȱ theȱ listȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 9:1ȱ isȱ alsoȱ dependentȱ onȱ 1ȱ Esdȱ 8:69ȱ whichȱ seemsȱ toȱ complyȱwithȱit.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱlistȱinȱ1ȱEsdrasȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱ“Ammonites”ȱ andȱ “Amorites”.ȱ Forȱ theȱ firstȱ omission,ȱ Blenkinsoppȱ believesȱ thatȱ 1ȱ Esdrasȱ adoptsȱ Edomitesȱinstead.ȱAsȱforȱtheȱsecond,ȱheȱarguesȱthatȱ“Amorites”ȱisȱusuallyȱleftȱoutȱinȱ theȱstandardȱlist,ȱandȱitȱneverȱoccursȱlowerȱthanȱtheȱthirdȱinȱorder;ȱseeȱBlenkinsopp,ȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱpp.ȱ458Ȭ60.ȱȱ 11ȱ N.ȱLemche,ȱTheȱCanaanitesȱandȱTheirȱLands:ȱTheȱTraditionȱofȱtheȱCanaanitesȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ 110;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱp.ȱ84.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱinȱEzraȱ

49ȱȱ

andȱ makesȱ restitution,ȱ heȱ canȱ beȱ exemptedȱ fromȱ theȱ punishmentȱ ofȱ removalȱ(cf.ȱLevȱ26:40Ȭ42).ȱȱ ȱ Levȱ18:24Ȭ25ȱ 24ȱDoȱnotȱdefileȱyourselvesȱinȱanyȱofȱtheseȱways,ȱforȱbyȱallȱtheseȱpracticesȱ theȱnationsȱIȱamȱcastingȱoutȱbeforeȱyouȱhaveȱdefiledȱthemselves.ȱȱ 25ȱThusȱtheȱlandȱbecameȱdefiled;ȱandȱIȱpunishedȱitȱforȱitsȱiniquity,ȱandȱtheȱ landȱvomitedȱoutȱitsȱinhabitants.ȱ ȱ Levȱ26:40Ȭ42ȱ 40ȱ Butȱ ifȱ theyȱ confessȱ theirȱ iniquityȱ andȱ theȱ iniquityȱ ofȱ theirȱ ancestors,ȱ inȱ thatȱ theyȱ committedȱ treacheryȱ againstȱ meȱ and,ȱ moreover,ȱ thatȱ theyȱ conȬ tinuedȱhostileȱtoȱme—ȱ 41ȱsoȱthatȱI,ȱinȱturn,ȱcontinuedȱhostileȱtoȱthemȱandȱbroughtȱthemȱintoȱtheȱ landȱ ofȱ theirȱ enemies;ȱ ifȱ thenȱ theirȱ uncircumcisedȱ heartȱ isȱ humbledȱ andȱ theyȱmakeȱamendsȱforȱtheirȱiniquity,ȱȱ 42ȱthenȱwillȱIȱrememberȱmyȱcovenantȱwithȱJacob;ȱIȱwillȱrememberȱalsoȱmyȱ covenantȱ withȱ Isaacȱ andȱ alsoȱ myȱ covenantȱ withȱ Abraham,ȱ andȱ Iȱ willȱ reȬ memberȱtheȱland.ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whatȱ underliesȱ theȱ divorceȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ andȱ theȱ banishmentȱofȱtheirȱchildren,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱidentifiedȱtoȱbeȱimpureȱ andȱ inherentlyȱ abominableȱ toȱ Yahweh,ȱ theyȱ areȱ certainlyȱ beyondȱ repentance,ȱandȱtheyȱareȱonlyȱcapableȱofȱimbuingȱcontaminationȱtoȱtheȱ “trueȱ Israelites”.12ȱ Thatȱ isȱ whyȱ inȱ Ezra’sȱ prayer,ȱ heȱ saysȱ thatȱ ifȱ theyȱ shouldȱcontinueȱtoȱallowȱtheseȱimpuritiesȱtoȱremainȱamongȱthem,ȱandȱ toȱ contaminateȱ theirȱ holinessȱ throughȱ theȱ mixedȱ marriages,ȱ Yahwehȱ willȱindeedȱannihilateȱIsraelȱcompletelyȱ(cf.ȱEzraȱ9:13Ȭ14).13ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 12ȱ DavidȱJanzenȱhasȱrecentlyȱpresentedȱaȱnewȱtheory,ȱbasedȱonȱsocialȬanthropologicalȱ perspectives,ȱ thatȱ theȱ divorceȱ ofȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ isȱ anȱ actȱ ofȱ witchȬhunting.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ analysis,ȱ theȱ socialȱ conditionsȱ whichȱ leadȱ toȱ witchȬhuntingȱ matchȱ thoseȱ facingȱ theȱ earlyȱ postȬexilicȱ community.ȱ Theyȱ includeȱ weakȱ internalȱ integrationȱ andȱ strongȱ externalȱ boundariesȱ causingȱ aȱ needȱ fromȱ withinȱ toȱ identifyȱ foreignersȱ whoȱ areȱ responsibleȱforȱsocialȱambiguities,ȱsoȱthatȱthroughȱriddingȱitselfȱofȱtheseȱforeigners,ȱ theȱgroupȱbecomesȱstrongȱwithinȱandȱmoreȱdistinctȱfromȱotherȱgroupsȱwithout.ȱAsȱ forȱ theȱ situationȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 9Ȭ10,ȱ theȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ areȱ theȱ mostȱ naturalȱ targetsȱ forȱ aȱ witchȬhunt.ȱSeeȱD.ȱJanzen,ȱWitchȬhunts,ȱPurityȱandȱSocialȱBoundaries:ȱTheȱExpulsionȱofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womenȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 9Ȭ10ȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 350;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 2002).ȱThroughoutȱhisȱtheory,ȱheȱemphasisesȱthatȱtheȱtextsȱinȱEzraȱdoȱnotȱblameȱtheȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ,ȱ butȱ theȱ blameȱ restsȱ onȱ thoseȱ whoȱ allowȱ themȱ toȱ remainȱ amongȱ them.ȱ However,ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ itȱ isȱ extremelyȱ difficultȱ forȱ anyoneȱ toȱ drawȱ aȱ lineȱ ofȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ“blaming”ȱandȱ“condemning”.ȱTheȱlanguageȱusedȱofȱtheȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱisȱ overtlyȱ “condemning”.ȱ Itȱ justȱ recallsȱ oneȱ ofȱ Williamȱ Shakespeare’sȱ sayings,ȱ “ConȬ demnȱtheȱfaultȱandȱnotȱtheȱactorȱofȱit?”ȱ(MeasureȱforȱMeasureȱActȱii,ȱsceneȱ2).ȱItȱseemsȱ thatȱtheȱtextsȱofȱEzraȱdoȱnotȱonlyȱblameȱthoseȱwhoȱallowedȱtheȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱtoȱremain,ȱ butȱalsoȱpinpointedȱtheȱfaultȱonȱtheȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ.ȱ 13ȱ Williamson,ȱtherefore,ȱbelievesȱthatȱtheȱcontextȱisȱaboutȱreligiousȱpractice,ȱhenceȱitȱisȱ religiousȱpurityȱatȱstakeȱandȱhasȱnothingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱ“race”;ȱseeȱWilliamson,ȱp.ȱ132.ȱȱ

ȱ 50ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

Thereȱ areȱ manyȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ suspectȱ thatȱ culticȱ purityȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ onlyȱ motiveȱ forȱ theȱ removalȱ ofȱ theȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ andȱ theirȱ children.14ȱ Theȱpromiseȱofȱlandȱinheritanceȱforȱtheȱ“trueȱIsrael”ȱ(9:12),ȱtheȱpenaltyȱ ofȱ confiscationȱ ofȱ “movableȱ property”ȱ (ʹʥʫʸ),ȱ andȱ theȱ threatȱ ofȱ theȱ disqualificationȱ ofȱ golahȱ membershipȱ (10:8)ȱ forȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wouldȱ notȱ attendȱtheȱmeetingȱtoȱdissolveȱtheȱmixedȱmarriages,ȱareȱsufficientȱhintsȱ thatȱ economicȱ gainȱ isȱ involved.ȱ Apparently,ȱ theȱ claimȱ thatȱ theȱ landȱ continuesȱ toȱ belongȱ legitimatelyȱ toȱ theȱ golahȱ hasȱ enduredȱ sinceȱ theȱ exile.ȱ Ezekȱ 13:9ȱ mentionsȱ theȱ ʬʠʸʹʩ ʺʩʡ ʡʺʫȱ “recordȱ ofȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ Israel”,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱremovalȱofȱnamesȱfromȱthisȱbookȱisȱequivalentȱtoȱ notȱhavingȱtheȱrightȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱland.ȱ ȱ Ezekȱ13:9ȱ Myȱhandȱwillȱbeȱagainstȱtheȱprophetsȱwhoȱseeȱfalseȱvisionsȱandȱutterȱlyingȱ divinations;ȱtheyȱshallȱnotȱbeȱinȱtheȱcouncilȱofȱmyȱpeople,ȱnorȱbeȱenrolledȱ inȱtheȱregisterȱofȱtheȱhouseȱofȱIsraelȱ(ʬʠʸʹʩ ʺʩʡ ʡʺʫ),ȱnorȱshallȱtheyȱenterȱtheȱ landȱofȱIsrael;ȱandȱyouȱshallȱknowȱthatȱIȱamȱtheȱLordȱGOD.ȱ

ȱ Soȱ aȱ recordȱ isȱ keptȱ ofȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ exiled,ȱ andȱ itȱ becomesȱ anȱ importantȱ recordȱ forȱ validatingȱ theȱ propertyȬclaimsȱ ofȱ thoseȱ exiled.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ exilicȱ period,ȱ theȱ debateȱ concerningȱ whoȱ constitutedȱtheȱ“trueȱIsrael”ȱisȱonȬgoing.ȱThoseȱwhoȱareȱnotȱexiledȱandȱ claimedȱtheȱlandȱasȱtheirsȱareȱseverelyȱcondemnedȱbyȱtheȱprophetsȱ(cf.ȱ Jerȱ23;ȱEzekȱ11:14Ȭ21).ȱInȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱtheȱmembersȱofȱtheȱgolahȱareȱ alsoȱ verifiedȱ byȱ recordsȱ knownȱ asȱ theȱ ʭʩʹʧʩʺʮʤ ʭʡʺʫȱ “registerȱ ofȱ geȬ nealogies”ȱ (Ezraȱ 2:62;ȱ Nehȱ 7:64)ȱ orȱ ʭʹʧʩʺʤʥ ʭʤʩʺʡʠ ʩʹʠʸ “genealogies”ȱ (Ezraȱ8:1).ȱWhateverȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheseȱrecords,ȱtheyȱapparentlyȱservedȱ toȱidentifyȱseveralȱgroups:ȱ(1)ȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱmembersȱofȱtheȱgolah;ȱ(2)ȱ theȱ legitimateȱ priesthood;ȱ andȱ (3)ȱ theȱ peopleȱ withȱ legitimateȱ rightsȱ toȱ claimȱtheȱland.ȱAsȱitȱisȱthusȱfixed,ȱmembershipȱofȱtheȱgolahȱcommunityȱ isȱnonȬtransferable,ȱmakingȱtheȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱandȱtheirȱchildrenȱillegitimateȱ regardlessȱofȱwhetherȱtheyȱareȱYahwistsȱorȱnot.ȱ Theȱ heavyȱ penaltyȱ issuedȱ forȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wouldȱ notȱ attendȱ theȱ meetingȱ andȱ adhereȱ toȱ theȱ prescriptionȱ isȱ anȱ importantȱ clueȱ thatȱ theȱ golahȱ communityȱ demandsȱ sovereigntyȱ overȱ theȱ peopleȱ andȱ theirȱ possessions.ȱItȱwasȱcustomaryȱinȱtheȱancientȱNEȱthat,ȱifȱaȱdivorceȱwasȱ initiatedȱ byȱ theȱ husbandȱ whenȱ theȱ wifeȱ wasȱ notȱ atȱ fault,ȱ theȱ husbandȱ wouldȱ returnȱ theȱ fullȱ dowry,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ compensation.15ȱ Ifȱ thereȱ wereȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

14ȱ Blenkinsopp,ȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱpp.ȱ173Ȭ201;ȱWashington,ȱ231Ȭ38;ȱTamaraȱEskenaziȱandȱ Eleanoreȱ P.ȱ Judd,ȱ “Marriageȱ toȱ aȱ Strangerȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 9Ȭ10”,ȱ inȱ Eskenaziȱ andȱ Richardsȱ (eds.),ȱSecondȱTempleȱStudiesȱ2ȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ175;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱpp.ȱ266Ȭ85.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 15ȱ Seeȱ Raymondȱ Westbrook,ȱ Propertyȱ andȱ theȱ Familyȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Law,ȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 113;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ JSOTȱ Press,ȱ 1991),ȱ pp.ȱ 142Ȭ55;ȱ andȱ Talȱ Ilan,ȱ Jewishȱ Womenȱ inȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ

ȱ

TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱinȱEzraȱ

51ȱȱ

minorȱchildrenȱinvolved,ȱtheyȱwouldȱremainȱinȱtheȱcareȱofȱtheȱmotherȱ untilȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theirȱ childhood,ȱ whenȱ theyȱ wouldȱ returnȱ toȱ theirȱ father’sȱ house.ȱ Thoseȱ childrenȱ wouldȱ maintainȱ fullȱ rightsȱ toȱ theȱ inȬ heritanceȱ ofȱ theirȱ father.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ noteworthyȱ thatȱ accordingȱ toȱ Babylonianȱ law,ȱ theȱ husbandȱ whoȱ divorcesȱ hisȱ wifeȱ withoutȱ groundsȱ losesȱ theȱ custodyȱ ofȱ hisȱ childrenȱ andȱ isȱ strippedȱ ofȱ hisȱ property.16ȱ Inȱ Ezra,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ divorceȱ isȱ veryȱ different:ȱ theȱ childrenȱ areȱ banishedȱ fromȱ theirȱ fathers,ȱ andȱ theirȱ rightsȱ toȱ paternalȱ inheritanceȱ areȱ officiallyȱ cancelledȱ out.ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ knowȱ preciselyȱwhatȱlawsȱconcerningȱdivorceȱappliedȱgenerallyȱinȱearlyȱpostȬ exilicȱ Israel,ȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ thisȱ legislationȱ isȱ extremeȱ andȱ probablyȱ untypical.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ husbandȱ refusesȱ toȱ divorceȱ hisȱ “foreign”ȱ wife,ȱ moreȬ overȱallȱtheȱmovableȱpropertiesȱbelongingȱtoȱthem,ȱwhichȱmayȱincludeȱ hisȱwife’sȱdowry,ȱbecomeȱconfiscated.ȱOnȱtopȱofȱthat,ȱifȱhisȱrightsȱasȱaȱ golahȱ memberȱ areȱ lost,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ implyȱ thatȱ heȱ loseȱ anyȱ claimȱ toȱ ownershipȱofȱhisȱproperty.ȱTheȱoffenderȱisȱthusȱleftȱtotallyȱbankruptȱifȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ comply.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ ifȱ heȱ complies,ȱ heȱ retainsȱ allȱ rightsȱ toȱ hisȱ properties,ȱ whichȱ probablyȱ giveȱ himȱ theȱ meansȱ toȱ compensateȱhisȱdivorcedȱwifeȱandȱbanishedȱchildren.ȱInȱthisȱway,ȱbothȱ spousesȱ retainȱ someȱ economicȱ gainȱ inȱ theȱ transaction.ȱ Theȱ penaltyȱ issuedȱleavesȱtheȱoffenderȱnoȱbetterȱchoiceȱbutȱtoȱcomply.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ particularȱ attentionȱ paidȱ toȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ priesthoodȱwhoȱcommittedȱthisȱsin,ȱandȱtheirȱsacrificeȱofȱguiltȬofferingsȱ (Ezraȱ 10:18,ȱ 19)ȱ hintsȱ atȱ theȱ anxietyȱ ofȱ theȱ golahȱ communityȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱtheȱcontrolȱofȱtheȱTempleȱremainsȱinȱtheȱhandsȱofȱ“trueȱIsrael”ȱandȱ notȱ“foreigners”.ȱBlenkinsoppȱisȱsurelyȱrightȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱwhatȱEzraȱ recommended,ȱ andȱ triedȱ toȱ enactȱ asȱ lawȱ forȱ theȱ officialȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ endogamousȱ marriagesȱ didȱ notȱ succeed.17ȱ Theȱ abruptȱ endingȱ ofȱ thisȱ episode,ȱ andȱ theȱ continuationȱ ofȱ intermarriagesȱ atȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ NeȬ hemiah,ȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ recallȱ theȱ covenantȱ madeȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 9Ȭ10,ȱ norȱ enforceȱdivorceȱforȱtheȱoffendersȱcaught,ȱindicatesȱthatȱEzra’sȱcampaignȱ hasȱbeenȱhalted.ȱ Summarily,ȱweȱseeȱinȱtheȱbookȱofȱEzra,ȱtheȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱasȱfirstȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ “peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ lands”ȱ whoȱ areȱ theȱ abominableȱ autochthonousȱCanaaniteȱnationsȱandȱmustȱbeȱannihilatedȱaccordingȱtoȱ theȱLaw,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱAmmonites,ȱMoabitesȱandȱEgyptiansȱwhoȱhaveȱ beenȱ forbiddenȱ admissionȱ intoȱ theȱ congregation,ȱ andȱ forȱ whomȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Palestineȱ (Peabody,ȱ Massachussets:ȱ Hendrickson,ȱ 1996),ȱ pp.ȱ 89Ȭ94,ȱ 147,ȱ forȱ theȱ IsȬ raeliteȱcontexts.ȱ 16ȱ Westbrook,ȱOldȱBabylonianȱMarriageȱLawȱ(AfO,ȱ23;ȱHorn,ȱAustria:ȱF.ȱBerger,ȱ1988),ȱp.ȱ 85.ȱ 17ȱ Blenkinsopp,ȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱp.ȱ201.ȱ

ȱ 52ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

intentionȱ isȱ toȱ identifyȱ themȱ asȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ ofȱ theȱ nonȬgolahȱ comȬ munity.ȱThenȱtheyȱareȱcalledȱtheȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ,ȱinȱassociationȱwithȱtheȱtermȱ “peoplesȱofȱtheȱland”,ȱtoȱdenoteȱthoseȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱrecogniseȱandȱknowȱ Yahwehȱ asȱ God.ȱ Sinceȱ theseȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ areȱ theȱ causeȱ ofȱ theȱ contamination,ȱtheyȱandȱtheirȱchildrenȱmustȱbeȱremovedȱfromȱtheȱgolahȱ community.ȱTheirȱremoval,ȱapparently,ȱalsoȱimpliesȱeconomicȱgainȱonȱ theȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ golahȱ communityȱ atȱ large,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ autonomyȱ ofȱ theȱ Templeȱforȱtheȱpriestlyȱclass.ȱ

2.2ȱTheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱinȱNehemiahȱ WeȱwillȱnowȱlookȱatȱtheȱproblemȱofȱintermarriageȱinȱNehemiah.ȱThere,ȱ itȱseemsȱthatȱtheȱproblemȱisȱonlyȱlocalisedȱatȱaȱplaceȱprobablyȱnearȱtoȱ theȱPhilistineȱbordersȱonȱtheȱwestȱcoast.ȱIntermarriageȱisȱnotȱtheȱmajorȱ problem,ȱ butȱ constitutesȱ partȱ ofȱ Nehemiah’sȱ campaignsȱ toȱ purgeȱ everythingȱ “foreign”ȱ fromȱ theȱ peopleȱ andȱ theȱ landȱ (cf.ȱ Nehȱ 13).ȱ NeȬ hemiah’sȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱalsoȱhaveȱminorȱchildrenȱandȱheȱidentifiesȱthemȱasȱ womenȱofȱAshdod,ȱAmmonȱandȱMoab:ȱ ȱ Nehȱ13:23Ȭ30ȱ 23ȱInȱthoseȱdaysȱalsoȱIȱsawȱJewsȱwhoȱhadȱmarriedȱwomenȱofȱAshdod,ȱAmȬ mon,ȱandȱMoab;ȱȱ 24ȱandȱhalfȱofȱtheirȱchildrenȱspokeȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱAshdodȱ( ʸʡʣʮ ʩʶʧ ʭʤʩʰʡʥ ʺʩʣʥʣʹʠ),ȱ andȱ theyȱ couldȱ notȱ speakȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ Judah,ȱ butȱ spokeȱ theȱ languageȱofȱvariousȱpeoples.ȱȱ 25ȱ Andȱ Iȱ contendedȱ withȱ themȱ andȱ cursedȱ themȱ andȱ beatȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ andȱ pulledȱ outȱ theirȱ hair;ȱ andȱ Iȱ madeȱ themȱ takeȱ anȱ oathȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ God,ȱsaying,ȱ“Youȱshallȱnotȱgiveȱyourȱdaughtersȱtoȱtheirȱsons,ȱorȱtakeȱtheirȱ daughtersȱforȱyourȱsonsȱorȱforȱyourselves.ȱȱ 26ȱDidȱnotȱKingȱSolomonȱofȱIsraelȱsinȱonȱaccountȱofȱsuchȱwomen?ȱAmongȱ theȱ manyȱ nationsȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ kingȱ likeȱ him,ȱ andȱ heȱ wasȱ belovedȱ byȱ hisȱ God,ȱandȱGodȱmadeȱhimȱkingȱoverȱallȱIsrael;ȱnevertheless,ȱforeignȱwomenȱ (ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ)ȱmadeȱevenȱhimȱtoȱsin.ȱȱ 27ȱ Shallȱ weȱ thenȱ listenȱ toȱ youȱ andȱ doȱ allȱ thisȱ greatȱ evilȱ andȱ actȱ treaȬ cherouslyȱagainstȱourȱGodȱbyȱmarryingȱforeignȱwomenȱ(ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ)?“ȱȱ 28ȱAndȱoneȱofȱtheȱsonsȱofȱJehoiada,ȱsonȱofȱtheȱhighȱpriestȱEliashib,ȱwasȱtheȱ sonȬinȬlawȱofȱSanballatȱtheȱHoronite;ȱIȱchasedȱhimȱawayȱfromȱme.ȱȱ 29ȱRememberȱthem,ȱOȱmyȱGod,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱhaveȱdefiledȱtheȱpriesthood,ȱ theȱcovenantȱofȱtheȱpriestsȱandȱtheȱLevites.ȱ 30ȱThusȱIȱcleansedȱthemȱfromȱeverythingȱforeign,ȱandȱIȱestablishedȱtheȱduȬ tiesȱofȱtheȱpriestsȱandȱLevites,ȱeachȱinȱhisȱwork;ȱ

ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ Ammonȱ andȱ Moabȱ inȱ thisȱ episodeȱ isȱ probablyȱsecondary,ȱasȱtheȱMTȱlacksȱtheȱconjunctionȱwawȱafterȱAshdod,ȱ andȱ hasȱ beenȱ addedȱ laterȱ toȱ recallȱ Nehȱ 13:1Ȭ3,ȱ whereȱ theȱ peopleȱ areȱ

ȱ

TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱinȱNehemiahȱ

53ȱȱ

remindedȱofȱDeutȱ23:4ȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱwouldȱseparateȱthemselvesȱfromȱtheȱ “foreigners”.ȱ ȱ Nehȱ13:1Ȭ3ȱ 1ȱOnȱthatȱdayȱtheyȱreadȱfromȱtheȱbookȱofȱMosesȱinȱtheȱhearingȱofȱtheȱpeoȬ ple;ȱandȱinȱitȱwasȱfoundȱwrittenȱthatȱnoȱAmmoniteȱorȱMoabiteȱshouldȱeverȱ enterȱtheȱassemblyȱofȱGod,ȱȱ 2ȱbecauseȱtheyȱdidȱnotȱmeetȱtheȱIsraelitesȱwithȱbreadȱandȱwater,ȱbutȱhiredȱ BalaamȱagainstȱthemȱtoȱcurseȱthemȱȬȬȱyetȱourȱGodȱturnedȱtheȱcurseȱintoȱaȱ blessing.ȱȱ 3ȱ Whenȱ theȱ peopleȱ heardȱ theȱ law,ȱ theyȱ separatedȱ fromȱ Israelȱ allȱ thoseȱ ofȱ foreignȱdescentȱ(ʬʠʸʹʩʮ ʡʸʲʚʬʫ).ȱ ȱ Deutȱ23:4ȱ becauseȱtheyȱdidȱnotȱmeetȱyouȱwithȱfoodȱandȱwaterȱonȱyourȱjourneyȱoutȱofȱ Egypt,ȱandȱbecauseȱtheyȱhiredȱagainstȱyouȱBalaamȱsonȱofȱBeor,ȱfromȱPethorȱ ofȱMesopotamia,ȱtoȱcurseȱyou.ȱ

ȱ Nehemiahȱ isȱ outragedȱ byȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ becauseȱ “halfȱ ofȱtheȱchildrenȱspokeȱAshdodite”.18ȱIfȱtheȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱAmmonitesȱ andȱ Moabitesȱ areȱ notȱ secondary,ȱ Ashdoditeȱ isȱ probablyȱ singledȱ outȱ becauseȱ itȱ wasȱ atȱ leastȱ similarȱ toȱ Hebrew.19ȱ Theȱ point,ȱ though,ȱ isȱ notȱ reallyȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ language,ȱ andȱ manyȱ scholarsȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ purposeȱofȱtheȱreferenceȱisȱtoȱemphasiseȱthatȱtheseȱwomenȱareȱactuallyȱ “foreign”,ȱandȱthatȱtheyȱareȱteachingȱtheirȱchildrenȱaȱforeignȱlanguage,ȱ cultureȱandȱwayȱofȱlife.20ȱConsequently,ȱtheȱchildrenȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱableȱ toȱlearnȱtheȱJudeanȱlanguageȱorȱparticipateȱinȱitsȱcult.ȱ Inȱthatȱcase,ȱofȱcourse,ȱtheȱotherȱhalfȱofȱtheȱchildrenȱfromȱtheȱmixedȱ marriagesȱ couldȱ speakȱ Judean,ȱ whichȱ ratherȱ underminesȱ Nehemiah’sȱ point.ȱInȱresponseȱtoȱthisȱproblem,ȱAndréȱLemaire,ȱhasȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱ usualȱ translationȱ ofȱ v.ȱ 24,ȱ ʺʩʣʥʣʹʠ ʸʡʣʮ ʩʶʧ ʭʤʩʰʡʥ,ȱ asȱ “halfȱ theȱ childrenȱ spokeȱ Ashdodite”ȱ isȱ incorrectȱ butȱ proposes,ȱ “theȱ childrenȱ spokeȱ halfȬ Ashdodite”.21ȱ Heȱ believesȱ thatȱ theȱ languageȱ spokenȱ wasȱ “AshdodȬ Judean”ȱinstead.22ȱInȱthatȱcase,ȱtheȱissueȱbecomesȱnotȱthatȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Bibleȱ translationsȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ thoseȱ byȱ commentators:ȱ seeȱ BlenȬ kinsopp,ȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱp.ȱ361;ȱWilliamson,ȱpp.ȱ397Ȭ98;ȱandȱMyers,ȱp.ȱ216.ȱ 19ȱ Williamson,ȱpp.ȱ397Ȭ98ȱandȱMyers,ȱp.ȱ216.ȱ 20ȱ Also,ȱBlenkinsopp,ȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱp.ȱ363.ȱ 21 Andréȱ Lemaire,ȱ “Ashdodienȱ etȱ Judéenȱ àȱ L’èpoqueȱ Perse:ȱ Neȱ 13,24”,ȱ inȱ K.ȱ vanȱ Lerbergheȱandȱ A.ȱSchoorsȱ (eds.),ȱImmigrationȱ andȱEmigrationȱ withinȱtheȱAncientȱ Nearȱ Eastȱ (Festschriftȱ E.ȱ LipiÚski;ȱ OLA,ȱ 65;ȱ Leuven:ȱ Uitgeverijȱ Peetersȱ enȱ Departementȱ Oriëntalistiek,ȱ1995),ȱpp.ȱ153Ȭ63.ȱȱ 22 Indeedȱ asȱ Lemaireȱ pointedȱ out,ȱ ʩʶʧȱ sitsȱ uncomfortablyȱ asȱ aȱ substantiveȱ inȱ thisȱ position,ȱandȱinȱfactȱʭʩʶʧȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱexpected,ȱasȱinȱZechȱ14:8;ȱNehȱ4:10,ȱ15ȱ(orȱ asȱ oneȱ copyȱ ofȱ theȱ manuscriptȱ hasȱ it,ȱ cf.ȱ BHS).ȱ Andȱ ifȱ ʩʶʧȱ mustȱ beȱ substantive,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ haveȱ preceded ʭʤʩʰʡ.ȱ Inȱ contrary,ȱ ifȱ ʩʶʧȱ isȱ takenȱ toȱ beȱ anȱ adverb,ȱ whichȱ isȱ

ȱ 54ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

childrenȱ wereȱ unableȱ toȱ speakȱ theȱ Judeanȱ language,ȱ butȱ thatȱ noneȱ ofȱ themȱcouldȱspeakȱtheȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱwayȱwhichȱNehemiahȱregardedȱ asȱnormative.ȱThoseȱwhoȱhadȱbeenȱexiledȱwere,ȱofȱcourse,ȱtheȱeducatedȱ andȱ affluent,ȱ forȱ theȱ mostȱ part.ȱ Thisȱ groupȱ hadȱ aȱ strongȱ motiveȱ toȱ preserveȱtheirȱlanguage,ȱpossiblyȱinȱaȱsomewhatȱartificialȱway.ȱLemaireȱ arguesȱ that,ȱ byȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ Ironȱ Ageȱ IIȱ periodȱ inȱ Palestineȱ itself,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ difficultȱ toȱ differentiateȱ betweenȱ theȱ spokenȱ PhiȬ listine,ȱ Phoenicianȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ languages,ȱ suchȱ wasȱ theȱ extentȱ ofȱ theȱ economicȱ andȱ culturalȱ assimilationȱ betweenȱ theȱ neighbouringȱ groupsȱ throughoutȱtheirȱhistories.ȱThoseȱwhoȱwereȱnotȱexiledȱprobablyȱspoke,ȱ therefore,ȱaȱcontextualisedȱandȱlocalisedȱformȱofȱHebrewȱdifferentȱfromȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ diaspora,ȱ andȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ halfȬAshdoditeȱ andȱ Judeanȱ isȱ madeȱ toȱ emphasiseȱ theȱ purityȱ ofȱ aȱ languageȱ andȱ traditionȱ fromȱoneȱthatȱisȱ“mixed”.ȱTheȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱmayȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱdistinctiveȱ Ashdodites,ȱ butȱ perhapsȱ membersȱ ofȱ aȱ broaderȱ culturalȱ mixȱ inȱ theȱ Palestinianȱ“hotpot.”ȱ Thisȱ accountȱ inȱ Nehemiahȱ givesȱ usȱ anotherȱ perspectiveȱ onȱ theȱ natureȱofȱtheȱethnicȱoriginȱofȱʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ,ȱdifferentȱfromȱEzra’sȱaccount.ȱ Inȱ theȱ latterȱ text,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ above,ȱ theȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ “peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ lands”,ȱ whoȱ areȱ “pollutedȱ foreigners”,ȱ andȱ inȱ Nehemiah,ȱ theyȱ areȱ moreȱ specifically,ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ couldȱ notȱ speakȱ likeȱ theȱ golahȱ community.ȱ Inȱ theȱ end,ȱ bothȱ Ezraȱ andȱ Nehemiahȱ singȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ tuneȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ determiningȱ theȱ legitimacyȱ ofȱ membership.ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ golahȱ communityȱ versusȱ theȱ nonȬ golahȱ community.ȱ Inȱ Nehemiah,ȱ thisȱ isȱ furtherȱ confirmedȱ whenȱ heȱ considersȱ Sanballatȱ andȱ theȱ othersȱ toȱ beȱ ʸʫʰȱ (13:28),ȱ whoȱ mustȱ beȱ baȬ nishedȱ fromȱ theȱ Templeȱ precinctsȱ andȱ theȱ communityȱ forȱ theyȱ haveȱ somehowȱcontaminatedȱtheȱpriesthoodȱandȱanyȱassociationȱwithȱtheseȱ peopleȱmustȱbeȱcleansedȱ(13:29Ȭ30).ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

singularȱandȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱsingularȱverb ʸʡʣʮ,ȱalthoughȱitsȱpositionȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱa ȱ littleȱawkward,ȱisȱpossible.ȱȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱandȱtheȱDeuteronomicȱProhibitionsȱ

55ȱ

2.3ȱTheȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱandȱtheȱDeuteronomicȱ Prohibitionsȱ Nehemiah’sȱaccountȱalsoȱgivesȱusȱsomeȱinterestingȱlinksȱconcerningȱtheȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ whenȱ heȱ likensȱ themȱ toȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ ofȱ Kingȱ Solomon,ȱ byȱ citingȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 11:1Ȭ4ȱ asȱ anȱ objectȱ lessonȱ forȱ theȱ golahȱ comȬ munity.23ȱInȱfact,ȱasȱweȱwillȱsee,ȱtheȱlistȱinȱ1ȱKgsȱ11,ȱactuallyȱdrawsȱonȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ prohibitions,ȱ likeȱ Ezraȱ 9:1,ȱ andȱ togetherȱ theyȱ formȱ theȱpreȬtextȱforȱEzraȬNehemiah.ȱ ȱ 1ȱKgsȱ11:1Ȭ2ȱ 1ȱ Kingȱ Solomonȱ lovedȱ manyȱ foreignȱ womenȱ (ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ)ȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ daughterȱ ofȱ Pharaoh:ȱ Moabite,ȱ Ammonite,ȱ Edomite,ȱ Sidonian,ȱ andȱ Hittiteȱ women,ȱȱ 2ȱ fromȱ theȱ nationsȱ concerningȱ whichȱ theȱ LORDȱ hadȱ saidȱ toȱ theȱ Israelites,ȱ “Youȱshallȱnotȱenterȱintoȱmarriageȱwithȱthem,ȱneitherȱshallȱtheyȱwithȱyou;ȱ forȱtheyȱwillȱsurelyȱinclineȱyourȱheartȱtoȱfollowȱtheirȱgods“;ȱSolomonȱclungȱ toȱtheseȱinȱlove.ȱ

ȱ Althoughȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 11:2ȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ listȱ isȱ ofȱ thoseȱ peopleȱ fromȱ theȱ nationsȱthatȱYahwehȱhadȱcommandedȱIsraelȱnotȱtoȱintermarry,ȱaȱcloserȱ examinationȱ ofȱ itȱ showsȱ thatȱ besidesȱ theȱ Sidoniansȱ andȱ Hittites,ȱ whoȱ mightȱ beȱ somehowȱ lumpedȱ intoȱ theȱ sameȱ groupȱ ofȱ theȱ Canaaniteȱ nationsȱinȱsomeȱearlierȱlistȱ(cf.ȱGenȱ10:18),ȱthereȱisȱnoȱlawȱagainstȱinterȬ marriageȱ withȱ theȱ “Egyptians,ȱ Moabites,ȱ Ammonitesȱ andȱ theȱ EdoȬ mites”.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ onlyȱ twoȱ textsȱ inȱ theȱ Lawȱ whichȱ banȱ intermarriage,ȱ namelyȱExodȱ34:11Ȭ16ȱandȱDeutȱ7:1Ȭ6,ȱyetȱtheȱlistsȱthereȱareȱspecificallyȱ directedȱonlyȱagainstȱtheȱCanaaniteȱnations:ȱȱ ȱ Exodȱ34:11Ȭ16ȱ 11ȱObserveȱwhatȱIȱcommandȱyouȱtoday.ȱSee,ȱIȱwillȱdriveȱoutȱbeforeȱyouȱtheȱ Amorites,ȱ theȱ Canaanites,ȱ theȱ Hittites,ȱ theȱ Perizzites,ȱ theȱ Hivites,ȱ andȱ theȱ Jebusites.ȱ 12ȱ Takeȱ careȱ notȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ covenantȱ withȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ theȱ landȱ toȱ whichȱyouȱareȱgoing,ȱorȱitȱwillȱbecomeȱaȱsnareȱamongȱyou.ȱȱ 13ȱYouȱshallȱtearȱdownȱtheirȱaltars,ȱbreakȱtheirȱpillars,ȱandȱcutȱdownȱtheirȱ sacredȱpolesȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 23ȱ ItȱcanȱbeȱreasonablyȱassumedȱthatȱDeuteronomyȱandȱtheȱbooksȱofȱKingsȱpredatesȱtheȱ compositionȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiah.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ reasonsȱ isȱ theȱ dependenceȱ onȱ DeuȬ teronomicȱ andȱ Deuteronomisticȱ languageȱ andȱ themesȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiah.ȱ Seeȱ WillȬ iamson,ȱ pp.ȱ xxxix,ȱ 399;ȱ Seeȱ also,ȱ forȱ theȱ datingȱ ofȱ theȱ compositionȱ ofȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Kings,ȱ Johnȱ Gray,ȱ Iȱ &ȱ IIȱ Kings:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press,ȱ 3rdȱ edn,ȱ 1977),ȱ pp.ȱ 6Ȭ9;ȱ Morderchaiȱ Cogan,ȱ ȱ Iȱ Kings:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Translationȱ andȱ Commentaryȱ (AB,ȱ 10;ȱ Gardenȱ City,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ 2001),ȱ pp.ȱ 96Ȭ97.ȱ Forȱ aȱ briefȱ andȱ conciseȱ summaryȱofȱtheȱdebateȱonȱtheȱdateȱofȱcomposition,ȱseeȱStevenȱW.ȱHolloway,ȱ“Kings,ȱ Bookȱofȱ1Ȭ2”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ69Ȭ83ȱ(71Ȭ73).ȱ

ȱ 56ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

14ȱ(forȱyouȱshallȱworshipȱnoȱotherȱgod,ȱbecauseȱtheȱLORD,ȱwhoseȱnameȱisȱ Jealous,ȱisȱaȱjealousȱGod).ȱȱ 15ȱ Youȱ shallȱ notȱ makeȱ aȱ covenantȱ withȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ theȱ land,ȱ forȱ whenȱ theyȱ prostituteȱ themselvesȱ toȱ theirȱ godsȱ andȱ sacrificeȱ toȱ theirȱ gods,ȱ someoneȱamongȱthemȱwillȱinviteȱyou,ȱandȱyouȱwillȱeatȱofȱtheȱsacrifice.ȱȱ 16ȱAndȱyouȱwillȱtakeȱwivesȱfromȱamongȱtheirȱdaughtersȱforȱyourȱsons,ȱandȱ theirȱ daughtersȱ whoȱ prostituteȱ themselvesȱ toȱ theirȱ godsȱ willȱ makeȱ yourȱ sonsȱalsoȱprostituteȱthemselvesȱtoȱtheirȱgods.ȱ ȱ Deutȱ7:1Ȭ6ȱ 1ȱWhenȱtheȱLORDȱyourȱGodȱbringsȱyouȱintoȱtheȱlandȱthatȱyouȱareȱaboutȱtoȱ enterȱ andȱ occupy,ȱ andȱ heȱ clearsȱ awayȱ manyȱ nationsȱ beforeȱ youȬȬȱ theȱ HitȬ tites,ȱ theȱ Girgashites,ȱ theȱ Amorites,ȱ theȱ Canaanites,ȱ theȱ Perizzites,ȱ theȱ Hivites,ȱandȱtheȱJebusites,ȱsevenȱnationsȱmightierȱandȱmoreȱnumerousȱthanȱ you—ȱ 2ȱ andȱ whenȱ theȱ LORDȱ yourȱ Godȱ givesȱ themȱ overȱ toȱ youȱ andȱ youȱ defeatȱ them,ȱ thenȱ youȱ mustȱ utterlyȱ destroyȱ them.ȱ Makeȱ noȱ covenantȱ withȱ themȱ andȱshowȱthemȱnoȱmercy.ȱȱ 3ȱDoȱnotȱintermarryȱwithȱthem,ȱgivingȱyourȱdaughtersȱtoȱtheirȱsonsȱorȱtaȬ kingȱtheirȱdaughtersȱforȱyourȱsons,ȱȱ 4ȱforȱthatȱwouldȱturnȱawayȱyourȱchildrenȱfromȱfollowingȱme,ȱtoȱserveȱotherȱ gods.ȱThenȱtheȱangerȱofȱtheȱLORDȱwouldȱbeȱkindledȱagainstȱyou,ȱandȱheȱ wouldȱdestroyȱyouȱquickly.ȱȱ 5ȱButȱthisȱisȱhowȱyouȱmustȱdealȱwithȱthem:ȱbreakȱdownȱtheirȱaltars,ȱsmashȱ theirȱpillars,ȱhewȱdownȱtheirȱsacredȱpoles,ȱandȱburnȱtheirȱidolsȱwithȱfire.ȱȱ 6ȱForȱ youȱareȱ aȱpeopleȱholyȱ toȱtheȱLORDȱyourȱGod;ȱtheȱLORDȱyourȱGodȱ hasȱ chosenȱ youȱ outȱ ofȱ allȱ theȱ peoplesȱ onȱ earthȱ toȱ beȱ hisȱ people,ȱ hisȱ treaȬ suredȱpossession.ȱ

ȱ Ofȱtheȱotherȱfourȱnationsȱwhichȱdominateȱtheȱlistȱinȱ1ȱKgsȱ11,ȱthreeȱareȱ alsoȱ foundȱ inȱ Ezra’sȱ list;24ȱ theȱ additionalȱ twoȱ inȱ Nehemiah’sȱ listȱ ofȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ areȱ fromȱ anotherȱ Deuteronomicȱ text,ȱ whichȱ prohibitsȱ admissionȱtoȱtheȱcongregation,ȱthatȱis,ȱDeutȱ23:3Ȭ9:ȱ ȱ Deutȱ23:3Ȭ9ȱ 3ȱNoȱAmmoniteȱorȱMoabiteȱshallȱbeȱadmittedȱtoȱtheȱassemblyȱofȱtheȱLORD.ȱ Evenȱ toȱ theȱ tenthȱ generation,ȱ noneȱ ofȱ theirȱdescendantsȱshallȱ beȱ admittedȱ toȱtheȱassemblyȱofȱtheȱLORD,ȱ 4ȱbecauseȱtheyȱdidȱnotȱmeetȱyouȱwithȱfoodȱandȱwaterȱonȱyourȱjourneyȱoutȱ ofȱ Egypt,ȱ andȱ becauseȱ theyȱ hiredȱ againstȱ youȱ Balaamȱ sonȱ ofȱ Beor,ȱ fromȱ PethorȱofȱMesopotamia,ȱtoȱcurseȱyou.ȱȱ 5ȱ (Yetȱ theȱ LORDȱ yourȱ Godȱ refusedȱ toȱ heedȱ Balaam;ȱ theȱ LORDȱ yourȱ Godȱ turnedȱtheȱcurseȱintoȱaȱblessingȱforȱyou,ȱbecauseȱtheȱLORDȱyourȱGodȱlovedȱ you.)ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 24ȱ InȱtheȱlistȱofȱnationsȱinȱEzraȱ9:1,ȱEgypt,ȱMoab,ȱAmmonȱisȱinȱtheȱreverseȱorderȱtoȱtheȱ listȱinȱ1ȱKgsȱ11:1.ȱCf.ȱTableȱ2.1,ȱcolumnsȱ1ȱandȱ2.ȱ

ȱ

57ȱȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱandȱtheȱDeuteronomicȱProhibitionsȱ

6ȱYouȱshallȱneverȱpromoteȱtheirȱwelfareȱorȱtheirȱprosperityȱasȱlongȱasȱyouȱ live.ȱȱ 7ȱYouȱshallȱnotȱabhorȱanyȱofȱtheȱEdomites,ȱforȱtheyȱareȱyourȱkin.ȱYouȱshallȱ notȱabhorȱanyȱofȱtheȱEgyptians,ȱbecauseȱyouȱwereȱanȱalienȱresidingȱinȱtheirȱ land.ȱȱ 8ȱ Theȱ childrenȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ generationȱ thatȱ areȱ bornȱ toȱ themȱ mayȱ beȱ adȬ mittedȱtoȱtheȱassemblyȱofȱtheȱLORD.ȱȱ 9ȱ Whenȱ youȱ areȱ encampedȱ againstȱ yourȱ enemiesȱ youȱ shallȱ guardȱ againstȱ anyȱimpropriety.ȱ ȱ 1ȱKgsȱ11:1ȱ ňDaughterȱȱȱȱ Ňofȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ŇPharaohȱȱȱ Ň(Egyptian)ȱȱ Ň1ȱ ŇMoabiteȱ2ȱ ŇAmmonȬȱ Ŋiteȱ3ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ŊEdomiteȱ4ȱȱȱȱ Sidonianȱ5ȱ ȱ Hittiteȱ6ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Ezraȱ9:1ȱ Exodȱ34:11ȱ ȱ ňEgyptiansȱ Ň7ȱȱȱȱ Ňȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ňȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ň ŇMoabitesȱ6ȱ ŇAmmonȬ Ŋitesȱ5ȱ ȱ ȱ Canaanitesȱ1ȱ ŕHittitesȱ2ȱ ŒPerrizitesȱ3ȱ Œȱ Œ śJebusitesȱ4ȱ Amoritesȱ8ȱ ȱ

Deutȱ7:1ȱ

Nehȱ13:1ȱ

Deutȱ23:4Ȭ9ȱ ňEgyptiansȱ Ň4 Ň Ň Ňȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Canaanitesȱ 2ȱ ŕHittitesȱ3ȱ ŒPerrizitesȱȱ Œ4ȱ ŒHivitesȱ5ȱ ŒJebusitesȱȱ ś6ȱ Amoritesȱ1ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Canaanitesȱ 4ȱ ŕHittitesȱ1ȱ ŒPerrizitesȱ Œ5ȱ ŒHivitesȱ6ȱ ŒJebusitesȱȱ ś7ȱ Amoritesȱ3ȱ Girgashitesȱ 2ȱ

Moabitesȱ2ȱ AmmonȬ itesȱ1ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ŇMoabiteȱ2ȱȱȱȱȱ ŇAmmoniteȱ Ň1ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ŊEdomitesȱ3ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

Tableȱ2.1ȱAȱComparisonȱofȱListsȱonȱtheȱNations25ȱ

Theȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱlistsȱareȱusedȱinȱtheseȱtextsȱareȱveryȱtellingȱ(cf.ȱtheȱ analysisȱ whichȱ indicatesȱ someȱ interȬrelationshipȱ betweenȱ eachȱ listȱ inȱ theȱ aboveȱ table).ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ place,ȱ theȱotherȱ listsȱ whereȱ theȱ Canaaniteȱ nationsȱ occurȱ inȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ (forȱ example,ȱ Exodȱ 23:23Ȭ24;ȱ Deutȱ 11:30Ȭ12:3;ȱ20:16Ȭ18),ȱoccurȱinȱcontextsȱwhereȱIsraelȱisȱinstructedȱtoȱanȬ nihilateȱtheseȱpeoplesȱandȱdestroyȱtheirȱcultsȱcompletely.ȱAccordingȱtoȱ Shayeȱ Cohen,ȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theseȱ commandsȱ hasȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ geoȬ graphicalȱproximity,ȱandȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱwrittenȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 25ȱ Theȱnumbersȱindicateȱtheȱsequenceȱofȱtheȱnationsȱasȱappearedȱinȱtheȱparticularȱtext.ȱ

ȱ 58ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

theȱsettledȱpeopleȱinȱtheȱlandȱofȱIsrael.26ȱTheȱCanaaniteȱnationsȱnamedȱ areȱassumedȱtoȱbeȱthoseȱoriginalȱinhabitantsȱofȱtheȱland,ȱwhomȱIsraelȱisȱ toȱ conquerȱ andȱ claimȱ asȱ theirȱ inheritanceȱ fromȱ Yahweh.ȱ Moreȱ imȬ portantly,ȱ however,ȱ theyȱ posedȱ aȱ threatȱ toȱ theȱ religiousȱ identityȱ ofȱ IsȬ rael,ȱ whichȱ explainsȱ theȱ commandȱ toȱ notȱ onlyȱ destroyȱ allȱ theirȱ cults,ȱ butȱ toȱ annihilateȱ theirȱ peoples.ȱ Asȱ forȱ theȱ Moabitesȱ andȱ Ammonites,ȱ theyȱ areȱ aȱ littleȱ furtherȱ distantȱ fromȱ theȱ landȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ andȱ theȱ threatȱ theyȱ posedȱ throughȱ religiousȱ influenceȱ andȱ mixedȱ marriagesȱ isȱ notȱ asȱ high;ȱnonetheless,ȱhistoryȱhasȱdeemedȱthemȱtoȱharbourȱevilȱintentionsȱ againstȱIsrael,ȱandȱtherefore,ȱwhileȱitȱisȱnotȱnecessaryȱtoȱprohibitȱmixedȱ marriagesȱ withȱ theseȱ peopleȱ specifically,ȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ comesȱ inȱ theȱ formȱofȱadmissionȱtoȱtheȱcongregationȱinȱDeutȱ23:4Ȭ7.ȱLikewise,ȱforȱtheȱ EgyptiansȱandȱEdomites,ȱofȱwhomȱreservationsȱareȱmadeȱforȱtheȱfourthȱ generationȱ(cf.ȱvv.ȱ8Ȭ9).27ȱ However,ȱ theȱ Deuteronomisticȱ Historian28ȱ (DtrHȱ hereafter)ȱ interȬ pretsȱtheȱDeuteronomicȱprohibitionsȱdifferently.ȱHeȱconsidersȱallȱtheseȱ prohibitionsȱ toȱ beȱ equivalentȱ toȱ Yahweh’sȱ commandȱ againstȱ interȬ marriageȱtoȱ“foreignȱwives”,ȱinȱparticular.ȱItȱseemsȱveryȱpossibleȱthatȱaȱ furtherȱ prohibitionȱ againstȱ intermarriage,ȱ foundȱ inȱ Exodȱ 34:11Ȭ16,ȱ isȱ anotherȱ sourceȱ forȱ theȱ wayȱ heȱ reȬinterpretsȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ proȬ hibitions.29ȱ Thisȱ prohibitionȱ drawsȱ attentionȱ inȱ particularȱ toȱ theȱ daughtersȱ ofȱ “foreigners”.30ȱ Forȱ theȱ DtrHȱ ofȱ Kings,ȱ theseȱ traditionsȱ provideȱ moreȱ thanȱsufficientȱproofȱthatȱ“foreigners”ȱinȱgeneralȱareȱdangerousȱandȱinȱ particular,ȱthatȱ“foreignȱwomen”ȱwhoȱseekȱmarriageȱrelationshipsȱwithȱ IsraelȱhaveȱtheȱpotentialȱtoȱseduceȱandȱcorruptȱIsraelȱintoȱapostasy.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 26ȱ Cohen,ȱBeginningsȱofȱJewishness,ȱp.ȱ243.ȱ 27ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ possibleȱ thatȱ theȱ listsȱ areȱ linkedȱ toȱ traditionalȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ theȱ reȬ lationshipsȱbetweenȱIsraelȱandȱcertainȱnations,ȱasȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱGenesisȱaccountsȱofȱ familyȱrelationships.ȱ 28ȱ “Deuteronomisticȱ Historian”ȱ inȱ thisȱ thesisȱ isȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ convenientȱ terminologyȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ authorsȱ ofȱ theȱ booksȱ Joshua,ȱ Judges,ȱ 1Ȭ2ȱ Samuelȱ andȱ 1Ȭ2ȱ Kings.ȱ Thisȱ labellingȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ convenience;ȱ Iȱ amȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ complexitiesȱ relatedȱ toȱ thisȱ term.ȱ Seeȱ Stevenȱ L.ȱ McKenzie,ȱ “Deuteronomisticȱ History”,ȱ ABDȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱpp.ȱ160Ȭ68.ȱ 29ȱ Martinȱ Nothȱ believesȱ thatȱ thisȱ textȱ isȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ andȱ Deuteronomisticȱ writings;ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ Noth,ȱ Numbers:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (trans.ȱ Jamesȱ D.ȱ Martin;ȱOTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1968),ȱpp.ȱ261Ȭ62.ȱȱ 30ȱ Theȱ warningȱ againstȱ participatingȱ inȱ sacrificesȱ toȱ foreignȱ godsȱ asȱ aȱ pretextȱ forȱ inȬ termarriageȱ alludesȱ toȱ theȱ Baalȱ Peorȱ incidentȱ inȱ Numȱ 25,ȱ whereȱ theȱ Moabiteȱ andȱ Midianiteȱ womenȱ wereȱ blamedȱ forȱ theȱ apostasyȱ whichȱ resultedȱ inȱ aȱ catastrophicȱ slayingȱ ofȱ Israelitesȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ offence,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ annihilationȱ ofȱ theȱ Midianitesȱ(cf.ȱNumȱ31).ȱSeeȱNoth,ȱp.ȱ196;ȱMilgrom,ȱNumbers,ȱp.ȱ477;ȱBaruchȱLevine,ȱ Numbers:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ4A;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱ NewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1993),ȱpp.ȱ279Ȭ303.ȱ

ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱandȱtheȱDeuteronomicȱProhibitionsȱ

59ȱȱ

ItȱisȱfromȱthisȱDeuteronomisticȱideaȱthatȱEzraȱandȱNehemiahȱdrawȱ theirȱpolicies.ȱTogether,ȱwhenȱtheseȱauthorsȱclaimȱthatȱwhatȱtheyȱsayȱisȱ “accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Law”,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ linkedȱ intermarriagesȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ timeȱ withȱ theȱ situationȱ perceivedȱ toȱ haveȱ existedȱ atȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ conquest.ȱForȱtheȱbookȱofȱDeuteronomy,ȱallȱforeignersȱareȱtoȱbeȱviewedȱ withȱ suspicion,ȱ asȱ theyȱ poseȱ aȱ threatȱ toȱ theȱ religionȱ ofȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ provokeȱtheȱsinsȱwhichȱIsraelȱwillȱlaterȱbeȱpunishedȱbyȱexileȱ(cf.ȱDeutȱ 8:19Ȭ20;ȱ12:29Ȭ13:18;ȱ16:21Ȭ17:7;ȱ18:9Ȭ13;ȱ28:36Ȭ37,ȱ64Ȭ68).ȱEzraȬNehemiahȱ pickȱupȱthisȱmotifȱinȱaȱdifferentȱway,ȱsinceȱbyȱtheirȱtime,ȱtheȱCanaaniteȱ nations,ȱ(likeȱtheȱAmmonitesȱandȱtheȱMoabites)ȱnoȱlongerȱexistedȱinȱtheȱ land.31ȱ Theseȱ referencesȱ are,ȱ therefore,ȱ evocativeȱ butȱ anachronistic.ȱ Inȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ aȱ “new”ȱ Israelȱ isȱ apparentlyȱ beingȱ definedȱ overȱ andȱ againstȱ theȱ “peopleȱ ofȱ theȱ land”,ȱ whoȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ “forȬ eigners”ȱofȱDeuteronomyȱandȱ1ȱKgsȱ11.ȱThisȱconfusesȱtheȱissueȱofȱethȬ nicityȱ andȱ “foreignness”;ȱ althoughȱ theȱ people,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ areȱ closelyȱ reȬ lated,ȱtheyȱareȱbeingȱclassifiedȱasȱ“foreign”ȱbecauseȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱbelongȱ toȱtheȱgroupȱdefinedȱasȱ“Israelite”ȱbyȱtheȱgolahȱcommunity.ȱ

2.4ȱTheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives“ȱinȱMalachiȱ Theȱ issueȱ ofȱ mixedȱ marriagesȱ isȱ alsoȱ addressedȱ inȱ anotherȱ postȬexilicȱ writingȱ–ȱtheȱbookȱofȱMalachi,ȱalthoughȱaȱsuperficialȱreadingȱofȱtheȱtextȱ doesȱ notȱ seemȱ toȱ elucidateȱ theȱ issuesȱinvolvedȱ inȱ theȱ passage,ȱ orȱ howȱ theyȱareȱrelated,ȱifȱatȱallȱtoȱEzraȬNehemiah.ȱ ȱ Malȱ2:10Ȭ16ȱ 10ȱHaveȱweȱnotȱallȱoneȱfather?ȱHasȱnotȱoneȱGodȱcreatedȱus?ȱȱ Whyȱthenȱareȱweȱfaithlessȱtoȱoneȱanother,ȱȱ profaningȱtheȱcovenantȱofȱourȱancestors?ȱȱ 11ȱJudahȱhasȱbeenȱfaithless,ȱȱ andȱabominationȱhasȱbeenȱcommittedȱinȱIsraelȱandȱinȱJerusalem;ȱȱ forȱJudahȱhasȱprofanedȱtheȱsanctuaryȱofȱtheȱLORD,ȱȱ whichȱheȱloves,ȱandȱhasȱmarriedȱtheȱdaughterȱofȱaȱforeignȱgodȱ(ʸʫʰ ʬʠʚʺʡ).ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱ Lemcheȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ listȱ ofȱ Canaaniteȱ nationsȱ wasȱ noȱ longerȱ inȱ existenceȱ beforeȱ Israelȱevenȱcameȱonȱtheȱscene.ȱTheseȱnationsȱareȱtherefore,ȱanȱimaginaryȱ“opponent”ȱ madeȱupȱtoȱbeȱblamedȱforȱtheȱsinsȱofȱIsrael.ȱLemche,ȱTheȱCanaanitesȱandȱTheirȱLands,ȱ pp.ȱ154Ȭ55;ȱ164Ȭ69.ȱ

ȱ 60ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

12ȱMayȱtheȱLORDȱcutȱoffȱfromȱtheȱtentsȱofȱJacobȱanyoneȱwhoȱdoesȱthis—ȱ anyȱtoȱwitnessȱorȱanswer,ȱorȱtoȱbringȱanȱofferingȱtoȱtheȱLORDȱofȱhosts.ȱȱ 13ȱAndȱthisȱyouȱdoȱasȱwell:ȱYouȱcoverȱtheȱLORD’sȱaltarȱwithȱtears,ȱȱ withȱweepingȱandȱgroaningȱȱ becauseȱheȱnoȱlongerȱregardsȱtheȱofferingȱorȱacceptsȱitȱȱ withȱfavorȱatȱyourȱhand.ȱȱ 14ȱYouȱask,ȱ”Whyȱdoesȱheȱnot?”ȱȱ BecauseȱtheȱLORDȱwasȱaȱwitnessȱbetweenȱyouȱandȱtheȱwifeȱofȱyourȱyouth,ȱ toȱwhomȱyouȱhaveȱbeenȱfaithless,ȱȱ thoughȱsheȱisȱyourȱcompanionȱandȱyourȱwifeȱbyȱcovenant.ȱȱ 15ȱDidȱnotȱoneȱGodȱmakeȱher?ȱBothȱfleshȱandȱspiritȱareȱhis.ȱȱ AndȱwhatȱdoesȱtheȱoneȱGodȱdesire?ȱGodlyȱoffspring.ȱȱ Soȱlookȱtoȱyourselves,ȱandȱdoȱnotȱletȱanyoneȱbeȱfaithlessȱtoȱtheȱwifeȱofȱhisȱ youth.ȱȱ 16ȱForȱIȱhateȱdivorce,ȱsaysȱtheȱLORD,ȱtheȱGodȱofȱIsrael,ȱȱ andȱcoveringȱone’sȱgarmentȱwithȱviolence,ȱsaysȱtheȱLORDȱofȱhosts.ȱȱ Soȱtakeȱheedȱtoȱyourselvesȱandȱdoȱnotȱbeȱfaithless.ȱ

ȱ Theȱ situationȱ envisagedȱ inȱ Malachiȱ byȱ commentatorsȱ isȱ oneȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱpeopleȱofȱJudahȱhaveȱdivorcedȱtheirȱoriginalȱspousesȱ(“theȱwifeȱofȱ yourȱ youth”)ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ reȬmarry,ȱ perhapsȱ forȱ economicȱ advantage,ȱ womenȱresidentȱinȱtheȱland.32ȱOnȱthatȱreading,ȱtheȱpassageȱwouldȱseemȱ toȱ tieȱ inȱ withȱ theȱ accountȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ andȱ perhaps,ȱ asȱ theȱ commentatorsȱhaveȱassumed,ȱofferȱatȱleastȱaȱpartialȱexplanationȱforȱtheȱ existenceȱ ofȱ mixedȱ marriagesȱ onȱ aȱ largeȱ scale.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ oneȱ majorȱ obȬ stacleȱtoȱsuchȱaȱreading,ȱhowever,ȱasȱitȱwasȱnotȱnecessaryȱforȱaȱJewishȱ manȱofȱtheȱtime,ȱsoȱfarȱasȱweȱareȱaware,ȱtoȱdivorceȱhisȱfirstȱwifeȱinȱorderȱ toȱ marryȱ another.33ȱ Takingȱ theȱ leadȱ fromȱ ʥʹʲʺ ʺʩʰʹ ʺʠʦʥȱ inȱ v.ȱ 13,ȱ andȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱ Forȱ commentators,ȱ seeȱ Myers,ȱ pp.ȱ 77,ȱ 84Ȭ85;ȱ Bethȱ GlazierȬMcDonald,ȱ Malachi:ȱ Theȱ Divineȱ Messengerȱ (Atlanta:ȱ Scholarsȱ Press,ȱ 1987),ȱ pp.ȱ 81Ȭ120;ȱ andȱ Andrewȱ Hill,ȱ MaȬ lachi:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Translationȱ withȱ Introductionȱ andȱ Commentaryȱ (AB,ȱ 25D;ȱ Gardenȱ City,ȱ NewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1998),ȱpp.ȱ241Ȭ43.ȱOtherȱscholarsȱwhoȱmakeȱthisȱassumptionȱ forȱ theirȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ are,ȱ toȱ nameȱ aȱ few:ȱ Washington,ȱ p.ȱ 241;ȱ Blenkinsopp,ȱ “Theȱ SocialȬContextȱ ofȱ theȱ SoȬcalledȱ OutsiderȬWomanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ IȬ IX”,ȱp.ȱ471;ȱandȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱpp.ȱ175Ȭ79.ȱCamp,ȱWisdomȱandȱtheȱFeminineȱinȱtheȱBookȱ ofȱProverbs,ȱpp.ȱ235Ȭ37;ȱWilliamson,ȱp.ȱ160.ȱAlso,ȱIȱconcurȱwithȱmostȱscholarsȱthatȱtheȱ bookȱ isȱ composedȱ sometimeȱ betweenȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ theȱ templeȱ andȱ theȱ midȬ fifthȱcenturyȱBCE.ȱSeeȱHill,ȱpp.ȱ51Ȭ84;ȱandȱGlazierȬMcDonald,ȱpp.ȱ14Ȭ18.ȱ 33ȱ Anotherȱ obstacle,ȱ whereȱ historicalȱ evidenceȱ isȱ lacking,ȱ isȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ theȱ returnedȱcommunityȱisȱeconomicallyȱdisadvantagedȱcomparedȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱinȱ theȱland.ȱIfȱtheȱreturnedȱcommunityȱarriveȱonȱtheȱlandȱwithȱtheȱPersianȱauthoritiesȱ whoȱhadȱsuccessfullyȱconqueredȱtheȱBabylonians,ȱoneȱwouldȱnaturallyȱassumeȱthatȱ theȱreturnedȱcommunityȱhadȱtheȱupperȱhandȱtoȱdispossessȱtheȱsubdued,ȱratherȱthanȱ

ȱ

TheȱProblemȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱMalachiȱ

61ȱȱ

grantingȱ thatȱ theȱ prophecyȱ inȱ Malachiȱ isȱ directedȱ toȱ theȱ priestsȱ inȱ general,ȱ thereȱ areȱ twoȱ accusationsȱ ofȱ theȱ priests’ȱ misdeedsȱ addressedȱ hereȱ ratherȱ thanȱ oneȱ andȱ theȱ sameȱ issue.ȱ Bothȱ issuesȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ marriage,ȱ andȱ areȱ introducedȱ inȱ 2:10ȱ asȱ misdeeds,ȱ describedȱ byȱ theȱ termȱ ʣʢʡ,ȱ commonlyȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ depictingȱ separationȱ ofȱ relaȬ tionships,ȱusuallyȱinȱmarriageȱ(forȱexample,ȱExodȱ21:8),ȱandȱwhenȱusedȱ betweenȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ Israel,ȱ denotingȱ apostasyȱ (forȱ example,ȱ Jerȱ 3:20;ȱ 34ȱ Hosȱ5:7;ȱ6:7). ȱ Jerȱ3:20ȱ Instead,ȱasȱaȱfaithlessȱwifeȱ(ʤʹʠ ʤʣʢʡ)ȱleavesȱherȱhusband,ȱsoȱyouȱhaveȱbeenȱ faithlessȱ(ʭʺʣʢʡ)ȱtoȱme,ȱOȱhouseȱofȱIsrael,ȱsaysȱtheȱLORD.ȱ ȱ Hosȱ5:7ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ dealtȱ faithlesslyȱ (ʥʣʢʡ)ȱ withȱ theȱ LORD;ȱ forȱ theyȱ haveȱ borneȱ illegitimateȱ children.ȱ Nowȱ theȱ newȱ moonȱ shallȱ devourȱ themȱ alongȱ withȱ theirȱfields.ȱ ȱ Hosȱ6:7ȱ Butȱ atȱ Adamȱ theyȱ transgressedȱ theȱ covenant;ȱ thereȱ theyȱ dealtȱ faithlesslyȱ (ʥʣʢʡ)ȱwithȱme.ȱ

Malachiȱ alsoȱ classifiesȱ theȱ twoȱ misdeedsȱ asȱ aȱ profanementȱ ofȱ theȱ “coȬ venantȱofȱourȱforefathers”.ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ accusationȱ inȱ 2:11Ȭ12,ȱ Malachiȱ chidesȱ theȱ priestsȱ forȱ allowingȱ Judahȱ toȱ commitȱ theȱ abominableȱ sinȱ ofȱ intermarriage,ȱ proȬ faningȱtheȱsanctuaryȱofȱYahweh.ȱTheȱtermȱʸʫʰ ʬʠʚʺʡȱisȱuniqueȱinȱtheȱOT.ȱ Bethȱ GlazierȬMcDonaldȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱ expressesȱ theȱ conȬ sequencesȱ ofȱ intermarriage.35ȱ Thus,ȱ whenȱ Judahȱ marriesȱ aȱ “foreignȱ woman”,ȱ heȱ isȱ alsoȱ joinedȱ toȱ theȱ foreignȱ deityȱ andȱ cult,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ underminesȱ Yahweh’sȱ sovereignshipȱ overȱ Israel.ȱ However,ȱ GlazierȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ toȱbeȱsubmittedȱ toȱpoverty,ȱasȱ mostȱscholarsȱseemȱtoȱ haveȱassumed.ȱ Also,ȱitȱ seemsȱ difficultȱtoȱassumeȱthatȱthereȱareȱmanyȱrichȱwomenȱofȱtheȱlandȱtoȱmarryȱandȱtoȱbringȱ alongȱ withȱ themȱ dowriesȱ includingȱ landȱ andȱ properties.ȱ Forȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ debatesȱ concerningȱtheȱsocialȱsituationȱofȱtheȱperiod,ȱseeȱPhilipȱR.ȱDaviesȱ(ed.),ȱSecondȱTempleȱ Studies,ȱvol.ȱI:ȱTheȱPersianȱPeriodȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ117;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ 1991).ȱ 34ȱ Seeȱ BDB,ȱ p.ȱ 93;ȱ HansȬJurgenȱ Zobel,ȱ “ʣʢʡ”,ȱ TDOTȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ pp.ȱ 471Ȭ73ȱ (471);ȱ GlazierȬ McDonald,ȱpp.ȱ84Ȭ86.ȱGrahamȱOgden,ȱ“TheȱUseȱofȱFigurativeȱLanguageȱinȱMalachiȱ 2:10Ȭ16”,ȱBTȱ39ȱ(1988),ȱpp.ȱ223Ȭ30.ȱ 35ȱ GlazierȬMcDonald,ȱ pp.ȱ 91Ȭ93.ȱ Sheȱ alsoȱ arguesȱ againstȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ “godȬ dess”,ȱforȱwhichȱsomeȱscholarsȱhaveȱcontended,ȱaȱspecialȱmeaningȱmustȱhaveȱbeenȱ intended,ȱ becauseȱ Malachiȱ couldȱ haveȱ simplyȱ usedȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ ifȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ wereȱmeant.ȱSeeȱDavidȱL.ȱPetersen,ȱZechariahȱ9Ȭ14ȱandȱMalachi:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL;ȱ Louisville,ȱKentucky:ȱWestminsterȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ194,ȱ198Ȭ200.ȱHeȱemendsȱʡʤʠ ʸʹʠȱtoȱ readȱʡʤʠ ʤʸʹʠȱ“HeȱlovesȱAsherah”,ȱarguingȱforȱtheȱlossȱofȱʤȱthroughȱhaplography.ȱCf.ȱ C.C.ȱTorrey,ȱ“TheȱProphecyȱofȱ’Malachi’“,ȱJBLȱ17ȱ(1898),ȱ1Ȭ17ȱ(4).ȱȱ

ȱ 62ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

McDonaldȱ doesȱ notȱ explainȱ whyȱ ʸʫʰ ʬʠʚʺʡȱ isȱ preferredȱ toȱ theȱ simȬ pler ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ moreȱ plausibleȱ toȱ assumeȱ thatȱ Malachiȱplacesȱ theȱ emphasisȱ onȱ aȱ “foreignȱ deity”ȱ becauseȱ theȱ termȱ givesȱ aȱ moreȱ forcefulȱpolemicȱspecificallyȱagainstȱforeignȱworship,ȱratherȱthanȱjustȱaȱ “foreign”ȱoriginȱorȱlineage.ȱMalachiȱisȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱ legitimacyȱofȱaȱlineageȱtoȱclaimȱanyȱinheritance,ȱbutȱwithȱobservingȱtheȱ lawsȱ ofȱ theȱ covenantȱ andȱ performingȱ theȱ properȱ worshipȱ dueȱ toȱ Yahweh.ȱTheȱsinȱofȱintermarriageȱisȱaȱbreachȱofȱtheȱcovenantȱbyȱIsrael;ȱ sheȱisȱworshippingȱforeignȱdeitiesȱinsteadȱofȱYahwehȱalone.ȱTherefore,ȱ Malachiȱ cursesȱ notȱ onlyȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ committedȱ theȱ offence,ȱ butȱ alsoȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱsupportedȱtheȱmarriages.ȱ Inȱtheȱsecondȱaccusationȱinȱ2:13Ȭ16,ȱMalachiȱisȱoutragedȱbyȱtheȱdiȬ vorcesȱ ofȱ wivesȱ byȱ theȱ priests,ȱandȱ heȱalsoȱ explainsȱ whyȱ Yahwehȱ willȱ notȱacceptȱtheȱpriests’ȱservicesȱwithȱfavour.36ȱInȱv.ȱ14,ȱMalachiȱexpressesȱ marriageȱasȱaȱformȱofȱcovenantȱ–ȱʪʺʩʸʡ ʺʹʠ.ȱThisȱtermȱgivesȱriseȱtoȱaȱbigȱ debateȱamongȱscholarsȱbecauseȱmarriageȱinȱtheȱactualȱpracticeȱofȱIsraelȱ isȱ notȱ regardedȱ asȱ aȱ “covenant”.37ȱ However,ȱ Malachiȱ isȱ speakingȱ inȱ propheticȱlanguage,ȱwhereȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱYahwehȱandȱIsraelȱ isȱdepictedȱinȱtermsȱofȱmarriage,ȱandȱwhenȱIsraelȱhasȱbeenȱunfaithful,ȱ sheȱisȱdepictedȱasȱtheȱadulteressȱorȱtheȱwhoringȱwifeȱ(cf.ȱHosea,ȱJerȱ2Ȭ3;ȱ Ezekȱ 16;ȱ 22).ȱ Althoughȱ Malachiȱ isȱ dealingȱ withȱ theȱ actualȱ occasionȱ ofȱ divorcesȱ amongȱ theȱ priests,ȱ heȱ employsȱ theȱ metaphoricalȱ languageȱ ofȱ marriageȱ byȱ equatingȱ itȱ withȱ aȱ covenantalȱ relationshipȱ likeȱ thatȱ ofȱ Israel’sȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Yahwehȱ soȱ accentuatingȱ theȱ gravityȱ ofȱ theȱ offenceȱtheȱpriestsȱhaveȱcommitted.ȱTheȱpriestsȱhaveȱnotȱconsideredȱtheȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ theirȱ actionsȱ inȱ preservingȱ theȱ purityȱ ofȱ theȱ priestlyȱ lineȱ norȱ probably,ȱ issuesȱ ofȱ patrilineality,ȱ orȱ theȱ affectȱ onȱ societyȱ atȱ large.ȱ Malachiȱ perceivesȱ theȱ problemȱ atȱ theȱ macroȱ level,ȱ andȱ heȱ adȬ monishesȱtheȱpriestsȱtoȱliveȱupȱtoȱtheirȱpriestlyȱdutiesȱwhichȱhaveȱbeenȱ establishedȱbyȱaȱcovenantȱ(2:4Ȭ5).ȱHeȱthenȱgoesȱon,ȱapparently,ȱtoȱdrawȱ onȱ theȱ termsȱ forȱ marriageȱ andȱ procreationȱ inȱ Genȱ 2,ȱ toȱ explainȱ howȱ Yahwehȱ desiresȱ themȱ toȱ produceȱ godlyȱ offspringȱ (v.ȱ 15).38ȱ Therefore,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱ Theȱ Lawȱ stipulatesȱ thatȱ theȱ priestsȱ areȱ prohibitedȱ fromȱ marryingȱ womenȱ whoȱ hadȱ beenȱ divorcedȱ (Levȱ 21:7),ȱ andȱ theȱ frequentȱ divorcesȱ amongȱ theȱ priests,ȱ probablyȱ resultedȱinȱsomeȱrepercussionȱtoȱtheȱsocialȱlifeȱofȱtheȱcommunity.ȱ 37ȱ Seeȱ Gordonȱ Paulȱ Hugenberger,ȱ Marriage,ȱ asȱ Covenant:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Lawȱ andȱ Ethicsȱ Governingȱ Marriageȱ Developed,ȱ fromȱ theȱ Persepectiveȱ ofȱ Malachiȱ (VTSup,ȱ 52;ȱ Leiden:ȱ E.J.ȱ Brill,ȱ 1994).ȱ Althoughȱ Hugenbergerȱ acknowledgesȱ theȱ fact,ȱ heȱ arguesȱ thatȱbecauseȱmarriageȱisȱconsideredȱinȱtheȱOTȱasȱaȱformȱofȱcovenantȱinȱthisȱtextȱandȱ inȱProvȱ2:17,ȱitȱmustȱthereforeȱbeȱregardedȱasȱsuchȱbyȱtheȱchurch.ȱȱ 38ȱ Takingȱ theȱ emendationȱ ʸˌʍˇȱ to ʸʠʒ ˇ ʍ ,ȱ andȱ understandingȱ theȱ wordsȱ suchȱ as ʣʧʠ,ȱ ʤʹʲȱ andȱ ʧʥʸȱ asȱ alludingȱ toȱ creationȱ andȱ procreationȱ inȱ Genȱ 2,ȱ asȱ suggestedȱ byȱ W.ȱ RuȬ dolph,ȱ“ZuȱMalachiȱ2:10Ȭ16”,ȱZAWȱ93ȱ(1981),ȱpp.ȱ85Ȭ90.ȱȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱConclusionȱ

63ȱȱ

theȱ priestsȱ mustȱ learnȱ toȱ hateȱ divorce,ȱ forȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ seriousȱ crimeȱ againstȱ themselvesȱifȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱ(v.ȱ16).39ȱ WhatȱweȱhaveȱseenȱinȱMalȱ2:10Ȭ16ȱisȱthereforeȱessentiallyȱtwoȱissuesȱ whichȱareȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱmarriage.ȱTheȱfirstȱissue,ȱMalȱ2:11Ȭ12,ȱ inȱ particular,ȱ concernsȱ theȱ subjectȱ weȱ areȱ dealingȱ atȱ hand.ȱ Whileȱ weȱ haveȱ mentionedȱ earlierȱ thatȱ theȱ associationȱ withȱ foreignȱ deityȱ isȱ emȬ phasisedȱ inȱ theȱ termȱ ʸʫʰ ʬʠʚʺʡ,ȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ noteworthyȱ thatȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱofȱEzraȬNehemiahȱareȱassociatedȱindirectlyȱwithȱnonȬYahwisticȱ cults.ȱ Theȱ referencesȱ toȱ theirȱ abominationsȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 9:1,ȱ andȱ theirȱ polȬ lutantsȱ inȱ 9:11ȱ areȱ allȱ termsȱ associatedȱ withȱ foreignȱ worshipȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱtextsȱmentionedȱearlier.ȱAlso,ȱtheȱcitationȱofȱ1ȱKgsȱ11:1Ȭ4ȱ byȱ Nehemiahȱ inȱ Nehȱ 13:26,ȱ bearȱ theȱ sameȱ contextsȱ wherebyȱ theȱ “forȬ eignȱwives”ȱareȱassociatedȱwithȱforeignȱcults.ȱHowever,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱ forȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ theseȱ associationsȱ areȱ notȱ prominent,ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ theirȱ linkȱ toȱ theȱ autochthonousȱ peoples,ȱ andȱ theȱ “foreigners”ȱ whoȱ areȱ prohibitedȱfromȱhavingȱanyȱrelationshipȱwithȱIsraelȱisȱemphasised.ȱ

2.5ȱChapterȱConclusionȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ howȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ isȱ keenȱ toȱ presentȱ theȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱasȱethnicallyȱforeign,ȱregardlessȱofȱtheȱactualȱracialȱ originȱofȱtheseȱwomen.ȱAndȱtheyȱdoȱsoȱbyȱemployingȱaȱnewȱdefinitionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ ethneȱ –ȱ theȱ golahȱ community,ȱ whileȱ theȱ nonȬgolahȱ comȬ munityȱ mightȱ haveȱ originallyȱ beenȱ Judahitesȱ themselves.ȱ Ezraȱ (ȬNeȬ hemiah)ȱ andȱ Malachiȱ deliberatelyȱ evokeȱ familiarȱ OTȱ languageȱ inȱ conȬ nectionȱwithȱtheȱissue.ȱTheȱwivesȱinȱEzraȱareȱidentifiedȱwithȱtheȱwomenȱ ofȱ theȱ landȱ inȱ Deuteronomy,ȱ perhapsȱ playingȱ onȱ aȱ confusionȱ ofȱ “peoȬ plesȱ ofȱ theȱ land”ȱ withȱ “peopleȱ ofȱ theȱ land”ȱ toȱ overrideȱ anyȱ sympathyȱ forȱthemȱasȱJudahitesȱorȱYahwists.ȱInȱMalachi,ȱtheȱlanguageȱisȱnotȱthatȱ ofȱDeuteronomy,ȱsoȱmuchȱasȱthatȱofȱpropheticȱliterature.ȱItȱisȱtheȱthemeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 39ȱ Takingȱʠʰʹȱasȱanȱimperative,ȱthereforeȱfollowingȱtheȱSeptuagint.ȱSeeȱtheȱdiscussionȱ onȱthisȱverseȱinȱRalphȱL.ȱSmith,ȱMicahȬMalachiȱ(WBC,ȱ32;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ 1984),ȱpp.ȱ323Ȭ24.ȱInȱ theȱoccurrencesȱwhereȱ ʣʢʡȱisȱ followedȱbyȱ theȱ prepositionȱ ʡȱ(cf.ȱ Exodȱ 21:8;ȱ Judgȱ 9:23;ȱ Isaȱ 33:1;ȱ Jerȱ 3:20;ȱ 5:11;ȱ 12:6;ȱ Lamȱ 1:2;ȱ Hosȱ 5:7;ȱ 6.7;ȱ Malȱ 2:10),ȱ whatȱ followsȱ afterȱ ʡȱ isȱ usuallyȱ theȱ oneȱ uponȱ whichȱ faithlessnessȱ isȱ acted.ȱ NoneȬ theless,ȱ ifȱ ʡȱ canȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ instrumental,ȱ asȱ inȱ “with”ȱ forȱ Malȱ 2:14,ȱ thenȱ perhapsȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ passageȱ asȱ dealingȱ withȱ theȱ chargeȱ solelyȱ againstȱintermarriageȱwithȱthe ʸʫʰ ʬʠʚʺʡ,ȱwhoȱisȱalsoȱtheȱ“wifeȱofȱyourȱyouth”,ȱ“yourȱ companion”ȱandȱ“wifeȱofȱyourȱcovenant”.ȱInȱwhichȱcase,ȱʠʰʹȱandȱʤʱʫȱinȱv.ȱ16ȱwouldȱ beȱ takenȱ asȱ participles,ȱ asȱ arguedȱ byȱ Hillȱ (pp.ȱ 249Ȭ51),ȱ andȱ bothȱ verbsȱ wouldȱ beȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ offender,ȱ becauseȱ heȱ refusesȱ toȱ divorceȱ hisȱ wife,ȱ whichȱ Malachiȱ admonishesȱhimȱtoȱdo.ȱȱ

ȱ 64ȱ

“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱEarlyȱPostȬExilicȱTextsȱ

ofȱinfidelityȱinȱHoseaȱandȱJeremiahȱwhichȱisȱtiedȱtoȱtheȱissue.ȱAgain,ȱtheȱ actualȱ ethnicityȱ ofȱ theȱ foreignȱ womenȱ isȱ ratherȱ passedȱ over,ȱ byȱ usingȱ theȱ expression,ȱ “daughterȱ ofȱ aȱ foreignȱ god”,ȱ whichȱ impliesȱ theirȱ nonȬ membershipȱ ofȱ theȱ Yahwisticȱ community,ȱ butȱ doesȱ notȱ specifyȱ theirȱ actualȱorigin.ȱ Theȱ materialsȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ andȱ Malachiȱ indicateȱ theȱ imȬ portanceȱofȱtheȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱissue,ȱandȱillustrateȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱofȱ identifyingȱjustȱwhatȱ“foreignness”ȱmightȱmeanȱinȱtheȱearlyȱpostȬexilicȱ periodȱ –ȱ butȱ theyȱ allȱ indicateȱ thatȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ goȱ furtherȱ back,ȱ intoȱ previousȱ literatureȱ ifȱ weȱ areȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ resonanceȱ ofȱ theȱ “forȬ eignȱ woman”.ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ Deuteronomisticȱ materialȱ whichȱ isȱ principallyȱ evoked,ȱandȱsoȱthatȱisȱwhatȱmustȱbeȱlookedȱatȱinȱtheȱnextȱchapter.ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱThree:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱinȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ DeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱȱ ȱ Theȱ issueȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ andȱ inȱ Malachiȱ raisesȱ manyȱ interestingȱ historicalȱ questionsȱ aboutȱ howȱ ethnicityȱ andȱ forȬ eignnessȱ wereȱ beingȱ defined,ȱ orȱ reȬdefined,ȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ postȬexilicȱ community.ȱ Forȱ ourȱ purposes,ȱ though,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ significantȱ featuresȱofȱtheȱaccountsȱisȱtheirȱrelianceȱforȱjustificationȱuponȱallusionsȱ toȱearlierȱbiblicalȱmaterial.ȱInȱparticular,ȱweȱmayȱnoteȱtheȱreferencesȱinȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ bothȱ toȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ prohibitionsȱ againstȱ marȬ ryingȱ intoȱ theȱ “peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ land”,ȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ DtrH’sȱ accountȱ ofȱ Solomon’sȱ “foreignȱ wives”.ȱ Althoughȱ itȱ manipulatesȱ theȱ prohibitionsȱ forȱ itsȱ ownȱ purposes,ȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ literatureȱ seemsȱ toȱ adopt,ȱ notȱ create,ȱ anȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ dangerousȱ foreignȱ woman,ȱ whoȱ leadsȱ Israelitesȱ intoȱ apostasy.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ weȱ shallȱ firstȱ lookȱ intoȱ theȱ highlightȱ ofȱ theȱDtrHȱdepictionȱofȱ“foreignȱwives”,ȱJezebel,ȱandȱthenȱtraceȱhowȱtheȱ featuresȱ highlightedȱ inȱ herȱ precipitateȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ depictionsȱ ofȱ “forȬ eignȱwives”ȱthroughoutȱtheȱbooksȱofȱKings.ȱ

3.1ȱQueenȱJezebel,ȱtheȱArchetypalȱ“ForeignȱWife”ȱ Theȱ OTȱ includesȱ someȱ generalȱ accountsȱ ofȱ foreignȱ womenȱ whoȱ atȬ tempt,ȱ successfullyȱ orȱ unsuccessfully,ȱ toȱ seduceȱ Israeliteȱ heroes,ȱ mostȱ notablyȱPotiphar’sȱwifeȱandȱDelilah.ȱItȱisȱinteresting,ȱwithȱaȱviewȱtoȱourȱ laterȱ examinationȱ ofȱ Proverbs,ȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ theirȱ seductionsȱ wereȱ accomplishedȱ principallyȱ throughȱ speech.ȱ However,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ moreȱ specificȱmotifȱwhichȱrunsȱthroughȱtheȱbooksȱofȱKings,ȱinȱwhichȱforeignȱ womenȬwivesȱorȱmothersȱareȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱapostasyȱofȱparticularȱ monarchs,ȱandȱhenceȱwithȱtheȱapostasyȱofȱtheȱnation,ȱwhichȱleadsȱtoȱitsȱ destruction.ȱFirstȱandȱforemost,ȱamongȱtheȱforeignȱwivesȱinȱtheȱbooksȱ ofȱ Kings,ȱ noneȱ hasȱ receivedȱ asȱ muchȱ attentionȱ asȱ Jezebel.ȱ Indeed,ȱ herȱ nameȱhasȱenteredȱtheȱlanguage:ȱTheȱOxfordȱEnglishȱDictionaryȱdefinesȱ Jezebelȱ asȱ “aȱ wickedȱ schemingȱ woman;ȱ (formerlyȱ often)ȱ aȱ shamelessȱ paintedȱ woman”.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ itsȱ synonymȱ isȱ listedȱ asȱ “looseȱ woman”ȱ andȱ “libertine”;ȱ andȱ inȱ manyȱ thesauruses,ȱ wordsȱ associatedȱ

66ȱ

TheȱMotifȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱ

withȱpromiscuityȱpredominate.1ȱSomeȱmodernȱscholarsȱhaveȱbeenȱmoreȱ sympathetic,ȱsuggestingȱthatȱ“whenȱsheȱpeeredȱthroughȱherȱlattice,ȱsheȱ wasȱ framed”,2ȱ andȱ thatȱ herȱ poorȱ reputationȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ lastingȱ literaryȱcoupsȱofȱtheȱDtrH.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱMT’sȱinterpretationȱofȱherȱ nameȱ“Jezebel”,ȱasȱʬʓʡʓʦȱ+ȱʩʑʠ,ȱmeaningȱ“noȱexcrement”,3ȱsimplyȱreflectsȱaȱ tendencyȱtoȱdisparageȱforeignȱtheophoricȱnames.4ȱ Surprisingly,ȱ informationȱ aboutȱ Jezebelȱ isȱ limited,ȱ despiteȱ herȱ noȬ toriety.ȱ Inȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 16:31Ȭ33,ȱ sheȱ isȱ introducedȱ asȱ theȱ brideȱ ofȱ Ahab,ȱ aȱ marriageȱ consideredȱ asȱ supersedingȱ theȱ evilȱ committedȱ byȱ Jeroboamȱ sonȱofȱNebat.ȱTheȱlatterȱhadȱbeenȱaccusedȱrepetitivelyȱbyȱtheȱDtrHȱforȱ erectingȱtheȱgoldenȱcalf,ȱinstigatingȱtheȱsinȱofȱidolatryȱinȱtheȱNorthernȱ kingdomȱ(cf.ȱ1ȱKgsȱ12:26Ȭ33;ȱ16:3,ȱ7,ȱ26;ȱ2ȱKgsȱ10:29,ȱ31;ȱ2ȱKgsȱ17:21),ȱbutȱ hereȱ theȱ DtrHȱ comparesȱ theȱ marriageȱ ofȱ Ahabȱ toȱ Jezebelȱ asȱ aȱ sinȱ gravelyȱ greaterȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ Jeroboam’s.ȱ Itȱ isȱ so,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ versesȱ followingȱstateȱthatȱAhabȱworshipsȱBaal,ȱbuildsȱaȱtempleȱforȱhim,ȱandȱ alsoȱerectsȱtheȱAsherahȱ(1ȱKgsȱ16:32).ȱȱ ȱ 1ȱKgsȱ16:31Ȭ33ȱ 31ȱ Andȱ asȱ ifȱ itȱ hadȱ beenȱ aȱ lightȱ thingȱ forȱ himȱ toȱ walkȱ inȱ theȱ sinsȱ ofȱ JeroȬ boamȱsonȱofȱNebat,ȱheȱtookȱasȱhisȱwifeȱJezebelȱdaughterȱofȱKingȱEthbaalȱofȱ theȱSidonians,ȱandȱwentȱandȱservedȱBaal,ȱandȱworshipedȱhim.ȱȱ 32ȱ Heȱ erectedȱ anȱ altarȱ forȱ Baalȱ inȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ Baal,ȱ whichȱ heȱ builtȱ inȱ Samaria.ȱȱ 33ȱAhabȱalsoȱmadeȱaȱsacredȱpole.ȱAhabȱdidȱmoreȱtoȱprovokeȱtheȱangerȱofȱ theȱLORD,ȱtheȱGodȱofȱIsrael,ȱthanȱhadȱallȱtheȱkingsȱofȱIsraelȱwhoȱwereȱbeȬ foreȱhim.ȱ

ȱ ThisȱrecallsȱtheȱintermarriagesȱofȱSolomonȱ–ȱbothȱkingsȱmarriedȱforeignȱ wivesȱwhoȱledȱthemȱtoȱworshipȱforeignȱdeities.5ȱThisȱnegativeȱportrayalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱ

2ȱ

3ȱ

4ȱ

5ȱ

Seeȱforȱexample,ȱ”jezebel”,ȱThesaurus.com.ȱRogetȇsȱNewȱMillennium™ȱThesaurus,ȱFirstȱ Editionȱ (vȱ 1.3.1),ȱ Lexicoȱ Publishingȱ Group,ȱ LLC.ȱ http://thesaurus.reference.com/ȱ browse/jezebelȱ(01/02/08).ȱ TinaȱPippin,ȱ“JezebelȱReȬVamped”,ȱinȱAthalyaȱBrennerȱ(ed.),ȱAȱFeministȱCompanionȱtoȱ Samuelȱ andȱ Kingsȱ (Theȱ Feministȱ Companionȱ toȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ 5;ȱ Sheffied:ȱ Sheffieldȱ AcaȬ demicȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱpp.ȱ196Ȭ206ȱ(204).ȱȱ Herȱname,ȱʬʡʦʩʠ,ȱmightȱoriginallyȱbeenȱderivedȱfromȱȬȱж¾yȱ+ȱzebĀl,ȱmeaningȱ“Whereȱisȱ theȱBaalȱorȱtheȱprince?”ȱ(aȱcryȱforȱtheȱdryȱseasonȱinȱtheȱRasȱShamraȱtexts),ȱorȱfromȱyšȱ +ȱzebĀl,ȱmeaningȱ“Zebulȱexists”.ȱCf.ȱGray,ȱp.ȱ333.ȱForȱtheȱRasȱShamraȱtexts,ȱUHȱ49,ȱIII,ȱ 20Ȭ21ȱ andȱ IV,ȱ 40;ȱ andȱ theȱ Englishȱ translation,ȱ seeȱ Michaelȱ D.ȱ Coogan,ȱ Storiesȱ fromȱ AncientȱCanaanȱ(Philadelphia:ȱWestminsterȱPress,ȱ1978),ȱpp.ȱ75Ȭ115.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ ʺʸʓ ʖ ˢ ʍˇʔʲȱ isȱ aȱ purposefulȱ misvocalisationȱ toȱ alludeȱ toȱ theȱ noun ʺˇ ʓ ˎ ofȱ meaningȱ “shame”ȱ insteadȱ ofȱ itsȱ formȱ зaštart,ȱ Astarte.ȱ Inȱ theȱ otherȱ ancientȱ NEȱ liȬ terature,ȱsheȱisȱtheȱGreekȱAstarteȱandȱAkkadianȱIshtar.ȱSeeȱJohnȱDay,ȱYahwehȱandȱtheȱ Godsȱ andȱ Goddessesȱ ofȱ Canaan,ȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 265;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 2000),ȱpp.ȱ128Ȭ50;ȱandȱN.ȱWyatt,ȱ“Astarteȱʺʸʺʹʲ“,ȱDDD,ȱpp.ȱ109Ȭ14.ȱ JohnȱJ.ȱBurns,ȱ“Solomon’sȱEgyptianȱHorsesȱandȱExoticȱWives“,ȱForumȱ7ȱ(1991),ȱ29Ȭ44.ȱ Inȱ theȱ latterȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ intertextualȱ studyȱ ofȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 10:23Ȭ11:43,ȱ ȱ Burnsȱ arguesȱ thatȱ

ȱ

QueenȱJezebel,ȱtheȱArchetypalȱ“ForeignȱWife“ȱ

67ȱ

inȱ theȱ briefȱ introductionȱ ofȱ Ahab’sȱ marriageȱ toȱ hisȱ foreignȱ princessȱ madeȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱaccountȱofȱAhab’sȱreign,ȱanticipatesȱworseȱ whichȱwasȱtoȱcome.ȱ Inȱ theȱ nextȱ twoȱ placesȱ whereȱ Jezebelȱ isȱ mentionedȱ mostȱ briefly,ȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ18:4,ȱ13,ȱsheȱisȱportrayedȱasȱactivelyȱengagingȱtoȱdestroyȱallȱofȱYahȬ weh’sȱprophets,ȱandȱtheȱmentionȱofȱherȱnameȱbringsȱfearȱtoȱallȱwhoȱareȱ devotedȱ toȱ Yahweh.ȱ Surprisingly,ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ fearȱ herȱ includesȱ Elijah,ȱ whoȱ fledȱ intoȱ theȱ wilderness,ȱ fearingȱ forȱ hisȱ lifeȱ whenȱ heȱ receivedȱ Jezebel’sȱmessageȱthatȱsheȱpromisedȱtoȱkillȱhimȱ(1ȱKgsȱ19:1Ȭ2),ȱdespiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ successfullyȱ convincedȱ theȱ peopleȱ thatȱ Yahwehȱ isȱ theirȱ God,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ spontaneouslyȱ respondedȱ inȱ supportȱ ofȱ himȱ byȱ killingȱ allȱ ofȱ Jezebel’sȱ prophetsȱ (cf.ȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 18:20Ȭ40).6ȱ Perhaps,ȱ hereȱisȱaȱforetasteȱofȱsomeȱexaggerationȱbyȱtheȱDtrH.ȱ TheȱstoryȱofȱJezebelȱisȱundoubtedlyȱshapedȱbyȱideologicalȱconcerns,ȱ butȱisȱnotȱcompletelyȱfictional.ȱJezebelȱisȱaȱrealȱperson,ȱaȱprincessȱfromȱaȱ powerfulȱcityȬstate,ȱandȱsomeȱbitsȱringȱtrueȱ–ȱforȱexample,ȱthereȱwasȱaȱ templeȱ forȱ Baalȱ inȱ Samaria,7ȱ andȱ therefore,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ implausibleȱ thatȱ JezebelȱhadȱfourȱhundredȱandȱfiftyȱprophetsȱofȱBaalȱfeastingȱatȱherȱtableȱ dailyȱ(1ȱKgsȱ18:19);8ȱthereȱwasȱalsoȱanȱaltarȱonȱCarmel,ȱandȱthereȱmayȱ beȱechoesȱofȱotherȱlegendsȱlikeȱtheȱMenanderȱstoryȱonȱhowȱEthbaal,ȱaȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

6ȱ

7ȱ

8ȱ

bothȱ Jezebelȱ andȱ Athaliahȱ areȱ archetypalȱ royalȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ whoȱ ledȱ Israelȱ intoȱ apostasy.ȱThey,ȱasȱpatronsȱofȱtheȱPhoenicianȱBaal,ȱhaveȱsucceededȱinȱtheirȱseductionȱ ofȱIsraelȱevenȱbeyondȱtheirȱtimes.ȱTheirȱachievementȱisȱtheȱmotivationȱforȱtheȱDtrH’sȱ negativeȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ themȱ andȱ associatingȱ allȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ asȱ potentȱ ofȱ deviatingȱ worshipȱ fromȱ Yahweh.ȱ Consequently,ȱ Burnsȱ alsoȱ concludesȱ thatȱ thisȱ motifȱ isȱ theȱ backdropȱtoȱunderstandingȱtheȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱand ʤʩʸʫʰ inȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ Scholarsȱ haveȱ suggestedȱ allȱ sortsȱ ofȱ reasonsȱ toȱ explainȱ whyȱ Elijahȱ isȱ soȱ afraidȱ ofȱ Jezebel,ȱandȱwhyȱJezebelȱcouldȱnotȱgetȱElijahȱkilledȱbutȱonlyȱsendȱhimȱaȱmessageȱofȱ threat.ȱSeeȱB.S.ȱChilds,ȱ“OnȱReadingȱtheȱElijahȱNarratives”,ȱIntȱ34ȱ(1980),ȱpp.ȱ128Ȭ37;ȱ andȱJanetȱH.ȱGaines,ȱMusicȱinȱtheȱOldȱBones:ȱJezebelȱThroughȱtheȱAgesȱ(Carbondaleȱandȱ Edwardsville:ȱSouthernȱIllinoisȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱp.ȱ48.ȱ H.ȱJacobȱKatzenstein,ȱTheȱHistoryȱofȱTyre:ȱFromȱtheȱBeginningȱofȱtheȱSecondȱMilleniumȱ B.C.E.ȱuntilȱtheȱFallȱofȱtheȱNeoȬBabylonianȱEmpireȱinȱ539ȱB.C.E.ȱ(Jerusalem:ȱBenȬGurionȱ UniversityȱofȱtheȱNegevȱPress,ȱ2ndȱrev.ȱedn,ȱ1997),ȱp.ȱ160.ȱHeȱbelievesȱthatȱwithȱtheȱ greatȱwealthȱofȱTyreȱandȱconsideringȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱTyrianȱarchitectureȱandȱcultureȱ onȱSamariaȱatȱthatȱtime,ȱJezebelȱmustȱhaveȱarrivedȱinȱIsraelȱwithȱaȱlargeȱentourage.ȱ Thisȱ wouldȱ notȱ onlyȱ haveȱ consistedȱ ofȱ theȱ prophetsȱ ofȱ Tyrianȱ deities,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ engineers,ȱcraftsmen,ȱartisans,ȱbuilders,ȱroyalȱescortsȱandȱtraders.ȱTheȱpresenceȱofȱaȱ BaalȱtempleȱinȱSamariaȱwasȱthereforeȱnecessaryȱforȱallȱtheseȱforeigners.ȱKatzensteinȱ alsoȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱarrivalȱofȱtheȱrichȱandȱpowerfulȱTyrianȱprincessȱmustȱhaveȱhadȱ aȱ greatȱ impactȱ onȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ affluentȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ peopleȱ generallyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ economicsȱ andȱ religion.ȱ Seeȱ also,ȱ Yigaelȱ Yadin,ȱ “Theȱ ’Houseȱ ofȱ Baal’ȱofȱAhabȱandȱJezebelȱinȱSamaria,ȱandȱthatȱofȱAthaliaȱinȱJudah”,ȱinȱRogerȱMooreyȱ andȱ Peterȱ Parrȱ (eds.),ȱ Archaeologyȱ inȱ theȱ Levant:ȱ Essaysȱ forȱ Kathleenȱ Kenyonȱ (WarȬ minster:ȱArisȱ&ȱPhillips,ȱ1978),ȱpp.ȱ127Ȭ35.ȱ Asȱforȱ“andȱtheȱfourȱhundredȱprophetsȱofȱAsherah“,ȱseeȱCogan,ȱ439ȱandȱespeciallyȱn.ȱ 27.ȱȱ

68ȱ

TheȱMotifȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱ

priest,ȱsuccessfullyȱcalledȱdownȱrainȱfromȱaȱprolongedȱdroughtȱwhichȱ wonȱhimȱhisȱcrownȱ(C.ȱAp.ȱI,ȱ123).9ȱWhereȱweȱreallyȱseeȱtheȱDtrH’sȱideȬ ologyȱatȱworkȱisȱinȱitsȱattributionȱofȱallȱtheȱevilȱtoȱJezebelȱ(1ȱKgsȱ21:25Ȭ 26):ȱȱ 1ȱKgsȱ21:25Ȭ26ȱ 25ȱ(Indeed,ȱthereȱwasȱnoȱoneȱlikeȱAhab,ȱwhoȱsoldȱhimselfȱtoȱdoȱwhatȱwasȱ evilȱinȱtheȱsightȱofȱtheȱLORD,ȱurgedȱonȱbyȱhisȱwifeȱJezebel.ȱȱ 26ȱ Heȱ actedȱ mostȱ abominablyȱ inȱ goingȱ afterȱ idols,ȱ asȱ theȱ Amoritesȱ hadȱ done,ȱwhomȱtheȱLORDȱdroveȱoutȱbeforeȱtheȱIsraelites.)ȱ

ȱ Theȱwordȱusedȱforȱ“seduced”ȱinȱthisȱverseȱisȱtheȱhiphilȱofȱʺʥʱ.ȱItȱmeansȱ “entice,ȱ seduce,ȱ incite”.10ȱ Althoughȱ itsȱ useȱ occursȱ inȱ morallyȱ neutralȱ contextsȱ atȱ times,ȱ andȱ betweenȱ deityȱ andȱ man,ȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ employedȱ betweenȱmen,ȱ“itȱrefersȱtoȱsuspicionsȱorȱchargesȱthatȱsomeoneȱhasȱenȬ ticedȱorȱincitedȱanother”.ȱAlso,ȱitȱisȱusedȱinȱDeutȱ13:6ȱtoȱwarnȱagainstȱaȱ familyȱ orȱ spouseȱ orȱ closeȱ friendȱ whoȱ triesȱ toȱ seduceȱ oneȱ intoȱ worȬ shippingȱ otherȱ gods.ȱ Interestingly,ȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ Jezebelȱ seducingȱ Ahabȱ inȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 21:25ȱ isȱ theȱ concludingȱ wordȱ toȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Naboth’sȱ vineyardȱ(1ȱKgsȱ21),ȱwhereȱJezebelȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱplaysȱaȱmajorȱrole,ȱ withȱ theȱ veryȱ purposeȱ ofȱ showingȱ howȱ evilȱ sheȱ was,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ herȱ associationȱwithȱherȱforeignȱcults,ȱalthoughȱtheȱnextȱverseȱmentionsȱit.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ theȱ DtrHȱ hasȱ anȱ agendaȱ forȱ thisȱ usageȱ –ȱ thatȱ Jezebel’sȱ moralȱ stateȱ isȱ alsoȱ somehowȱ relatedȱ toȱ herȱ associationȱ withȱ herȱ cults.ȱ Similarly,ȱAhab’sȱlureȱintoȱherȱcultȱresultedȱinȱhisȱparticipationȱofȱmoralȱ sinsȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱNaboth’sȱvineyard.ȱ Jezebel,ȱ isȱ therefore,ȱ theȱ mastermindȱ ofȱ allȱ theȱ evilȱ committedȱ byȱ Ahab.ȱ Sheȱ isȱ theȱ archȬenemyȱ ofȱ Yahweh,ȱ whileȱ herȱ husband,ȱ Ahab,ȱ isȱ theȱweakȬwilledȱoneȱwhoȱwasȱcorruptedȱbyȱhisȱpowerful,ȱforeignȱwife.ȱ TheȱstoryȱstartsȱwithȱaȱsulkingȱAhab,ȱwhoȱcouldȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱvineyardȱ ofȱ Nabothȱ thatȱ heȱ covetedȱ forȱ someȱ righteousȱ reasonsȱ givenȱ byȱ theȱ devoutȱ Yahwist, 11ȱ andȱ refusesȱ toȱ eatȱ hisȱ mealȱ (1ȱ Kgsȱ 21:1Ȭ6).ȱ Jezebel,ȱ agitatedȱ byȱ herȱ husband’sȱ withdrawnȱ disposition,ȱ takesȱ mattersȱ intoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 9ȱ Katzenstein,ȱp.ȱ152.ȱȱ 10ȱ “ʺʥʱ”,ȱHALOTȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ749.ȱȱ 11ȱ Seeȱ Alexanderȱ Rofé,ȱ “Theȱ Vineyardȱ ofȱ Naboth:ȱ Theȱ Originȱ andȱ Messageȱ ofȱ theȱ Story”,ȱVTȱ38ȱ(1988),ȱpp.ȱ89Ȭ104.ȱHeȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱstoryȱisȱfictionalȱbecauseȱallȱtheȱ detailsȱ inȱ theȱ storyȱ doȱ notȱ addȱ up.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ withȱ theȱ claimȱ onȱ theȱ landȱ isȱ anȱ especiallyȱ dubiousȱ issue.ȱ Heȱ believesȱ thatȱ theȱ storyȱ isȱ late,ȱ andȱ isȱ composedȱ inȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱperiodȱtoȱsupportȱtheȱcampaignȱagainstȱmarryingȱforeignȱwomen,ȱthereȬ foreȱ contemporaneousȱ toȱ Ezraȱ 9Ȭ10;ȱ Nehȱ 13ȱ andȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Withȱ regardȱ toȱ reȬ solvingȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ Naboth’sȱ claimȱ thatȱ theȱ landȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ sold,ȱ yetȱ wasȱ claimedȱ byȱ Ahabȱ uponȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Naboth,ȱ seeȱ N.ȱ Habel,ȱ Theȱ Landȱ isȱ Mine:ȱ Sixȱ BiblicalȱLandȱIdeologiesȱ(OBT;ȱAugsburg:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱp.ȱ31;ȱGray,ȱpp.ȱ390Ȭ91;ȱ Cogan,ȱpp.ȱ477Ȭ78.ȱȱ

ȱ

QueenȱJezebel,ȱtheȱArchetypalȱ“ForeignȱWife“ȱ

69ȱ

herȱ ownȱ handsȱ byȱ plottingȱ theȱ murderȱ ofȱ Nabothȱ soȱ thatȱ Ahabȱ couldȱ haveȱwhatȱheȱwantedȱ(vv.ȱ7Ȭ10),ȱalthoughȱitȱseemsȱthatȱAhabȱisȱaȱwilȬ lingȱparticipantȱasȱwellȱ(cf.ȱv.ȱ16).ȱWhileȱtheȱstoryȱofȱNabothȱendsȱwithȱ aȱrepentantȱAhab,ȱaȱremorseȱwhichȱcomesȱtooȱlateȱtoȱredeemȱitsȱeffectsȱ onȱhisȱsonsȱ(vv.ȱ27Ȭ29),ȱJezebelȱboreȱtheȱbruntȱofȱtheȱblameȱ(vv.ȱ25;ȱcf.ȱ2ȱ Kgsȱ9:10).ȱ TowardsȱtheȱendȱofȱJezebel’sȱlife,ȱtheȱDtrHȱagainȱremindsȱreadersȱofȱ herȱpersecutionsȱwithinȱtheȱYahwisticȱcult:ȱ ȱ 2ȱKgsȱ9:7ȱ YouȱshallȱstrikeȱdownȱtheȱhouseȱofȱyourȱmasterȱAhab,ȱsoȱthatȱIȱmayȱavengeȱ onȱJezebelȱtheȱbloodȱofȱmyȱservantsȱtheȱprophets,ȱandȱtheȱbloodȱofȱallȱtheȱ servantsȱofȱtheȱLORD.ȱ ȱ 2ȱKgsȱ9:22bȱ “Whatȱpeaceȱcanȱthereȱbe,ȱsoȱlongȱasȱtheȱmanyȱwhoredomsȱandȱsorceriesȱofȱ yourȱmotherȱJezebelȱcontinue?“ȱ

ȱ Theȱ DtrHȱ givesȱ theȱ impressionȱ thatȱ Jezebelȱ continuesȱ toȱ dominateȱ Israelȱ withȱ herȱ persecutionsȱ ofȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Yahwisticȱ cultȱ asȱ theȱ worshipȱofȱherȱforeignȱdeitiesȱcontinuesȱtoȱflourishȱuntilȱtheȱtimeȱofȱherȱ grandchildren.12ȱ Inȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Kings,ȱ fromȱ Jezebel’sȱ enteringȱ Israelȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 12ȱ Inȱ2ȱKgsȱ10:13,ȱJezebelȱisȱcalledȱaȱʤʸʩʡʢ.ȱTheȱwordȱoccursȱfifteenȱtimesȱinȱtheȱOTȱ(Genȱ 16:4,ȱ 8,ȱ 9;ȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 11:19;ȱ 15:13;ȱ 2ȱ Kgsȱ 5:3;ȱ 10:13;ȱ 2ȱ Chrȱ 15:16;ȱ Psȱ 123:2;ȱ Provȱ 30:23;ȱ Isaȱ 24:2;ȱ47:5,ȱ7;ȱJerȱ13:18;ȱ29:2)ȱandȱitsȱequivalentsȱincludeȱ“lady”,ȱ“greatȱlady”ȱorȱ“misȬ tress”;ȱbutȱwhenȱitȱoccursȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱroyalȱhouse,ȱitȱfunctionsȱasȱaȱtitle,ȱthusȱ “queenȱ mother”ȱ hasȱ beenȱ usedȱ byȱ mostȱ Bibleȱ translators.ȱ However,ȱ notȱ allȱ queenȱ mothersȱ areȱ designatedȱ byȱ thisȱ title.ȱ Specifically,ȱ onlyȱ Maacahȱ (1ȱ Kgsȱ 15:13),ȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ Queenȱ Taphenesȱ ofȱ Pharoahȱ (1ȱ Kgsȱ 11:19),ȱ Jezebelȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 10:13,ȱ inȱ theȱ wordsȱofȱtheȱJudeanȱking,ȱAhaziahȱandȱhisȱrelatives),ȱandȱNehushta,ȱinȱtheȱwordsȱofȱ Jeremiahȱ (Jerȱ 13:18).ȱ Thereȱ areȱ manyȱ differingȱ opinionsȱ concerningȱ theȱ ʤʸʩʡʢ.ȱ G.ȱ Molinȱthinksȱthatȱʤʸʩʡʢȱisȱanȱinstitutionȱoriginatingȱfromȱtheȱmatriarchalȱsystem,ȱlikeȱ thoseȱofȱtheȱHittites,ȱinȱ“DieȱStellungȱderȱGebiraȱimȱStaateȱJuda”,ȱTZȱ10ȱ(1954),ȱpp.ȱ 161Ȭ75.ȱG.W.ȱAhlströmȱthinksȱthatȱtheȱʤʸʩʡʢȱmeansȱmoreȱthanȱjustȱtheȱqueenȱmother.ȱ Heȱ believesȱ thatȱ sheȱ hasȱ theȱ authorityȱ equatingȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ kingȱ andȱ basingȱ hisȱ opinionȱonȱ1ȱKgsȱ15:12,ȱheȱfurtherȱarguesȱthatȱsheȱalsoȱhasȱauthorityȱoverȱtheȱculticȱ affairsȱ inȱ theȱ country.ȱ Seeȱ G.W.ȱ Ahlström,ȱ Aspectsȱ ofȱ Syncretismȱ inȱ Israeliteȱ Religionȱ (trans.ȱ E.J.ȱ Sharpe;ȱ Horaeȱ Soedeblomianae,ȱ 5;ȱ Lund:ȱ C.W.K.ȱ Gleerup,ȱ 1963),ȱ pp.ȱ 57Ȭ 88.ȱ Hisȱ latterȱ theoryȱ hasȱ beenȱ muchȱ criticisedȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ basedȱ onlyȱ onȱ oneȱ occurrenceȱ inȱ theȱ OT.ȱ Anotherȱ workȱ byȱ N.A.ȱ Andreasen,ȱ “Theȱ Roleȱ ofȱ theȱ Queenȱ MotherȱinȱIsraeliteȱSociety”,ȱCBQȱ45ȱ(1983),ȱpp.ȱ179Ȭ94,ȱdevelopsȱAhlström’sȱearlierȱ theoryȱ toȱ proposeȱ thatȱ theȱ ʤʸʩʡʢȱ servesȱ asȱ theȱ counsellorȱ toȱ theȱ kingȱ andȱ mediatorȱ betweenȱtheȱkingȱandȱtheȱpeople.ȱAȱdifferentȱperspectiveȱinȱexaminingȱtheȱʤʸʩʡʢȱȱhasȱ beenȱattemptedȱbyȱZafriraȱBenȬBarak,ȱ“TheȱStatusȱandȱRightȱofȱtheȱG¼bîrâ”,ȱJBLȱ110ȱ (1991),ȱpp.ȱ23Ȭ34.ȱOfȱallȱtheȱqueenȱmothersȱmentioned,ȱsheȱidentifiesȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱ beenȱcalledȱʤʸʩʡʢȱandȱthoseȱwhomȱtheȱOTȱhasȱpresentedȱasȱofȱsignificantȱimportance,ȱ forȱexample,ȱBathshebaȱ(1ȱKgsȱ2:13Ȭ25);ȱHamuttal,ȱasȱtheȱmotherȱofȱtwoȱkingsȱ(2ȱKgsȱ 23:31;ȱ24:18)ȱandȱmournedȱbyȱEzekielȱ(Ezekȱ19);ȱNehushtaȱ(2ȱKgsȱ24:8),ȱwhoȱisȱmenȬ tionedȱimmediatelyȱafterȱKingȱJehoiachinȱ(2ȱKgsȱ24:15;ȱcf.ȱJerȱ13:18);ȱandȱAthaliahȱ(2ȱ

70ȱ

TheȱMotifȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱ

untilȱtheȱtimeȱofȱherȱdeparture,ȱtheȱDtrHȱdoesȱnotȱfailȱtoȱblameȱherȱforȱ leadingȱIsraelȱintoȱforeignȱworship,ȱandȱforȱpersecutingȱYahwismȱandȱ succeedingȱ toȱ seduceȱ theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Israelȱ toȱ becomeȱ evilȱ andȱ morallyȱ depraved,ȱ willingȱ toȱ shedȱ innocentȱ blood.ȱ Uponȱ closerȱ scrutiny,ȱ theȱ DtrH,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ blamesȱ Jezebelȱ forȱ theȱ sinsȱ whichȱ Ahabȱ comȬ mitted,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ holdsȱ herȱ culpableȱ forȱ theȱ sinsȱ ofȱ theȱ Northernȱ kingȬ domȱandȱsomeȱofȱtheȱmostȱnotoriousȱJudahiteȱkings,ȱthroughȱherȱhusȬ band,ȱAhab.ȱ ȱ IsraelȱȬȱ2ȱKgsȱ17:8ȱ

JehoramȱȬȱ2ȱKgsȱ 8:18ȱ ʩʫʬʮ ʪʸʣʡ ʪʬʩʥ ʬʠʸʹʩȱ

ʥʫʬʩʥ ʺʥʷʤʡȱ... ʹʩʸʥʤ ʸʹʠ ʭʩʥʢʤ ʤʥʤʩ ʬʠʸʹʩ ʩʰʡ ʤʰʴʮȱ

...ȱinȱtheȱstatutesȱ ȱȱ ofȱtheȱnationsȱ whichȱYHWHȱȱ droveȱoutȱ beforeȱtheȱsonsȱofȱ Israelȱ

ʩʫʬʮ ʪʸʣʡ ʪʬʩʥ ... ʬʠʸʹʩȱ ʺʥʡʲʺʫ ʹʩʸʥʤ ʸʹʠ ʭʩʥʢʤ ʭʺʠ ʤʥʤʩ ‫ ޝ‬ʬʠʸʹʩ ʩʰʡ ʤʰʴʮȱ

ȱ

ʥʹʲ ʸʹʠʫ ... ʡʠʧʠ ʺʩʡ ʬʠʸʹʩ ʩʫʬʮʥ ‫ޝ‬ʥʹʲ ʸʹʠȱ Andȱtheyȱwalkedȱ

AhazȱȬȱ2ȱKgsȱ16:3ȱ

ManassehȱȬȱ2ȱKgsȱ 21:2,ȱ3ȱ ȱ ʺʥʡʲʺʫ ... ȱȱȱȱȱ ʹʩʸʥʤ ʸʹʠ ʭʩʥʢʤ ʤʥʤʩȱȱȱ ‫ ޝ‬ʬʠʸʹʩ ʩʰʡ ʤʰʴʮȱ ʤʹʲ ʸʹʠʫ ... ʡʠʧʠȱ ... ʬʠʸʹʩ ʪʬʮȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Andȱheȱwalkedȱinȱ theȱwayȱofȱtheȱ kingsȱofȱIsraelȱ ȱ

Andȱheȱwalkedȱinȱ theȱwayȱofȱtheȱ kingsȱofȱIsraelȱ…ȱ accordingȱtoȱȱ theȱabominationsȱ ofȱtheȱnationsȱ whichȱYHWHȱ droveȱoutȱȱ beforeȱtheȱsonsȱofȱ Israel.ȱ

ȱ

…ȱaccordingȱtoȱȱ theȱabominationsȱ ofȱtheȱnationsȱ whichȱYHWHȱ droveȱoutȱȱ beforeȱtheȱsonsȱofȱ Israel.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Kgsȱ8:18,ȱ26;ȱ11:1Ȭ16).ȱSheȱobservesȱthatȱtheyȱshareȱaȱcommonȱbackground:ȱtheyȱhaveȱ sonsȱwhoȱareȱnotȱtheȱfirstȬbornȱofȱtheȱkingȱyetȱtheyȱascendedȱtheȱthrone.ȱWithȱBathȬ shebaȱ asȱ theȱ firstȱ example,ȱ theyȱ areȱ responsibleȱ forȱ theirȱ son’sȱ successionȱ andȱ theȱ youngȱ kingsȱ mustȱ haveȱ honouredȱ theirȱ mothersȱ withȱ specialȱ reverence.ȱ Theseȱ sucȬ cessionsȱalsoȱproveȱtheȱcapabilitiesȱofȱtheseȱwomen.ȱAlthoughȱIȱthinkȱBenȬZarakȱhasȱ givenȱ aȱ probableȱ explanationȱ andȱ examinationȱ ofȱ theȱ ʤʸʩʡʢ,ȱ thereȱ mustȱ stillȱ beȱ reȬ servationsȱ aboutȱ herȱ propositionsȱ becauseȱ theȱ OTȱ doesȱ notȱ accreditȱ Bathsheba,ȱ HamuttalȱandȱAthaliahȱasȱtheȱʤʸʩʡʢ.ȱSeeȱalsoȱT.ȱIshida,ȱTheȱRoyalȱDynastiesȱinȱAncientȱ Israelȱ (BZAW,ȱ 142;ȱ Berlin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 1977),ȱ pp.ȱ 155Ȭ61.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ accurateȱ explanationȱisȱgivenȱbyȱNancyȱBowen,ȱ“TheȱQuestȱforȱtheȱHistoricalȱG¼bîrâ”,ȱCBQȱ64ȱ (2001),ȱ pp.ȱ 597Ȭ618.ȱ Sheȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theȱ consistentȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ titleȱ forȱ theȱ queenȱ mothersȱoccursȱonlyȱinȱsituationsȱwhereȱthereȱisȱaȱveryȱyoungȱking.ȱHenceȱtheȱtitleȱ carriesȱwithȱitȱanȱequivalentȱauthorityȱtoȱreign,ȱprobablyȱonȱbehalfȱofȱtheȱminorȱkingȱ untilȱheȱgrowsȱupȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱAsaȱandȱhisȱgrandmother,ȱMaacah.ȱ

ȱ

71ȱ

QueenȱJezebel,ȱtheȱArchetypalȱ“ForeignȱWife“ȱ ȱ ȱ andȱ(inȱtheȱways)ȱ theȱkingsȱofȱIsraelȱ did.ȱ

accordingȱtoȱwhatȱȱ theȱhouseȱofȱAhabȱ didȱ…ȱ

ȱ

…ȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱ deedsȱofȱAhabȱ theȱkingȱofȱIsraelȱ

Tableȱ3.1:ȱTheȱReasonsȱforȱtheȱDownfallȱofȱIsrael,ȱJehoram,ȱAhazȱandȱManassehȱ

Theȱ tableȱ aboveȱ showsȱ thatȱ theȱ DtrHȱ givesȱ theȱ sameȱ reasonsȱ forȱ theȱ downfallȱofȱAhazȱandȱManassehȱasȱthoseȱofȱIsrael,ȱtheȱNorthernȱkingȬ dom.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ reason,ȱ “andȱ heȱ walkedȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ theȱ kingsȱ ofȱ Israel”,ȱisȱfoundȱinȱtheȱjudgementȱofȱAhazȱandȱJehoram,ȱwithȱtheȱlatterȱ specifiedȱ toȱ beȱ “accordingȱ toȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ Ahab”.13ȱ Therefore,ȱ aȱ sugȬ gestionȱ isȱ madeȱ hereȱ thatȱ theȱ sinsȱ ofȱ Ahazȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ thoseȱ ofȱ JeȬ horam,ȱ whoseȱ antecedentȱ isȱ Ahab.ȱ Ahab’sȱ sinsȱ notȱ onlyȱ includeȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Jeroboam,ȱ butȱ areȱ distinctiveȱ toȱ theȱ cultȱ ofȱ Baalȱ andȱ Asherah,ȱ intoȱ whichȱ Jezebelȱ ledȱ himȱ (1ȱ Kgsȱ 16:30Ȭ31).ȱ Interestingly,ȱ theȱ descriptionȱ “accordingȱ toȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ Ahab”ȱ isȱ mergedȱ withȱ “theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Israel”ȱ forȱ Manasseh.ȱ Andȱ indeed,ȱ atȱ severalȱ pointsȱ theȱ DtrHȱ makesȱ similarȱ referenceȱtoȱtheȱsinsȱofȱAhabȱandȱManasseh:ȱ–ȱfirst,ȱbothȱerectedȱaltarsȱ forȱBaalȱandȱAsherahȱ(1ȱKgsȱ16:32Ȭ33;ȱ2ȱKgsȱ21:3);ȱsecondly,ȱtheirȱsinsȱofȱ idolatryȱ areȱ comparedȱ toȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ Amoritesȱ (1ȱ Kgsȱ 21:26;ȱ 2ȱ Kgsȱ 21:11);ȱ thirdly,ȱ justȱ asȱ Ahabȱ shedȱ innocentȱ bloodȱ overȱ theȱ causeȱ ofȱ Naboth’sȱvineyardȱ(1ȱKgsȱ21:19),ȱManassehȱalsoȱisȱaccusedȱofȱsheddingȱ innocentȱ bloodȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 21:16);ȱ fourthly,ȱ Yahweh’sȱ judgementȱ ofȱ MaȬ nassehȱisȱlikenedȱtoȱtheȱjudgementȱofȱtheȱhouseȱofȱAhabȱinȱ2ȱKgsȱ21:10Ȭ 15,ȱespeciallyȱv.ȱ13.14ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱ Hence,ȱitȱcouldȱnotȱhaveȱreferredȱtoȱtheȱsinȱofȱJeroboam,ȱwhichȱisȱcommonlyȱsaidȱofȱ theȱkingsȱofȱIsrael.ȱAlso,ȱanȱalmostȱsimilarȱexpressionȱisȱgivenȱforȱAhaziah,ȱ“andȱheȱ walkedȱinȱtheȱwayȱofȱtheȱhouseȱofȱAhab”ȱinȱ2ȱKgsȱ8:27.ȱ 14ȱ Williamȱ M.ȱ Schniedewind,ȱ “Historyȱ andȱ Interpretation:ȱ Theȱ Religionȱ ofȱ Ahabȱ andȱ ManassehȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱKings”,ȱCBQȱ55ȱ(1993),ȱpp.ȱ649Ȭ61.ȱHeȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱDtrHȱ portraysȱaȱparallelȱmodelȱofȱAhabȱandȱManasseh.ȱ

TheȱMotifȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱ

72ȱ

Asȱforȱtheȱsecondȱreason,ȱ“accordingȱtoȱtheȱabominationsȱofȱtheȱnaȬ tionsȱwhichȱYahwehȱdroveȱoutȱbeforeȱtheȱsonsȱofȱIsrael”ȱoccursȱinȱ1ȱKgsȱ 14:24;ȱ 2ȱ Kgsȱ 16:3ȱ (Ahaz);ȱ 17:8ȱ (Israel);ȱ andȱ 21:2ȱ (Manasseh).ȱ Thisȱ addsȱ Rehoboamȱ toȱ theȱ list,ȱ whoȱ continuesȱ inȱ allȱ theȱ foreignȱ worshipȱ ofȱ Solomon,ȱandȱofficiallyȱsponsorsȱtheȱcultȱofȱAsherahȱ(1ȱKgsȱ14:24).ȱTheȱ DtrHȱalsoȱnotesȱseveralȱsimilaritiesȱbetweenȱtheȱsinsȱofȱManassehȱandȱ thoseȱofȱIsrael,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱbuildingȱofȱhighȱplacesȱ(2ȱKgsȱ17:9;ȱ21:3)ȱandȱ altarsȱ toȱ theȱ worshipȱ ofȱ Baal,ȱ Asherahȱ andȱ theȱ hostȱ ofȱ heavenȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 17:16;ȱ 21:3);ȱ makingȱ theirȱ sonsȱ andȱ daughtersȱ toȱ passȱ throughȱ fireȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 17:17;ȱ 21:6);ȱ andȱ theȱ practisingȱ ofȱ divinationȱ andȱ sorceryȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 17:17;ȱ21:6).ȱLookingȱatȱallȱofȱtheseȱsins,ȱmostȱofȱthemȱoccurȱrandomlyȱ inȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱotherȱkingsȱasȱwell,ȱexceptȱtheȱworshipȱofȱtheȱhostȱofȱ heavenȱandȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱdivinationȱandȱsorcery,ȱwhichȱareȱparticularȱ onlyȱtoȱManassehȱandȱIsrael.15ȱToȱthese,ȱtheȱDtrHȱalsoȱaddsȱthatȱitȱwasȱ IsraelȱwhichȱinfluencedȱJudahȱtowardsȱapostasyȱ(2ȱKgsȱ17:18).ȱ Therefore,ȱ theȱ sinsȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ badȱ Judahiteȱ kings,ȱ Ahazȱ andȱ MaȬ nasseh,ȱareȱdepictedȱforȱtheȱmostȱpartȱinȱtheȱsameȱlanguageȱasȱforȱtheȱ fallȱofȱtheȱNorthernȱkingdom,ȱwhichȱalsoȱpointȱtoȱAhab,ȱasȱinȱJehoram’sȱ account.ȱ Allȱ inȱ all,ȱ Ahabȱ isȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ theȱ badȱ influenceȱ uponȱ theȱ Judeanȱkings.ȱHowever,ȱasȱmentionedȱearlier,ȱ1ȱKgsȱ21:25ȱmakesȱitȱclearȱ thatȱ theȱ realȱ mastermindȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ Jezebel,ȱ hisȱ foreignȱ wife.ȱ Theȱ depictionȱofȱtheȱseductionȱofȱaȱforeignȱwifeȱtoȱherȱIsraeliteȱhusband,ȱtoȱ corruptȱhimȱandȱcauseȱhimȱtoȱapostatiseȱcanȱinȱfactȱbeȱtraced,ȱnotȱonlyȱ inȱJezebel’sȱstory,ȱbutȱalsoȱthroughȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱJudeanȱkings,ȱandȱ weȱshallȱexploreȱtheȱmotifȱinȱtheȱnextȱsection.ȱ

3.2ȱ“ForeignȱWives”ȱandȱtheȱBadȱJudahiteȱKingsȱȱ WeȱhaveȱseenȱhowȱJezebelȱstandsȱasȱtheȱprincipalȱexampleȱofȱtheȱ“forȬ eignȱ wives”ȱ motif,ȱ andȱ thisȱ motifȱ isȱ inȱ fact,ȱ foundȱ onȱ aȱ largerȱ scaleȱ inȱ Kingȱ Solomon’sȱ haremȱ inȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 11:1Ȭ11ȱ (whichȱ hasȱ beenȱ citedȱ byȱ NeȬ hemiah).ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 15ȱ WithȱtheȱsuggestionȱthatȱtheȱcauseȱofȱtheȱfallȱofȱtheȱNorthernȱkingdomȱisȱlinkedȱtoȱ theȱsinsȱofȱManasseh,ȱitȱisȱnotȱsurprisingȱthatȱamongȱallȱtheȱevilȱkingsȱofȱJudah,ȱMaȬ nassehȱ sufferedȱ theȱ mostȱ blameȱ forȱ hisȱ sinsȱ underȱ theȱ penȱ ofȱ theȱ DtrH.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Manasseh’sȱ sinsȱ deserveȱ vituperationȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 21:10Ȭ15;ȱ 23:26Ȭ27;ȱ 24:3Ȭ4),ȱ butȱ theȱ ferȬ ventȱandȱunremittingȱeffortsȱofȱJosiahȱ(2ȱKgsȱ23:1Ȭ25)ȱtoȱeliminateȱeverythingȱwhichȱ arousedȱtheȱwrathȱofȱYahweh,ȱalbeitȱtoȱnoȱavail,ȱdistortsȱallȱexpectationsȱandȱlogic.ȱ BaruchȱHalpernȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱsinȱofȱsheddingȱinnocentȱblood,ȱwhichȱisȱlaidȱuponȱ Ahab,ȱ Manassehȱ andȱ Jehoiakim,ȱ deservesȱ asȱ itsȱ consequenceȱ theirȱ removalȱ fromȱ civilisation,ȱhenceȱtheȱpunishmentȱofȱexile;ȱinȱB.ȱHalpern,ȱ“WhyȱManassehȱisȱBlamedȱ forȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ Exile:ȱ Theȱ Evolutionȱ ofȱ aȱ Biblicalȱ Tradition”,ȱ VTȱ 48ȱ (1998),ȱ pp.ȱ 473Ȭ514ȱ(490Ȭ93).ȱ

ȱ

“ForeignȱWives“ȱandȱtheȱBadȱJudahiteȱKingsȱ

73ȱ

1ȱKgsȱ11:1Ȭ11ȱ 1ȱ Kingȱ Solomonȱ lovedȱ manyȱ foreignȱ womenȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ daughterȱ ofȱ Pharaoh:ȱMoabite,ȱAmmonite,ȱEdomite,ȱSidonian,ȱandȱHittiteȱwomen,ȱȱ 2ȱ fromȱ theȱ nationsȱ concerningȱ whichȱ theȱ LORDȱ hadȱ saidȱ toȱ theȱ Israelites,ȱ “Youȱshallȱnotȱenterȱintoȱmarriageȱwithȱthem,ȱneitherȱshallȱtheyȱwithȱyou;ȱ forȱtheyȱwillȱsurelyȱinclineȱyourȱheartȱtoȱfollowȱtheirȱgods“;ȱSolomonȱclungȱ toȱtheseȱinȱlove.ȱȱ 3ȱ Amongȱ hisȱ wivesȱ wereȱ sevenȱ hundredȱ princessesȱ andȱ threeȱ hundredȱ concubines;ȱandȱhisȱwivesȱturnedȱawayȱhisȱheart.ȱȱ 4ȱForȱwhenȱSolomonȱwasȱold,ȱhisȱwivesȱturnedȱawayȱhisȱheartȱafterȱotherȱ gods;ȱandȱhisȱheartȱwasȱnotȱtrueȱtoȱtheȱLORDȱhisȱGod,ȱasȱwasȱtheȱheartȱofȱ hisȱfatherȱDavid.ȱȱ 5ȱForȱSolomonȱfollowedȱAstarteȱtheȱgoddessȱofȱtheȱSidonians,ȱandȱMilcomȱ theȱabominationȱofȱtheȱAmmonites.ȱȱ 6ȱ Soȱ Solomonȱ didȱ whatȱ wasȱ evilȱ inȱ theȱ sightȱ ofȱ theȱ LORD,ȱ andȱ didȱ notȱ completelyȱfollowȱtheȱLORD,ȱasȱhisȱfatherȱDavidȱhadȱdone.ȱȱ 7ȱThenȱSolomonȱbuiltȱaȱhighȱplaceȱforȱChemoshȱtheȱabominationȱofȱMoab,ȱ andȱforȱMolechȱtheȱabominationȱofȱtheȱAmmonites,ȱonȱtheȱmountainȱeastȱofȱ Jerusalem.ȱȱ 8ȱ Heȱ didȱ theȱ sameȱ forȱ allȱ hisȱ foreignȱ wives,ȱ whoȱ offeredȱ incenseȱ andȱ saȬ crificedȱtoȱtheirȱgods.ȱȱ 9ȱThenȱtheȱLORDȱwasȱangryȱwithȱSolomon,ȱbecauseȱhisȱheartȱhadȱturnedȱ awayȱfromȱtheȱLORD,ȱtheȱGodȱofȱIsrael,ȱwhoȱhadȱappearedȱtoȱhimȱtwice,ȱȱ 10ȱandȱhadȱcommandedȱhimȱconcerningȱthisȱmatter,ȱthatȱheȱshouldȱnotȱfolȬ lowȱotherȱgods;ȱbutȱheȱdidȱnotȱobserveȱwhatȱtheȱLORDȱcommanded.ȱȱ 11ȱ Thereforeȱ theȱ LORDȱ saidȱ toȱ Solomon,ȱ “Sinceȱ thisȱ hasȱ beenȱ yourȱ mindȱ andȱ youȱ haveȱ notȱ keptȱ myȱ covenantȱ andȱ myȱ statutesȱ thatȱ Iȱ haveȱ comȬ mandedȱyou,ȱIȱwillȱsurelyȱtearȱtheȱkingdomȱfromȱyouȱandȱgiveȱitȱtoȱyourȱ servant.ȱ

ȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 11:1ȱ specifiesȱ theȱ ethnicȱ originsȱ ofȱ Kingȱ Solomon’sȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰ:ȱ fromȱtheȱnationsȱofȱEgypt,ȱMoab,ȱAmmon,ȱEdom,ȱandȱSidon,ȱandȱfromȱ theȱHittites.ȱTheȱDtrHȱnotesȱsignificantlyȱthatȱtheyȱareȱtheȱveryȱpeoplesȱ whoseȱ womenȱ Yahwehȱ prohibitsȱ Israelȱ fromȱ marryingȱ (v.ȱ 2).16ȱ SoloȬ mon’sȱapostasyȱisȱshownȱasȱstartingȱwithȱtheȱproblemȱthatȱheȱcouldȱnotȱ helpȱlovingȱtheȱmanyȱforeignȱwomen,ȱandȱcollectingȱthemȱinȱhisȱharem.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ noȱ furtherȱ detailsȱ givenȱ aboutȱ theȱ womenȱ inȱ Solomon’sȱ harem,ȱ exceptȱ someȱ referencesȱ toȱ hisȱ Egyptianȱ wife,ȱ aȱ daughterȱ ofȱ Pharaohȱ Necoȱ (1ȱ Kgsȱ 3:1;ȱ 9:16,ȱ 24)ȱ andȱ hisȱ sonȱ Rehoboam,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ bornȱtoȱhimȱbyȱNaamahȱanȱAmmoniteȱ(1ȱKgsȱ14:21,ȱ31).ȱThereȱareȱalsoȱ noȱ detailsȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ childrenȱ heȱ mayȱ haveȱ hadȱ throughȱ thisȱ largeȱ harem,ȱ althoughȱ weȱ areȱ toldȱ thatȱ heȱ didȱ giveȱ twoȱ daughtersȱ awayȱ inȱ marriagesȱtoȱdistrictȱgovernors.17ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 16ȱ Seeȱ2.2ȱforȱtheȱdiscussionȱonȱtheȱlawsȱagainstȱintermarriage.ȱ 17ȱ 1ȱKgsȱ4:11ȱ–ȱTapathȱtoȱBenȬAbinadabȱinȱNaphothȱDor;ȱandȱ1ȱKgsȱ4:15ȱ–ȱBasemathȱtoȱ AhimaazȱinȱNaphtali.ȱ

74ȱ

TheȱMotifȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱ

Theȱ DtrHȱ accusesȱ Solomon’sȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ ofȱ turningȱ hisȱ heartȱ awayȱfromȱYahwehȱtoȱotherȱgodsȱ(1ȱKgsȱ11:4):ȱnotȱonlyȱdoesȱheȱbuildȱ highȱplacesȱforȱtheȱforeignȱgodsȱofȱhisȱwives,ȱbutȱheȱalsoȱparticipatesȱinȱ worshipȱofȱthemȱ(vv.ȱ5,ȱ8).ȱAsȱifȱtheȱreputableȱandȱchiefȱforeignȱdeitiesȱ ofȱAshtorethȱofȱtheȱSidonians,ȱMilcomȱofȱtheȱAmmonitesȱandȱChemoshȱ ofȱtheȱMoabites,ȱareȱnotȱenoughȱ(vv.ȱ5,ȱ7),ȱtheȱDtrHȱaddsȱthatȱSolomonȱ doesȱtheȱsameȱforȱallȱhisȱotherȱforeignȱwivesȱ(v.ȱ8).ȱInȱviewȱofȱhisȱlargeȱ haremȱ ofȱ oneȱ thousandȱ wivesȱ altogetherȱ (v.ȱ 3),ȱ theȱ DtrHȱ impliesȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ uncountableȱ deitiesȱ beingȱ worshippedȱ andȱ theirȱ highȱ placesȱ establishedȱallȱoverȱtheȱkingdom.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ claimȱ ofȱ aȱ largeȱ haremȱ andȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ altarsȱ toȱ foreignȱ deitiesȱ isȱ plausibleȱ forȱ aȱ richȱ kingȱ likeȱ Solomonȱ asȱ DtrHȱ desȬ cribes,ȱtheȱhistoricalȱaccuracyȱofȱtheȱtheȱclaimȱthatȱitȱwasȱonlyȱinȱhisȱoldȱ ageȱ thatȱ hisȱ wivesȱ ledȱ himȱ intoȱ foreignȱ worshipȱ (v.ȱ 4)ȱ isȱ highlyȱ quesȬ tionable.ȱ Theȱ accountȱ ofȱ Solomon’sȱ apostasy,ȱ whenȱ followedȱ byȱ theȱ accountsȱofȱtheȱpoliticalȱunrestȱinȱ1ȱKgsȱ11:14Ȭ40,ȱgivesȱtheȱimpressionȱ thatȱSolomonȱwasȱjudgedȱbecauseȱheȱsinnedȱagainstȱYahwehȱonlyȱinȱhisȱ laterȱyears.ȱIfȱSolomonȱdidȱaccumulateȱsuchȱaȱlargeȱharem,ȱitȱmayȱhaveȱ beenȱ inheritedȱ inȱ partȱ fromȱ David,ȱ andȱ isȱ unlikelyȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ featureȱsolelyȱofȱhisȱoldȱage,ȱasȱtheȱDtrHȱisȱkeenȱtoȱsuggest. 18ȱMindfulȱ bothȱ ofȱ hisȱ roleȱ asȱ builderȱ ofȱ theȱ Temple,ȱ andȱ ofȱ hisȱ ultimateȱ resȬ ponsibilityȱ forȱ theȱ secessionȱ ofȱ theȱ Northernȱ kingdom,ȱ theȱ writerȱ efȬ fectivelyȱ splitsȱ hisȱ lifeȱ intoȱ separateȱ parts.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ partȱ isȱ markedȱ byȱ hisȱ earlyȱ yearsȱ ofȱ Templeȱ buildingȱ whenȱ hisȱ reignȱ wasȱ unblemishedȱ andȱpeacefulȱ(1ȱKgsȱ2Ȭ10),ȱandȱtheȱsecondȱpartȱbyȱhisȱapostasy.ȱInȱthisȱ way,ȱhisȱforeignȱwivesȱareȱmadeȱculpableȱforȱhisȱsinsȱwhichȱresultedȱinȱ theȱ turbulentȱ periodsȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ aȱ motifȱ whichȱ isȱ alsoȱ foundȱ inȱ Jezebelȱ whereȱtheȱsinsȱofȱIsraelȱandȱsomeȱofȱtheȱmostȱnotoriousȱkingsȱofȱJudahȱ areȱalsoȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱherȱcorruptingȱofȱAhab.ȱ Inȱ11:4,ȱ6,ȱtheȱDtrHȱmakesȱhisȱfirstȱjudgementȱofȱIsrael’sȱkingȱbyȱtheȱ yardstickȱofȱDavid.ȱThisȱjudgementȱmarkerȱ(especiallyȱv.ȱ6)ȱisȱappliedȱ subsequentlyȱtoȱallȱtheȱotherȱkingsȱofȱIsraelȱandȱJudah,ȱthusȱtheȱkingsȱ areȱclassifiedȱsimplyȱasȱgoodȱorȱbadȱ–ȱgoodȱindicatingȱfidelityȱtoȱYahȬ weh,ȱ andȱ bad,ȱ apostasy.ȱ Theȱ DtrHȱ normally,ȱ moreover,ȱ givesȱ theȱ namesȱofȱeachȱJudeanȱking’sȱmother.ȱAsȱtheȱfollowingȱtableȱshows,ȱinȱ mostȱcases,ȱtheȱgoodȱkingsȱhaveȱmothersȱwhoȱareȱthemselvesȱJudahite,ȱ whileȱ conversely,ȱ theȱ badȱ kingsȱ haveȱ mothersȱ whoȱ areȱ ofȱ foreignȱ descent.ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱ Grayȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ Solomon’sȱ largeȱ haremȱ isȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ David’sȱ politicalȱ alliancesȱ withȱtheirȱneighbours,ȱpp.ȱ251Ȭ52,ȱ255.ȱȱ

ȱ

75ȱ

“ForeignȱWives“ȱandȱtheȱBadȱJudahiteȱKingsȱ Nameȱofȱ Mother’sȱ Fatherȱ Eliam19ȱ(2ȱ Samȱ23:24)ȱ

Goodȱorȱ Badȱ

Nameȱofȱ Kingȱ

Referencesȱ

Mother’sȱ Nameȱ

Mother’sȱ Originȱ

Solomonȱ

ȱ

Bathshebaȱ

ȱ

Rehoboamȱ

Naamahȱ

Ammoniteȱ

ȱ

Abijamȱȱ

1ȱKgsȱ 14:21Ȭ31ȱ 15:1Ȭ8ȱ

Maacahȱ

ȱ

Asaȱ

15:9Ȭ24ȱ

ȱ

Goodȱ

JehoshaȬ phatȱ

22:41Ȭ50ȱ

NotȱmenȬ tioned21ȱ Azubahȱȱ

AbishaȬ lom20ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Shilhi22ȱ

Goodȱ

Laterȱreignȱ presentedȱ asȱnegativeȱ Ȭȱ1ȱKgsȱ11ȱ Badȱ Badȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 19ȱ RandalȱC.ȱBailey,ȱ“Eliam”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ459Ȭ60.ȱAlthoughȱsomeȱscholarsȱseemȱtoȱ thinkȱthatȱsheȱisȱalsoȱaȱHittite,ȱlikeȱherȱexȬhusband,ȱtheȱreferenceȱmadeȱtoȱherȱandȱherȱ familyȱinȱ2ȱSamȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱtoȱimplyȱso.ȱAlso,ȱAdeleȱBerlin,ȱ“Bathsheba”,ȱinȱCarolȱ Meyers,ȱToniȱCravenȱandȱRossȱS.ȱKraemerȱ(eds.),ȱWomenȱinȱScripture:ȱAȱDictionaryȱofȱ Namedȱ andȱ Unnamedȱ Womenȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Theȱ Apocryphalȱ /ȱ Deuterocanonicalȱ BooksȱandȱtheȱNewȱTestamentȱ(Boston,ȱNewȱYork:ȱHoughtonȱMifflinȱCompany,ȱ2000),ȱ pp.ȱ57Ȭ58.ȱ 20ȱ Maacah’sȱrelationȱtoȱAbishalomȱlinksȱherȱancestryȱtoȱtheȱArameanȱprincess,ȱdaughȬ terȱofȱKingȱTalmaiȱofȱGeshurȱ(2ȱSamȱ3:3).ȱSheȱisȱmostȱlikelyȱtheȱdaughterȱorȱgrandȬ daughterȱ ofȱ Absalomȱ (asȱ accordingȱ toȱ Josephusȱ [Ant.ȱ 8.10.1]),ȱ andȱ namedȱ afterȱ Absalom’sȱmother.ȱTheȱDtrHȱisȱnotȱeagerȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱotherȱdetailȱfoundȱinȱ2ȱChrȱ 13:2ȱthatȱAbijam’sȱmotherȱisȱMicaiah,ȱdaughterȱofȱUrielȱofȱGibeah,ȱwhichȱwouldȱinferȱ herȱoriginȱasȱaȱBenjamite.ȱCf.ȱn.ȱ21.ȱȱ 21ȱ Thereȱisȱevidentlyȱaȱdittographyȱfromȱ1ȱKgsȱ15:2ȱhere.ȱAsa’sȱfatherȱisȱAbijam,ȱwhoseȱ motherȱ isȱ Maacah,ȱ daughterȱ ofȱ Abishalom,ȱ butȱ theȱ fatherȱ andȱ sonȱ couldȱ notȱ haveȱ sharedȱ theȱ sameȱ mother.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ Maacahȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ commonȱ nameȱ sharedȱ byȱ Abijam’sȱ motherȱ andȱ hisȱ wife,ȱ butȱ “daughterȱ ofȱ Abishalom”ȱ hasȱ beenȱ carriedȱover.ȱTheȱSeptuagintȱhasȱ“Ana”ȱinsteadȱofȱ“Maacah”,ȱbutȱretainedȱ“daughterȱ ofȱAbishalom”.ȱSomeȱhaveȱalsoȱsuggestedȱthatȱAbijamȱandȱAsaȱareȱbrothers,ȱinsteadȱ ofȱfatherȱandȱson,ȱseeȱGray,ȱp.ȱ316.ȱItȱisȱnoteworthyȱthatȱ2ȱChrȱ13:2,ȱAbijam’sȱmotherȱ wasȱMicaiah,ȱdaughterȱofȱUriel,ȱandȱAsa’sȱmotherȱisȱretainedȱasȱMaacah,ȱbecauseȱofȱ whatȱheȱdidȱtoȱherȱcults.ȱMindfulȱofȱtheȱconclusionȱweȱhaveȱreachedȱforȱtheȱmeaningȱ ofȱ ʤʸʩʡʢ,ȱ andȱ theȱ veryȱ shortȱ yearsȱ ofȱ Abijam’sȱ reign,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ moreȱ likelyȱ thatȱ AbiȬ jam’sȱmotherȱwasȱindeedȱMaacah,ȱdaughterȱofȱAbishalomȱ(cf.ȱ2ȱChrȱ11:20),ȱandȱAsa’sȱ motherȱ mightȱ haveȱ borneȱ theȱ sameȱ nameȱ andȱ perhapsȱ asȱ S.ȱ Yeivinȱ suggested,ȱ sheȱ wasȱ Micaiah,ȱ daughterȱ ofȱ Urielȱ fromȱ Gibeah;ȱ seeȱ S.ȱ Yeivin,ȱ “Abijam,ȱ Asa,ȱ andȱ Maacah,ȱ Daughterȱ ofȱ Abishalom”,ȱ BJPESȱ 10ȱ (1942Ȭ44),ȱ pp.ȱ 116Ȭ19.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ theȱ nameȱofȱAsa’sȱmotherȱisȱunknown,ȱandȱtheȱmistakeȱisȱmadeȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱreferenceȱ toȱ Maacahȱ asȱ theȱ ʤʸʩʡʢȱ inȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 15:13,ȱ asȱ suggestedȱ byȱ Cogan,ȱ pp.ȱ 393,ȱ 397.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ confusionȱ ofȱ namesȱ inȱ theseȱ texts,ȱ mightȱ alsoȱ beȱ deliberateȱ onȱ theȱ partȱofȱtheȱDtrH,ȱseeȱbelow.ȱ 22ȱ InȱtheȱtheȱOTȱthereȱisȱnoȱpersonȱbyȱtheȱnameȱofȱShilhiȱwhoseȱdaughterȱAzubahȱisȱtheȱ motherȱofȱtheȱgoodȱkingȱJehoshaphat.ȱItȱhasȱbeenȱsuggestedȱthatȱaȱplaceȱnameȱShilȬ himȱ isȱ intendedȱ instead,ȱ whichȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ townsȱ inȱ theȱ Judeanȱ Negebȱ locatedȱ inȱ

76ȱ Jehoramȱ

TheȱMotifȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱ

Ahaziahȱ Joashȱ Amaziahȱ Azariahȱȱ Jothamȱ Ahazȱ

2ȱKgsȱ8:16Ȭ 23ȱ 8:25Ȭ29ȱ 12:1Ȭ21ȱ 14:1Ȭ22ȱ 15:1Ȭ7ȱ 15:32Ȭ38ȱ 16:1Ȭ20ȱ

Hezekiahȱ Manassehȱ

18:1Ȭ20:21ȱ 21:1Ȭ18ȱ

Amonȱ

21:19Ȭ25ȱ

Josiahȱ Jehoahazȱ Jehoiakimȱ Jehoiachinȱ Zedekiahȱ

22:1Ȭ23:30ȱ 23:31Ȭ35ȱ 23:36Ȭ24:6ȱ 24:8Ȭ16ȱ 24:18Ȭ25:7ȱ

Notȱ mentionedȱ Athaliahȱ Zibiaȱ Jehoiadinȱȱ Jecoliahȱȱ Jerushaȱȱ Notȱȱ mentionedȱ Abiȱȱ Hepzhibahȱ MeshulleȬ methȱȱ Jedidahȱȱ Hamuttalȱ Zebidahȱȱ Nehushtaȱȱ Hamuttalȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Badȱ

Israelȱ Beershebaȱ Jerusalemȱ Jerusalemȱ ȱ ȱ

Ahabȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Zadok23ȱ ȱ

Badȱ Goodȱ Goodȱ Goodȱ Goodȱ Badȱ

ȱ Notȱ mentionedȱ Jotbah24ȱ

Zechariah13ȱ ȱ

Goodȱ Badȱ

Haruzȱ

Badȱ

Bozkathȱ Libnahȱ Rumahȱ Jerusalemȱ Libnahȱ

Adaiahȱ Jeremiahȱ Pedaiahȱ Elnathanȱ Jeremiahȱ

Goodȱ Badȱ Badȱ Badȱ Badȱ

Tableȱ3.2:ȱTheȱNamesȱandȱOriginsȱofȱtheȱKings’ȱMothersȱandȱtheȱDtrHȱJudgementȱofȱtheȱ JudahiteȱKingsȱ

Thereȱ areȱ threeȱ kingsȱ whoseȱ mothers’ȱ namesȱ areȱ notȱ mentioned,ȱ Asa,ȱ Jehoramȱ andȱ Ahab,ȱ whileȱ theȱ originȱ ofȱ Manasseh’sȱ motherȱ isȱ notȱ mentioned.ȱ Forȱ Jehoram,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ DtrHȱ mentionsȱ hisȱ “significantȱ woman”ȱ asȱ hisȱ wifeȱ ratherȱ thanȱ hisȱ mother,ȱ whoȱ isȱ Athaliah,ȱ theȱ daughterȱofȱAhabȱandȱJezebel.ȱApartȱfromȱtheȱlastȱfourȱkingsȱwhoȱareȱ allȱjudgedȱsinfulȱdueȱtoȱtheȱimpendingȱexile,ȱthereȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱaȱdirectȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱoriginsȱofȱtheȱmothersȱandȱtheȱDtrH’sȱjudgeȬ ment.ȱOutȱofȱtheȱfirstȱfifteenȱkingsȱ(excludingȱSolomon),ȱthereȱareȱsevenȱ badȱ kingsȱandȱ eightȱ goodȱ kings.ȱ Withȱregardȱ toȱ theȱ badȱkings,ȱ fiveȱ ofȱ theirȱ mothers’ȱ namesȱ areȱ mentionedȱ –ȱ Naamah,ȱ Maacah,ȱ Athaliah,ȱ Hephzibahȱ andȱ Meshullemethȱ –ȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ twoȱ areȱ not,ȱ namelyȱ AhazȱandȱJehoram.ȱConcerningȱtheirȱmothers’ȱorigins,ȱfourȱofȱthemȱareȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ theȱextremeȱsouthȱ(Joshȱ15:21,ȱ32).ȱSeeȱJeromeȱT.ȱWalsh,ȱ“Shilhiȱ(person)”;ȱandȱCarlȱ S.ȱEhrlich,ȱ“Shilhimȱ(place)”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱV,ȱp.ȱ1213.ȱ 23ȱ TheseȱnamesȱtendȱtoȱbeȱpriestlyȱandȱareȱusuallyȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱSouthernȱkingȬ dom,ȱ seeȱ Georgeȱ W.ȱ Ramsey,ȱ “Zadokȱ (person)”,ȱ ABDȱ vol.ȱ VI,ȱ pp.ȱ 1034Ȭ36;ȱ andȱ JoAnnȱF.ȱWatson,ȱ“Zechariahȱ(person)”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱVI,ȱpp.ȱ1057Ȭ61.ȱ 24ȱ Ifȱ theȱ placeȱ nameȱ Jotbah,ȱ Meshullemeth’sȱ hometownȱ isȱ intendedȱ toȱ beȱ linkedȱ withȱ JotbathbahȱasȱmentionedȱinȱNumȱ33:33,ȱ34ȱandȱDeutȱ10:7,ȱthenȱitȱwouldȱbeȱinȱtheȱreȬ gionȱofȱEdomȱorȱArabia.ȱGray,ȱp.ȱ648.ȱHowever,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱitȱwasȱlocatedȱinȱ Galilee,ȱ whereȱ sixȱ hundredȱ andȱ fiftyȱ prisonersȱ wereȱ recordedȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ exiledȱ fromȱthisȱplaceȱinȱ732ȱBCE;ȱRafaelȱFrankel,ȱ“Jotbah”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIII,ȱp.ȱ1020.ȱȱ

ȱ

“ForeignȱWives“ȱandȱtheȱBadȱJudahiteȱKingsȱ

77ȱ

knownȱ –ȱ Ammon,ȱ Geshur,ȱ Israelȱ (Omrideȱ origin)ȱ andȱ Jotbah.ȱ ThereȬ fore,ȱofȱtheȱsevenȱbadȱkings,ȱfiveȱhaveȱmothersȱ(andȱinȱoneȱcase,ȱaȱwife)ȱ ofȱforeign,ȱnonȬJudahiteȱancestry.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱnoteworthyȱthatȱinȱtheȱcaseȱ ofȱ Ahazȱ andȱ Manasseh,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ earlier,ȱ theȱ DtrHȱ hasȱ pinȬ pointedȱtheirȱsinsȱasȱdueȱtoȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱAhab,ȱsubsequentlyȱimplyȬ ingȱJezebelȱasȱtheȱcauseȱofȱtheirȱapostasy.ȱ Asȱ forȱ theȱ goodȱ kings,ȱ theȱ DtrHȱ mentionsȱ sevenȱ ofȱ theȱ mothers’ȱ namesȱ–ȱAzubah,ȱZibia,ȱJecoliah,ȱJehoaddin,ȱJerusha,ȱAbi,ȱandȱJedidah.ȱ Ofȱtheseȱseven,ȱfiveȱofȱtheirȱplacesȱofȱoriginȱareȱaccountedȱforȱandȱtheyȱ areȱallȱinȱtheȱvicinityȱofȱJudahȱ–ȱBeersheba,ȱJerusalemȱ(twice),ȱBozkath,ȱ andȱ (possibly)ȱ Shilhim,ȱ whileȱ theȱ otherȱ twoȱ haveȱ fathersȱ withȱ namesȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ priesthoodȱ –ȱ Zadokȱ andȱ Zechariah.ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ fiveȱ outȱofȱsevenȱofȱtheȱbadȱkingsȱareȱrelatedȱtoȱmothersȱandȱwifeȱofȱforeignȱ ancestry,ȱ andȱ sevenȱ outȱ ofȱ eightȱ goodȱ kingsȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ mothersȱ ofȱ Judeanȱorȱpriestlyȱorigins.ȱ Asȱforȱtheȱlastȱfourȱkings,ȱallȱareȱdeemedȱbad,ȱandȱitȱseemsȱthatȱtheȱ impendingȱ andȱ imminentȱ exileȱ isȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ theȱ judgement.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ whenȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Kingsȱ endsȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 25:27Ȭ30),ȱ aȱ rayȱ ofȱ hopeȱ isȱ givenȱ inȱ Jehoiachin,25ȱ theȱ soleȱ survivorȱ ofȱ theȱ Davidicȱ desȬ cendant,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ treatedȱ gracefullyȱ byȱ theȱ Babylonians,ȱ andȱ mostȱ significantly,ȱwhoseȱmotherȱisȱfromȱJerusalem.ȱThisȱwouldȱseemȱtoȱbeȱ beyondȱcoincidence,ȱbutȱtheȱlackȱofȱexplicitȱindicationsȱforȱsomeȱkings,ȱ inȱparticular,ȱindicatesȱthatȱthisȱisȱmoreȱaȱstrongȱtendencyȱinȱtheȱDtrHȱ thanȱaȱcompletelyȱconsistentȱpractice.ȱ Inȱaddition,ȱjustȱasȱtheȱDtrHȱexaggeratesȱtheȱreligiousȱpersecutionsȱ wagedȱ byȱ Jezebelȱ againstȱ theȱ Yahwisticȱ cult,ȱ heȱ alsoȱ exaggeratesȱ inȱ blamingȱ andȱ directlyȱ associatingȱ inȱ particularȱ Maacahȱ andȱ Athaliahȱ withȱforeignȱworship,ȱalthoughȱtheȱhistoricalȱaccuracyȱofȱtheȱaccountȱisȱ dubious.ȱ Forȱ theȱ nameȱ Maacah,ȱ whenȱ referencedȱ toȱ Abishalom,ȱ getsȱ associatedȱwithȱherȱArameanȱancestry,ȱandȱsheȱisȱthenȱknownȱforȱbeingȱ deposedȱ fromȱ herȱ positionȱ asȱʤʸʩʡʢȱ (cf.ȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ15:13).26ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ strangeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 25ȱ Amongȱtheȱlastȱfourȱkings,ȱJehoiachinȱisȱtheȱonlyȱoneȱwhoseȱsinsȱareȱnotȱspecifiedȱbyȱ theȱ DtrHȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 24:10Ȭ16),ȱ orȱ Jeremiahȱ (Jerȱ 22:24Ȭ30).ȱ Jehoahazȱ inȱ Kingsȱ isȱ merelyȱ accusedȱofȱfollowingȱtheȱstepsȱofȱhisȱfatherȱ(2ȱKgsȱ23:31Ȭ35;ȱJerȱ22:11Ȭ12).ȱJehoiakimȱisȱ accusedȱofȱrelyingȱonȱforeignȱalliesȱ(2ȱKgsȱ23:31Ȭ24:1Ȭ2;ȱJerȱ22:18Ȭ23),ȱneglectingȱsocialȱ justiceȱ (Jerȱ 22:13Ȭ19)ȱ andȱ refusingȱ toȱ heedȱ theȱ warningsȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ (Jerȱ 36:1Ȭ32).ȱ JeremiahȱalsoȱaccusedȱJehoiakimȱforȱsheddingȱtheȱbloodȱofȱtheȱprophetsȱ(Jerȱ26:1Ȭ24).ȱ Zedekiahȱ isȱ depictedȱ inȱ Kingsȱ asȱ committingȱ theȱ sameȱ wrongsȱ asȱ Jehoiakimȱ whoȱ rebelledȱ againstȱ Babylonȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 24:19Ȭ20).ȱ Jeremiah,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ hadȱ manyȱ confrontationsȱwithȱZedekiah,ȱandȱoftenȱaccusesȱhimȱofȱfailingȱtoȱadministerȱjusticeȱ inȱ theȱ landȱ (Jerȱ 21:11Ȭ12;ȱ 34:8Ȭ16)ȱ andȱ refusingȱ toȱ submitȱ toȱ Babylonȱ (Jerȱ 27:12Ȭ15;ȱ 38:14Ȭ23;ȱ52:3).ȱȱ 26ȱ Seeȱn.ȱ21.ȱ

78ȱ

TheȱMotifȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱ

thatȱsheȱhasȱtoȱbeȱsingledȱoutȱandȱblamedȱforȱtheȱcultȱofȱAsherahȱhere.ȱ Historically,ȱ itȱ isȱ unlikelyȱ thatȱ Asherahȱ worshipȱ beganȱ inȱ Judahȱ withȱ Maacah,ȱsinceȱtheȱcultȱwasȱalreadyȱpopularȱinȱtheȱpreȬmonarchicȱstateȱ (cf.ȱJudgȱ6:25).27ȱAlthoughȱtheȱDtrHȱmentionsȱinȱ1ȱKgsȱ14:23ȱthatȱJudahȱ erectedȱ Asherahȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Rehoboam,ȱ andȱ Maacahȱ wasȱ notȱ namedȱthenȱasȱtheȱmainȱculpritȱforȱinitiatingȱtheȱcult,ȱtheȱDtrHȱwillȱnotȱ letȱ thisȱ crimeȱ fullyȱ restȱ onȱ Judah,ȱ andȱ hasȱ toȱ mentionȱ laterȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ MaacahȱwhoȱbuiltȱtheȱAsherahȱinȱ1ȱKgsȱ15:13.ȱThen,ȱasȱforȱAthaliah,ȱitȱ isȱ notȱ enoughȱ thatȱ sheȱ isȱ portrayedȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ cruelȱ motherȱ whoȱ killsȱ allȱ herȱchildrenȱandȱgrandchildrenȱtoȱsaveȱtheȱcrownȱforȱherself,ȱbutȱtheseȱ behavioursȱ areȱ alsoȱ somehowȱ relatedȱ toȱ herȱ culticȱ worshipȱ ofȱ Baal.28ȱ Throughoutȱ herȱ reign,ȱ noȱ propheticȱ wordȱ isȱ givenȱ toȱ herȱ forȱ reȬ pentance,29ȱbutȱaȱbigȱplotȱwasȱbeingȱschemedȱbyȱtheȱhighȱpriestȱofȱtheȱ Templeȱ toȱ dethroneȱ her.ȱ Andȱ whenȱ sheȱ andȱ herȱ priestȱ ofȱ Baalȱ areȱ fiȬ nallyȱ killedȱ andȱ herȱ cultȱ templeȱ destroyed,ȱ theȱ cityȱ isȱ describedȱ toȱ beȱ “atȱ rest”,ȱ anȱ indicationȱ thatȱ “allȱ isȱ well”.30ȱ Consequently,ȱ weȱ haveȱ theȱ sameȱ situationȱ asȱ inȱ Jezebel:ȱ itȱ wasȱ theȱ cultȱ ofȱ Baalȱ versusȱ theȱ cultȱ ofȱ Yahweh.ȱȱ TheȱaboveȱstudyȱalsoȱshowsȱhowȱkeenȱtheȱDtrHȱisȱtoȱfindȱlinksȱofȱ “foreignness”ȱforȱthoseȱwomenȱheȱdeemedȱasȱaȱbadȱinfluenceȱandȱwhoȱ wereȱinvolvedȱinȱforeignȱworship.ȱForȱexample,ȱstrictlyȱspeaking,ȱbothȱ Maacahȱ andȱ Athaliahȱ wereȱ childrenȱ ofȱ earlierȱ intermarriagesȱ betweenȱ anȱ Israeliteȱ andȱ aȱ “foreignȱ woman”.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ DtrHȱ considersȱ thoseȱ “foreign”ȱ bloodȱ runsȱ deeperȱ inȱ theseȱ women,ȱ whichȱ explainsȱ theirȱ devotionȱ toȱ theȱ foreignȱ deities.ȱ Therefore,ȱ weȱ alsoȱ findȱ inȱ theȱ booksȱofȱKings,ȱaȱdifferentȱwayȱofȱperceivingȱ“foreignness”ȱfromȱwhatȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ earlierȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ Malachiȱ andȱ alsoȱ DeuȬ teronomy.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 27ȱ Asherah,ȱʤʸʹʠȱoccursȱfortyȱtimesȱinȱtheȱOT,ȱandȱinȱmanyȱofȱthem,ȱherȱcultȱsymbolȱofȱ aȱwoodenȱobjectȱisȱreferredȱto.ȱSeeȱJohnȱDay,ȱ“Asherahȱ(Deity)”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ483Ȭ 87;ȱandȱidem,ȱYahwehȱandȱtheȱGodsȱandȱGoddessesȱofȱCanaan,ȱpp.ȱ42Ȭ67.ȱAsherahȱinȱtheȱ OTȱisȱtheȱCanaaniteȱgoddess,ȱAthirat,ȱtheȱconsortȱofȱElȱandȱtheȱmotherȱofȱtheȱdeities.ȱ SinceȱtheȱIsraeliteȱequatesȱElȱwithȱYahweh,ȱitȱisȱnaturalȱthatȱAsherahȱisȱworshippedȱ asȱ hisȱ consort,ȱ especiallyȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ textsȱ inȱ Kuntilletȱ `Ajrudȱ andȱ Khirbetȱ elȬ Qomȱ whereȱ Yahwehȱ isȱ mentionedȱ togetherȱ withȱ hisȱ consort,ȱ Asherah.ȱ Itȱ isȱ onlyȱ whenȱ Israelȱ propagandisesȱ thatȱ Yahwehȱ aloneȱ isȱ theȱ deity,ȱ thatȱ hisȱ consortȱ isȱ conȬ demnedȱ asȱ idolatrous,ȱ andȱ toȱ beȱ treatedȱ likeȱ Baalȱ worship.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whyȱ theȱ conȬ demnationȱofȱAsherahȱusuallyȱoccursȱwithȱBaalȱworship.ȱ 28ȱ J.M.ȱMillerȱandȱJ.H.ȱHayes,ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱAncientȱIsraelȱandȱJudahȱ(Philadelphia:ȱWestȬ minsterȱPress,ȱ1986),ȱp.ȱ304.ȱȱ 29ȱ PatriciaȱDutcherȬWalls,ȱNarrativeȱArt,ȱPoliticalȱRhetoric:ȱTheȱCaseȱofȱAthaliahȱandȱJoashȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ209;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱpp.ȱ110Ȭ11.ȱ 30ȱ DutcherȬWalls,ȱp.ȱ85.ȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱConclusionȱ

79ȱ

3.3ȱChapterȱConclusionȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ previousȱ chapters,ȱ weȱ haveȱ concludedȱ howȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ tiedȱupȱwithȱideasȱofȱ“foreignness”,ȱalthoughȱtheseȱideasȱmayȱnotȱconȬ stituteȱaȱconstantȱentityȱthroughoutȱitsȱoccurrences.ȱMoreȱimportantly,ȱ theȱ dominantȱ occurrencesȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ leadsȱ usȱ toȱ exploreȱ howȱ andȱ whyȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ condemnedȱ beyondȱ reȬ pentance,ȱ andȱ blamedȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ way.ȱ Interestingly,ȱ weȱ findȱ EzraȬ Nehemiahȱ employingȱ ideasȱ whichȱ wereȱ alreadyȱ prevalentȱ inȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ prohibitionsȱ andȱ theȱ DtrHȱ Kings,ȱ inȱ particularȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ Solomon’sȱ “foreignȱ wives”.ȱ Asȱ weȱ lookȱ intoȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Kings,ȱ weȱ seeȱ howȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ isȱ atȱ workȱ moreȱ broadly.ȱWhileȱitȱisȱKingȱSolomonȱwhoȱisȱfamouslyȱidentifiedȱwithȱtheȱ largeȱnumberȱofȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱwhoȱledȱhimȱintoȱforeignȱworshipȱandȱ causedȱ himȱ toȱ disobeyȱ Yahweh,ȱ theȱ principalȱ exampleȱ ofȱ howȱ theȱ potencyȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wife”ȱ canȱ haveȱ theȱ disastrousȱ outcomeȱ ofȱ corruptingȱ Israelȱ andȱ soȱ leadȱ themȱ toȱ theirȱ finalȱ destructionȱ isȱ quintȬ essentiallyȱJezebel.ȱWeȱseeȱhowȱtheȱDtrHȱexaggeratesȱherȱpersecutionsȱ ofȱtheȱYahwisticȱcultȱandȱalsoȱherȱsuccessȱinȱseducingȱAhabȱtoȱcommitȱ evilȱdeeds.ȱSomehowȱthroughȱtheȱlatter’sȱcorruption,ȱtheȱDtrHȱmanagesȱ toȱ tieȱ inȱ theȱ blameȱ ofȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ Ahaz,ȱ Manassehȱ andȱ theȱ Northernȱ kingdomȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ Ahab,ȱ thereforeȱ implicatingȱ Jezebelȱ asȱ theȱ masȬ termindȱofȱtheȱatrocitiesȱcommittedȱinȱbothȱIsraelȱandȱJudah.ȱTheȱDtrHȱ carriesȱ theȱ motifȱ further,ȱandȱ byȱ aȱ countȱ ofȱ majority,ȱ theȱ badȱ Judahiteȱ kingsȱ areȱ somehowȱ relatedȱ toȱ mothersȱ (andȱ inȱ oneȱ case,ȱ aȱ wife)ȱ ofȱ foreignȱancestry,ȱwhileȱtheȱgoodȱJudahiteȱkingsȱareȱrelatedȱtoȱmothersȱ ofȱIsraeliteȱorȱJudeanȱdescent.ȱThus,ȱthereȱisȱaȱstrongȱtheologicalȱmotifȱ underlyingȱtheȱDtrH’sȱaccountȱofȱtheȱkings,ȱinȱwhichȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱofȱ Israelitesȱ areȱ dangerousȱ becauseȱ theyȱ corruptȱ andȱ causeȱ Israelitesȱ toȱ turnȱ awayȱ fromȱ Yahwehȱ intoȱ foreignȱ worship,ȱ leavingȱ themȱ toȱ sufferȱ forȱtheȱpunishmentȱofȱbreachingȱtheirȱcovenantȱwithȱYahweh.ȱItȱisȱthisȱ theologicalȱ motifȱ whichȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ writersȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ andȱ Malachiȱ pickȱ upȱ whenȱ confrontedȱ byȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ “mixed”ȱ marriages.ȱAndȱitȱisȱalsoȱaȱmotifȱpickedȱupȱbyȱtheȱauthorȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ 9.ȱTheȱstudiesȱsoȱfarȱshowȱthatȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱisȱnotȱ justȱ againstȱ aȱ historicalȱ backgroundȱ inȱ whichȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ areȱ aȱ problem,ȱ butȱ withinȱ aȱ wellȬestablishedȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ thought,ȱ whichȱ blamesȱ foreignȱ womenȱ forȱ theȱ corruptionȱ ofȱ theȱ nation.ȱ Theȱ motifȱ isȱ therefore,ȱ notȱ aȱ productȱ ofȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ dispute,ȱ butȱ itȱ cameȱ toȱ beȱ usedȱbyȱEzraȬNehemiahȱtoȱpinȱdownȱproblemsȱofȱethnicity.ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ 9ȱsharesȱtheȱsameȱhistoricalȱcontextȱwithȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱandȱitsȱJewishȱ contextȱandȱDeuteronomicȱinfluenceȱcannotȱbeȱneglectedȱandȱignored,ȱ

80ȱ

TheȱMotifȱinȱDeuteronomisticȱLiteratureȱ

henceȱweȱmayȱreasonablyȱassumeȱthatȱthisȱpowerfulȱmotifȱofȱ“foreignȱ wives”ȱisȱtoȱbeȱassociatedȱinȱsomeȱwayȱwithȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱthere,ȱ asȱweȱshallȱexamineȱinȱtheȱnextȱchapter.ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱFour:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ ȱ Inȱtheȱprecedingȱchapters,ȱweȱhaveȱseenȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“foreignȱwoman”ȱ cannotȱ beȱ divorcedȱ fromȱ someȱ senseȱ ofȱ foreignȱ ethnicityȱ (howeverȱ complicatedȱthatȱconceptȱmayȱbeȱinȱtheȱpostȬexilicȱperiod),ȱandȱthatȱtheȱ expressionȱitselfȱwouldȱhaveȱaȱstrongȱandȱspecificȱresonanceȱfollowingȱ theȱ debateȱ overȱ intermarriageȱ afterȱ theȱ Return.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ alsoȱ seen,ȱ however,ȱthatȱtheȱtermsȱofȱthatȱdebateȱwereȱsetȱexplicitlyȱinȱreferenceȱtoȱ anȱearlierȱmotifȱinȱDeuteronomyȱandȱtheȱDeuteronomisticȱHistoryȱ–ȱtheȱ prohibitionȱ ofȱ marryingȱ foreignȱ wivesȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ aȱ sourceȱ ofȱ apostasy.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ weȱ shallȱ nowȱ turnȱ toȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Earlierȱ scholarshipȱ hasȱ arguedȱ forȱ aȱ directȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ andȱ Deuteronomy,1ȱ whichȱ mayȱ alreadyȱ provideȱ theȱ founȬ dationalȱ linkȱ forȱ theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ withȱ ideasȱ ofȱ “foreignness”ȱ inȱ Deuteronomy.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ theȱ otherȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ whichȱ disassociateȱ herȱ fromȱ “foreignness”ȱhaveȱcloudedȱthisȱlink.ȱInȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱshallȱargueȱthatȱ theȱportrayalȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱmoreȱfruitfullyȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ fromȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ andȱDeuteronomisticȱworksȱratherȱthanȱasȱaȱstraightforwardȱdepictionȱ ofȱaȱsexualȱpredatorȱorȱadulteress.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱ

Theȱ similarȱ featuresȱ foundȱ inȱ bothȱ worksȱ seemȱ toȱ indicateȱ thisȱ relationship.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱtheȱpedagogicȱstyleȱadoptedȱinȱtheȱtwoȱbooks,ȱtheȱfamilialȱcontextȱinȱwhichȱ theȱ instructionsȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ taught,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ fearȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ theȱ funȬ damentalȱ assumptionȱ ofȱ aȱ Yahwisticȱ covenantalȱ theology.ȱ Seeȱ J.ȱ Blenkinsopp,ȱ WisdomȱandȱLaw:ȱTheȱOrderingȱofȱLifeȱinȱIsraelȱandȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ(OxfordȱBibleȱSeries;ȱ Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1983);ȱF.ȬJ.ȱSteiert,ȱDieȱWeisheitȱIsraelsȱ–ȱeinȱFremdȬ körperȱ imȱ Altenȱ Testament?ȱ (Freiburgerȱ Theologischeȱ Studien,ȱ 143;ȱ Freiburg:ȱ Herder,ȱ 1990).ȱAlso,ȱA.ȱRobert,ȱ“LesȱattachesȱlittérairesȱbibliquesȱdesȱProv.ȱiȬix”,ȱRBȱ43ȱ(1934),ȱ pp.ȱ42Ȭ68,ȱ172Ȭ204,ȱ374Ȭ84;ȱ44ȱ(1935),ȱpp.ȱ344Ȭ65,ȱ502Ȭ25,ȱwhoȱhasȱoftenȱbeenȱcriticisedȱ forȱmakingȱtooȱmuchȱclaimsȱofȱtheȱdirectȱdependenceȱofȱProverbsȱonȱDeuteronomy,ȱ IsaiahȱandȱJeremiah.ȱ

82ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ

ȱ

4.1ȱIntroductionȱtoȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ ȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱisȱusuallyȱidentifiedȱasȱaȱdistinctȱsectionȱwithinȱtheȱBookȱ ofȱProverbs,ȱwhichȱisȱcharacterisedȱby,ȱmostȱobviously,ȱdistinctiveȱandȱ repeatedȱexhortationsȱbyȱtheȱfatherȱtoȱtheȱsonȱtoȱattainȱknowledgeȱandȱ wisdom.2ȱ However,ȱ toȱ stateȱ simplyȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ onlyȱ aboutȱ howȱ oneȱ canȱ attainȱhappinessȱandȱsuccessȱinȱlife’sȱjourneyȱseemsȱinadequate.3ȱThereȱ isȱaȱsenseȱofȱurgencyȱinȱtheȱcallsȱtoȱheedȱinstructionȱandȱseekȱwisdom,ȱ whichȱareȱportrayedȱasȱaȱmatterȱofȱlifeȱandȱdeath.ȱFurthermore,ȱinȱtheȱ callȱtoȱattainȱwisdomȱinȱ1:20Ȭ23ȱandȱ8:1Ȭ4,ȱdifferentȱkindsȱofȱpeopleȱareȱ listedȱ whoȱ needȱ toȱ seekȱ wisdom:ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ justȱ forȱ theȱ simpleȬminded,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ callȱ toȱ allȱ humankind.ȱ Moreover,ȱ Wisdomȱ presentedȱ asȱ aȱ woman,ȱ perhapsȱ asȱ aȱ potentialȱ brideȱ (cf.ȱ 4:5Ȭ9;ȱ 7:4).4ȱ Whetherȱ itȱ wasȱ intentionalȱ orȱ not,ȱ thisȱ firstȱ sectionȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ isȱ composedȱ asȱ anȱ introductionȱtoȱProverbsȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱSomeȱscholars,ȱindeed,ȱhaveȱseenȱ theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ theȱ “Goodȱ Wife”ȱ inȱ 31:10Ȭ31ȱ asȱ aȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ book’sȱ focusȱ onȱ relationshipsȱ withȱ theȱ feminineȱ hasȱ beenȱ extendedȱ toȱ embraceȱandȱdefineȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱbook.5ȱ Meinholdȱ hasȱ providedȱ whatȱ is,ȱ perhaps,ȱ theȱ mostȱ persuasiveȱ descriptionȱofȱtheȱthematicȱstructureȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱProverbs.6ȱByȱsubȬ dividingȱ theȱ bookȱ intoȱ sectionsȱ markedȱ byȱ formalȱ characteristics,ȱ heȱ carefullyȱ identifiesȱ separateȱ “instructions”,ȱ “wisdomȱ speeches”ȱ andȱ otherȱintermediaryȱmaterial,ȱwhileȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱheȱconnectsȱthemȱ togetherȱbyȱtakingȱProvȱ2ȱasȱaȱframeworkȱandȱaȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱbook’sȱ themes.7ȱ Inȱ Meinhold’sȱ model,ȱ aȱ superscriptionȱ inȱ 1:1,ȱ followedȱ byȱ aȱ prologueȱ inȱ 1:2Ȭ6,ȱ andȱ theȱ mottoȱ inȱ 1:7.ȱ Provȱ 1:1Ȭ7,ȱ combineȱ withȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱ

3ȱ 4ȱ 5ȱ

6ȱ 7ȱ

M.ȱFox,ȱ“IdeasȱofȱWisdomȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9”,ȱJBLȱ116ȱ(1997),ȱpp.ȱ613Ȭ33.ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ isȱalsoȱdistinctȱfromȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱbookȱbecauseȱitȱisȱcomposedȱlateȱinȱtheȱpostȬexilicȱ period,ȱservingȱasȱanȱintroductionȱtoȱtheȱcollectionȱofȱsayings.ȱAlthoughȱsupportȱforȱ thisȱ lateȱ datingȱ hasȱ beenȱ consideredȱ fromȱ theologicalȱ groundsȱ (seeȱ Camp,ȱ Wisdomȱ andȱtheȱFeminineȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱProverbs,ȱ233Ȭ54),ȱforȱmoreȱsupportiveȱdataȱconcerningȱ itsȱ compositionȱ inȱ theȱ Persianȱ eraȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ period,ȱ seeȱ especiallyȱ Christineȱ Royȱ Yoder,ȱ Wisdomȱ asȱ aȱ Womanȱ ofȱ Substance:ȱ aȱ SocioȬeconomicȱ Readingȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱandȱ31:10Ȭ31ȱ(BZAW,ȱ304;ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001).ȱȱ Whybray,ȱProverbs,ȱp.ȱ25.ȱ AsȱarguedȱbyȱBoström,ȱpp.ȱ156Ȭ59.ȱ T.P.ȱMcCreesch,ȱ“WisdomȱasȱWife:ȱProverbsȱ31:10Ȭ31”,ȱRBȱ92ȱ(1985),ȱpp.ȱ25Ȭ46;ȱandȱ atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱCamp,ȱWisdomȱandȱtheȱFeminineȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱProverbs,ȱpp.ȱ186Ȭ208;ȱ followedȱbyȱotherȱcommentators:ȱMeinhold,ȱSprüche,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ26;ȱWhybray,ȱProverbsȱ p.ȱ426;ȱMurphy,ȱpp.ȱ249Ȭ50;ȱClifford,ȱProverbs,ȱp.ȱ274.ȱ SeeȱMeinhold,ȱSprüche,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ43Ȭ47.ȱ Scott,ȱ p.ȱ 42.ȱ Heȱ explainsȱ theȱ functionȱ ofȱ Provȱ 2ȱ asȱ “…ȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ prospectusȱ ofȱ theȱ ’course’ȱ inȱ wisdomȱ whichȱ theȱ fatherȱ offers.”ȱ Heȱ evenȱ believesȱ thatȱ itȱ mightȱ haveȱ originallyȱprecededȱProvȱ1:8Ȭ19.ȱSeeȱalsoȱGemser,ȱp.ȱ18.ȱ

ȱ

IntroductionȱtoȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ

83ȱ

similarȱ materialȱ inȱ 9:7Ȭ12ȱ toȱ frameȱ theȱ sectionȱ asȱ aȱ whole.ȱ Withinȱ thisȱ section,ȱthereȱareȱtenȱ“instructions”,ȱfourȱwisdomȬpoemsȱandȱtwoȱotherȱ intermediaryȱpiecesȱ(3:13Ȭ20ȱandȱ6:1Ȭ19).ȱInȱtheȱintroductionȱofȱchapterȱ 2,ȱtheȱfatherȱfirstȱinvitesȱhisȱsonȱtoȱseekȱwisdom,ȱasȱoftenȱatȱtheȱstartȱofȱ sectionsȱ inȱ theȱ book,ȱ butȱ heȱ thenȱ outlinesȱ theȱ fourȱ mainȱ topicsȱ ofȱ instructionȱwhichȱareȱtoȱbeȱcoveredȱinȱProvȱ3Ȭ7:ȱ(1)ȱ2:5Ȭ8ȱaddressesȱtheȱ rightȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Godȱ (cf.ȱ 3:1Ȭ12);ȱ (2)ȱ 2:9Ȭ11ȱ discussesȱ properȱ behaviourȱ towardsȱ humankindȱ (cf.ȱ 3:21Ȭ35;ȱ 4:1Ȭ9);ȱ (3)ȱ 2:12Ȭ15ȱ warnsȱ againstȱ evilȱ menȱ (cf.ȱ 4:10Ȭ19ȱ andȱ 4:20Ȭ27,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ 1:8Ȭ19);ȱ (4)ȱ 2:16Ȭ19ȱ warnsȱ againstȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ (cf.ȱ 5:1Ȭ23;ȱ 6:20Ȭ35ȱ andȱ 7:1Ȭ27).ȱ So,ȱ theȱ instructionsȱ beginȱ withȱ aȱ seductionȱ byȱ theȱ evilȱ menȱ inȱ 1:8Ȭ19,ȱ andȱ endȱ withȱ theȱ seductionȱ byȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ 7:1Ȭ27.ȱ Theseȱ twoȱ seductionsȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱovercomeȱbyȱtheȱattainmentȱofȱwisdom,ȱwhichȱ isȱ personifiedȱ andȱ givenȱ itsȱ ownȱ speechesȱ whichȱ counterȱ theȱ twoȱ seductionsȱ inȱ 1:20Ȭ33ȱ andȱ 8:1Ȭ36.ȱ Theȱ fatherȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theseȱ twoȱ seductionsȱ constituteȱ theȱ wayȱ oppositeȱ toȱ wisdomȱ (4:11,ȱ 14,ȱ 18).ȱ Theȱ awkwardȱ6:1Ȭ19,ȱwhichȱisȱregardedȱasȱsecondaryȱbyȱmanyȱscholars,8ȱisȱ thenȱinsertedȱbetweenȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱdangerȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ toȱillustrateȱtheȱdangersȱofȱbecomingȱanȱevilȱperson.ȱFinally,ȱtheȱoverallȱ frameworkȱsuggestsȱthatȱitȱisȱtheȱfearȱofȱYahwehȱwhichȱisȱtheȱbeginningȱ andȱtheȱgoalȱofȱwisdomȱ–ȱ1:29;ȱ2:5;ȱ3:7;ȱ8:13;ȱ9:7Ȭ12.ȱ AsȱJ.N.ȱAlettiȱhasȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱthereȱisȱnotableȱambiguityȱinȱtheȱ portrayalȱofȱtheȱseductionsȱbyȱtheȱevilȱmen,ȱForeignȱWomanȱandȱWoȬ manȱ Wisdom,ȱ whoȱ allȱ useȱ theȱ sameȱ methodsȱ ofȱ persuasionȱ inȱ similarȱ physicalȱ locations,ȱ andȱ whoȱ allȱ offerȱ somethingȱ desirable.9ȱ Thisȱ amȬ biguityȱ accentuatesȱ theȱ needȱ forȱ theȱ skillȱ ofȱ discernmentȱ toȱ recogniseȱ theȱgoodȱfromȱtheȱbad.ȱTheȱjuxtapositionȱofȱwisdomȱandȱtheȱbadȱchaȬ ractersȱindicatesȱsomeȱelementȱofȱsymbolism,ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱbadȱcharactersȱ clearlyȱ symboliseȱ moreȱ thanȱ justȱ theirȱ ownȱ specificȱ sins.ȱ Whatȱ theyȱ reallyȱsymboliseȱrequiresȱsomeȱeffortȱtoȱdecodeȱandȱdiscern,ȱjustȱasȱtheȱ introductionȱ toȱ theȱ pericopeȱ describesȱ theȱ instructionsȱ asȱ proverb,ȱ fiȬ gureȱandȱriddles,10ȱanȱexerciseȱforȱtheȱwiseȱ(1:6).ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 8ȱ 9ȱ

SeeȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ225Ȭ27;ȱMcKane,ȱpp.ȱ320Ȭ21;ȱWhybray,ȱProverbs,ȱpp.ȱ93Ȭ101.ȱ J.N.ȱ Aletti,ȱ “Seductionȱ etȱ paroleȱ enȱ Proverbesȱ Iȱ –ȱ IX”,ȱ VTȱ 27ȱ (1977),ȱ pp.ȱ 129Ȭ44.ȱ Aletti’sȱarticleȱexploresȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱambiguityȱofȱtheȱevilȱmen,ȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ andȱWomanȱWisdom.ȱȱ 10ȱ Forȱtheȱmeaningsȱofȱʬʹʮ,ȱʤʶʩʬʮȱandȱʤʣʩʧ,ȱseeȱespeciallyȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ54Ȭ55,ȱ63Ȭ 67;ȱandȱothers:ȱToy,ȱpp.ȱ3Ȭ4;ȱMcKane,ȱpp.ȱ22Ȭ33;ȱWhybray,ȱProverbs,ȱpp.ȱ25Ȭ26.ȱAlso,ȱ forȱ aȱ treatmentȱ onȱ theȱ symbolicȱ ideasȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ seeȱ Weeks,ȱ Instructionȱ andȱ ImageryȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ(OxfordȱScholarshipȱOnline;ȱOxford/NewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniȬ versityȱPress,ȱ2007).ȱ

84ȱ ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ

4.2ȱPassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ ȱ WeȱwillȱnowȱexamineȱtheȱfourȱpassagesȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱwhichȱdescribeȱ theȱwomanȱasȱʤʸʦȱ(5:1Ȭ23),ȱʤʩʸʫʰȱ(6:20Ȭ35),ȱorȱbothȱ(2:16Ȭ19;ȱ7:1Ȭ26).ȱAȱfifthȱ passageȱ(9:13Ȭ18),ȱwhichȱusesȱtheȱsameȱlanguageȱtoȱportrayȱtheȱwomanȱ inȱwhichȱsheȱisȱdescribedȱasȱʺʥʬʩʱʫȱʺʹʠ,ȱwillȱalsoȱbeȱstudied.ȱ

4.2.1ȱProverbsȱ2:16Ȭ1911ȱ 16ȱToȱrescueȱyouȱfromȱtheȱstrangeȱwomanȱ(ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ),ȱȱ fromȱtheȱforeignȱwomanȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ)ȱwhoȱspeaksȱsmoothȱwords;ȱ 17ȱwhoȱleavesȱtheȱpartnerȱofȱherȱyouth,ȱȱ andȱforgetsȱtheȱcovenantȱofȱherȱgods;12ȱ 18ȱForȱherȱhouse13ȱsinksȱdownȱtoȱdeath,ȱȱ andȱherȱtracksȱtoȱtheȱspiritsȱofȱtheȱdead;ȱ 19ȱAllȱwhoȱgoȱtoȱherȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱreturn,ȱȱ andȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱreachȱtheȱpathsȱofȱlife.ȱ

ȱ Asȱ previouslyȱ mentioned,ȱ Provȱ 2ȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ sortȱ ofȱ agendaȱ forȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱItȱisȱconstructedȱasȱaȱsingleȱpoem,ȱandȱhasȱtheȱtwentyȬtwoȱ linesȱ ofȱ aȱ pseudoȬacrostic.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ justȱ aȱ singleȱ poem,ȱ butȱ actuallyȱaȱsingleȱlongȱsentence:ȱifȱ(ʭʠ)ȱyouȱsearchȱ(vv.ȱ1Ȭ4)ȱ…ȱthenȱ(ʦʠ)ȱ Yahwehȱ/ȱWisdomȱwillȱ(vv.ȱ5Ȭ11)ȱ…ȱsaveȱ(ʪʬʩʶʤʬ)ȱyouȱfromȱ(vv.ȱ12Ȭ19)ȱ …ȱ soȱ thatȱ (ʯʲʮʬ)ȱ youȱ mayȱ walkȱ (vv.ȱ 20Ȭ22)….ȱ So,ȱ theȱ twoȱ clausesȱ withȱ lamedhsȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 12ȱ andȱ 16ȱ extendȱ theȱ doubleȱ apodosisȱ (vv.ȱ 5Ȭ11)ȱ ofȱ anȱ initialȱconditionȱ(vv.ȱ1Ȭ4),ȱandȱareȱthemselvesȱtoȱbeȱextendedȱfurtherȱinȱ vv.ȱ20Ȭ21.ȱTheseȱtwoȱclausesȱidentifyȱinȱparallelȱmatchedȱsections,ȱpreȬ sentȱtheȱprincipalȱenemiesȱagainstȱwhomȱwisdomȱprovidesȱaȱdefenceȱ–ȱ theȱ evilȱ menȱ (vv.ȱ 12Ȭ15)ȱ andȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ (vv.ȱ 16Ȭ19).ȱ Theȱ firstȱ linesȱofȱeachȱsectionȱspecifyȱwhatȱisȱitȱaboutȱtheȱcharactersȱthatȱmustȱbeȱ avoided:ȱ v.ȱ 12ȱ –ȱ “evilȱ path”ȱ andȱ “pervertedȱ speech”,ȱ v.ȱ 16ȱ –ȱ theȱ “Foreignȱ Woman”ȱ andȱ herȱ “smoothȱ speech”.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ linesȱ thenȱ stateȱ whatȱ theyȱ haveȱ abandonedȱ (ʡʦʲ):ȱ v.ȱ 13ȱ –ȱ “straightȱ pathsȱ forȱ darkness”,ȱv.ȱ17ȱ–ȱ“partnerȱofȱherȱyouth”ȱandȱ“covenantȱofȱherȱgods”.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ lastȱ twoȱ linesȱ characteriseȱ whatȱ isȱ wrongȱ withȱ themȱ andȱ whereȱtheirȱpathsȱ(ʺʥʬʢʲʮȱand ʺʥʧʸʠ)ȱlead:ȱvv.ȱ14Ȭ15ȱ–ȱtheyȱ“doȱevil”ȱandȱ theirȱpathsȱareȱ“crooked”ȱandȱ“devious”;ȱvv.ȱ18Ȭ19ȱ–ȱherȱpathsȱleadȱtoȱ “death”ȱandȱ“doȱnotȱreturnȱtoȱlife”.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 11ȱ Theȱpassagesȱcitedȱinȱthisȱchapterȱareȱmyȱtranslations.ȱ 12ȱ Noteȱtheȱproposedȱrenderingȱofȱˑʕʬʤʐ ˌȱ“herȱtents”ȱorȱˑ ʕʺ˝ʕ ʧʗ ȱ“herȱcovering”.ȱ 13ȱ Oneȱmanuscriptȱhasȱˑ ʕʺʕʡʩ ʑʺʍʰ,ȱ“herȱpaths”.ȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

85ȱ

Provȱ2:12Ȭ15ȱ 12ȱtoȱrescueȱyouȱfromȱtheȱwayȱofȱevil,ȱfromȱtheȱmanȱwhoȱspeaksȱperversity;ȱ 13ȱwhoȱleavesȱtheȱpathsȱofȱuprightness,ȱtoȱwalkȱinȱtheȱwaysȱofȱdarkness;ȱ 14ȱwhoȱtakesȱjoyȱinȱdoingȱevil,ȱandȱcheersȱinȱtheȱpervisityȱofȱevil;ȱ 15ȱthoseȱwhoseȱpathsȱareȱcrooked,ȱandȱtheirȱtracksȱareȱperverted;ȱ

ȱ Withȱregardȱtoȱtheȱevilȱmen,ȱProvȱ1:10Ȭ19ȱhasȱalreadyȱelaboratedȱonȱtheȱ dangersȱtheyȱposeȱtoȱtheȱcommunity.ȱInȱreferenceȱtoȱthisȱpassage,ȱAlettiȱ hasȱ givenȱ anȱ excellentȱ accountȱ ofȱ whoȱ theȱ menȱ areȱ andȱ whatȱ theyȱ represent.14ȱPersonifiedȱWisdom’sȱindirectȱjudgementȱofȱtheirȱspeechȱinȱ 1:22Ȭ23,ȱ andȱ theirȱ ownȱ planȱ toȱ ambushȱ theȱ innocent,ȱ indicateȱ theirȱ desireȱtoȱignoreȱjusticeȱandȱdivineȱpunishment.ȱInȱdoingȱso,ȱtheyȱdefyȱ theȱordersȱofȱrewardȱandȱpunishmentȱwhichȱGodȱordainsȱforȱgoodȱandȱ evil.15ȱAlettiȱalsoȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱseductionȱontoȱtheȱwayȱofȱtheȱevilȱmenȱ isȱdifficultȱtoȱtellȱapartȱfromȱpersuasionȱontoȱtheȱwayȱofȱwisdom:ȱbothȱ sidesȱspeakȱtheȱsameȱlanguageȱandȱuseȱtheȱsameȱvocabulary.16ȱSo,ȱbothȱ inviteȱtheȱstudentȱtoȱjoinȱthemȱwithȱ“Come!”ȱ(1:11;ȱ1:22Ȭ24a);ȱandȱbothȱ promiseȱ toȱ “fill”ȱ ʠʬʮȱ –ȱ housesȱ withȱ lootȱ (1:13),ȱ andȱ endowȱ oneȱ withȱ wealthȱfullȱofȱtreasuresȱ(8:21);ȱbutȱoneȱdesiresȱonlyȱtoȱdoȱevilȱ(2:14)ȱandȱ theȱotherȱgoodȱ(8:20).ȱ ȱ Provȱ1:11ȱ(fromȱtheȱevilȱmen)ȱ Ifȱtheyȱsay,ȱ“Comeȱwithȱus,ȱletȱusȱlieȱinȱwaitȱforȱblood;ȱȱ letȱusȱhideȱawayȱtheȱinnocentȱwithoutȱcause.“ȱ ȱ Provȱ1:22Ȭ24aȱ(fromȱWomanȱWisdom)ȱ 22ȱHowȱlongȱOȱsimpleȱonesȱwillȱyouȱloveȱsimplemindedness?ȱȱ Andȱscornersȱdelightȱinȱtheirȱscorning,ȱandȱfoolsȱhateȱknowledge?ȱ 23ȱTurnȱtoȱmyȱreproof;ȱbehold,ȱIȱwillȱpourȱoutȱmyȱspiritȱȱ andȱIȱwillȱmakeȱknownȱtoȱyouȱmyȱwords;ȱ 24aȱbecauseȱIȱhaveȱcalledȱandȱyouȱrefused;ȱȱ ȱ Provȱ1:13ȱ(fromȱtheȱevilȱmen)ȱ Allȱkindsȱofȱrareȱvaluablesȱweȱshallȱfind;ȱ weȱshallȱfillȱourȱhousesȱwithȱbooty;ȱ ȱ Provȱ8:21ȱ(fromȱWomanȱWisdom)ȱ toȱbequeathȱpropertyȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱloveȱme;ȱȱ forȱIȱwillȱfillȱtheirȱtreasuries;ȱ ȱ Provȱ2:14ȱ(ofȱtheȱevilȱmen)ȱ whoȱtakesȱjoyȱinȱdoingȱevil,ȱandȱcheersȱinȱtheȱpervisityȱofȱevil;ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 14ȱ Aletti,ȱpp.ȱ136Ȭ40.ȱ 15ȱ ThereȱareȱsimilaritiesȱwithȱtheȱwordsȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱinȱMalȱ2:17,ȱafterȱtheȱindictmentȱ againstȱdivorceȱwithȱYahweh’sȱcovenant.ȱȱ 16ȱ Aletti,ȱpp.ȱ129Ȭ30,ȱ132Ȭ33.ȱ

86ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ

ȱ Provȱ8:20ȱ(ofȱWomanȱWisdom)ȱ Iȱwalkȱinȱtheȱwayȱofȱrighteousness,ȱȱ inȱtheȱmidstȱofȱtheȱpathsȱofȱjustice,ȱ

ȱ Provȱ2:16ȱthenȱintroducesȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱandȱprefiguresȱtheȱpasȬ sagesȱ aboutȱ herȱ inȱ 5:3;ȱ 6:24;ȱ andȱ 7:5.ȱ Sheȱ isȱ immediatelyȱ identifiedȱ byȱ theȱepithetsȱʤʸʦȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰ,ȱandȱcharacterisedȱasȱhavingȱ“smooth”ȱwordsȱ –ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ persuasiveness.ȱ Thisȱ characteristicȱ isȱ describedȱ variouslyȱ inȱ theȱlaterȱpassages,ȱbutȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱstemȱʷʬʧ,ȱinȱrelationȱtoȱherȱmouth,ȱ isȱtoȱbeȱaȱconstantȱfeatureȱ(5:3;ȱ6:24;ȱ7:5,ȱ21).ȱWhatȱisȱalsoȱinterestingȱinȱ thisȱdepictionȱofȱ“smoothȱwords”ȱisȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱcharacteristicȱofȱsomeȱofȱ theȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ “bad”ȱ foreignȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ OT,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ PoȬ tiphar’sȱ wifeȱ (Genȱ 39),ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ theȱ Deuteronomisticȱ literature,ȱ Samson’sȱtwoȱPhilistineȱwomenȱ–ȱhisȱunnamedȱwifeȱandȱDelilahȱ(Judgȱ 14;ȱ16:1Ȭ22),17ȱasȱwellȱasȱJezebelȱ(1ȱKgsȱ21:25;ȱcf.ȱ3.1).ȱȱ Provȱ 2:17ȱ depictsȱ whatȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ hasȱ left. ʤʩʸʥʲʰ ʳʥʬʠ isȱ oftenȱ takenȱ toȱ meanȱ “husband”.ȱ Anȱ exampleȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ Jerȱ 3:4,ȱ inȱ whichȱ Israel,ȱ depictedȱ asȱ theȱ wifeȱ ofȱ Yahweh,ȱ callsȱ outȱ toȱ God,ȱ “Myȱ father,ȱʩʸʲʰ ʳʥʬʠ”.18ȱTheȱphraseȱwhichȱfollows,ȱʤʩʤʬʠ ʺʩʸʡ,ȱisȱtakenȱtoȱreferȱ toȱherȱmarriageȱcovenantȱmadeȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱGod.19ȱThisȱleadsȱtoȱaȱ suppositionȱ thatȱ theȱ woman’sȱ primaryȱ sinȱ isȱ adultery.20ȱ However,ȱ theȱ vocabularyȱ usedȱ inȱ Provȱ 2:17ȱ resemblesȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Malȱ 2:14Ȭ15,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ earlier,ȱ theȱ issueȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ aboutȱ divorceȱ andȱ notȱ adulȬ tery.ȱIncidentally,ȱtheȱoccurrenceȱofȱ“wifeȱofȱyourȱyouth”ȱandȱ“wifeȱofȱ yourȱ covenant”ȱ inȱ Malachiȱ isȱ alsoȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ issuesȱ conȬ cerningȱ marriage,ȱ includingȱ marriagesȱ toȱ theȱ “daughterȱ ofȱ aȱ foreignȱ god”.ȱ Whetherȱ orȱ notȱ Provȱ 2:17ȱ isȱ deliberatelyȱ evokingȱ Jeremiahȱ orȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17ȱ Interestingly,ȱtheȱDtrHȱusesȱtheȱrootȱʤʺʴȱinȱtheȱpielȱtoȱcommandȱSamson’sȱwomenȱtoȱ seduceȱ himȱ intoȱ revealingȱ hisȱ secretsȱ (cf.ȱ Judgȱ 14:15;ȱ 16:5).ȱ Itȱ occursȱ twentyȬsevenȱ timesȱ inȱ theȱ OTȱ andȱ isȱ usuallyȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Writings:ȱ inȱ qalȱ –ȱ Deutȱ 11:16;ȱ Jobȱ 5:2;ȱ 31:27;ȱ Provȱ 20:19;ȱ Hosȱ 7:11;ȱ inȱ niphalȱ –ȱ Jobȱ 31:9;ȱ Jerȱ 20:7;ȱ inȱ pielȱ –ȱ Exodȱ 22:16ȱ (MTȱ 22:15);ȱ2ȱSamȱ3:25;ȱ1ȱKgsȱ22:20Ȭ22ȱ(thrice);ȱ2ȱChrȱ18:19Ȭ21ȱ(thrice);ȱPsȱ78:36;ȱProvȱ1:10;ȱ 16:29;ȱ 24:28;ȱ Jerȱ20:7;ȱ Ezekȱ14:9;ȱHosȱ 2:14;ȱ inȱ pualȱ –ȱ Provȱ 25:15;ȱ Jerȱ 20:10;ȱ Ezekȱ14:9.ȱ Theȱwordȱmeansȱ“toȱentice,ȱpersuade,ȱdeceive”ȱandȱinȱmostȱofȱtheȱoccurrencesȱitȱdeȬ notesȱ one’sȱ moralȱ senseȱ beingȱ luredȱ astray.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ itȱ alsoȱ reflectsȱ theȱ immoralȱstateȱofȱtheȱoneȱdoingȱtheȱdeceiving.ȱHowever,ȱwhereȱitȱoccursȱinȱtheȱproȬ pheticȱ literature,ȱ itȱ isȱ usedȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ enticingȱ theȱ prophetȱ orȱ theȱ peopleȱ intoȱ accomplishingȱ hisȱ divineȱ plan.ȱ Theȱ sameȱ wordȱ isȱ alsoȱ usedȱ inȱ Deutȱ 11:16ȱ wherebyȱ Israelȱ isȱ warnedȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ seducedȱ intoȱ worshippingȱ otherȱ godsȱ inȱ theȱ promisedȱ land.ȱ Seeȱ “ʤʺʴ”,ȱ HALOTȱ vol.ȱ III,ȱ p.ȱ 989;ȱ ChouȬWeeȱ Pan,ȱ “ʤʺʴ”,ȱ NIDOTEȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ pp.ȱ 306Ȭ309.ȱCf.ȱAppendix.ȱ 18ȱ ContraryȱtoȱMcKaneȱ(p.ȱ286)ȱwhoȱprefersȱtoȱunderstandȱʳʥʬʠȱasȱdenotingȱtheȱroleȱofȱaȱ fatherȱwhoȱinstructsȱhisȱchildrenȱinȱtheirȱyouth.ȱȱ 19ȱ W.O.E.ȱ Oesterley,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ (Westminsterȱ Commentaries;ȱ London:ȱ MeȬ theun,ȱ1929),ȱp.ȱ17;ȱespeciallyȱToy,ȱp.ȱ47.ȱ 20ȱ Toy,ȱp.ȱ47;ȱMurphy,ȱp.ȱ16;ȱMeinhold,ȱSprüche,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ69;ȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ120.ȱȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

87ȱ

Malachi,ȱtheȱlanguageȱisȱthatȱofȱdepictingȱtheȱdissolutionȱofȱmarriageȱinȱ connectionȱ withȱ apostasy.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ itȱ matchesȱ whatȱ isȱ saidȱ ofȱ theȱ evilȱ menȱ whoȱ departedȱ fromȱ “straightȱ paths”ȱ inȱ 2:13,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ identificationȱ ofȱ theȱ foreignȱ womenȱ withȱ apostasyȱ thatȱ weȱ haveȱ idenȬ tifiedȱpreviously.ȱThisȱinterpretationȱisȱfurtherȱsupportedȱbyȱtheȱusageȱ ofȱʧʫʹ,ȱwhichȱisȱusedȱfrequentlyȱinȱDeuteronomicȱtextsȱtoȱdepictȱIsraelȱ whenȱ sheȱ forgetsȱ Yahweh.ȱ Itȱ alwaysȱ impliesȱ thatȱ theȱ formerȱ hasȱ goneȱ intoȱapostasy,ȱwhetherȱitȱbeȱanȱattitudeȱofȱingratitude,ȱcommittingȱidolȬ atryȱ andȱ worshippingȱ foreignȱ deities,ȱ orȱ notȱ fulfillingȱ theȱ obligationsȱ andȱrequirementsȱofȱtheȱLaw.21ȱThisȱalsoȱexplainsȱwhyȱtheȱgeneralȱsinsȱ ofȱtheȱwickedȱmenȱareȱparalleledȱtoȱsomethingȱseeminglyȱsoȱspecific.ȱȱȱ Followingȱ Provȱ 2:17,ȱ 2:18Ȭ19ȱ continuesȱ toȱ depictȱ theȱ Foreignȱ WoȬ man’sȱ houseȱ andȱ herȱ pathsȱ inȱ unearthlyȱ terms:ȱ deathȱ andȱ theȱ neȬ therworld.ȱThisȱdepictionȱisȱalsoȱanotherȱhallmarkȱwhichȱidentifiesȱtheȱ passagesȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱWeȱfindȱthisȱlanguageȱofȱdeathȱalsoȱinȱ 5:5ȱ andȱ 7:22Ȭ27ȱ rightȱ afterȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ herȱ smoothȱ speech.ȱ ComȬ mentatorsȱ concurȱ thatȱ thisȱ languageȱ ofȱ deathȱ depictsȱ mythologicalȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ theȱ netherworld,22ȱ andȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ interpretȱ itȱ asȱ symȬ bolicȱofȱaȱnoȬreturnȱtoȱYahweh’sȱorderȱofȱlife23ȱorȱasȱprematureȱdeath.24ȱ Mostȱ likely,ȱ theȱ authorȱ hasȱ preciselyȱ allȱ theseȱ intentionsȱ forȱ theȱ porȬ trayals.ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ Provȱ 2:16Ȭ19ȱ capturesȱ theȱ gistȱ ofȱ theȱ mainȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman:ȱ sheȱ isȱ aȱ foreignerȱ describedȱ byȱ theȱ epithetsȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰ;ȱsheȱseducesȱbyȱherȱ“smooth”ȱspeech;ȱsheȱisȱaȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱ wayȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱandȱapostasy;ȱthoseȱwhoȱchooseȱherȱwaysȱthereȬ foreȱ abandonȱ theȱ covenantȱ ofȱ Yahweh;ȱ andȱ herȱ houseȱ andȱ herȱ pathsȱ leadsȱ toȱ death.ȱ Whereȱ weȱ findȱ theseȱ featuresȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ passagesȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ weȱ canȱ inferȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ ForeignȱWoman.ȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 21ȱ Leslieȱ Allen,ȱ “ʧʫʹ”,ȱ NIDOTEȱ vol.ȱ IV,ȱ pp.ȱ 103Ȭ105.ȱ Ofȱ selfishȱ ingratitude:ȱ Deutȱ 4:9;ȱ 6:12;ȱ 8:14;ȱ etȱ cetera;ȱ ofȱ neglectingȱ covenantalȱ commitments:ȱ Deutȱ 4:23;ȱ 8:11;ȱ Psȱ 78:7,ȱ 11;ȱ Isaȱ 17:10;ȱ 51:13;ȱ 65:11;ȱ Jerȱ 3:21;ȱ Ezekȱ 22:12;ȱ 23:35;ȱ Hosȱ 13:6;ȱ etȱ cetera;ȱ andȱ comȬ mittingȱidolatry:ȱDeutȱ8:19;ȱ32:18;ȱJerȱ13:25;ȱ18:15;ȱetȱcetera.ȱȱ 22ȱ McKaneȱ(p.ȱ287)ȱbelievesȱthatȱitȱisȱembeddedȱwithȱtheȱUgariticȱmythsȱofȱMot.ȱToyȱ(p.ȱ 48)ȱlikensȱitȱtoȱGrecianȱmythology.ȱOesterleyȱ(p.ȱ17)ȱthinksȱitȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱBabylonianȱ mythȱofȱtheȱ“DescentȱofȱIshtar”.ȱ 23ȱ Hence,ȱspiritualȱdeathȱ–ȱasȱMcKane,ȱp.ȱ288.ȱȱ 24ȱ Toy,ȱpp.ȱ48Ȭ49.ȱ

88ȱ ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ

4.2.2ȱProverbsȱ5:1Ȭ23ȱ ȱ 1ȱMyȱson,ȱgiveȱattentionȱtoȱmyȱwisdom,ȱȱ inclineȱyourȱearȱtoȱmyȱunderstanding;ȱ 2ȱsoȱthatȱyouȱmayȱregardȱprudence,ȱȱ andȱyourȱlipsȱmayȱobserveȱknowledge.ȱ25ȱ 3ȱForȱtheȱlipsȱofȱtheȱstrangeȱwomanȱ(ʤʸʦ)ȱdripȱhoney,ȱȱ andȱherȱspeechȱisȱsmootherȱthanȱoil,ȱ 4ȱbutȱtheȱendȱofȱherȱisȱbitterȱasȱwormwood,ȱȱ sharpȱasȱaȱtwoȬedgedȱsword.ȱ 5ȱHerȱfeetȱgoȱdownȱtoȱdeath,ȱȱ herȱstepsȱgraspȱSheol.ȱ 6ȱLest26ȱyouȱdoȱnotȱobserveȱtheȱpathsȱofȱlife,ȱȱ herȱwaysȱareȱunstable,ȱandȱyouȱdoȱnotȱknow.ȱ 7ȱNowȱthen,ȱmyȱson,27ȱlistenȱtoȱme,ȱȱ andȱdoȱnotȱturnȱasideȱfromȱtheȱwordsȱofȱmyȱmouth.ȱ 8ȱKeepȱyourȱwayȱfarȱfromȱher,ȱ andȱdoȱnotȱgoȱnearȱtheȱdoorȱofȱherȱhouse.ȱ 9ȱLestȱyouȱgiveȱyourȱvigour28ȱtoȱothers,ȱȱ andȱyourȱyears29ȱtoȱtheȱcruelȱone.ȱ 10ȱLestȱstrangersȱ(ʭʩʸʦ)ȱbecomeȱsatiatedȱwithȱyourȱwealth,ȱȱ andȱyourȱlaboursȱgoȱtoȱtheȱhouseȱofȱaȱforeignerȱ(ʩʸʫʰ).ȱ 11ȱThenȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱyou,ȱyouȱwillȱgroan,ȱȱ andȱyourȱfleshȱandȱbodyȱperishȱ 12ȱandȱyouȱsay,ȱ”HowȱIȱhaveȱhatedȱdiscipline,ȱȱ andȱmyȱheartȱdisdainȱreproof!ȱ 13ȱIȱhaveȱnotȱlistenedȱtoȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱmyȱteachers,ȱȱ andȱdidȱnotȱinclineȱmyȱearsȱtoȱmyȱinstructors.ȱ 14ȱIȱamȱalmostȱatȱtheȱpointȱofȱutterȱruin,ȱȱ inȱtheȱmidstȱofȱtheȱassemblyȱandȱcongregation.”ȱ 15ȱDrinkȱwaterȱfromȱyouȱownȱcistern,ȱȱ andȱflowingȱwaterȱfromȱyourȱownȱwell.ȱ 16ȱShouldȱyourȱspringsȱbeȱscattered30ȱoutside,ȱȱ streamsȱofȱwaterȱinȱtheȱopenȱsquares?ȱ 17ȱLetȱthemȱbeȱyoursȱalone,ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 25ȱ ThereȱareȱsomeȱtextualȱdifficultiesȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱtextȱhere;ȱtheȱusualȱtranslationȱhasȱ beenȱadopted.ȱAsȱnotedȱinȱBHS,ȱitȱhasȱbeenȱproposed,ȱ“soȱthatȱprudenceȱandȱknowȬ ledgeȱmayȱkeepȱyou,ȱandȱguardȱyouȱfromȱtheȱlipsȱofȱtheȱforeignȱwomanȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ).”ȱForȱ otherȱ waysȱ ofȱ emendingȱ theȱ text,ȱ seeȱ McKane,ȱ p.ȱ 314;ȱ Toy,ȱ pp.ȱ 101Ȭ102;ȱ andȱ Fox,ȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ190Ȭ91.ȱ 26ȱ BHSȱproposedȱʬʡȱorȱʬʠ;ȱseeȱbelowȱforȱdiscussion.ȱ 27ȱ FollowingȱSeptuagintȱ(Vulgate)ȱinsteadȱofȱʭʩʰʡȱinȱMTȱasȱBHSȱproposed.ȱ 28ȱ Theȱ Septuagintȱ hasȱ “yourȱ life”ȱ (cf.ȱ 5.3.2),ȱ whileȱ theȱ Syriacȱ andȱ Targumȱ hasȱ “yourȱ strength”.ȱ 29ȱ “Honour”ȱhasȱbeenȱproposed,ȱseeȱBHS.ȱ 30ȱ Perhaps,ȱʯʴȱorȱʬʠȱprecedes,ȱasȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱSeptuagint,ȱseeȱbelowȱforȱdiscussion,ȱ andȱcf.ȱ5.3.2.ȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

89ȱ

andȱnot31ȱforȱstrangersȱ(ʭʩʸʦʬ)ȱwithȱyou.ȱ 18ȱLetȱyourȱfountainȱbeȱblessed,ȱ andȱrejoiceȱinȱtheȱwifeȱofȱyourȱyouth.ȱ 19ȱ32Aȱlovelyȱdoe,ȱaȱgracefulȱdeer,ȱȱ mayȱherȱbreastsȱsatisfyȱyouȱatȱallȱtimes,ȱ andȱmayȱyouȱbeȱintoxicatedȱwithȱherȱloveȱcontinually.ȱ 20ȱWhyȱshouldȱyouȱstray,ȱmyȱson,ȱwithȱaȱstrangeȱwomanȱ(ʤʸʦʡ)ȱ andȱembraceȱtheȱbosomȱofȱaȱforeignȱwomanȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ)?ȱ 21ȱForȱtheȱwaysȱofȱmanȱareȱbeforeȱtheȱeyesȱofȱYahweh,ȱ andȱheȱwatchesȱallȱhisȱtracks.ȱ 22ȱHisȱiniquitiesȱshallȱseizeȱtheȱwicked,ȱȱ andȱheȱwillȱbeȱboundȱbyȱtheȱcordsȱofȱhisȱownȱsins.ȱ 23ȱHeȱwillȱdieȱforȱlackȱofȱinstruction,ȱ byȱhisȱgreatȱfollyȱheȱwillȱgoȱastray.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ Provȱ 5:3f.,ȱ whereȱ onlyȱʤʸʦȱ isȱ usedȱ ofȱtheȱ womanȱ initially,ȱ weȱ findȱ aȱ moreȱelaborateȱwarningȱagainstȱtheȱForeignȱWoman’sȱmouth,ȱprobablyȱ contrastedȱpoeticallyȱwithȱtheȱadmonitionȱofȱtheȱfatherȱinȱv.ȱ2ȱtoȱguardȱ one’sȱ lipsȱ withȱ knowledge.ȱ Theseȱ versesȱ drawȱ aȱ contrastȱ betweenȱ theȱ firstȱtasteȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman’sȱwordsȱandȱtheȱaftertaste:ȱtheyȱ“dripȱ honey”ȱandȱareȱ“smoothȱasȱoil”ȱ(v.ȱ3),ȱ“butȱinȱtheȱendȱtheyȱareȱbitterȱasȱ wormwoodȱ andȱ sharpȱ asȱ aȱ twoȬedgedȱ sword”ȱ (v.ȱ 4).ȱ Thusȱ theȱ fatherȱ admitsȱ thatȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ doesȱ gratify,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ initialȱ stagesȱofȱtheȱencounter;ȱsubsequently,ȱsheȱisȱaȱsourceȱofȱhurtȱandȱregretȱ (compareȱ“theȱendȱofȱher“ȱinȱv.ȱ4ȱandȱ“theȱendȱofȱyou“ȱinȱv.ȱ11).ȱ Provȱ 5:5Ȭ6ȱ warnȱ aboutȱ herȱ pathȱ whichȱ leadsȱ toȱ deathȱ andȱ theȱ neȬ therworld,ȱrecallingȱ2:18Ȭ19.ȱTheȱverbsȱinȱ5:6ȱareȱpuzzling,ȱasȱʱʬʴʺȱandȱ ʲʣʺȱcouldȱbeȱreadȱasȱtheȱsecondȱmasculineȱsingularȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱsonȱ beingȱ warned;ȱ orȱ theȱ thirdȱ feminineȱ singular,ȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱThoseȱwhoȱpreferȱtheȱlatterȱargueȱthatȱtheȱpassageȱisȱaboutȱtheȱ ForeignȱWoman,ȱwhichȱportraysȱherȱasȱanȱignorantȱvictimȱherself.33ȱOnȱ theȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱpassageȱisȱprimarilyȱaȱwarningȱtoȱtheȱson.ȱIfȱweȱfolȬ lowȱtheȱMT,ȱWhybrayȱisȱquiteȱrightȱtoȱwarnȱthatȱʯʴȱisȱalwaysȱtranslatedȱ asȱȱȱ“lest”ȱȱȱratherȱȱthanȱȱ“not”.34ȱȱLikewise,ȱȱȱtheȱȱsecondȱȱverbȱȱȱʲʣʺ,ȱȱalsoȱȱrefersȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31 Taking ʬʠʥ,ȱasȱproposedȱbyȱBHS.ȱ 32ȱ BHSȱsuggestsȱtoȱinsertȱʤʣʡʬ ʤʺʥʠ ʤʲʸȱ“sheȱisȱyourȱonlyȱcompanion”,ȱwhichȱmightȱhaveȱ beenȱleftȱout.ȱ 33ȱ Therefore,ȱtakingȱʬʡȱorȱʬʠȱasȱproposedȱbyȱBHS:ȱOesterleyȱ(p.ȱ35),ȱ“soȱthatȱsheȱfindethȱ notȱ theȱ levelȱ pathȱ ofȱ life:ȱ herȱ waysȱ areȱ unstableȱ andȱ sheȱ knowethȱ itȱ not”;ȱ Toyȱ (pp.ȱ 101,ȱ105Ȭ106),ȱ“NoȱwellȬbuiltȱhighwayȱofȱlifeȱsheȱwalks,ȱuncertainȱherȱpathsȱandȱnotȱ ’firm’“;ȱ andȱ McKaneȱ (pp.ȱ 217,ȱ 314Ȭ15),ȱ “Sheȱ hasȱ noȱ regardȱ forȱ theȱ pathȱ ofȱ life,ȱ herȱ tracksȱwaver,ȱsheȱisȱneverȱatȱrest.”ȱHowever,ȱMcKaneȱandȱPlögerȱ(p.ȱ55)ȱalsoȱadmitȱ theȱpossibilityȱforȱtheȱotherȱoption.ȱ 34ȱ Whybray,ȱProverbs,ȱp.ȱ86;ȱalsoȱMurphy,ȱp.ȱ30.ȱTheȱparticleȱexpressesȱprecaution,ȱseeȱ GK,ȱp.ȱ482.ȱFox,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱunderstandsȱasȱaȱ“negativeȱoptative”ȱandȱinterȬ pretsȱv.ȱ5bȱasȱsupplyingȱtheȱellipsisȱforȱv.ȱ6a;ȱinȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ193.ȱWhatȱisȱbestȱ

90ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ ȱ toȱ theȱ secondȱ masculineȱ singular,ȱ andȱ identifiesȱ theȱ victimȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱknow.35ȱȱ Mostȱcommentatorsȱinterpretȱtheȱlossȱofȱhonourȱandȱwealthȱinȱ5:9Ȭ 10ȱwithȱ6:32Ȭ35ȱinȱview,ȱwithȱtheȱunderstandingȱthatȱtheȱlossesȱtoȱdepictȱ theȱ legalȱ claimsȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ cuckoldedȱ husband,ȱ orȱ theȱ depredationsȱ byȱassociatesȱofȱtheȱadulteress.36ȱHowever,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱdepictionȱofȱadulȬ teryȱ takingȱ placeȱ inȱ Provȱ 5.ȱ Theȱ plunderȱ byȱ “foreigners”ȱ inȱ 5:10ȱ reȬ semblesȱtheȱdepictionsȱfoundȱinȱLamȱ5:2;ȱObadȱ11;ȱandȱevenȱIsaȱ61:15.ȱ Inȱallȱtheseȱportrayalsȱofȱplunder,ȱtheȱforeigners,ȱtheȱʭʩʸʦȱand ʭʩʸʫʰ,ȱnotȱ onlyȱ claimedȱ Israel’sȱ landsȱ (Isaȱ 61:5;ȱ Obadȱ 11)ȱ andȱ inheritanceȱ (Lamȱ 5:2),ȱ butȱ alsoȱ Israel’sȱ possessionsȱ (flocksȱ –ȱ Isaȱ 61:5)ȱ andȱ wealthȱ (Obadȱ 11).37ȱThereȱareȱsomeȱcommentatorsȱwhoȱthinkȱthatȱʣʥʤȱinȱv.ȱ9ȱalsoȱreferȱ toȱ “wealth”,38ȱ andȱ itȱ mayȱ beȱ so.ȱ Theȱ consequencesȱ mayȱ includeȱ someȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ specificȱ lossȱ ofȱ personalȱ propertyȱ toȱ foreigners,ȱ asȱ depictedȱinȱEzraȱ9,ȱbutȱthisȱisȱprobablyȱdealtȱwithȱinȱ5:15Ȭ19,ȱasȱweȱshallȱ see.ȱ Hereȱ theȱ languageȱ evokes,ȱ moreȱ generally,ȱ consequencesȱ thatȱ areȱ usuallyȱassociatedȱwithȱdestructionȱfollowingȱapostasy.ȱ Provȱ 5:11Ȭ14ȱ apparentlyȱ depictȱ aȱ sceneȱ whereȱ theȱ victimȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ broughtȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ aȱ congregationȱ ofȱ eldersȱ whereȱ heȱ criesȱ outȱ inȱ deepȱ remorseȱ forȱ notȱ takingȱ seriouslyȱ theȱ instructionsȱ offeredȱ toȱ him.ȱ Theȱ victim’sȱ cryȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ nearȱ death,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ actualȱ deathȱ promisedȱ asȱ aȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ involvementȱ withȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ elsewhere,ȱ butȱ itȱ mayȱ asȱ wellȱ beȱ death:ȱ heȱ isȱ imȬ poverishedȱ andȱ facedȱ withȱ humiliationȱ inȱ hisȱ community.39ȱ Theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 35ȱ

36ȱ

37ȱ 38

39ȱ

understoodȱhereȱisȱsimplyȱthatȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱshouldȱbeȱavoidedȱlestȱoneȱdoesȱ notȱkeepȱone’sȱeyesȱonȱtheȱpathȱofȱlife.ȱȱ Theȱ ignoranceȱ ofȱ theȱ victimȱ isȱ alsoȱ portrayedȱ inȱ 7:23ȱ andȱ 9:18,ȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ useȱ ofȱ negativeȱparticleȱandȱstem,ȱʲʣʩ ʠʬ.ȱTheȱignoranceȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱexpressedȱ differently,ȱ asȱ ʤʮ ʤʲʣʩʚʬʡʥ.ȱ Besides,ȱ theȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ theȱ victim’sȱ ignoranceȱ isȱ alsoȱ alwaysȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ immediateȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman’sȱ wayȱ andȱ consequence.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱfoundȱinȱ9:13,ȱwhereȱtheȱimmediateȱcontextȱdepictsȱonlyȱherȱ character.ȱ Toy,ȱ pp.ȱ 108Ȭ109.ȱ Gemserȱ (p.ȱ 28)ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ creditorsȱ wereȱ foreigners.ȱ Theȱ sugȬ gestionȱisȱprobablyȱanȱattemptȱtoȱlinkȱPsȱ109:11ȱwithȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱlossȱofȱone’sȱ properties.ȱSeeȱMeinhold,ȱSprüche,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ103.ȱ H.ȱEising,ȱ“ʬʩʧȱ”,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ348Ȭ55.ȱ Toy,ȱp.ȱ108;ȱGemser,ȱp.ȱ28;ȱWhybray,ȱProverbs,ȱp.ȱ88.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱbecauseȱFoxȱ arguesȱ forȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ adultery,ȱ heȱ believesȱ thatȱ ʣʥʤȱ refersȱ toȱ one’sȱ generatingȱ powerȱorȱsexualȱvigour,ȱsinceȱitȱisȱessentiallyȱaboutȱwastingȱone’sȱseedȱtoȱsomeoneȱ else.ȱForȱtheȱelaborateȱargument,ȱseeȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ194Ȭ95.ȱȱ Foxȱ(Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ197)ȱthinksȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱvictimȱwastingȱawayȱinȱ diseaseȱ (cf.ȱ Jobȱ 33:21)ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ referringȱ toȱ veneralȱ diseasesȱ dueȱ toȱ casualȱ intercourse.ȱTheȱphraseȱisȱcertainlyȱaboutȱtheȱfleshȱ“wastingȱaway”,ȱbutȱthereȱisȱnoȬ thingȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ thatȱ indicateȱ itȱ isȱ dueȱ toȱ aȱ disease.ȱ Mostȱ commentators,ȱ asȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

91ȱ

realisationȱ indeedȱ comesȱ tooȱ late,ȱ whenȱ heȱ canȱ noȱ longerȱ contributeȱ activelyȱ andȱ positivelyȱ toȱ theȱ community,ȱ exceptȱ forȱ theȱ opportunityȱ forȱhimȱtoȱconfessȱtheȱconsequence.ȱ Provȱ 5:15Ȭ20ȱ hasȱ generallyȱ beenȱ understoodȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ separateȱ unitȱ fromȱvv.ȱ1Ȭ14.40ȱTheȱargumentȱforȱthisȱdivisionȱisȱbasedȱonȱaȱperceivedȱ differenceȱinȱtheȱstyleȱofȱlanguage,ȱandȱaȱswitchȱtoȱtheȱobviousȱuseȱofȱ metaphoricalȱ languageȱ (cf.ȱ theȱ constantȱ useȱ ofȱ waterȱ imageriesȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 15Ȭ19;ȱandȱanimalsȱasȱfiguresȱofȱspeechȱinȱv.ȱ19).ȱVersesȱ15Ȭ20,ȱhowever,ȱ admonishȱ oneȱ notȱ toȱ commitȱ theȱ mistakeȱ whichȱ theȱ earlierȱ unitȱ desȬ cribes,ȱ andȱ surelyȱ belongsȱ withȱ it,ȱ asȱ McKaneȱ hasȱ argued.41ȱ Thisȱ pasȬ sageȱ hasȱ beenȱ unanimouslyȱ interpretedȱ asȱ anȱ admonitionȱ forȱ theȱ husbandȱtoȱstayȱfaithfulȱtoȱhisȱspouseȱbyȱdelightingȱinȱsexualȱpleasureȱ withȱ her,ȱ andȱ thusȱ avoidȱ theȱ adulteryȱ describedȱ beforehand.42ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱifȱthisȱthesisȱisȱcorrect,ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱ notȱ primarilyȱ aboutȱ adulteryȱ perȱ se,ȱ isȱ thereȱ anotherȱ wayȱ toȱ readȱ thisȱ section,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ oneȱ whichȱ doesȱ moreȱ justiceȱ toȱ itsȱ complicatedȱ imagery?ȱ Theȱimageryȱofȱwaterȱdominatesȱtheȱfirstȱpartȱofȱtheȱpassageȱinȱvv.ȱ 15Ȭ18.ȱ Theȱ wellȱ andȱ cisternȱ inȱ v.ȱ 15ȱ areȱ usuallyȱ interpretedȱ asȱ repreȬ sentingȱtheȱwife,43ȱbutȱthereȱisȱconsiderableȱdebateȱasȱtoȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ theȱ otherȱ imagesȱ inȱ v.ȱ 16ȱ –ȱ theȱ springsȱ andȱ streamsȱ ofȱ water.ȱ Doȱ theyȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ wife,ȱ orȱ theȱ progenyȱ ofȱ theȱ husband,ȱ orȱ specificallyȱ toȱ theȱ semenȱȱofȱȱtheȱȱhusband?ȱȱSinceȱȱWhybrayȱȱhasȱȱeffectivelyȱȱsummarisedȱtheȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 40ȱ

41ȱ 42ȱ 43ȱ

McKaneȱ (pp.ȱ 316Ȭ18),ȱ thinksȱ thatȱ itȱ justȱ describesȱ theȱ extremeȱ physicalȱ painȱ ofȱ imȬ poverishment.ȱCf.ȱToy,ȱp.ȱ110.ȱ Seeȱ discussionsȱ inȱ McKane,ȱ p.ȱ 312;ȱ Plöger,ȱ p.ȱ 61;ȱ Whybray,ȱ Proverbs,ȱ p.ȱ 84.ȱ Forȱ anȱ otherwiseȱ treatment,ȱ seeȱ Scott,ȱ p.ȱ 55;ȱ P.W.ȱ Skehan,ȱ “Proverbsȱ 5:15Ȭ19ȱ andȱ 6:20Ȭ24”,ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Israeliteȱ Poetryȱ andȱ Wisdomȱ (CBQMS;ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.:ȱ Catholicȱ Biblicalȱ Association,ȱ 1971),ȱ pp.ȱ 1Ȭ8;ȱ andȱ J.E.ȱ Goldingay,ȱ “Proverbsȱ Vȱ andȱ IX”,ȱ RBȱ 84ȱ (1977),ȱ pp.ȱ80Ȭ93,ȱwhoȱthinksȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱlaterȱaddition.ȱȱ McKane,ȱp.ȱ312.ȱ Seeȱn.ȱ44.ȱȱ Whybray,ȱProverbs,ȱp.ȱ90;ȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ200Ȭ201;ȱMurphy,ȱp.ȱ32;ȱPlöger,ȱp.ȱ57;ȱ Scott,ȱp.ȱ58;ȱandȱGemser,ȱp.ȱ29.ȱ“Drinkȱwaterȱfromȱyourȱownȱcisterns”ȱofȱv.ȱ15ȱisȱalsoȱ foundȱ inȱ Isaȱ 36:16ȱ =ȱ 2ȱ Kgsȱ 18:31.ȱItȱ isȱ aȱ highlyȱ controversialȱ passageȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ itsȱ historicity,ȱwhereȱSennacherib,ȱtheȱKingȱofȱAssyriaȱthroughȱhisȱmessengerȱtauntsȱtheȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Judahȱ toȱ surrenderȱ toȱ himȱ withoutȱ aȱ fightȱ andȱ notȱ toȱ trustȱ theirȱ kingȱ Hezekiah.ȱItȱwasȱpromisedȱtoȱthemȱthatȱifȱtheyȱabandonedȱcarryingȱarms,ȱtheyȱcouldȱ returnȱ homeȱ toȱ theirȱ vinesȱ andȱ drinkȱ theirȱ watersȱ untilȱ Assyriaȱ wouldȱ comeȱ toȱ deportȱthem.ȱTheȱpromiseȱisȱtemporaryȱbutȱnonethelessȱpeacefulȱandȱpossiblyȱwithȬ outȱtheȱthreatȱofȱseige.ȱT.R.ȱHobbsȱcitesȱtheȱoccurrencesȱinȱProvȱ5:15ȱandȱSSongsȱ4:12,ȱ 15ȱandȱextendsȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱmessageȱtoȱalsoȱimplyȱthatȱtheȱwomenȱinȱtheȱcityȱ willȱbeȱsparedȱfromȱsexualȱabuseȱwhichȱwarȱoftenȱbrought.ȱSeeȱT.R.ȱHobbs,ȱ2ȱKingsȱ (WBC,ȱ13;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1985).ȱForȱtheȱhistoricalȱcontextȱofȱthisȱtext,ȱseeȱ M.ȱCoganȱandȱHayimȱTadmor,ȱIIȱKings:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ11;ȱ GardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ2001),ȱpp.ȱ223Ȭ52.ȱ

92ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ

ȱ debate,44ȱ theȱ detailsȱ needȱ notȱ beȱ repeatedȱ here.ȱ Theseȱ interpretationsȱ dependȱ onȱ anȱ understandingȱ ofȱ v.ȱ 18ȱ asȱ theȱ keyȱ toȱ theȱ metaphoricalȱ languageȱofȱtheȱpassage,ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱ“wifeȱofȱyourȱyouth”ȱinȱparallelismȱ toȱ theȱ “fountain”ȱ informsȱ v.ȱ 15ȱ thatȱ theȱ waterȱ imageriesȱ areȱ metaȬ phoricalȱofȱtheȱ“wife”.ȱHowever,ȱv.ȱ16ȱwouldȱnotȱmakeȱsenseȱwithȱthisȱ interpretation.ȱ Thereȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ noȱ satisfactoryȱ wayȱ ofȱ resolvingȱ theȱ problemȱofȱunderstandingȱallȱtheȱwaterȱimageriesȱinȱvv.ȱ15,ȱ16ȱandȱ18ȱ asȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱsameȱthing.ȱConsequently,ȱcommentatorsȱclaimȱthatȱ aȱ differentȱ referenceȱ isȱ intendedȱ forȱ theȱ waterȱ imageriesȱ inȱ v.ȱ 16.ȱ PerȬ haps,ȱ relyingȱ onȱ v.ȱ 18ȱ asȱ theȱ keyȱ toȱ interpretingȱ theȱ passageȱ isȱ notȱ tenableȱafterall.ȱ Paulȱ Kruger,ȱ followingȱ W.H.ȱ Gispen,ȱ isȱ rightȱ toȱ proposeȱ thatȱ thisȱ passageȱhasȱnothingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱmaritalȱfidelityȱbutȱisȱessentiallyȱaboutȱ “private”ȱversusȱ“commonȱproperty”.45ȱWellsȱandȱcisternsȱwereȱprivateȱ possessionsȱinȱOTȱtimesȱ(cf.ȱ2ȱKgsȱ18:13),46ȱandȱtheȱfatherȱthusȱexhortsȱ theȱ pupilȱ toȱ enjoyȱ hisȱ ownȱ possessions.ȱ Provȱ 5:16ȱ depictsȱ somethingȱ whichȱshouldȱnotȱhappen,ȱwithȱprivateȱsourcesȱbecomingȱspringsȱandȱ streamsȱ ofȱ water,ȱ whichȱ areȱ outsideȱ andȱ areȱ sharedȱ byȱ everyone.ȱ Theȱ fatherȱposesȱaȱrhetoricalȱquestionȱaboutȱwhetherȱone’sȱprivateȱpropertyȱ shouldȱbeȱopenedȱtoȱtheȱpublic,ȱandȱv.ȱ17ȱfollowsȱwithȱanȱexhortationȱ thatȱ oneȱ shouldȱ guardȱ itȱ jealouslyȱ forȱ oneself,ȱ andȱ notȱ forȱ othersȱ toȱ share.ȱ Therefore,ȱ vv.ȱ 15Ȭ17ȱ continueȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ vv.ȱ 9Ȭ14ȱ whereȱ theȱ victimȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ losesȱ everythingȱ thatȱ heȱ ownsȱ toȱ theȱ foreignersȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱTheyȱremindȱtheȱpupilȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱ Foxȱ (Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ pp.ȱ 200Ȭ201),ȱ Gemserȱ (p.ȱ 29),ȱ Plögerȱ (p.ȱ 57),ȱ Murphyȱ (p.ȱ 32),ȱ andȱ Scottȱ(p.ȱ58),ȱthinkȱthatȱtheȱwaterȱimageryȱinȱv.ȱ16ȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱwife,ȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱ theȱwaterȱimageryȱinȱv.ȱ15.ȱTherefore,ȱthereȱisȱanȱimplicationȱofȱretributionȱwhereȱtheȱ unfaithfulȱ husbandȱ willȱ leadȱ toȱ hisȱ wifeȱ beingȱ unfaithfulȱ toȱ himȱ asȱ well.ȱ Snijdersȱ believesȱthatȱitȱisȱaboutȱtheȱprogenyȱofȱtheȱhusband,ȱwhileȱMeinholdȱagreesȱthatȱtheyȱ referȱtoȱtheȱchildren,ȱbutȱtheȱemphasisȱofȱtheȱcontextȱisȱonȱtheȱwifeȱandȱherȱlove;ȱseeȱ Meinhold,ȱ Sprüche,ȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 105.ȱ Whybrayȱ (Proverbs,ȱ p.ȱ 90)ȱ andȱ McKaneȱ (p.ȱ 318)ȱ thinkȱthatȱtheyȱreferȱtoȱtheȱhusband’sȱsemen.ȱȱ 45ȱ SeeȱPaulȱKruger,ȱ“PromiscuityȱorȱMarriageȱFidelity?ȱAȱNoteȱonȱProvȱ5:15Ȭ18”,ȱJNSLȱ 13ȱ (1987),ȱ pp.ȱ 61Ȭ68ȱ (66ȱ n.ȱ 29);ȱ heȱ mentionsȱ thatȱ Gispenȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ scholarȱ whoȱ interpretsȱ vv.ȱ 15Ȭ16ȱ asȱ referringȱ toȱ privateȱ versusȱ publicȱ property,ȱ inȱ W.H.ȱ Gispen,ȱ DeȱSpreukenȱvanȱSalomoȱ(KorteȱVerklaring;ȱ1952),ȱp.ȱ93.ȱ(However,ȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱunableȱ toȱobtainȱaccessȱtoȱGispen’sȱbookȱdirectly.)ȱKruger’sȱarticleȱarguesȱthatȱitȱisȱv.ȱ16,ȱtheȱ depictionȱ ofȱ “outsideness”ȱ inȱ theȱ waterȬimageryȱ whichȱ givesȱ theȱ clueȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ allȱ aboutȱtheȱwarningsȱagainstȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱexpressionsȱdenotingȱ “outside”ȱforȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱwhichȱheȱusesȱasȱhisȱsupportȱforȱhisȱargumentȱareȱ alsoȱexpressionsȱfoundȱforȱWomanȱWisdom.ȱHeȱacknowledgesȱthisȱdifficultyȱbutȱheȱ doesȱnotȱexplainȱhowȱtoȱresolveȱit.ȱIȱthinkȱtheȱwholeȱargumentȱisȱweakenedȱforȱtheȱ interpretationȱheȱproposes.ȱ 46ȱ Referȱtoȱn.ȱ44.ȱȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

93ȱ

toȱkeepȱhisȱpropertyȱforȱhisȱownȱfamilyȱandȱpeople:ȱtheyȱshouldȱneverȱ underȱanyȱcircumstancesȱbeȱconcededȱtoȱforeigners.ȱ Versesȱ 18Ȭ20ȱ returnȱ toȱ theȱ sortȱ ofȱ metaphoricalȱ languageȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 3Ȭ8.ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ time,ȱ theȱ charmsȱ ofȱ theȱ ForeignȱWoman,ȱdescribedȱinȱv.ȱ20,ȱareȱpittedȱagainstȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱ one’sȱownȱwifeȱinȱvv.ȱ18Ȭ19.ȱVerseȱ18a,ȱtherefore,ȱapparentlyȱlinksȱtheȱ imageryȱofȱprivateȱpropertyȱinȱv.ȱ15ȱtoȱtheȱwifeȱinȱv.ȱ18b.ȱHence,ȱjustȱasȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ metaphorical,ȱ theȱ wifeȱ depictedȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 18bȬ19ȱ shouldȱ alsoȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ metaphorical.ȱ Theȱ expressionȱ ʪʸʥʲʰ ʺʹʠȱ recallsȱ theȱ ʤʩʸʥʲʰ ʳʥʬʠȱ ofȱ 2:17,ȱ whileȱ theȱ latterȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ whomȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ leaves,ȱ theȱ formerȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ toȱ whomȱ theȱ addresseeȱ shouldȱ remainȱ faithful.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ sheȱ couldȱ beȱ noneȱ otherȱ thanȱ personifiedȱ wisdom.ȱ Theȱ ʪʸʥʲʰ ʺʹʠȱ isȱ describedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ physicalȱ affection,ȱ yetȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ languageȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱ Theȱ senseȱ ofȱ ambiguityȱ isȱ atȱ playȱ againȱ inȱ theseȱ verses.ȱ Bothȱ areȱ describedȱ asȱ havingȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ intoxicate,ȱ asȱ wineȱ does,ȱ whichȱ causesȱ oneȱ toȱ strayȱ –ȱ ʤʢʹȱ (vv.ȱ 19,ȱ 20).ȱ Theȱ bosomsȱ ofȱ bothȱ areȱ menȬ tioned:ȱv.ȱ19ȱ–ȱʣʣȱandȱv.ȱ20ȱ–ȱʷʧ.ȱAdmittedly,ȱtheȱformȱofȱexpressionȱisȱ differentȱ –ȱ v.ȱ 19ȱ isȱ inȱ theȱ jussive,ȱ exhortingȱ oneȱ toȱ beȱ satisfiedȱ inȱ theȱ breastsȱ ofȱ theȱ ʪʸʥʲʰ ʺʹʠ,ȱ whileȱ v.ȱ 20ȱ isȱ anotherȱ rhetoricalȱ question,ȱ butȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ minorȱ difference.ȱ Theȱ pupilȱ isȱ admonishedȱ toȱ beȱ drunkȱ withȱ theȱ instructionsȱ andȱ teachingsȱ ofȱ wisdom,ȱ notȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman. 47ȱ Itȱ isȱ here,ȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 18Ȭ20,ȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ firstȱ explicitlyȱ juxȬ taposesȱtheseȱtwoȱwomenȱinȱantithesis.ȱ Versesȱ21Ȭ23ȱremindȱtheȱsonȱthatȱYahwehȱisȱnotȱblind,ȱbutȱseesȱallȱ theȱ waysȱ ofȱmen.ȱ Therefore,ȱ punishmentȱ isȱ exactedȱfromȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ wilfullyȱsins,ȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱhisȱownȱfolly.ȱTheȱreminderȱofȱanȱallȬ seeingȱGodȱrecallsȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱsecrecyȱinȱone’sȱintentȱtoȱsin,ȱaȱmotifȱ whichȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ theȱ evilȱ menȱ (1:11),ȱ andȱ moreȱ parȬ ticularly,ȱ asȱ aȱ Deuteronomicȱ expressionȱ recurringȱ inȱ theȱ contextsȱ ofȱ foreignȱworship:ȱDeutȱ13:6;ȱ27:15;ȱasȱwellȱasȱ2ȱKgsȱ17:9.48ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 47ȱ Inȱv.ȱ19,ȱtheȱreferenceȱisȱliterallyȱtoȱtheȱ“nipple”ȱ(cf.ȱBDB,ȱp.ȱ186).ȱAnȱallusionȱtoȱloveȬ makingȱisȱpossibleȱ(cf.ȱEzekȱ23:21),ȱbutȱwhileȱthereȱareȱsurelyȱovertonesȱofȱthis,ȱtheȱ accompanyingȱverbsȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱimageȱbeingȱusedȱisȱoneȱofȱbreastfeeding.ȱThisȱ picksȱ upȱ theȱ precedingȱ motifȱ ofȱ drinking,ȱ andȱ mayȱ haveȱ someȱ counterpartȱ inȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱimageȱofȱmaternalȱsustenanceȱfromȱWisdomȱ(Sirȱ15:2Ȭ3).ȱ 48ȱ Theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ sinȱ committedȱ inȱ secrecyȱ notȱ relatedȱ toȱ idolatryȱ –ȱ Deutȱ 27:24;ȱ Jobȱ 13:10;ȱ31:7;ȱPssȱ10:9;ȱ64:5;ȱ101:5.ȱ

94ȱ ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ

4.2.3ȱProverbsȱ6:20Ȭ35ȱ ȱ 20ȱMyȱson,ȱobserveȱyourȱfather’sȱcommandment,ȱ andȱdoȱnotȱdisregardȱtheȱinstructionȱ(ʤʸʥʺ)ȱofȱyourȱmother.ȱ 21ȱBindȱthemȱcontinuallyȱonȱyourȱheart,ȱ tieȱthemȱaroundȱyourȱneck.ȱ 22ȱWhenȱyouȱwalk,49ȱsheȱwillȱleadȱyou;ȱ whenȱyouȱsleep,ȱsheȱwillȱwatchȱoverȱyou;ȱ andȱwhenȱyouȱareȱawake,ȱsheȱwillȱtalkȱtoȱyou.ȱ 23ȱForȱtheȱcommandmentȱisȱaȱlamp,ȱȱ andȱtheȱinstructionȱ(ʤʸʥʺ)ȱaȱlight;ȱ andȱtheȱreproofȱforȱdiscipline,ȱaȱwayȱofȱlife:ȱȱ 24ȱtoȱkeepȱyouȱfromȱtheȱevilȱwomanȱ(ʲʸ ʺʹʠ),ȱ fromȱtheȱsmoothȱtongueȱofȱtheȱforeignȱwomanȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ).ȱ 25ȱDoȱnotȱcraveȱforȱherȱbeautyȱinȱyourȱheart,ȱ andȱdoȱnotȱletȱherȱarrestȱyou50ȱwithȱherȱeyelashes.ȱ 26ȱForȱtheȱprice51ȱofȱaȱprostituteȱisȱaȱloafȱofȱbread,ȱ andȱtheȱwifeȱofȱanotherȱmanȱhuntsȱpreciousȱlife.ȱ 27ȱCanȱaȱmanȱfetchȱfireȱinȱhisȱbosom,ȱ andȱhisȱclothesȱnotȱbeȱburned?ȱ 28ȱOrȱcanȱaȱmanȱwalkȱonȱhotȱcharcoals,ȱ andȱhisȱfeetȱnotȱbeȱscorched?ȱ 29ȱSoȱisȱheȱwhoȱgoesȱtoȱhisȱneighbour’sȱwife,ȱ allȱwhoȱtouchȱherȱwillȱnotȱescapeȱpunishment.ȱ 30ȱMenȱdoȱnotȱdespiseȱaȱthiefȱȱ becauseȱheȱstealsȱtoȱfillȱhimselfȱforȱheȱisȱhungry;ȱ 31ȱbutȱifȱheȱisȱcaught,ȱheȱshallȱrepayȱsevenfold,ȱ heȱshallȱgiveȱallȱtheȱwealthȱofȱhisȱhouse.ȱ 32ȱButȱheȱwhoȱcommitsȱadulteryȱwithȱaȱwomanȱlacksȱsense,ȱ heȱwhoȱdoesȱitȱdestroysȱhimself.ȱ 33ȱWoundsȱandȱdishonourȱheȱwillȱfind,ȱ andȱhisȱreproachȱwillȱneverȱbeȱwipedȱout.ȱ 34ȱBecauseȱjealousyȱenragesȱaȱman,ȱ heȱwillȱnotȱhaveȱpityȱonȱtheȱdayȱofȱrevenge.ȱ 35ȱHeȱwillȱnotȱacceptȱanyȱcompensation,ȱ norȱwillȱheȱaccedeȱthoughȱyouȱgiveȱmanyȱgifts.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ weȱ findȱ thatȱ inȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ onlyȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱoccursȱ(compareȱ5:1Ȭ14ȱwhereȱonlyȱʤʸʦȱoccurs).ȱTheȱwarningȱinȱv.ȱ 24ȱisȱalsoȱdifferentȱfromȱtheȱearlierȱonesȱagainstȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱinȱ thatȱ itȱ introducesȱ anotherȱ synonym,ȱ ʲʸ ʺʹʠ,ȱ theȱ “evilȱ woman”.ȱ Theȱ usualȱwarningȱofȱtheȱstingȱofȱherȱsmoothȱspeechȱisȱretained.ȱHowever,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 49ȱ ʪʫʬʤʺʤʡȱwasȱperhapsȱleftȱout,ȱbutȱretainedȱinȱtheȱMT.ȱ 50ȱ Takingȱʪʧʩʷʥʺ,ȱasȱproposedȱbyȱBHS.ȱ 51ȱ Takingȱasȱʣʲʡ,ȱasȱproposedȱbyȱBHS.ȱCf.ȱexplanationȱbyȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ231Ȭ32.ȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

95ȱ

thisȱ warningȱ lacksȱ theȱ usualȱ threatȱ ofȱ deathȱ ofȱ theȱ netherworld.ȱ Thisȱ omissionȱmayȱbeȱaȱresultȱofȱtheȱmergingȱofȱtwoȱdifferentȱtexts,ȱasȱsugȬ gestedȱ byȱ Whybrayȱ onȱ theȱ followingȱ grounds:52ȱ (1)ȱ theȱ addressȱ toȱ theȱ sonȱinȱtheȱsecondȱmasculineȱsingular,ȱ“you”ȱinȱvv.ȱ20Ȭ25ȱswitchesȱtoȱtheȱ thirdȱ personȱ masculineȱ singular,ȱ “one”ȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 27Ȭ35,ȱ henceȱ aȱ breakȱ inȱ continuity;ȱ (2)ȱ thereȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ lackȱ ofȱ emphasisȱ onȱ depictionsȱ ofȱ “theȱ way”ȱinȱvv.ȱ26Ȭ35,ȱwhichȱisȱanȱimportantȱfeatureȱthatȱalwaysȱoccursȱinȱ theȱintroductoryȱandȱconclusionȱofȱtheȱpassagesȱonȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ (cf.ȱ2:16,ȱ19;ȱ5:3Ȭ6,ȱ21Ȭ23;ȱ7:5,ȱ8,ȱ25Ȭ27;ȱ9:15);ȱ(3)ȱtheȱexpressionsȱusedȱtoȱ identifyȱ theȱ womanȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 26Ȭ35ȱ areȱ notȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ andȱareȱnotȱfoundȱanywhereȱelseȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ–ȱʹʩʠ ʺʹʠȱandȱʥʤʲʸ ʺʹʠ,ȱ andȱʳʠʰȱareȱalsoȱspelledȱoutȱhereȱasȱtheȱcrime;ȱ(4)ȱtheȱthreatsȱexpressedȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 32Ȭ35ȱ areȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ angeredȱ husband,ȱ butȱ theȱ threatsȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ areȱ onlyȱ thoseȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ netherworldȱ andȱ “forȬ eigners”ȱ inȱ 5:9Ȭ10.ȱ Theȱ textȱ asȱ itȱ stands,ȱ shouldȱ thereforeȱ remain,ȱ andȱ ʲʸ ʺʹʠȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱemendedȱtoȱʪʲʸ ʺʹʠ,ȱbecauseȱthereȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱnoȱ intentionȱtoȱharmoniseȱbothȱtextsȱasȱcoherentlyȱasȱsomeȱcommentatorsȱ wantȱthemȱtoȱbe.53ȱNonetheless,ȱtheȱtwoȱtextsȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱbroughtȱ togetherȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱassociationȱofȱapostasyȱwithȱadultery,ȱtheȱcomȬ monȱmetaphorȱfoundȱinȱtheȱotherȱpartsȱofȱtheȱOT.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱconȬ tentsȱofȱvv.ȱ26Ȭ35ȱwhichȱdealȱspecificallyȱwithȱadulteryȱcannotȱbeȱusedȱ toȱ defineȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱ Theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ hasȱ aȱ symbolicȱ nature,ȱ thatȱ isȱ closelyȱ tiedȱ upȱ withȱ depictionsȱ ofȱ“smooth”ȱ wordsȱ andȱ theȱimageryȱofȱtheȱ“way”,ȱwhichȱleadsȱoneȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱphysicalȱdeath,ȱ butȱtoȱaȱmoreȱhorrifyingȱkindȱofȱdeathȱinȱtheȱnetherworld.ȱ Anotherȱ interestingȱ pointȱ inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ isȱ howȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ juxtaposedȱ notȱ onlyȱ withȱ theȱ father’sȱ comȬ mandments,ȱbutȱ withȱ theȱ Torahȱ ofȱ theȱ son’sȱ motherȱ (vv.ȱ 20Ȭ23).ȱ Ifȱ theȱ son’sȱmotherȱimpliesȱtheȱconnotationsȱofȱJewishnessȱofȱtheȱwoman,ȱandȱ thereforeȱcontrastsȱtheȱ“foreignness”ȱofȱtheȱwomanȱtoȱavoid;ȱandȱTorahȱ withȱ wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ Yahweh,ȱ theȱ authorȱ hasȱ madeȱ anotherȱ attemptȱ ofȱ anȱ antitheticalȱ depictionȱ ofȱ twoȱ womenȱ figures.ȱ However,ȱ forȱthis,ȱwisdomȱisȱnotȱpersonifiedȱbutȱassociatedȱwithȱaȱrealȱwomanȱasȱ theȱ son’sȱ mother,ȱ andȱ juxtaposedȱ withȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ whoȱ isȱ madeȱtoȱbeȱdepictedȱinȱaȱmoreȱconcreteȱwayȱasȱanȱadulteress.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 52ȱ Whybray,ȱProverbs,ȱp.ȱ102.ȱ 53ȱ Fox,ȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ p.ȱ 230.ȱ However,ȱ Toyȱ (p.ȱ 134)ȱ andȱ Whybrayȱ (Proverbs,ȱ p.ȱ 105)ȱ changeȱitȱtoȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ.ȱ

96ȱ ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ

4.2.4ȱProverbsȱ7:1Ȭ27ȱ ȱ 1ȱMyȱson,ȱkeepȱmyȱwordsȱ andȱtreasureȱmyȱcommandmentsȱwithinȱyou.ȱ 2ȱKeepȱmyȱcommandmentsȱandȱlive,ȱ andȱmyȱteachingȱasȱtheȱappleȱofȱyourȱeye.54ȱ 3ȱBindȱthemȱonȱyourȱfingers,ȱ writeȱthemȱonȱtheȱtabletȱofȱyourȱheart.ȱ 4ȱSayȱtoȱwisdom,ȱ“Youȱareȱmyȱsister,“ȱ callȱinsight,ȱintimateȱfriend:ȱ 5ȱtoȱkeepȱyouȱfromȱtheȱstrangeȱwomanȱ(ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ),ȱ andȱtheȱforeignȱwomanȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ)ȱwhoȱsmoothensȱherȱwords.ȱȱ 6ȱForȱatȱtheȱwindowȱofȱmyȱhouse,55ȱ Iȱlookedȱdownȱthroughȱaȱlattice,ȱ 7ȱIȱsawȱamongȱtheȱsimpleȱones,56ȱ andȱIȱdiscernedȱamongȱtheȱyouths,57ȱȱ oneȱwhoȱhasȱnoȱsense,ȱ 8ȱpassingȱthroughȱtheȱstreetȱnearȱherȱcorner,ȱ heȱtakesȱtheȱwayȱtoȱherȱhouse;ȱ 9ȱinȱtheȱtwilight,ȱinȱtheȱevening,ȱȱ inȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱnight,ȱandȱinȱdarkness.ȱ 10ȱBehold!ȱAȱwomanȱcomesȱtoȱmeetȱhim,ȱ dressedȱlikeȱaȱprostitute,ȱcraftyȱofȱheart.58ȱ 11ȱSheȱisȱloudȱandȱrebellious,59ȱ herȱfeetȱdoesȱnotȱstayȱinȱherȱhouse.ȱ 12ȱNowȱsheȱisȱinȱtheȱstreets,ȱthenȱinȱtheȱsquares,60ȱ sheȱliesȱinȱwaitȱatȱeveryȱcorner.ȱ 13ȱSheȱgrabsȱhimȱandȱkissesȱhim,ȱ andȱwithȱaȱbrazenȱface,ȱsheȱsaysȱtoȱhim,ȱ 14ȱ“Peaceȱofferingsȱareȱuponȱme,ȱȱ todayȱIȱhaveȱfulfilledȱmyȱvows.ȱ 15ȱThereforeȱIȱhaveȱcomeȱoutȱtoȱmeetȱyou,ȱ toȱseekȱyourȱpresenceȱandȱIȱhaveȱfoundȱyou.ȱ 16ȱIȱhaveȱpreparedȱmyȱcouchȱwithȱcoverings,ȱ darkȬcolouredȱlinensȱfromȱEgypt.ȱ 17ȱIȱhaveȱsprinkledȱmyȱbedȱȱ withȱmyrrh,ȱaloesȱandȱcinnamon.ȱ 18ȱCome!ȱLetȱusȱdrinkȱourȱfillȱofȱloveȱtilȱmorning,61ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 54ȱ 55ȱ 56ȱ 57ȱ 58ȱ 59ȱ 60ȱ 61ȱ

Literally,ȱ“asȱtheȱpupilȱofȱyourȱeye”.ȱ BHSȱsuggestsȱthatȱonȱaccountȱofȱtheȱmeter,ȱtoȱinsertȱʩʺʨʡʤȱ“Iȱlooked”ȱhere.ȱ BHSȱsuggestsȱperhapsȱitȱmayȱbeȱ“youngȱman”ȱhere.ȱ MTȱhasȱʭʩʰʡȱ“sons“.ȱȱ Oneȱmanuscriptȱhasȱ“secretȱconcealed”.ȱ BHSȱproposed ʺʸʧʱʥ orȱʺʡʡʱʥȱdenotingȱ“goingȱabout”,ȱcf.ȱSSongsȱ3:2.ȱ Literally,ȱ“aȱfootȱinȱtheȱstreet,ȱaȱfootȱinȱtheȱsquares”.ȱ Onȱaccountȱofȱtheȱmetre,ȱitȱhasȱbeenȱsuggestedȱtoȱdeleteȱ“untilȱmorning”.ȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

97ȱ

letȱusȱenjoyȱourselvesȱwithȱlove.ȱ 19ȱForȱtheȱmanȱisȱnotȱinȱhisȱhouse,ȱȱ heȱhasȱgoneȱonȱaȱjourneyȱfarȱaway.ȱ 20ȱHeȱtookȱaȱbagȱofȱmoneyȱwithȱhim,62ȱ atȱtheȱfullȱmoon63ȱheȱwillȱreturnȱtoȱhisȱhouse.“ȱ 21ȱWithȱmuchȱsmoothȱwordsȱsheȱpersuadesȱhim,ȱ withȱherȱsmoothȱlips,ȱsheȱleadsȱhimȱastray.ȱ 22ȱSuddenly,ȱheȱfollowsȱafterȱher,ȱȱ heȱgoesȱlikeȱanȱoxȱtoȱtheȱslaughter,ȱ likeȱanȱankletȱtoȱtheȱdisciplineȱofȱtheȱfool;64ȱ 23ȱtilȱanȱarrowȱsplitsȱopenȱhisȱliver,ȱ likeȱaȱbirdȱhurryingȱtoȱaȱbirdtrap,ȱ heȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱthatȱitȱisȱforȱhisȱlife.ȱ 24ȱNow,ȱthereforeȱmyȱson,ȱlistenȱtoȱme,ȱ listenȱcarefullyȱtoȱtheȱwordsȱofȱmyȱmouth.ȱ 25ȱDoȱnotȱletȱyouȱheartȱturnȱasideȱtoȱherȱways,ȱ doȱnotȱgoȱastrayȱtoȱherȱpaths,ȱ 26ȱforȱmanyȱareȱthoseȱsheȱhasȱbroughtȱtoȱruin,ȱ andȱnumerousȱareȱallȱsheȱhasȱkilled.ȱ 27ȱHerȱhouse65ȱisȱtheȱwayȱtoȱSheol,ȱ goingȱdownȱtoȱtheȱchambersȱofȱdeath.ȱ

ȱ Provȱ7:1Ȭ5ȱfollowsȱtheȱcommonȱpatternȱfoundȱinȱchaptersȱ1Ȭ9ȱofȱintroȬ ducingȱ aȱ warningȱ withȱ aȱ generalȱ admonition,ȱ butȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ specificȱ pointȱofȱcontactȱwithȱwhatȱfollows.ȱTheȱsonȱisȱexhortedȱtoȱformȱaȱrelaȬ tionshipȱwithȱwisdomȱasȱifȱwithȱanȱintimateȱfemaleȱfriendȱorȱsister.66ȱHeȱ isȱtoȱdoȱthisȱinȱorderȱtoȱprotectȱhimselfȱfromȱtheȱforeignȱwoman,ȱwhoȱ offersȱ anȱ altogetherȱ moreȱ dangerousȱ relationship.ȱ Theȱ requirementȱ toȱ chooseȱ betweenȱ theseȱ femaleȱ figuresȱ isȱ established,ȱ therefore,ȱ evenȱ beforeȱ theyȱ areȱ eachȱ givenȱ anȱ opportunityȱ toȱ speak,ȱ andȱ theȱ speechesȱ thatȱ follow,ȱ inȱ thisȱ chapterȱ andȱ theȱ next,ȱ serveȱ asȱ contrastingȱ inviȬ tations.ȱMoreȱsignificantly,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱdepictionsȱinȱthisȱchapterȱconȬ cretiseȱtheȱimageryȱofȱtheȱoneȱwho,ȱwhenȱgivenȱtheȱinvitation,ȱchoosesȱ theȱwrongȱ“way”.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ woman’sȱ dressȱ andȱ behaviourȱ areȱ brazenȱ andȱ exȬ plicitlyȱattractive,ȱherȱprincipalȱmeansȱofȱseductionȱisȱstillȱherȱ“smoothȱ speech”.ȱTherefore,ȱweȱshouldȱexpectȱherȱspeechȱtoȱbeȱpersuasive,ȱbutȱ surprisingly,ȱȱitȱȱbeginsȱȱonȱȱaȱȱreligiousȱȱnote,ȱȱwithȱȱreferencesȱȱtoȱȱherȱȱpeaceȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 62ȱ Literally,ȱ“inȱhisȱhand”.ȱ 63ȱ Theȱmeaningȱisȱuncertain.ȱ 64ȱ Oneȱ manuscriptȱ has:ȱ ʬʩʠ ʸʱʥʮʚʬʠ ʱʫʲʫʥȱ “likeȱ aȱ stagȱ boundingȱ toȱ bonds”ȱ (asȱ inȱ NRS),ȱ seeȱexplanationȱinȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ239,ȱ249.ȱ 65ȱ BHSȱproposedȱ“herȱways”,ȱcf.ȱ2:18.ȱ 66ȱ Whybrayȱ (Proverbs,ȱ p.ȱ 112)ȱ explainsȱ thatȱ itsȱ parallelismȱ withȱ ʲʣʮȱ alsoȱ indicatesȱ anȱ “intimateȱconfidante”.ȱȱ

98ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ ȱ offeringsȱ andȱ vowsȱ (v.ȱ 14).ȱ Theȱ preciseȱ implicationȱ ofȱ thisȱ themeȱ isȱ uncertain.ȱSomeȱcommentatorsȱhaveȱproposedȱthatȱherȱvowsȱareȱyetȱtoȱ beȱfulfilled.ȱThisȱopensȱupȱsomeȱinterestingȱpossibilities,ȱthatȱis,ȱtakingȱ ʩʺʮʬʹȱ withȱ aȱ futureȱ referenceȱ andȱ hence,ȱ theȱ vowȱ constitutesȱ theȱ conȬ summationȱ ofȱ theȱ sexualȱ intercourseȱ whichȱ isȱ yetȱ toȱ takeȱ place.67ȱ Itȱ is,ȱ however,ȱ grammaticallyȱ difficultȱ toȱ takeȱ theȱ verbȱ asȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ future,ȱandȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱcommentators,ȱprobablyȱrightly,ȱassumeȱ theȱ womanȱ toȱ beȱ declaringȱ thatȱ sheȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ fulfilledȱ herȱ vow.68ȱ Itȱ seemsȱlikelyȱthatȱsheȱhasȱalsoȱalreadyȱmadeȱtheȱpeaceȬofferings,ȱgivenȱ herȱapparentȱintentionȱtoȱhaveȱintercourse,ȱandȱthereforeȱrenderȱherselfȱ rituallyȱuncleanȱ(cf.ȱLevȱ7:11Ȭ21).69ȱThus,ȱitȱmayȱbeȱunderstoodȱthatȱsheȱ isȱsayingȱlittleȱmoreȱthanȱthatȱsheȱhasȱaȱreasonȱtoȱcelebrate.ȱTheȱnatureȱ ofȱtheȱsacrificesȱdoesȱnotȱindicateȱthatȱsheȱisȱnecessarilyȱanȱIsraeliteȱorȱaȱ Yahwist,70ȱbutȱtheȱfactȱofȱthemȱdoesȱsuggestȱthatȱsheȱisȱreligious.ȱHereȱ weȱseeȱtheȱsortȱofȱambiguityȱatȱwork,ȱasȱAlettiȱpointsȱout:ȱtheȱwomanȱ doesȱ notȱ presentȱ herselfȱasȱ evilȱ orȱ voracious,ȱ butȱ asȱpiousȱandȱ happy,ȱ althoughȱ sheȱ isȱ toȱ goȱ onȱ toȱ revealȱ someȱ moreȱ ofȱ herself.71ȱ Inȱ theȱ folȬ lowingȱ verses,ȱ sheȱ makesȱ theȱ youthȱ feelȱ specialȱ –ȱ heȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ forȱ whomȱsheȱhasȱbeenȱlooking,ȱandȱsheȱhasȱalreadyȱmadeȱpreparationsȱforȱ hisȱ arrivalȱ –ȱ theȱ couchȱ isȱ bedeckedȱ andȱ perfumed,ȱ soȱ thatȱ theyȱ canȱ makeȱloveȱinȱluxuryȱuntilȱdawn.ȱ Whatȱ theȱ womanȱ suggestsȱ upȱ toȱ thisȱ pointȱ isȱ attractive,ȱ andȱ notȱ obviouslyȱillegalȱ–ȱtheȱyouthȱisȱfreeȱtoȱhaveȱsexȱwithȱaȱfreeȱwoman.ȱItȱisȱ onlyȱinȱv.ȱ19ȱthat,ȱifȱheȱisȱalert,ȱtheȱyouthȱmayȱstartȱtoȱrecogniseȱtheȱsignsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 67ȱ Boström,ȱpp.ȱ107Ȭ108;ȱMcKane,ȱpp.ȱ221,ȱ337;ȱPlöger,ȱp.ȱ79;ȱvanȱderȱToorn,ȱpp.ȱ93Ȭ110;ȱ Clifford,ȱProverbs,ȱpp.ȱ86Ȭ90.ȱTheȱlastȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱalsoȱhasȱitȱinȱ mindȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ sacrificialȱ mealȱ ofȱ theȱ youth.ȱ Vanȱ derȱ Toorn,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ arguesȱthatȱtheȱwomanȱisȱinȱneedȱofȱmoneyȱtoȱpayȱtheȱvow,ȱandȱisȱthusȱprostitutingȱ herself.ȱȱ 68ȱ Toy,ȱpp.ȱ151Ȭ52;ȱWhybray,ȱProverbs,ȱpp.ȱ114Ȭ15;ȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ245Ȭ46.ȱ 69ȱ Levȱ7:11Ȭ21ȱstipulatesȱthatȱtheȱpeaceȱofferingȱisȱtoȱbeȱconsumedȱonȱtheȱdayȱoffered,ȱ orȱtheȱdayȱafter.ȱAnyȱremainingȱthereafterȱisȱtoȱbeȱburnedȱbecauseȱitȱisȱunacceptableȱ toȱ theȱ Lordȱ (vv.ȱ 16Ȭ18).ȱ Ifȱ theȱ foodȱ touchesȱ anythingȱ unclean,ȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ burnedȱ whileȱ theȱ restȱ canȱ beȱ eatenȱ byȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ isȱ ceremoniallyȱ clean.ȱ Anyoneȱ uncleanȱ whoȱ touchesȱ theȱ offeringȱ willȱ beȱ excommunicatedȱ (vv.ȱ 19Ȭ21).ȱ However,ȱ Foxȱ exȬ plainsȱthatȱasȱlongȱasȱtheȱmealȱisȱtakenȱbeforeȱtheȱsexualȱintercourse,ȱitȱisȱstillȱvalidȱ andȱnoȱoneȱisȱcondemned;ȱcfȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ246.ȱ 70ȱ ContraȱWhybrayȱ(Proverbs,ȱp.ȱ115),ȱtheȱ“peaceȬoffering”ȱisȱnotȱspecificallyȱanȱIsraeliteȱ term,ȱ p.ȱ 115.ȱ Itȱ isȱ inȱ factȱ aȱ commonȱ offeringȱ inȱ ancientȱ NEȱ cults,ȱ seeȱ J.C.ȱ deȱ Moor,ȱ “TheȱPeaceȱOfferingȱinȱUgaritȱandȱIsrael”,ȱinȱD.ȱAttema,ȱet.ȱal.ȱ(eds.),ȱSchriftȱenȱUitleg:ȱ StudiesȱvanȱoudȬleerlingen,ȱcollegaȇsȱenȱvriendenȱaangebodenȱaanȱProf.ȱDr.ȱW.H.ȱGispenȱterȱ gelegenheidȱ vanȱ zijnȱ vijfentwintigjarigȱ ambtsjubileumȱ alsȱ hoogleraarȱ aanȱ deȱ Vrijeȱ UniȬ versiteitȱ teȱ Amsterdamȱ enȱ terȱ gelegenheidȱ vanȱ hetȱ bereikenȱ vanȱ deȱ zeventigjarigeȱ leeftijdȱ (Netherlands,ȱKampen:ȱJ.H.ȱKok;ȱ1970),ȱpp.ȱ112Ȭ17.ȱȱ 71ȱ Aletti,ȱp.ȱ136;ȱalso,ȱcf.ȱMeinhold,ȱSprüche,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ127.ȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

99ȱ

ofȱ danger.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ point,ȱ sheȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theyȱ willȱ notȱ beȱ disturbedȱ becauseȱtheȱmanȱofȱhisȱhouseȱisȱawayȱonȱaȱlongȱjourneyȱwithȱaȱbagȱofȱ money,ȱ andȱ heȱ willȱ onlyȱ returnȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ fullȱ moon.72ȱ Manyȱ commentatorsȱtranslateȱʥʺʩʡʡ ʹʩʠʤȱasȱ“myȱhusband”,ȱbutȱthisȱisȱnotȱtheȱ onlyȱoption.73ȱTheȱexpressionȱʥʺʩʡʡ ʹʩʠʤȱisȱodd:ȱwhyȱdoesȱsheȱsay ʹʩʠʤ,ȱ andȱ not ʩʹʩʠ,ȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ herȱ husbandȱ thatȱ sheȱ wantsȱ toȱ mention?ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱhand,ȱwhy,ȱafterȱall,ȱshouldȱsheȱspoilȱtheȱmoodȱandȱfrightenȱtheȱ youthȱ withȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ herȱ husband?ȱ Contraryȱ toȱ someȱ comȬ mentatorsȱ whoȱ thinkȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ becauseȱ theȱ termȱ reflectsȱ theȱ emotionalȱ distanceȱofȱtheȱcouple,74ȱitȱseemsȱmoreȱlikelyȱthatȱsheȱisȱtryingȱtoȱavoidȱ admittingȱwhetherȱsheȱhasȱaȱhusbandȱorȱnot,ȱhence,ȱherȱmaritalȱstatusȱ isȱnotȱleastȱexplicit,ȱandȱitȱcanȱhardlyȱbeȱaboutȱadulteryȱperȱse.ȱ Again,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ depictedȱ asȱ aȱ realȱ humanȱ beingȱseducingȱtheȱyouth,ȱthisȱisȱsymbolicȱofȱseductionȱintoȱtheȱwayȱofȱ apostasy.ȱAsȱmentionedȱearlier,ȱtheȱportrayalȱofȱherȱisȱambiguous:ȱsheȱ isȱreligious,ȱoffersȱfoodȱandȱlove,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱpersonifiedȱwisdomȱdoesȱ asȱwell.75ȱTheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱportrayedȱasȱaȱrichȱwomanȱ–ȱtheȱmenȬ tionȱofȱtheȱ“peaceȬoffering”ȱ(v.ȱ14),ȱsomethingȱwhichȱprobablyȱonlyȱtheȱ wealthyȱ couldȱ affordȱ forȱ suchȱ occasionsȱ (cf.ȱ 2ȱ Chrȱ 30:22;ȱ 33:16;ȱ Ezekȱ 46:12),ȱandȱwhichȱincludesȱtheȱsponsoringȱofȱtheȱmealȱforȱrelativesȱandȱ friends;ȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ couchȱ deckedȱ withȱ darkȬcolouredȱ linensȱ fromȱ Egyptȱ(v.ȱ16);ȱtheȱmentionȱofȱperfumesȱonȱtheȱbedȱ(v.ȱ17);ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱ bagȱofȱmoneyȱtheȱmanȱtookȱ(v.ȱ20).ȱSo,ȱsheȱisȱnotȱoutwardlyȱinferiorȱtoȱ personifiedȱwisdom,ȱlikeȱher,ȱcanȱofferȱwealth.ȱToȱbeȱsure,ȱtheȱForeignȱ Womanȱȱisȱȱbrassy,ȱȱloudȱȱandȱȬrebellious,ȱȱandȱȱnotȱȱwellȱȱdomesticatedȱȱ(vv.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 72ȱ Forȱ someȱ commentators,ȱ theȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ “fullȱ moon”ȱ symbolisesȱ aȱ culticȱ fesȬ tivity:ȱToyȱ(p.ȱ154)ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱcoupleȱareȱIsraelites,ȱproposesȱthatȱitȱrefersȱtoȱ someȱfestivalȱofȱtheȱfullȱmoonȱ(cf.ȱPsȱ81:3)ȱorȱtheȱfeastȱofȱTabernaclesȱorȱtheȱPassover;ȱ whileȱ Boströmȱ (pp.ȱ 123Ȭ27)ȱ takesȱ itȱ toȱ haveȱ referencesȱ toȱ someȱ fertilityȱ culticȱ rites.ȱ Forȱ mostȱ commentators,ȱ however,ȱ itȱ simplyȱ signalsȱ theȱ timeȱ factor,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ womanȱandȱherȱnewȱloverȱcanȱspendȱtheȱnightȱundisturbed;ȱseeȱMcKane,ȱpp.ȱ398Ȭ99;ȱ andȱ Murphy,ȱ p.ȱ 44.ȱ Meinholdȱ (Sprüche,ȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 129),ȱ moreover,ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ beȬ causeȱtheyȱmetȱatȱtheȱtimeȱwhenȱthereȱwasȱnoȱmoonȱ(cf.ȱv.ȱ9),ȱandȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱ “fullȱ moon”,ȱ itȱ alsoȱ impliesȱ thatȱ theȱ chancesȱ ofȱ themȱ beingȱ caughtȱ inȱ adulteryȱ isȱ diminished.ȱTheȱideaȱthatȱitȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱbeingȱcaughtȱandȱitsȱlinkȱwithȱv.ȱ9,ȱwhereȱ nightȱisȱdescribedȱinȱincreasingȱintensityȱofȱdarkness,ȱperhapsȱmightȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱ “fullȱmoon”ȱsymbolisesȱrighteousness,ȱwhileȱdarknessȱsymbolisesȱsinfulness.ȱȱ 73ȱ TheȱquestionȱisȱraisedȱbyȱAthalyaȱBrenner,ȱ“Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9:ȱAnȱFȱVoice?”,ȱinȱBrennerȱ andȱ F.ȱ vanȱ DijkȬHemmesȱ (eds.),ȱ Onȱ Genderingȱ Texts:ȱ Femaleȱ andȱ Maleȱ Voicesȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ (BIS,ȱ 1;ȱ Leiden:ȱ E.J.ȱ Brill,ȱ 1993),ȱ pp.ȱ 113Ȭ30ȱ (124).ȱ Sheȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ itȱ couldȱ referȱ toȱ herȱ father,ȱ brotherȱ orȱ aȱ maleȱ guardian,ȱ andȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ herȱ husȬ band.ȱHowever,ȱsheȱconcludesȱitȱmustȱbeȱtheȱhusband.ȱ 74ȱ Fox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ248;ȱToy,ȱp.ȱ154.ȱȱ 75ȱ Althoughȱpersonifiedȱwisdomȱdoesȱnotȱexplicitlyȱofferȱintercourse,ȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱ herȱtoȱbeȱembracedȱasȱwifeȱisȱalsoȱanȱinvitationȱtoȱconsummateȱtheȱrelationship.ȱ

100ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ ȱ 10Ȭ11),ȱbutȱsheȱmakesȱupȱforȱthisȱwithȱaȱprovocativeȱsexuality.ȱOnȱtheȱ whole,ȱsheȱisȱasȱattractiveȱasȱtheȱWomanȱWisdom.ȱTherefore,ȱitȱtakesȱaȱ discerningȱandȱinstructedȱmanȱtoȱperceiveȱwhichȱoneȱisȱtheȱrightȱoneȱtoȱ chooseȱ–ȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱorȱtheȱWomanȱWisdom.ȱ Theȱvictimȱisȱdepictedȱbyȱtheȱfatherȱinȱv.ȱ21ȱasȱbeingȱseducedȱbyȱherȱ compellingȱwordsȱofȱflattery.ȱHeȱfollowsȱher,ȱandȱdeath,ȱlikeȱtheȱcertainȱ destinyȱofȱaȱhuntedȱanimal,ȱawaitsȱhimȱ(vv.ȱ22Ȭ23).ȱTheȱfatherȱinterjectsȱ aȱfurtherȱwarningȱtoȱheedȱhisȱwordsȱ(v.ȱ24),ȱandȱnotȱtoȱallowȱhisȱheartȱ toȱ strayȱ intoȱ herȱ pathsȱ (v.ȱ 25).ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ canȱ restrainȱ hisȱ heartȱ fromȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱwhoȱisȱtheȱwiseȱson,ȱandȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱwalksȱ intoȱherȱtrapȱwhoȱisȱtheȱfool.ȱVersesȱ26Ȭ27ȱonceȱmoreȱuseȱtheȱlanguageȱ ofȱdeathȱandȱtheȱnetherworldȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱendȱofȱherȱvictims.ȱHence,ȱ thisȱisȱhowȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱtheȱwrongȱ“way”ȱconcludesȱ–ȱtoȱdeathȱandȱtheȱ netherworld.ȱ

4.2.5ȱProverbsȱ9:13Ȭ18ȱ 13ȱTheȱwomanȱofȱfolliesȱ(WomanȱFolly,ȱʺʥʬʩʱʫ ʺʹʠ)ȱisȱloud,ȱ simple,ȱandȱknowsȱnothing.ȱ 14ȱSheȱsitsȱatȱtheȱdoorȱofȱherȱhouse,ȱ onȱaȱseatȱatȱtheȱhighȱplacesȱofȱtheȱcity,ȱ 15ȱcallingȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱpassesȱbyȱonȱtheȱway,ȱ whoȱareȱmakingȱtheirȱpathsȱstraight.ȱ 16ȱ“Whoeverȱisȱsimple,ȱletȱhimȱturnȱinȱhere!“ȱ Andȱsheȱsaysȱtoȱhimȱwhoȱlacksȱsense,ȱ 17ȱ“Stolenȱwaterȱisȱsweet,ȱ breadȱeatenȱinȱsecretȱisȱgratifying!“ȱ 18ȱButȱheȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱthatȱtheȱdeadȱareȱthere,ȱ thatȱherȱguestsȱareȱinȱtheȱdepthsȱofȱSheol.ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ passageȱ onȱ Womanȱ Follyȱ appearsȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ conclusionȱ toȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱTheȱlastȱchapter,ȱProvȱ9,ȱisȱdividedȱintoȱthreeȱsections:ȱtheȱ firstȱdealsȱwithȱtheȱinvitationȱofȱWomanȱWisdomȱ(vv.ȱ1Ȭ6);ȱtheȱsecondȱ containsȱaȱseriesȱofȱsayingsȱaboutȱwisdomȱandȱadviceȱ(vv.ȱ7Ȭ12);76ȱandȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 76ȱ Manyȱ scholarsȱ deemȱ thisȱ sectionȱ whichȱ standsȱ betweenȱ theȱ invitationsȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ women,ȱ isȱ incompatibleȱ withȱ theȱ styleȱ andȱ contentȱ ofȱ Provȱ 9,ȱ andȱ therefore,ȱ seȬ condary.ȱ Toyȱ (p.ȱ 183)ȱ thinksȱ theȱ passageȱ isȱ aȱ scribalȱ error;ȱ Oesterleyȱ (pp.ȱ 66Ȭ67)ȱ blamesȱanȱunintelligentȱlaterȱscribe.ȱMostȱscholarsȱseemȱtoȱagreeȱthatȱv.ȱ13ȱcontinuesȱ fromȱv.ȱ6ȱ–ȱToy,ȱp.ȱ188;ȱMcKane,ȱp.ȱ359.ȱHenceȱtheȱtendencyȱtoȱregardȱtheȱspeechȱofȱ WomanȱWisdomȱinȱv.ȱ11ȱasȱcontinuingȱfromȱv.ȱ6ȱasȱsuggestedȱbyȱWhybray,ȱProverbs,ȱ p.ȱ 141;ȱ andȱ Fox,ȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ pp.ȱ 306Ȭ309.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ probablyȱ influencedȱ byȱ Scott’sȱ deductionȱthatȱvv.ȱ10Ȭ12ȱoriginallyȱconstituteȱtheȱspeechȱofȱWomanȱWisdom.ȱOnȱtheȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ Scottȱ (pp.ȱ 74Ȭ76)ȱ retainsȱ vv.ȱ 7Ȭ9ȱ toȱ followȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ speechȱ ofȱ WoȬ manȱWisdom,ȱandȱtreatsȱvv.ȱ13Ȭ18ȱasȱaȱlaterȱaddition.ȱTheȱotherȱwayȱofȱtreatingȱtheȱ

ȱ

PassagesȱConcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ

101ȱ

theȱ thirdȱ isȱ aboutȱ theȱ invitationȱ ofȱ Womanȱ Follyȱ (vv.ȱ 13Ȭ18).ȱ Mostȱ interestingly,ȱtheȱinvitationsȱofȱWomanȱWisdomȱandȱWomanȱFollyȱareȱ inȱdirectȱantiȬthesisȱtoȱeachȱother.ȱ Thereȱ shouldȱ beȱ noȱ doubtȱ thatȱ theȱ Womanȱ Follyȱ andȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ areȱ oneȱ andȱ theȱ same.ȱ Theyȱ shareȱ theȱ sameȱ vocabularyȱ andȱ descriptions.ȱBothȱinviteȱ(9:13;ȱ7:14Ȭ21),ȱareȱsaidȱtoȱbeȱloudȱ(9:13;ȱ7:11),ȱ possessȱhousesȱ(9:14;ȱ2:18;ȱ5:8;ȱ7:8),ȱappearȱinȱtheȱmeetingȱplacesȱofȱtheȱ townȱ (9:14;ȱ 7:12),ȱ andȱ leadȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ deathȱ andȱ theȱ netherworldȱ(9:18;ȱ2:18Ȭ19;ȱ 5:5;ȱ7:26Ȭ27).ȱ However,ȱ ifȱtheyȱ areȱreferringȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ woman,ȱ whyȱ isȱ herȱ nameȱ inȱ 9:13Ȭ18ȱ changedȱ toȱ “Womanȱ Folly”?ȱ Theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ seen,ȱ isȱ herselfȱ symbolic,ȱ whichȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱpassagesȱisȱprobablyȱonlyȱdetectableȱthroughȱtheȱ spiritualȱ depictionȱ ofȱ deathȱ associatedȱ withȱ her.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ highlightȱ herȱmetaphoricalȱfunction,ȱtheȱauthorȱaddsȱanotherȱexaggerationȱofȱherȱ byȱ personifyingȱ her,ȱ andȱ thisȱ timeȱ pittingȱ herȱ directlyȱ againstȱ herȱ antithesis:ȱ Womanȱ Wisdom;ȱ hence,ȱ Womanȱ Folly.ȱ Inȱ aȱ ratherȱ sigȬ nificantȱway,ȱsheȱisȱcalledȱ“Folly”ȱandȱsheȱisȱignorantȱasȱinȱ9:13,ȱwhileȱ herȱantithesisȱisȱ“Wisdom”,ȱfullȱofȱtheȱknowledgeȱandȱfearȱofȱYahwehȱ asȱ chapterȱ 8ȱ describesȱ herȱ toȱ be.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ authorȱ reiteratesȱ thatȱ toȱ chooseȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ pureȱ foolishness.ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ twoȱ womenȱ competeȱ withȱ eachȱ otherȱ moreȱ overtlyȱ inȱ similar,ȱ corȬ respondingȱ terms:ȱ bothȱ womenȱ haveȱ aȱ houseȱ (vv.ȱ 1,ȱ 14);ȱ bothȱ areȱ locatedȱatȱtheȱhighȱplacesȱofȱtheȱtownȱ(vv.ȱ3,ȱ14);ȱbothȱcallȱoutȱinȱdirectȱ speechȱ (vv.ȱ 4Ȭ6,ȱ 15Ȭ17);ȱ bothȱ addressȱ theȱ “simple”ȱ andȱ inviteȱ themȱ toȱ turnȱ toȱ theirȱ waysȱ (vv.ȱ 4,ȱ 16);ȱ invitingȱ thoseȱ “withoutȱ sense”ȱ toȱ eatȱ breadȱandȱdrinkȱwithȱthemȱ(vv.ȱ5,ȱ17).ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱbothȱwomenȱ areȱ worldsȱ apart.ȱ Theȱ openingȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ showsȱ herȱactivelyȱbuildingȱherȱownȱhouseȱ(v.ȱ1),ȱwhileȱWomanȱFollyȱisȱloud,ȱ simpleȱ andȱ ignorantȱ (v.ȱ 13);ȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ slaughtersȱ meatȱ andȱ mixesȱwineȱtoȱprepareȱaȱbanquetȱ(v.ȱ2),ȱbeforeȱsendingȱoutȱherȱinvitaȬ tion,ȱ viaȱ herȱ servantȬgirlsȱ toȱ theȱ highȱ placesȱ ofȱ theȱ townȱ (v.ȱ 3);ȱ theȱ Womanȱ Follyȱ justȱ sitsȱ atȱ theȱ doorȱ ofȱ herȱ houseȱ (v.ȱ 14),ȱ callingȱ outȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ passȱ byȱ (v.ȱ 15);ȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ invitesȱ herȱ guestsȱ toȱ parȬ takeȱ ofȱ herȱ breadȱandȱ mixedȱ wineȱ(v.ȱ5),ȱ butȱ theȱ menuȱ ofȱ theȱWomanȱ Follyȱisȱwaterȱ–ȱnotȱevenȱdrawnȱbyȱherself,ȱbutȱstolenȱ–ȱandȱbreadȱeatenȱ inȱȱȱsecretȱȱ(v.ȱȱ17).ȱȱWomanȱȱWisdomȱȱpleadsȱȱwithȱȱherȱȱguestsȱȱtoȱȱleaveȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ passageȱ asȱ itȱ standsȱ suggestsȱ itȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ warningȱ toȱ incorrigibleȱ sinnersȱ inȱ contrastȱtoȱtheȱseeminglyȱhopeful,ȱupȬbeatȱtoneȱofȱWomanȱWisdomȱinȱvv.ȱ1Ȭ6,ȱsoȱasȱ Gemser,ȱp.ȱ41.ȱInȱtermsȱofȱunderstandingȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱthisȱpassage,ȱlikeȱGemser,ȱ Foxȱ (Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ p.ȱ 306)ȱ thinksȱ thatȱ theȱ additionȱ isȱ aȱ provisionȱ madeȱ forȱ thoseȱ unworthyȱ toȱ heedȱ Womanȱ Wisdom’sȱ call.ȱ However,ȱ Goldingayȱ thinksȱ thatȱ theȱ deȬ cisionȱtoȱmakeȱvv.ȱ13Ȭ18ȱcorrespondȱtoȱvv.ȱ1Ȭ6ȱisȱprobablyȱanȱindicationȱthatȱitȱwasȱ addedȱlater,ȱseeȱGoldingay,ȱpp.ȱ80Ȭ93.ȱȱ

102ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ ȱ simplicityȱ andȱ liveȱ andȱ walkȱ inȱ understandingȱ (v.ȱ 6),ȱ andȱ theȱ Womanȱ Follyȱalsoȱcallsȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱmakingȱtheirȱpathsȱstraightȱ(v.ȱ15).ȱ Inȱthisȱconcludingȱchapter,ȱtheȱauthorȱmakesȱanȱemphasisȱthatȱtheȱ twoȱfemaleȱfiguresȱareȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱinvitationsȱtoȱfollowȱeachȱofȱ theirȱ ways.ȱ Whileȱ itȱ isȱ evidentȱ thatȱ theȱ depictionsȱ ofȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ representȱ Yahwehȱ (especiallyȱ inȱProvȱ8),ȱ theȱ depictionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ oftenȱ oscillateȱ betweenȱ theȱ realȱ andȱ theȱ metaphorical.ȱ ThereȬ fore,ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Provȱ 9:13Ȭ18ȱ hasȱ beenȱ portrayedȱ moreȱ symbolically,ȱtoȱparallelȱthoseȱofȱWomanȱWisdomȱinȱorderȱtoȱgiveȱhintȱ thatȱsheȱisȱnotȱaboutȱaȱreal,ȱcommon,ȱpromiscuous,ȱ“foreign”ȱwomanȱinȱ theȱ street,ȱ butȱ rather,ȱ sheȱ isȱ symbolicȱ ofȱ theȱ “way”ȱ ofȱ “foreignness”ȱ whichȱwillȱleadȱtoȱimminentȱdestruction.ȱ

ȱ

GeneralȱSummaryȱandȱConclusionsȱ ȱ Soȱ far,ȱ muchȱhaveȱ beenȱ saidȱ aboutȱ theȱ originȱ andȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱmotif,ȱ andȱ beforeȱ weȱ goȱ onȱ toȱ observeȱ itsȱ developmentȱ inȱ theȱ subsequentȱ literature,ȱweȱwillȱsummariseȱtheȱresultsȱofȱtheȱstudyȱweȱhaveȱmade.ȱInȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ thesis,ȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ thatȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ hasȱ nothingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ socialȱ exclusion,ȱ orȱ withȱ anyȱ moralȱ misconduct,ȱ inȱ particularȱ promiscuityȱasȱtheȱreasonȱofȱit,ȱwhichȱhasȱbeenȱpreviouslyȱassumedȱbyȱ scholarship.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ ourȱ studyȱ showsȱ thatȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ cannotȱ beȱ divorcedȱ fromȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ “foreignness”ȱ asȱ attestedȱ byȱ theȱ otherȱ occurrencesȱ ofȱ ʸʫʰȱ inȱ theȱ OT;ȱ andȱ weȱ soughtȱ outȱ toȱ explainȱ whyȱ “foreignness”ȱshouldȱhaveȱtheȱresonanceȱthatȱitȱdoesȱinȱProverbs.ȱȱ Oneȱofȱtheȱanswersȱisȱsuppliedȱfromȱtheȱrecentȱhistoricalȱcontext,ȱofȱ theȱissueȱofȱmixedȱmarriages,ȱasȱdepictedȱinȱEzraȬNehemiah.ȱWeȱseeȱinȱ ChapterȱTwo,ȱhowȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱinȱEzraȬNehemiahȱrunsȱ deeperȱ thanȱ theȱ usualȱ identificationȱ ofȱ nonȬIsraeliteȱ inȱ theȱ earlierȱ Deuteronomicȱtexts.ȱInȱfact,ȱEzraȱandȱNehemiahȱcouldȱnotȱidentifyȱtheȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ withinȱ theirȱ midst.ȱ Theyȱ couldȱ notȱ differentiateȱ theȱ golahȱ communityȱ fromȱ theȱ “peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ land”.ȱ Theyȱ hadȱ toȱ resortȱ toȱ recordsȱofȱancestralȱregistryȱandȱtoȱlistenȱtoȱtheȱspeechȱofȱtheirȱchildrenȱ toȱ tellȱ themȱ apart.ȱ However,ȱ thoseȱ whomȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ calledȱ “forȬ eignȱ wives”,ȱ areȱ linkedȱ toȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ prohibitionsȱ ofȱ marryingȱ womenȱfromȱtheȱ“peoplesȱofȱtheȱland”.ȱTheseȱwomenȱareȱdeemedȱtoȱbeȱ asȱ “abominationsȱ toȱ YHWH”ȱ andȱ “polluted”,ȱ andȱ theȱ factȱ ofȱ theirȱ presenceȱ willȱ leadȱ Israelȱ intoȱ apostasy,ȱ consigningȱ theȱ wholeȱ golahȱ communityȱ intoȱ annihilation.ȱ Nehemiah,ȱ moreover,ȱ linksȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱtoȱSolomon’sȱmarriages,ȱwhichȱsimilarlyȱcorruptȱhimȱandȱJehudȱ intoȱapostasy.ȱ ItȱisȱinȱChapterȱThree,ȱwhereȱweȱseeȱtheȱsameȱmotifȱatȱworkȱmoreȱ broadlyȱinȱtheȱbooksȱofȱKings.ȱThere,ȱitȱisȱnotȱonlyȱSolomonȱwhoȱisȱledȱ astray,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ theȱ “foreignȱ women”,ȱ mostȱ quintessentiallyȱ Jezebel,ȱ areȱ depictedȱ asȱ theȱ rootȱ causeȱ ofȱ Israel’sȱ apostasyȱ fromȱ Yahweh.ȱ JeȬ zebel,ȱ wasȱ notȱ justȱ portrayedȱ asȱ aȱ foreignȱ cultȱ worshipper,ȱ butȱ sheȱ activelyȱ persecutesȱ theȱ devoteesȱ ofȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ corruptsȱ Ahab,ȱ herȱ husband.ȱThroughȱher,ȱnotȱonlyȱdidȱheȱworshipȱforeignȱdeities,ȱbutȱalsoȱ commitȱactsȱofȱevilȱ(1ȱKgsȱ21:25);ȱandȱthroughȱherȱhusband’sȱapostasy,ȱ theȱ Northernȱ kingdom,ȱ andȱ inȱ turn,ȱ theȱ Judeanȱ kingsȱ ofȱ Ahazȱ andȱ Manassehȱbecomeȱcorrupted.ȱLikewise,ȱallȱtheȱotherȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱofȱ theȱJudeanȱkings,ȱinȱparticularȱasȱmothers,ȱcorruptȱthem.ȱThroughȱtheȱ

104ȱ

GeneralȱSummaryȱandȱConclusionsȱ

“foreignȱ wives”,ȱ theȱ kingsȱ becomeȱ corrupted,ȱ andȱ inȱ turnȱ leadȱ theȱ wholeȱnationȱintoȱapostasy,ȱresultingȱinȱtheȱexile.ȱItȱisȱthisȱperceptionȱofȱ “foreignȱwives”ȱwhichȱunderpinsȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱ newȱ ideasȱ aboutȱ nationalȱ identity,ȱ andȱ theȱ motifȱ isȱ notȱ simplyȱ aȱ proȬ ductȱofȱtheȱpostȬexilicȱdispute.ȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ cannotȱ beȱ cutȱ offȱ altogetherȱ fromȱ itsȱ Jewishȱ context,ȱ whichȱ itsȱ variousȱ referencesȱ toȱ Deuteronomyȱ makesȱ difficult,ȱ andȱ therefore,ȱweȱmayȱreasonablyȱassumeȱthatȱthisȱpowerfulȱmotifȱisȱtoȱbeȱ associatedȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ wayȱ withȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Indeed,ȱasȱweȱlookȱintoȱthoseȱpassagesȱconcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ inȱChapterȱFour,ȱsheȱdepictsȱandȱsymbolisesȱ“foreignness”ȱthroughȱtheȱ identificationȱ ofȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʩʸʫʰ,ȱ andȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ apostasy.ȱ JuxtaposedȱwithȱWomanȱWisdom,ȱwhoȱisȱsymbolicȱofȱtheȱwayȱofȱTorahȱ andȱ pietyȱ leadingȱ toȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ hisȱ blessings,ȱ bothȱ womenȱ competeȱ againstȱ oneȱ anotherȱ toȱ lureȱ Jewishȱ menȱ ontoȱ theirȱ paths.ȱ Bothȱ womenȱ areȱ portrayedȱ mostȱ similarlyȱ inȱ theirȱ invitationsȱ andȱ persuasions,ȱ andȱ theyȱ presentȱ themselvesȱ asȱ desirableȱ womenȱ toȱ possessȱ –ȱ rich,ȱ happyȱ andȱ attractive.ȱ Theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ inȱ particular,ȱ isȱ seductiveȱ inȱ herȱ speechȱ(Provȱ2:16;ȱ5:3;ȱ7:5,ȱ21),ȱasȱapostasyȱisȱalwaysȱdepictedȱthisȱwayȱ inȱ theȱ OT.ȱ Whereȱ sheȱ actuallyȱ speaksȱ inȱ Provȱ 7:14Ȭ20,ȱ herȱ speechȱ isȱ ambiguousȱ andȱ herȱ religiosityȱ andȱ herȱ maritalȱ statusȱ isȱ notȱ explicit.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ herȱ invitationsȱ areȱ alsoȱ alwaysȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ theȱ warningsȱofȱtheȱfather,ȱwhoȱdepictsȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱtakingȱheedȱtoȱ herȱ inȱ theȱ mostȱ horrifyingȱ wayȱ (Provȱ 2:19;ȱ 5:9Ȭ14,ȱ 20Ȭ23;ȱ 7:22Ȭ27;ȱ9:18).ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱWomanȱ Wisdomȱ speaksȱinȱ truthȱ andȱpresentsȱ herselfȱasȱ aȱ potentialȱ devotedȱ womanȱ companionȱ (cf.ȱ Provȱ 8:6Ȭ9;ȱ 7:4),ȱ andȱ herȱ inȬ vitationsȱ areȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ promisesȱ ofȱ prosperityȱ andȱ longȱ lifeȱ (cf.ȱ Provȱ 8:15Ȭ21,ȱ 32Ȭ35;ȱ 9:11).ȱ Moreover,ȱ inȱ Provȱ 9:13Ȭ18,ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ WoȬ manȱisȱpersonifiedȱasȱWomanȱFollyȱtoȱreiterateȱherȱsymbolicȱnatureȱasȱ antiȬthesisȱtoȱWomanȱWisdom,ȱandȱtoȱassertȱthatȱherȱwayȱisȱoneȱofȱpureȱ foolishness.ȱ Moreȱsignificantly,ȱtheȱanalysesȱofȱtheȱpassagesȱshowȱthatȱadulteryȱ doesȱnotȱdefineȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱProvȱ2:17ȱspeaksȱofȱherȱdivorcedȱ stateȱ fromȱ aȱ marriageȱ covenant,ȱ whichȱ evokesȱ languageȱ ofȱ apostasyȱ moreȱthanȱthatȱofȱaȱrealȱmarriage.ȱInȱaddition,ȱherȱspeechȱinȱProvȱ7:20ȱ doesȱ notȱ discloseȱ thatȱ sheȱ hasȱ aȱ husband;ȱ Provȱ 5:15Ȭ20ȱ isȱ notȱ aboutȱ admonitionsȱofȱfidelityȱtoȱone’sȱspouseȱasȱmuchȱasȱitȱisȱaboutȱfidelityȱtoȱ theȱ“true”ȱJewishȱcommunityȱandȱYahweh;ȱandȱProvȱ6:26Ȭ35ȱisȱmergedȱ withȱ vv.ȱ 20Ȭ25ȱ mostȱ probablyȱ becauseȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ underȬ stoodȱ toȱ symboliseȱ apostasy,ȱ whichȱ isȱ commonlyȱ associatedȱ withȱ adultery.ȱInȱtheȱsameȱvein,ȱtheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱmotifȱofȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱofȱ theȱ Judeanȱ kingsȱ andȱ alsoȱ Jezebel,ȱ areȱ neverȱ accusedȱ ofȱ adultery,ȱ notȱ

ȱ

GeneralȱSummaryȱandȱConclusionsȱ

105ȱ

evenȱ theȱ “daughterȱ ofȱ theȱ foreignȱ god”ȱ inȱ Malȱ 2:11,ȱ orȱ thoseȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiah.ȱ Inȱ allȱ theseȱ texts,ȱ theyȱ areȱ “bad”,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱcorruptȱIsraelȱandȱcauseȱthemȱtoȱleaveȱtheȱwaysȱofȱYahweh.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ isȱ aȱ motifȱ ofȱ “forȬ eignness”,ȱ employingȱ theȱ languageȱ andȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ theȱ earlierȱ DeuȬ teronomicȱandȱDeuteronomisticȱtextsȱtoȱdealȱwithȱtheȱsameȱproblemsȱofȱ perceivingȱ“foreignness”ȱasȱinherentlyȱtheȱsourceȱofȱapostasy,ȱbutȱinȱaȱ poeticȱ way.ȱ However,ȱ asȱ weȱ shallȱ seeȱ inȱ theȱ nextȱ twoȱ chapters,ȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ thisȱ powerfulȱ motifȱ beginsȱ toȱ recedeȱ asȱ itȱ leavesȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ mixedȱ marriagesȱ andȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ ofȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ period.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱFive:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱȱȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ precedingȱ chaptersȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ thatȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ probablyȱ hasȱ itsȱ originȱ inȱ theȱ preȬexilicȱ legalȱ andȱ historicalȱ material,ȱwhereȱmarriageȱtoȱwomenȱofȱtheȱforeignȱ“peoplesȱofȱtheȱland“ȱ isȱ identifiedȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱ ofȱ Israel’sȱ apostasy.ȱ Thisȱ themeȱ isȱ developedȱ furtherȱ inȱ theȱ DtrH,ȱ whereȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ particularȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wives“ȱwhoȱleadȱkings,ȱandȱthusȱtheȱnation,ȱastray.ȱThatȱinterpretationȱ ofȱ historyȱ isȱ explicitlyȱ linkedȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ toȱ anȱ attemptȱ withinȱ theȱ golahȱ communityȱ ofȱ theȱ Returnȱ toȱ purgeȱ itselfȱ ofȱ “foreignȱ wives“,ȱ butȱ itȱ probablyȱ findsȱ itsȱ strongestȱ literaryȱ expressionȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Thereȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ becomesȱ anȱ insidious,ȱ destructiveȱ forceȱ whoseȱseductionsȱleadȱtheȱunwaryȱtoȱdestruction,ȱandȱsheȱisȱexplicitlyȱ theȱ oppositeȱ ofȱ Wisdomȱ whoȱ drawsȱ menȱ insteadȱ toȱ pietyȱ andȱ conȬ formityȱwithȱtheȱwillȱofȱYahweh.ȱAfterȱthatȱpoint,ȱtheȱfigureȱofȱWisdomȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ enjoyȱ furtherȱ successȱ inȱ Jewishȱ literature,ȱ butȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ increasinglyȱ recedesȱ fromȱ sight.ȱ Inȱ theȱ followingȱ chaptersȱ weȱ shallȱ exploreȱ theȱ reasonsȱ forȱ thatȱ declineȱ andȱ assessȱ herȱ role,ȱ orȱ herȱ absence,ȱinȱsomeȱofȱtheȱkeyȱliterature.ȱ ProblemsȱofȱdatingȱmakeȱitȱimpracticalȱtoȱproceedȱinȱaȱstrictȱchroȬ nologicalȱsequenceȱhere.ȱInstead,ȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱconvenience,ȱweȱshallȱ firstȱ examineȱ materialȱ whichȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ aȱ directȱ connectionȱ withȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ –ȱ twoȱ shortȱ passagesȱ fromȱ otherȱ partsȱ ofȱ Proverbs,ȱ aȱ typicallyȱ obscureȱ referenceȱ inȱ Ecclesiastes,ȱ andȱ aȱ veryȱ interestingȱ butȱ fragmentaryȱtextȱfromȱQumran.ȱWeȱshallȱalsoȱlookȱatȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ translationȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ hasȱ dealtȱ withȱ theȱ motif.ȱ AlȬ thoughȱthisȱmayȱseemȱaȱlittleȱmiscellaneous,ȱitȱwillȱsoonȱbecomeȱclearȱ thatȱthereȱareȱsomeȱimportantȱissuesȱcommonȱtoȱallȱtheseȱtexts.ȱInȱtheȱ nextȱchapter,ȱweȱshallȱdealȱwithȱtheȱmoreȱsubstantialȱbooksȱofȱBenȱSiraȱ andȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomon,ȱ whichȱ areȱ notȱ ignorantȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ butȱ approachȱitsȱimageryȱandȱthemeȱlessȱdirectly.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

TheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱofȱtheȱOTȱ

107ȱ

5.1ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ WisdomȱLiteratureȱofȱtheȱOTȱ Inȱthisȱsection,ȱweȱwillȱlookȱatȱtheȱbiblicalȱtextsȱinȱtheȱOTȱwhichȱseemȱtoȱ includeȱ directȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱ Theyȱ allȱ occurȱwithinȱtheȱgenreȱofȱtheȱwisdomȱliterature,ȱandȱtwoȱpassagesȱareȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ –ȱ 22:14;ȱ 23:26Ȭ28;ȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ inȱ theȱ bookȱofȱEcclesiastesȱ–ȱ7:26.ȱ

5.1.1ȱTheȱʺʥʸʦȱinȱProverbsȱ22:14ȱ Theȱmouthȱofȱstrangeȱwomenȱ(ʺʥʸʦ)ȱisȱaȱdeepȱpit,ȱ heȱwhomȱYahwehȱisȱangryȱwithȱfallȱintoȱit.1

Provȱ22:14ȱisȱfoundȱinȱaȱcollectionȱwithȱtheȱsuperscriptionȱ“Proverbsȱofȱ Solomon“ȱ (10:1Ȭ22:16).2ȱ Asȱ sentenceȱ literature,ȱ thisȱ isȱ veryȱ differentȱ inȱ formȱ andȱ constructionȱ fromȱ theȱ materialȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9:ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ “instruction“ȱ inȱ theȱ technicalȱ sense,ȱ butȱ isȱ madeȱupȱ ofȱ individualȱ sayȬ ingsȱ withȱ noȱ necessaryȱ thematicȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ them,ȱ exceptȱ inȱ shortȱ sectionsȱ suchȱ asȱ Provȱ 16:10Ȭ15.ȱ Therefore,ȱ eachȱ sayingȱ isȱ anȱ inȬ dividualȱunitȱbyȱitselfȱandȱcannotȱbeȱinterpretedȱbyȱreferenceȱtoȱcontext.ȱ Itȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱdetermineȱhowȱandȱwhenȱtheȱcollectionȱwasȱcompiled,ȱ orȱhowȱtheȱsayingsȱwereȱcomposed.3ȱ Thisȱsayingȱusesȱtheȱtermȱʺʥʸʦ,ȱtheȱfeminineȱpluralȱofȱʸʦ,ȱwhichȱmostȱ commentatorsȱ assumeȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,4ȱalthoughȱasȱMeinholdȱhasȱpointedȱout,ȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱisȱaȱ singleȱ figureȱ describedȱ withȱ aȱsingularȱ adjectiveȱandȱ sheȱ isȱ neverȱ directlyȱ associatedȱ withȱ Yahweh.5ȱ Moreȱ specifically,ȱ theȱ sayingȱ warnsȱ againstȱ theȱ mouthȱ ofȱ theȱ ʺʥʸʦ,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ herȱ speech.ȱ Theȱ descriptionȱofȱthisȱasȱaȱdeepȱpitȱevokesȱtraditionalȱimagesȱofȱdeath,ȱtheȱ grave,ȱ andȱ theȱ sayingȱ isȱ superficiallyȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ theȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱsecondȱlineȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱ 2ȱȱ 3ȱ

4ȱ 5ȱ

Forȱthisȱchapter,ȱonlyȱProvȱ22:14ȱandȱProvȱ23:26Ȭ28ȱareȱmyȱtranslations.ȱ Forȱanȱintroductionȱtoȱthisȱcollection,ȱseeȱWhybray,ȱProverbs,ȱpp.ȱ149Ȭ55.ȱȱ Theȱ tendencyȱ inȱ earlierȱ worksȱ toȱ regardȱ sentenceȬliteratureȱ asȱ inherentlyȱ earlierȱ thanȱ instructionalȱ onesȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ discreditedȱ formȬcriticalȱ theories;ȱ cf.ȱ McKane,ȱ pp.ȱ10Ȭ22;ȱandȱC.ȱKayatz,ȱStudienȱzuȱProverbienȱ1Ȭ9:ȱEineȱformȬȱundȱmotivgeschichtlicheȱ Untersuchungȱ unterȱ Einbeziehungȱ ägyptischenȱ Vergleichsmaterialsȱ (WMANTȱ 22;ȱ NeuȬ kirchenȬVluyn:ȱNeukirchenȱVerlag,ȱ1966),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ75ȱ(74Ȭ75).ȱ MostȱcommentatorsȱassumeȱthatȱitȱdoesȱreferȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWoman;ȱcf.ȱToy,ȱp.ȱ419;ȱ Scott,ȱp.ȱ129;ȱMcKane,ȱp.ȱ571.ȱ Meinhold,ȱSprüche,ȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ371.ȱȱ

108ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

changesȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ it,ȱ forȱ hereȱ theȱ “foreignȱ women“ȱ are,ȱ inȱsomeȱ sense,ȱtheȱpunishmentȱforȱsin,ȱratherȱthanȱexplicitlyȱtheȱcauseȱofȱit,ȱandȱ henceȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ preȬdeterminismȱ isȱ involved.6ȱ Itȱ isȱ veryȱ differentȱ fromȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ forȱ everyoneȱ hasȱ aȱ chanceȱ toȱ hearȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ toȱ avoidȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱȱ IfȱthisȱsayingȱwasȱcomposedȱlaterȱthanȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱthenȱitȱseemsȱ toȱhaveȱchangedȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱsomewhat:ȱsheȱisȱnowȱ aȱtrapȱratherȱthanȱaȱlure,ȱandȱfunctionsȱasȱaȱpunishment,ȱratherȱthanȱaȱ causeȱ ofȱ sin.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ ifȱ itȱ wasȱ earlier,ȱ itȱ couldȱ conceivablyȱ haveȱprovidedȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱwithȱaȱstartingȬpointȱforȱitsȱmoreȱelaborateȱ imagery.ȱWeȱcannotȱbeȱcertainȱeitherȱway,ȱalthoughȱitȱisȱarguableȱthatȱ theȱ imageȱ presupposesȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ aȱ foreignȱ womanȱ figure,ȱ whoȱ temptsȱwithȱherȱspeech.ȱ

5.1.2ȱTheȱʤʩʸʫʰȱinȱProverbsȱ23:26Ȭ28ȱ 26ȱGiveȱmeȱyourȱheart,ȱmyȱson,ȱȱ andȱletȱyourȱeyesȱdelight7ȱinȱmyȱways.ȱ 27ȱForȱtheȱprostituteȱ(ʤʰʥʦ)ȱisȱaȱdeepȱpitȱȱ andȱtheȱforeignȱwomanȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ)ȱaȱnarrowȱwell.ȱ 28ȱSheȱevenȱliesȱinȱwaitȱlikeȱaȱrobber,ȱȱ soȱincreasesȱtheȱfaithless8ȱamongȱmen.ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ passageȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ collectionȱ ofȱ proverbsȱ knownȱ asȱ “Theȱ Sayingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Wise“ȱ (Provȱ 22:17Ȭ24:22).9ȱ Thereȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ directȱ conȬ nectionsȱbetweenȱthisȱcollectionȱandȱtheȱEgyptianȱworkȱknownȱasȱTheȱ InstructionȱofȱAmenemope,ȱalthoughȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱreȬ mainsȱaȱmatterȱofȱdebate.10ȱItȱisȱnoteworthyȱthatȱforȱthisȱpassage,ȱthereȱ isȱnothingȱsimilarȱinȱcontentȱtoȱtheȱInstructionȱofȱAmenemope.ȱScholarsȱ agreeȱthatȱthisȱpassageȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 6ȱ

ItȱrecallsȱtheȱsameȱkindȱofȱpreȬdeterminismȱfoundȱinȱtheȱepilogueȱofȱPtahhotep,ȱlineȱ 549,ȱ“SomeoneȱhatedȱbyȱGodȱdoesȱnotȱhear“;ȱseeȱParkinson,ȱp.ȱ262.ȱȱ 7ȱ Followingȱtheȱkethib,ȱʤʕʰʶʓ ʸʍ ʑˢ,ȱwhileȱtheȱqereȱhasȱʤʕʰʸʍ ʖ ˞ ʑˢȱ“observe“.ȱȱ 8ȱ Whybrayȱhasȱ“actsȱofȱtreachery“,ȱseeȱProverbs,ȱp.ȱ340.ȱ 9ȱ Forȱaȱbriefȱintroductionȱtoȱthisȱcollection,ȱseeȱWhybray,ȱProverbs,ȱpp.ȱ323Ȭ25.ȱȱ 10ȱ Forȱaȱconciseȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱdebateȱonȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱ Instructionȱ ofȱ Amenenopeȱ andȱ Provȱ 22:17Ȭ24:12,ȱ seeȱ R.N.ȱ Whybray,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbs:ȱ Aȱ Surveyȱ ofȱ Modernȱ Studyȱ (Historyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Interpretationȱ Series,ȱ 1;ȱ Leiden:ȱ E.J.ȱ Brill,ȱ 1995),ȱ pp.ȱ 6Ȭ18.ȱ Itȱ isȱ noteworthyȱ thatȱ Adolfȱ Erman,ȱ whoȱ firstȱ pointedȱoutȱtheȱ similaritiesȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱtexts,ȱalsoȱpresupposedȱtheȱ Persianȱ periodȱ asȱ theȱ dateȱ forȱ theȱ influence.ȱ Seeȱ A.ȱ Erman,ȱ “Eineȱ ägyptischeȱ Quelleȱ derȱ ’SprücheȱSalomos’”,ȱSPAWȱ15ȱ(1924),ȱ86Ȭ93,ȱtab.ȱVIȱf.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱofȱtheȱOTȱ

109ȱ

Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9;11ȱProvȱ23:27ȱlinksȱtheȱprostituteȱandȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱ byȱsynonymousȱparallelism,ȱandȱbothȱareȱlikenedȱtoȱaȱdeepȱpit.12ȱWhileȱ “pit“ȱagainȱusuallyȱevokesȱtheȱgrave,ȱtheȱanalogyȱofȱtheȱ“narrowȱwell“ȱ isȱ synonymousȱ withȱ “pit“ȱ here,ȱ andȱ isȱ alsoȱ usedȱ elsewhereȱ toȱ depictȱ death.13ȱ Theȱ depthȱ andȱ narrownessȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ undergroundȱ holesȱ suggestȱ anȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ returningȱ toȱ life,ȱ aȱ reminderȱ ofȱ Provȱ 2:19.ȱ Theȱ imageryȱ inȱ Provȱ 23:28ȱ recallsȱ theȱ ambushȱ laidȱ byȱ theȱ Foreignȱ WomanȱinȱProvȱ7:12;ȱandȱthoseȱlaidȱbyȱtheȱevilȱmenȱinȱProvȱ1:11.ȱTheirȱ intentions,ȱ toȱ trapȱ andȱ ultimatelyȱ destroyȱ theirȱ victims,ȱ areȱ probablyȱ whatȱ isȱ envisagedȱ hereȱ asȱ well.ȱ Inȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ similarȱ languageȱ andȱ vocabularyȱ inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ someȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ takenȱ theȱ ʤʰʥʦȱ toȱ beȱ equivalentȱ toȱ the ʤʩʸʫʰ,ȱ andȱ usedȱ thisȱ asȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ ʤʩʸʫʰȱ isȱ alsoȱ andȱ equallyȱ aȱ sexuallyȱ promiscuousȱ woman.14ȱ Inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ theȱ ForeignȱWomanȱisȱnotȱsaidȱtoȱbeȱaȱprostitute,ȱalthoughȱsheȱdressesȱlikeȱ oneȱ (Provȱ 7:10)ȱ andȱ mayȱ beȱ sexuallyȱ promiscuous.ȱ Asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ earlier,ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ andȱ Womanȱ Follyȱ haveȱ moreȱ significantȱ rolesȱ thanȱ theȱ commonȱ prostitute,ȱ andȱ theȱ authorȱ makesȱ aȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ themȱ inȱ Provȱ 7:10.ȱ Moreȱ generally,ȱ consortingȱ withȱ aȱ proȬ stituteȱ isȱ neverȱ elsewhereȱ deemedȱ aȱ graveȱ offenceȱ inȱ theȱ OT,ȱ whichȱ raisesȱquestionsȱaboutȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱtermȱhere.ȱMcKane,ȱinȱviewȱ ofȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ reading,ȱ thereforeȱ suggestsȱ quiteȱ rightlyȱ thatȱ ʤʸʦȱ shouldȱ beȱ readȱ instead,15ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ noteworthyȱ thatȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ maȬ nuscriptsȱhasȱʤʸʦȱinsteadȱofȱʤʰʥʦ.16ȱItȱseemsȱlikelyȱtherefore,ȱthatȱʤʰʥʦȱisȱanȱ errorȱ here,ȱ orȱ possiblyȱ anȱ interestingȱ secondaryȱ interpretation.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ readȱʤʸʦȱinstead,ȱthenȱtheȱpassageȱisȱmuchȱcloserȱtoȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱandȱitsȱ useȱofȱtheȱambushȱimageryȱmightȱsuggestȱthatȱitȱdependsȱonȱthatȱwork;ȱ itȱ doesȱ alsoȱ haveȱ aȱ linkȱ withȱ theȱ imageryȱ ofȱ Provȱ 22:14,ȱ butȱ doesȱ notȱ shareȱtheȱideasȱofȱthatȱsaying.ȱAgain,ȱitȱisȱhardȱtoȱassignȱaȱrelativeȱdate,ȱ butȱitȱisȱeitherȱaȱveryȱinterestingȱprecursor,ȱandȱpossibleȱinspiration,ȱor,ȱ asȱseemsȱmoreȱprobable,ȱaȱderivativeȱsummary.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 11ȱ Toy,ȱ p.ȱ 437;ȱ Scott,ȱ p.ȱ 143;ȱ McKane,ȱ pp.ȱ 390Ȭ92;ȱ Meinhold,ȱ Sprüche,ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ pp.ȱ 371,ȱ 395Ȭ96.ȱ 12ȱ AsȱMeinholdȱobservesȱinȱ22:14,ȱonlyȱtheȱmouthȱofȱtheȱstrangeȱwomenȱisȱportrayedȱ inȱthisȱway,ȱseeȱMeinhold,ȱSprüche,ȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ396.ȱ 13ȱ Seeȱ Theodoreȱ J.ȱ Lewis,ȱ “Dead,ȱ Abodeȱ ofȱ the“,ȱ ABDȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ pp.ȱ 101Ȭ105ȱ (101).ȱ Seeȱ EugeneȱH.ȱMerrill,ȱ“ʺʧˇ“,ȱNIDOTEȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ92Ȭ93;ȱandȱBDB,ȱp.ȱ1001.ȱBDBȱ(p.ȱ92)ȱ alsoȱexplainsȱthatȱtheȱpoeticȱuseȱofȱʸʥʡȱtoȱdepictȱ“grave“ȱisȱlate.ȱProvȱ1:12;ȱIsaȱ38:18;ȱ Ezekȱ26:20;ȱ31:14,ȱ16;ȱ32:18,ȱ24,ȱ25,ȱ29;ȱPssȱ28:1;ȱ30:4;ȱ88:5;ȱ143:7.ȱ 14ȱ Asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ inȱ Snijders’sȱ interpretation,ȱ cf.ȱ 1.2.ȱ Theȱ logicȱ ofȱ theȱ argumentȱ isȱ questionable.ȱSeeȱalsoȱMurphy,ȱp.ȱ177.ȱ 15ȱ McKane,ȱ p.ȱ 390.ȱ Althoughȱ ΦΏΏóΘΕ΍ΓΖȱ isȱ usedȱ twiceȱ inȱ theȱ Septuagint,ȱ itȱ hasȱ aȱ difȬ ferentȱcontentȱfromȱtheȱHebrewȱtext,ȱasȱweȱshallȱseeȱlaterȱinȱ5.3.ȱ 16ȱ AsȱmentionedȱinȱBHS.ȱ

110ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

TheȱdifficultiesȱofȱdatingȱmakeȱitȱhardȱtoȱjudgeȱwhetherȱeitherȱProvȱ 22:14ȱ orȱ 23:26Ȭ28ȱ standȱ inȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ imagery,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ likelyȱ thatȱ bothȱ showȱ aȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ whileȱ Provȱ 22:14ȱ mayȱ showȱ aȱ significantȱ developmentȱ ofȱ ideas:ȱ theȱ womanȱ becomesȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ punishingȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ alreadyȱ conȬ demned.ȱ

5.1.3ȱTheȱʤʹʠʤȱinȱEcclesiastesȱ7:26ȱ Iȱfindȱmoreȱbitter17ȱthanȱdeath,ȱȱ theȱwomanȱ(ʤʹʠʤ)ȱwhoȱisȱaȱtrap,ȱ whoseȱheartȱisȱnets,ȱwhoseȱhandsȱareȱfetters;ȱ theȱoneȱwhoȱpleasesȱGodȱescapesȱher,ȱ butȱtheȱsinnerȱwillȱbeȱcapturedȱbyȱher.ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ textȱ isȱfoundȱ withinȱtheȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱauthorȱdescribingȱ hisȱ purȬ suitȱ andȱ questȱ forȱ wisdomȱ (Ecclȱ 7:23Ȭ29),ȱ andȱ theȱ womanȱ mentionedȱ hereȱseemsȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱwhichȱweȱshallȱ investigate.ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Ecclȱ7:23Ȭ29ȱȱ 23ȱAllȱthisȱIȱhaveȱtestedȱbyȱwisdom;ȱIȱsaid,ȱ “Iȱwillȱbeȱwise,”ȱbutȱitȱwasȱfarȱfromȱme.ȱ 24ȱThatȱwhichȱis,ȱisȱfarȱoff,ȱandȱdeep,ȱveryȱdeep;ȱ whoȱcanȱfindȱitȱout?ȱ 25ȱIȱturnedȱmyȱmindȱtoȱknowȱandȱtoȱsearchȱoutȱ andȱtoȱseekȱwisdomȱandȱtheȱsumȱofȱthings,ȱ andȱtoȱknowȱthatȱwickednessȱisȱfollyȱ andȱthatȱfoolishnessȱisȱmadness.ȱ 26ȱIȱfoundȱmoreȱbitterȱthanȱdeathȱtheȱwomanȱwhoȱisȱaȱtrap,ȱ whoseȱheartȱisȱsnaresȱandȱnets,ȱwhoseȱhandsȱareȱfetters;ȱ oneȱwhoȱpleasesȱGodȱescapesȱher,ȱ butȱtheȱsinnerȱisȱtakenȱbyȱher.ȱ 27ȱSee,ȱthisȱisȱwhatȱIȱfound,ȱsaysȱtheȱTeacher,ȱ addingȱoneȱthingȱtoȱanotherȱtoȱfindȱtheȱsum,ȱ 28ȱwhichȱmyȱmindȱhasȱsoughtȱrepeatedly,ȱbutȱIȱhaveȱnotȱfound.ȱ Oneȱman amongȱaȱthousandȱIȱfound,ȱ butȱaȱwomanȱamongȱallȱtheseȱIȱhaveȱnotȱfound.ȱ 29ȱSee,ȱthisȱaloneȱIȱfound,ȱ thatȱGodȱmadeȱhumanȱbeingsȱstraightforward,ȱ butȱtheyȱhaveȱdevisedȱmanyȱschemes.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17ȱ Seeȱ Seow’sȱ explanationȱ forȱ theȱ complicatedȱ Hebrewȱ grammarȱ construction,ȱ inȱ Seow,ȱpp.ȱ261Ȭ62.ȱȱ

ȱ

TheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱofȱtheȱOTȱ

111ȱ

Theȱ authorȱ inȱ Ecclȱ 7:23Ȭ25ȱ seemsȱ toȱ expressȱ hisȱ resignationȱ inȱ hisȱ pursuitȱ forȱ wisdomȱ forȱ heȱ lamentsȱ thatȱ althoughȱ heȱ isȱ determinedȱ toȱ findȱitȱsoȱasȱ“toȱknowȱwickednessȱisȱfolly,ȱandȱfoolishnessȱisȱmadness“ȱ (Ecclȱ7:25),ȱitȱisȱbeyondȱreach.ȱWhatȱheȱfoundȱinsteadȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱʤʹʠʤ,ȱ whoȱ isȱ aȱ trapȱ (Ecclȱ 7:26).ȱ Theȱ continuingȱ versesȱ areȱ difficultȱ toȱ comȬ prehend.ȱTheȱauthorȱseemsȱtoȱsayȱthatȱalthoughȱheȱcontinuesȱtoȱdoȱhisȱ accounting,ȱheȱstillȱhasȱnotȱfoundȱwisdom.ȱThenȱaȱstrangeȱstatementȱisȱ foundȱinȱEcclȱ7:28ȱthatȱheȱfindsȱ“oneȱmanȱinȱaȱthousand“,ȱbutȱheȱdoesȱ notȱfindȱ“aȱwomanȱ(ʤʹʠ)ȱinȱallȱthese“.ȱThen,ȱheȱconcludesȱinȱEcclȱ7:29ȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ foundȱ Godȱ toȱ makeȱ humankindȱ “straight“,ȱ butȱ theyȱ haveȱ devisedȱmanyȱinventions.ȱȱ Mostȱ commentatorsȱ tendȱ toȱ associateȱ ʤʹʠʤȱ inȱ Ecclȱ 7:26ȱ withȱ theȱ ForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱbecause,ȱinȱlightȱofȱEcclȱ9:9,ȱtheȱauthorȱ doesȱ notȱ seemȱ toȱ viewȱ thatȱ allȱ womenȱ areȱ destructive;ȱ andȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ aboutȱ aȱ specificȱ kindȱ ofȱ womanȱ whoȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ deemedȱ bad,ȱ suchȱasȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProvȱ5:4ȱwhoȱisȱalsoȱsaidȱtoȱbeȱbitterȱatȱ theȱ end. 18ȱ Others,ȱ likeȱ Scott,ȱ thinkȱ thatȱ ʤʹʠʤȱ isȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ genericȱ woman,ȱ asȱ inȱ Ecclȱ 7:28,ȱ henceȱ theȱ authorȱ isȱ sayingȱ thatȱ theȱ femaleȱ populationȱ isȱ generallyȱ badȱ (Ecclȱ 7:26),ȱ andȱ notȱ oneȱ goodȱ oneȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ(Ecclȱ7:28).19ȱEricȱChristiansonȱspeculatesȱthatȱsheȱrepresentsȱtheȱ womenȱ ofȱ Kingȱ Solomon’sȱ harem,ȱ whoȱ areȱ condemnedȱ inȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 11:1ȱ andȱ Nehȱ 13:25Ȭ26.20ȱ C.ȱ L.ȱ Seow,ȱ likeȱ Georgeȱ Bartonȱ andȱ Jamesȱ CrenȬ shaw,ȱbelievesȱthatȱʤʹʠʤȱevokesȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱbutȱheȱarguesȱitȱinȱ aȱ differentȱ way.21ȱ Heȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theȱ definiteȱ articleȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ aȱ specificȱ kindȱ ofȱ womanȱ isȱ intended,ȱ whomȱ theȱ audienceȱ isȱ familiarȱ with,ȱandȱinȱviewȱofȱtheȱcontextȱonȱwisdomȱandȱfolly,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱtheȱ authorȱisȱpickingȱupȱtheȱmotifȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱTheȱdescriptionȱofȱʤʹʠʤȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱ G.ȱ Barton,ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ andȱ Exegeticalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ bookȱ Ecclesiastesȱ (ICC;ȱ EdinȬ burgh:ȱ Tȱ &ȱ Tȱ Clark,ȱ 1908),ȱ p.ȱ 147;ȱ J.ȱ Crenshaw,ȱ Ecclesiastes:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ London:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1988),ȱp.ȱ146.ȱ 19ȱ Scott,ȱpp.ȱ238Ȭ39.ȱTheȱproblemȱwithȱassumingȱʤʹʠȱasȱanȱoppositeȱofȱʭʣʠȱinȱv.ȱ26ȱisȱ becauseȱʭʣʠȱisȱusedȱinȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱbookȱtoȱmeanȱ“humanity“,ȱratherȱthanȱ“man“.ȱ Seeȱ Seow,ȱ p.ȱ 264.ȱ Bartonȱ (p.ȱ 147)ȱ andȱ Crenshawȱ (pp.ȱ 147Ȭ48)ȱ alsoȱ makeȱ theȱ sameȱ assumptionȱthatȱʤʹʠȱintendsȱtoȱcontrastȱʭʣʠ,ȱbutȱthinkȱthatȱʤʹʠȱalludesȱtoȱSolomon’sȱ harem,ȱwhichȱamountsȱtoȱaȱthousand.ȱPerhaps,ȱSeowȱhasȱgivenȱaȱbetterȱexplanationȱ forȱ theȱ occurrenceȱ ofȱ ʤʹʠȱ inȱ v.ȱ 28,ȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ secondarilyȱ insertedȱ becauseȱ theȱ grammaticalȱconstructionȱofȱtheȱlastȱclauseȱwhereȱitȱoccursȱisȱnotȱcoherentȱwithȱtheȱ restȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱHeȱsuggestsȱthatȱaȱcopyistȱmustȱhaveȱaddedȱitȱbecauseȱheȱdoesȱnotȱ knowȱthatȱv.ȱ26ȱisȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱbutȱthinksȱthatȱitȱisȱaboutȱwomenȱ inȱgeneral,ȱhenceȱheȱintendsȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱpoint.ȱSeeȱSeow,ȱp.ȱ265.ȱȱ 20ȱ E.ȱ Christianson,ȱ Aȱ Timeȱ toȱ Tell:ȱ Narrativeȱ Strategiesȱ inȱ Ecclesiastesȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 280;ȱ Sheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱpp.ȱ143Ȭ44.ȱHeȱtakesȱmuchȱofȱtheȱbookȱtoȱ reflectȱtheȱlifeȱofȱKingȱSolomon.ȱȱ 21ȱ Seow,ȱpp.ȱ262Ȭ63.ȱ

112ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

alsoȱresemblesȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱratherȱthanȱanyȱordinaryȱoneȱ–ȱtheyȱ areȱbothȱdepictedȱinȱtermsȱofȱtraps,ȱareȱdeadly,ȱandȱwhomȱoneȱmustȱbeȱ deliveredȱ from.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ inȱ thisȱ depiction,ȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ “forȬ eignness“ȱhasȱbeenȱdroppedȱcompletelyȱandȱwhatȱisȱleftȱisȱmerelyȱ“theȱ woman“ȱsymbolisingȱwickednessȱandȱfolly.ȱ

5.2ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱ Theȱ otherȱ materialsȱ whichȱ areȱ relatedȱ to,ȱ butȱ outsideȱ of,ȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ areȱdifficultȱtoȱdate.ȱConsequently,ȱdeterminingȱtheȱpreciseȱrelationshipȱ betweenȱtheseȱtextsȱisȱaltogetherȱanȱuncertainȱtask.ȱHowever,ȱthereȱisȱaȱ fragmentȱ foundȱ inȱ Qumranȱ whichȱ isȱ almostȱ certainlyȱ basedȱ onȱ ProȬ verbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱandȱdirectlyȱrelatedȱtoȱourȱsubject,ȱthereforeȱdeservingȱaȱcloseȱ study.ȱ Theȱ womanȱ foundȱ inȱ 4Q184,22ȱ whoȱ isȱ describedȱ mostȱ proȬ vocativelyȱandȱasȱembodyingȱevil,ȱhasȱbeenȱassumedȱbyȱmostȱscholarsȱ toȱbeȱaȱliteraryȱcreationȱoriginatingȱforȱtheȱmostȱpartȱfromȱWomanȱFollyȱ andȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱWeȱshallȱevaluateȱtheseȱsupȬ positionsȱhere.ȱ

5.2.1ȱTheȱTextȱofȱQ184ȱ Thereȱ areȱ sixȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ 4Q184.23ȱ Fragmentsȱ 2Ȭ6ȱ areȱ fragmentary,ȱ whileȱ theȱ textȱ 4Q184ȱ isȱ largelyȱ preservedȱ inȱ fragmentȱ 1.ȱ Theȱ topȱ leftȱ cornerȱofȱfragmentȱ1ȱisȱbroken.ȱIȱhaveȱusedȱJohnȱAllegro’sȱtranscriptionȱ andȱtranslationȱbelow.ȱ ȱ Lineȱ1ȱ ʤ]˸ʩ˸ʸʡʣ ʯʰʹ[ʬ ]˸ʣ य़ʩʮʺ ʸʧʹʺ ʺʥʲʥʺ ʠ[ ]ʡʥ ʬʡʤ ʠʩʶʥʺ ʤ[ʰʦʤ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 22ȱ Theȱ datingȱ ofȱ thisȱ fragmentȱ andȱ itsȱ compositionȱ isȱ uncertain.ȱ J.ȱ Carmignacȱ thinksȱ thatȱtheȱwritingȱisȱ“rusticȱsemiȬformal“,ȱofȱtheȱHerodianȱperiodȱ(30ȱBCEȬ68ȱCE)ȱandȱ resemblesȱ4Q171ȱandȱ4Q167.ȱSeeȱJ.ȱCarmignac,ȱ“PoèmeȱallégoriqueȱsurȱlaȱsecteȱrivaȬ le“,ȱRevQȱ5/19ȱ(1965),ȱpp.ȱ361Ȭ74ȱ(361).ȱHowever,ȱthisȱdoesȱnotȱreflectȱtheȱdateȱofȱitsȱ composition.ȱForȱdatingȱofȱtheȱQumranȱscrolls,ȱseeȱEmmanuelȱTovȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱTextsȱ fromȱ theȱ Judaeanȱ Desert:ȱ Indicesȱ andȱ anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ theȱ Discoveriesȱ inȱ theȱ Judaeanȱ DesertȱSeriesȱ(DJD,ȱvol.ȱXXXIX;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ2002),ȱpp.ȱ371Ȭ76.ȱ 23ȱ J.ȱAllegro,ȱQumrânȱCaveȱ4:ȱIȱ(4Q158Ȭ4Q186)ȱ(DJD,ȱvol.ȱV;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ 1968),ȱ pp.ȱ 82Ȭ85.ȱ Andȱ forȱ theȱ photographȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ seeȱ Plateȱ XXVIII.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ firstȱ publishedȱinȱ“TheȱWilesȱofȱtheȱWickedȱWoman:ȱAȱSapientialȱWordȱfromȱQumran’sȱ FourthȱCave“,ȱPEQȱ96ȱ(1964),ȱpp.ȱ53Ȭ55.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱ

113ȱ

Theȱ har]lot24ȱ uttersȱ vanities,25ȱ andȱ […]ȱ errors;ȱ Sheȱ seeksȱ continuallyȱ [to]ȱ sharpenȱ[her]ȱwords,26ȱ[…]ȱ ȱ Lineȱ2ȱ ]ʷʮ य़ ʤʩʺʥʩʬʫʥ ʯʩʧʴ ʯʴʫʩ ʤʡʬ ʬʥʲ [ʠʥ]ʹʡ ʣʧʩ ʵʩʬʤʬʥ ʷ[ʩ]˸ʬʧʺ ʱʬʷʥ sheȱ mockinglyȱ flattersȱ andȱ withȱ emp[tiness]ȱ toȱ bringȱ altogether27ȱ intoȱ deȬ rision.ȱ Herȱ heart’sȱ perversionȱ preparesȱ wantonness,28ȱ andȱ herȱ emotions29ȱ […].ȱ ȱ Lineȱ3ȱ ʲʹʴ ]ʺʥʮʹ˸ʠʡ ʺʫʬʬʥ ʥʣʸʩ ʲʩʹʸय़ ˸ʤʬ ʤʩʬʢʸ य़ ʧʥʹ ʥʫʮʺ ʤʥʤय़ ʩ˸ʬʲʢʰ ʬʥʲʡȱ Inȱperversionȱtheyȱseizedȱtheȱfouledȱ(organs)ȱofȱpassion,30ȱtheyȱdescendedȱ theȱ pitȱ ofȱ herȱ legsȱ toȱ actȱ wickedly,ȱ andȱ behave31ȱ withȱ theȱ guiltȱ ofȱ [transȬ gressionȱ…ȱ ȱ Lineȱ4ȱ ]ʤʩʹʡʬʮʥ ʤʬʩʬ ʺʥʴʲʥʺ ʤ[ ] ʤʩʴʰʫʡ ʭʩʲʹʴ ʡʥʸ ʪʹʥʧ ʩʣʱʥʮȱ …]ȱtheȱfoundationsȱofȱdarkness,ȱtheȱsinsȱinȱherȱskirtsȱareȱmany.ȱHerȱ[…]ȱisȱ theȱdepthsȱofȱtheȱnight,ȱandȱherȱclothesȱ[…].ȱ ȱ Lineȱ5ȱ [ ]˸ʺ˸ʧʹ ʩʲʥʶʩ ˸ʤ˸ʩ˸ʲ˸ʥ˸ʶ˸ʩ ʤʩʹʸʲ ʺ˸ʧʹ ʩʲʥʢʰ ʤʩʣʲʥ ʳʹ य़ ʰ ʺʥʬʴʠ ʤʩʱʫʮȱ Herȱgarmentsȱareȱtheȱshadesȱofȱtwilight,ȱandȱherȱadornmentsȱareȱtouchedȱ withȱcorruption.ȱHerȱbedsȱareȱcouchesȱofȱcorruption,ȱ[…]ȱ ȱ Lineȱ6ȱ ʺ˸ʥ˸ʬ˸ʴʠ ʩʣʱʥʮʮ ʤʩʺʥʬʹ[ʮʮ ʤ]ʬʩʬ ʩʰʹʩʠʡʥ ʪʹʥʧ ʩʡʫʹʮ ʤʩʺʥʰʥʬʮ ʸʥʡ ʩʷʮʲʮȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 24ȱ SeeȱtheȱdiscussionȱbelowȱonȱAllegro’sȱreconstruction.ȱ 25ȱ Better,ȱ“sheȱbringsȱforthȱfutility“.ȱ 26ȱ J.ȱStrugnell’sȱproposalȱofȱʤʡʣȱforȱʸʡʣȱisȱalsoȱpossible,ȱthusȱ“…whetsȱslander…“;ȱseeȱJ.ȱ Strugnell,ȱ“Notesȱsurȱleȱno.ȱ184“,ȱRevQȱȱ7/27ȱ(1971),ȱpp.ȱ262Ȭ66ȱ(264).ȱAlso,ȱcf.ȱPlateȱ XXVIII,ȱDJDȱvol.ȱV.ȱ 27ȱ Insteadȱofȱreadingȱasȱanȱadverbȱ“altogether“,ȱsomeȱscholarsȱunderstandȱʣʧʩȱtoȱreferȱ toȱtheȱcommunityȱYaতad.ȱSeeȱbelowȱforȱfurtherȱdiscussion.ȱ 28ȱ Better,ȱ“traps“ȱforȱʯʩʧʴ.ȱ 29ȱ Literally,ȱ“kidneys“.ȱ 30 ʧʥʹ ʥʫʮʺ ʤʥʞʤ ʩ˸ʬʲʢʰ ʬʥʲʡȱisȱbestȱreadȱsimplyȱasȱʧʥʹ ʥʫʮʺ ʤʩ[ʣ]ʩ ʩ˸ʬʲʢʰ ʬʥʲʡȱ“haveȱbeenȱdefiledȱ withȱevil,ȱherȱhandsȱgraspedȱtheȱpitȱ…“.ȱSeeȱtheȱcriticismȱofȱAllegro’sȱtranslationȱbyȱ Strugnell,ȱp.ȱ266ȱandȱcompareȱtheȱtextȱinȱPlateȱXXVIII,ȱDJDȱvol.ȱV.ȱ 31ȱ Better,ȱ“walk“.ȱ

114ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

depthsȱofȱtheȱPit.ȱHerȱlodgingsȱareȱbedsȱofȱdarkness,ȱandȱinȱtheȱdepthsȱofȱ theȱnigh[t]ȱareȱherȱ[do]minions.ȱFromȱtheȱfoundationsȱofȱdarknessȱ ȱ Lineȱ7ȱ ʬʥʫʡ ʪʥʺʡ ʤʺʬʧʰ ʯʩʠʥ ʭʬʥʲ ʩʣʷʥʮ ʪʥʺʡ ʤʮʥʣ ʩʬʤʠʡ ʯʥʫ˸ʹʺʥ ʺʡʹ ʬʤʠʺȱ sheȱtakesȱherȱdwelling,ȱandȱsheȱresidesȱinȱtheȱtentsȱofȱtheȱunderworld,32ȱinȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ everlastingȱ fire,ȱ andȱ sheȱ hasȱ noȱ inheritanceȱ (inȱ theȱ midstȱ of)ȱ amongȱallȱȱ ȱ Lineȱ8ȱ [ʬʥ]ʫʬ ʤʣʣʹʥ ʤʩʬʧʥʰ ʬʥʫʬ ʤʥʤ ʩʥʤ ʬʥʲ ˸ʩ˸ʫʸʣ ʬ य़ʥʫय़ ʺʩʹʠʸ य़ ʤʠʩ˸ʤʥ ʤʢʥʰ/// ʩʸʦʠʮȱ whoȱgirdȱthemselvesȱwithȱlight.ȱSheȱisȱtheȱforemostȱofȱallȱtheȱwaysȱofȱiniȬ quity;ȱAlas!ȱruinȱshallȱbeȱtoȱallȱwhoȱpossessȱher,ȱandȱdesolationȱtoȱa[ll]ȱ ȱ Lineȱ9ȱ ʺʥʢʹʮ ʤʩʺʥʬʱʲʮ ʺʠʨʧ ʩʬʩʡʹ ʤʩʺʥʧʸʥʠʥ ʺʥʮ ʩʫʸʣ ʤʩʫʸʣ ʠʩʫ ʤʡ ʩʫʮ˸ʥʺȱ whoȱtakeȱholdȱofȱher.ȱForȱherȱwaysȱareȱtheȱwaysȱofȱdeath,ȱandȱherȱpath[s]ȱ areȱtheȱroadsȱtoȱsin;ȱherȱtracksȱleadȱastrayȱ ȱ Lineȱ10ȱ [ʤʬ]˸ʥʠʹ ʣʲʶʺ ʤʺʩʡ ʧʺʴʡ ʺʥʮ ʩʸ˸ʲʹ ʤʩʸʲ˸ʹ ʲʹʴ ʺʥʮʹʠ ˸ʤ[ʩʺ]ʥʡʩʺʰʥ ʬʥʲ toȱ iniquity,ȱ andȱ herȱ pathsȱ areȱ theȱ guiltȱ ofȱ transgression.ȱHerȱ gatesȱ areȱ theȱ gatesȱofȱdeath,ȱinȱtheȱopeningȱofȱherȱhouseȱitȱstalks.ȱToȱSheol33ȱ ȱ Lineȱ11 [ ]ƕ ʡʸʠʺ ʭʩʸʺʱʮʡ ˸ʠ[ʩ]˸ʤʥ ʺʧʹ ʥʣʸʩ ʤʩʬʧʥʰ ʬʥʫʥ ʯʥʡʥʹʩ[ ]˸ʬ[ʥ]˸ʫȱ a[l]lȱ[…]ȱwillȱreturn,ȱandȱallȱwhoȱpossessȱherȱwillȱgoȱdownȱtoȱtheȱPit.ȱSheȱ liesȱinȱwaitȱinȱsecretȱplaces,ȱ[…]ȱ ȱ Lineȱ12ȱ [ʤʲʩ]ʢʸʧʬ ʯʩʠʥ ʡʶʩʺʺ ʺʥʩʸʷ ˸ʩʸʲʹʡʥ ʳʬʲʺʺ ʸʩʲ ʺʥʡʥʧʸ˸ʡ[ ]˸ʬ˸ʥʫȱ allȱ […].ȱ Inȱ theȱ city’sȱ broadȱ placesȱ sheȱ displays34ȱ herself,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ townȱ gatesȱsheȱsetsȱherself,ȱandȱthereȱisȱnoneȱtoȱdistur[bȱher]ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱ Literally,ȱ“silence“;ȱseeȱbelow.ȱ 33ȱ Better,ȱ “herȱ houseȱ stepsȱ toȱ Sheol“;ȱ Strugnell,ȱ p.ȱ 265ȱ andȱ also,ȱ Florentinoȱ Garcϟaȱ MartϟnezȱandȱEibertȱJ.C.ȱTigchelaar,ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls:ȱStudyȱEditionȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ 1997),ȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ377.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱ

115ȱ

Lineȱ13ȱ ˸ʹ˸ʩ[ʠʬ ʺ]ʥʠʸʬ ʭʩʸʺ ʦʧʴʡ ʤʩʴʲʴ˸ʲʥ ʥʬʩʫʹʩ ʤʰʤʥ य़ ʤʰʤ ʤʩʰʩʲ[ ]ƕƕƕ˸ʺ ˸ʺ[ ]ʤʮȱ fromȱ […].ȱ Herȱ eyesȱ glanceȱ keenlyȱ hitherȱ andȱ thither,ȱ andȱ sheȱ wantonlyȱ raisesȱherȱeyelidsȱtoȱseekȱoutȱ ȱ Lineȱ14ȱ ʷʣʶ य़ ʩʸʩʧʡʬʥ ʪʸʣ ʺʥʨʤʬ ʭʩʸʹʩ ʥʤʬʩʹʫʺʥ य़ ʭʥʶय़ [ʲ ]˸ʹʩʠʥ ʥʤʢʩʹʺʥ ʷʩʣʶȱ aȱ righteousȱ manȱ andȱ leadȱ himȱ astray,ȱ andȱ aȱ perfectȱ manȱ toȱ makeȱ himȱ stumble;ȱ uprightȱ menȱ toȱ divertȱ (their)ȱ path,ȱ andȱ thoseȱ chosenȱ forȱ rightȬ eousnessȱ ȱ Lineȱ15ȱ ʲʩʹʴʤʬ [ʷʥ]ʧ ʺʥʰʹʤʬ ʸʹʩ ʩʫʬʥʤʥ ʦʧʴʡ ʬʩʡʤʬ ƕ[ ]ƕ ʩʫʥʮʱ ʤʥʶʮ ʸʥʶʰʮȱ fromȱ keepingȱ theȱ commandment;ȱ thoseȱ sustainedȱ withȱ […]ȱ toȱ makeȱ foolsȱ ofȱ themȱ withȱ wantonness,ȱ andȱ thoseȱ whoȱ walkȱ uprightlyȱ toȱ changeȱ theȱ st[atute];ȱtoȱmakeȱ ȱ Lineȱ16ȱ ʭ]ʩʫʥʸ˸ʲ ʬʡ ʤʮ˸ʡ[ ]ƕ य़ʯ[ʥ]˸ʣʦ ʠʩʡʤʬ ʷʣʶ ʩʫʸʣʮ ʭʤʩʮʲʴ ʺʥʨʤʬʥ ʬʠʮ ʭʩʥʰʲȱ theȱ humbleȱ rebelȱ fromȱ God,35ȱ andȱ toȱ turnȱ theirȱ stepsȱ fromȱ theȱ waysȱ ofȱ righteousness;ȱtoȱbringȱpresumptuousnessȱ[…],ȱthoseȱnotȱarraign[ed]36ȱ ȱ Lineȱ17ȱ ʹʩʠ ʩʰʡ ʺʥʷʬʧʡ ʺʥʺʴʬʥ ʤʧʥʹ ʩʫʸʣʡ ʹʥʰʠ ʺʥʢʹʤʬ ˸ʸʹʥʩ ʩʬʢʲʮʡȱ inȱtheȱtracksȱofȱuprightness;ȱtoȱleadȱmankindȱastrayȱinȱtheȱwaysȱofȱtheȱPit,ȱ andȱtoȱseduceȱbyȱflatteriesȱtheȱsonsȱofȱmen.ȱ

5.2.2ȱTheȱInterpretationsȱofȱtheȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱ Allegroȱ reconstructsȱ theȱ firstȱ wordȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ asȱ ʤ[ʰʦʤ,ȱ thereforeȱ aȱ “harlot“,ȱandȱinterpretsȱherȱasȱsymbolicȱofȱRome.37ȱThisȱreconstructionȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 34ȱ Better,ȱ“veils“;ȱMartϟnezȱandȱTigchelaar,ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ377.ȱ 35ȱ Better,ȱ“toȱmakeȱtheȱhumbleȱunfaithful“.ȱ 36ȱ Forȱ ʭ]ʩʫʥʸ˸ʲ ʬʡ ʤʮ˸ʡ[ ] ʍ,ȱ Strugnell’sȱ readingȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ preferredȱ –ȱ ʥʩʥʸ˸ʲ ʬʡ ʤʮ˸ʡ[ʡʬ]ʡ;ȱ Strugnell,ȱp.ȱ266.ȱTheȱfirstȱbethȱisȱquiteȱlegible,ȱhence:ȱ“intoȱtheirȱ[hea]rt,ȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱ doȱnotȱwalk“,ȱasȱinȱMartϟnezȱandȱTigchelaar,ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ377.ȱ 37ȱ Allegro,ȱ“TheȱWilesȱofȱtheȱWickedȱWoman“,ȱp.ȱ53.ȱ

116ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

hasȱrightlyȱbeenȱrejectedȱbyȱJ.ȱStrugnell,38ȱandȱitȱmayȱbeȱbestȱtoȱacceptȱ thatȱtheȱfirstȱfewȱlettersȱmustȱremainȱunknown,ȱwhileȱrecognisingȱthatȱ theȱlastȱletterȱʤȱprobablyȱindicatesȱaȱfeminineȱnounȱofȱsomeȱsort.ȱAsȱforȱ whatȱtheȱwomanȱsymbolizes,ȱJ.ȱCarmignacȱbelievesȱthatȱsheȱrepresentsȱ aȱ rivalȱ Jewishȱ sect,ȱ becauseȱ sheȱ isȱ depictedȱ asȱ inimicalȱ toȱ theȱ Yaতadȱ communityȱinȱlineȱ2.39ȱTheȱreading ʣʧʩ asȱ“theȱYaতad“ȱhasȱbeenȱwidelyȱ adoptedȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ commonȱ selfȬreferenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Qumranȱ comȬ munity,40ȱ however,ȱ theȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ communityȱ isȱ usuallyȱ deȬ signatedȱwithȱanȱarticle.41ȱ A.M.ȱ GazovȬGinzberg,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ notȱ satisfiedȱ withȱ Carmignac’sȱ interpretationȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ rivalȱ Jewishȱ sect,ȱ andȱ heȱ pointsȱ toȱ someȱ otherȱwordsȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱwhichȱheȱbelievesȱtoȱhaveȱdoubleȱmeanings;ȱtheȱ secondȱ meanings,ȱ heȱ suggests,ȱ areȱ cluesȱ revealingȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ enemy.42ȱ So,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ heȱ takesȱ theȱ wordȱ ʤʮʥʣȱ inȱ lineȱ 7ȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ referȱtoȱtheȱnetherworld,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱnameȱofȱanȱactualȱplace,ȱmostȱ likelyȱ theȱ Houseȱ ofȱ Edomȱ (cf.ȱ Isaȱ 21:11).43ȱ Thisȱ interpretationȱ leadsȱ toȱ severalȱpossibleȱcandidatesȱandȱHansȱBurgmann,ȱwhoȱotherwiseȱagreesȱ forȱ theȱ mostȱ partȱ withȱ GazovȬGinzberg,ȱ hasȱ attemptedȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ onlyȱ aȱ singleȱ specificȱ enemyȱ isȱ symbolisedȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ –ȱ Simonȱ theȱ Maccabean.44ȱArguably,ȱtheȱonlyȱcertainȱfactȱtoȱariseȱfromȱtheseȱstudies,ȱ isȱthatȱtheȱtextȱisȱtooȱvagueȱtoȱenableȱoneȱtoȱpinȬpointȱtoȱanyȱparticularȱ enemy,ȱ andȱ mattersȱ areȱ notȱ helpedȱ byȱ ourȱ ignoranceȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ contextȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱ T.H.ȱ Gasterȱ takesȱ aȱ differentȱ approach,ȱ identifyingȱ noȱ specificȱ huȬ manȱenemy,ȱbutȱemphasisingȱthatȱthisȱallegoryȱconcernsȱ“Apostasyȱorȱ theȱlike,ȱinȱlineȱwithȱtheȱBiblicalȱcharacterizationȱofȱitȱasȱ‘whoredom’.”45ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 38ȱ Strugnell,ȱp.ȱ264.ȱ 39ȱ Carmignac,ȱpp.ȱ361Ȭ74.ȱ 40ȱ Carmignac,ȱp.ȱ369ȱn.ȱ10;ȱcf.ȱStrugnell,ȱp.ȱ266.ȱAlso,ȱseeȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱTheodoreȱ Gaster,ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScripturesȱ(Doubleday,ȱNewȱYork:ȱAnchorȱPress,ȱ1976),ȱp.ȱ495.ȱ Itȱ willȱ beȱ notedȱ hereȱ thatȱ Gasterȱ seemsȱ soȱ carriedȱ awayȱ byȱ hisȱ stringȱ ofȱ wordsȱ startingȱwithȱtheȱletterȱ‘b’ȱdenotingȱmockingȱspeechȱthatȱheȱhasȱleftȱoutȱcompletelyȱ theȱwordȱʣʧʩ.ȱȱ 41ȱ Karlȱ Georgȱ Kuhn,ȱ Konkordanzȱ zuȱ denȱ Qumrantextenȱ (Göttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ &ȱ Ruprecht,ȱ1960),ȱpp.ȱ88Ȭ89.ȱ 42ȱ A.M.ȱGazovȬGinzberg,ȱ“DoubleȬMeaningȱinȱaȱQumranȱWork:ȱTheȱWilesȱofȱtheȱWicȬ kedȱWoman“,ȱRevQȱ6/22ȱ(1967),ȱpp.ȱ279Ȭ85.ȱ 43ȱ Theȱ wordȱ ʤʮʥʣȱ isȱ derivedȱ fromȱ itsȱ rootȱ ʭʥʣ meaningȱ “silence“ȱ andȱ inȱ Psȱ 94:17,ȱ theȱ phraseȱ ʤʮʥʣ ʤʰʫʹ refersȱ toȱ theȱ dwellingsȱ ofȱ theȱ underworld.ȱ Seeȱ especiallyȱ theȱ disȬ cussionȱ byȱ GazovȬGinzberg,ȱ p.ȱ 281ȱ n.ȱ 7;ȱ “ʭʥʣ“,ȱ HALOTȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 216;ȱ andȱ A.ȱ BauȬ mann,ȱ“ʤʕʮ ʕːII“,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIII,ȱpp.ȱ260Ȭ65.ȱ 44ȱ H.ȱ Burgmann,ȱ “Theȱ Wickedȱ Woman:ȱ Derȱ Makkabäerȱ Simon?ȱ “ȱ RevQȱ 8/31ȱ (1974),ȱ pp.ȱ323Ȭ59.ȱHeȱ(pp.ȱ347Ȭ48)ȱalsoȱagreesȱthatȱʤʮʥʣȱrefersȱtoȱEdom.ȱ 45ȱ Gaster,ȱp.ȱ495.ȱȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱ

117ȱ

Thisȱ figure,ȱ whoȱ persuadesȱ withȱ smoothȱ words,ȱ mustȱ inȱ someȱ wayȱ representȱ aȱ bodyȱ ofȱ foreignȱ orȱ falseȱ doctrines,ȱ andȱ consequently,ȱ apostasy.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ someȱ otherȱ interpretationsȱ whichȱ shiftȱ theȱ emȬ phasisȱfromȱidentifyingȱwhoȱtheȱenemyȱmightȱbe:ȱforȱexample,ȱRickȱD.ȱ Mooreȱ goesȱ furtherȱ thanȱ Gaster,ȱ agreeingȱ thatȱ theȱ backgroundȱ toȱ thisȱ textȱliesȱinȱaȱbiblicalȱconceptȱofȱwhoredom,ȱbutȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱwomanȱ isȱmerelyȱtheȱpersonificationȱofȱevil,ȱratherȱthanȱaȱspecificȱenemy.46ȱ J.M.ȱ Baumgartenȱ developsȱ ideasȱ derivedȱ fromȱ bothȱ theseȱ scholarsȱ toȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ womanȱ isȱ noneȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ sheȬdemon,ȱ Lilith,ȱ takingȱtheȱoccurrenceȱofȱʺʥʴʲʥʺȱ“heights“ȱ(cf.ȱNumȱ23:22;ȱ24:8)ȱinȱlineȱ4ȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ herȱ “horns“,ȱ andȱ theȱ preceding ʤʩʴʰʫʡȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ herȱ “wings“.47ȱBaumgartenȱarguesȱthatȱsinceȱʺʥʴʲʥʺȱisȱinȱtheȱplural,ȱitȱmustȱ beȱaboutȱ“horns“ȱratherȱthanȱ“heights“,ȱhowever,ȱʺʥʴʲʥʺȱneverȱoccursȱinȱ theȱ singularȱ inȱ theȱ OT,ȱ andȱ theȱ wordȱ commonlyȱ usedȱ forȱ “horns“ȱ ofȱ demonsȱis ʯʸʷ.48ȱMoreover,ȱsinceȱlinesȱ4Ȭ5ȱdescribeȱtheȱwoman’sȱadornȬ ments,ȱitȱisȱratherȱeasierȱtoȱtranslateȱʤʩʴʰʫʡȱasȱ“skirt“ȱthanȱasȱ“wings“.49ȱ Thereȱ areȱ other,ȱ moreȱ characteristicȱ featuresȱ ofȱ Lilithȱ whichȱ areȱ notȱ foundȱinȱthisȱtext,ȱandȱBaumgartnerȱdoesȱnotȱexplainȱwhyȱtheyȱshouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ leftȱ out.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Lilith’sȱ victimsȱ areȱ specificallyȱ pregȬ nantȱ mothersȱ andȱ singleȱ malesȱ whoȱ sleepȱ aloneȱ atȱ night;ȱ andȱ sheȱ residesȱwithȱtheȱbeastsȱinȱtheȱwilderness.50ȱAlthoughȱtheȱinterpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ womanȱ asȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ demonȱ mightȱ findȱ supportȱ inȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 46ȱ R.D.ȱ Moore,ȱ “Personificationȱ ofȱ theȱ Seductionȱ ofȱ Evil:ȱ ’Theȱ Wilesȱ ofȱ theȱ Wickedȱ Woman’”,ȱRevQȱȱ10/40ȱ(1981),ȱpp.ȱ505Ȭ19.ȱ 47ȱ J.M.ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ ”Onȱ theȱ Natureȱ ofȱ theȱ Seductressȱ inȱ 4Q184”,ȱ RevQȱ ȱ 15/57Ȭ58ȱ (1991),ȱpp.ȱ133Ȭ43.ȱ 48ȱ Baumgartenȱ doesȱ acknowledgeȱ theseȱ difficulties;ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ p.ȱ 140.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ dividedȱ opinionsȱ amongȱ scholarsȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ thisȱ word.ȱ Whileȱ someȱ chooseȱtoȱrelateȱitȱtoȱ”darkness”,ȱothersȱpreferȱ”depths”.ȱApparently,ȱʺʥʴʲʥʺȱhasȱbeenȱ confusedȱ withȱ anotherȱ word ʤʴʲʥʺ,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ theȱ rootȱ II ʳʥʲ ,ȱ withȱ theȱ meaningȱ ”darkness”.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ HALOT,ȱ ʺʥʴʲʥʺȱ hasȱ theȱ meaningȱ ”heights”.ȱ Thusȱ inȱ theȱ occurrencesȱatȱNumȱ23:22ȱandȱ24:8,ȱtheȱwordȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱ”heights”ȱofȱtheȱox,ȱtheȱ horns;ȱandȱforȱPsȱ95:4,ȱtheȱpeakȱofȱtheȱmountains.ȱAsȱforȱJobȱ22:25,ȱwhileȱsomeȱBibleȱ versionsȱ translateȱ theȱ wordȱ hereȱ asȱ ”choice”,ȱ ”precious”,ȱ HALOTȱ explainsȱ itȱ asȱ ”silverȱ inȱ massiveȱ heaps,ȱ orȱ ingots”.ȱ Cf.ȱ ”ʤʕʴ˒ʲ ʍˢ”,ȱ HALOTȱ vol.ȱ IV,ȱ p.ȱ 1768;ȱ andȱ ”ʺˣʴʲˣˢ”,ȱHALOTȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ1704Ȭ706.ȱTheȱcitingȱofȱJobȱ11:17ȱasȱaȱcrossȬreferenceȱisȱ anȱindicationȱofȱ thisȱconfusion,ȱasȱinȱGaster,ȱp.ȱ500.ȱCf.ȱ Allegro,ȱ”TheȱWilesȱofȱtheȱ WickedȱWoman”,ȱp.ȱ83;ȱandȱGazovȬGinzberg,ȱp.ȱ284.ȱȱ 49ȱ ”ʳʕʰ˗ʕ ”,ȱHALOTȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ486.ȱTheȱotherȱmeaningȱincludesȱ”edge”ȱorȱ”extremity”.ȱ 50ȱ Forȱ aȱ briefȱ synopsisȱ ofȱ theȱ originȱ andȱ developmentȱ ofȱ Lilithȱ asȱ aȱ sheȬdemonȱ inȱ Mesopotamia,ȱ andȱ laterȱ contextualisedȱ toȱ Judaicȱ beliefs,ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ Hunter,ȱ ”Lilith”ȱ DDD,ȱ pp.ȱ 973Ȭ76.ȱ Also,ȱ G.ȱ Scholem,ȱ ”Lilith”,ȱ EncJud,ȱ vol.ȱ XI,ȱ pp.ȱ 245Ȭ49.ȱ Lilithȱ inȱ Mesopotamiaȱ isȱ aȱ perpetualȱ seductress,ȱ huntingȱ forȱ potentialȱ sexualȱ partners.ȱ However,ȱ becauseȱ sheȱ isȱ stillȱ physicallyȱ immature,ȱ sheȱ cannotȱ performȱ normalȱ intercourse,ȱ isȱ incapableȱ ofȱ producingȱ children,ȱ orȱ ofȱ nursingȱ them,ȱ andȱ canȱ onlyȱ produceȱpoisonȱinsteadȱofȱmilk.ȱAllȱtheseȱcharacteristicsȱareȱabsentȱinȱ4Q184.ȱȱ

118ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

depictionȱofȱherȱseduction,ȱasȱthisȱisȱaȱfeatureȱinȱotherȱdepictionsȱfoundȱ ofȱ demonsȱ inȱ theȱ textsȱ fromȱ Qumran,51ȱ theȱ argumentȱthatȱ sheȱisȱ Lilithȱ lacksȱanyȱsubstantialȱsupport.ȱ Givenȱtheȱdifficultiesȱinȱfindingȱanyȱmoreȱspecificȱreference,ȱGaster,ȱ Strugnellȱ andȱ Mooreȱ areȱ probablyȱ rightȱ simplyȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ womanȱ asȱ symbolicȱ ofȱ evilȱ inȱ general,ȱ seducingȱ theȱ communityȱ intoȱ apostasy.ȱItȱisȱespeciallyȱinteresting,ȱtherefore,ȱtoȱobserveȱthatȱthereȱareȱ manyȱsimilaritiesȱwithȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theseȱ wereȱ notedȱ byȱ Allegroȱ andȱ othersȱ inȱ earlyȱ studies,ȱ butȱ itȱ wasȱ Strugnellȱ whoȱ firstȱ statedȱ explicitlyȱ thatȱ linesȱ 7Ȭ9ȱ ofȱ 4Q184ȱ areȱ dependentȱ onȱ theȱ descriptionȱ inȱ Proverbs.52ȱ Aȱ listȱ comparingȱ theȱ twoȱwomenȱmightȱbeȱhelpfulȱtoȱascertainȱtheȱextentȱofȱtheirȱsimilarities:ȱ (1) Theȱrootȱʷʬʧ,ȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱwordsȱofȱbothȱwomenȱ(4Q184ȱȱ linesȱ2,ȱ17;ȱandȱProvȱ2:16;ȱ5:3;ȱ6:24;ȱ7:5,ȱ21).ȱ (2) Theirȱwaysȱareȱsaidȱtoȱleadȱtoȱdeathȱinȱbothȱtextsȱ(4Q184ȱlineȱ9;ȱandȱ Provȱ2:18,ȱ7:27).ȱȱ (3) Theȱwomenȱinȱbothȱtextsȱpossessȱhousesȱorȱtheȱlike:ȱforȱtheȱwomanȱ inȱ4Q184,ȱlodgingsȱ(ʤʩʺʥʰʥʬʮ)ȱ(lineȱ6),ȱdwellingsȱ(ʺʡʹ ʬʤʠʺ)ȱandȱtentsȱ (ʩʬʤʠʡ)ȱ (lineȱ 7)ȱ andȱ aȱ houseȱ (ʤʺʩʡ)ȱ (lineȱ 10);ȱ andȱ forȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbs,ȱ aȱ houseȱ (ʤʺʩʡ)ȱ (Provȱ 7:8;ȱ 9:14).ȱ Theseȱ abodesȱ areȱalsoȱsaidȱtoȱleadȱtoȱdeathȱandȱtheȱnetherworld:ȱofȱtheȱwomanȱinȱ 4Q184ȱ lineȱ 7,ȱ itȱ isȱ saidȱ thatȱ sheȱ “dwellsȱ inȱ theȱ tentsȱ ofȱ theȱ unȬ derworldȱandȱinȱtheȱmidstȱofȱfire“,ȱwhileȱlineȱ10ȱdescribesȱherȱgatesȱ asȱ thoseȱ ofȱ death,ȱ andȱ associatedȱ withȱ Sheol.ȱ Provȱ 7:27ȱ corresȬ pondinglyȱ depictsȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ asȱ leadingȱ toȱ Sheolȱ andȱ deathȱ (cf.ȱ Provȱ 9:18).ȱ Withinȱ theirȱ dwellings,ȱ bothȱ woȬ menȱhaveȱcouches:ȱʩʡʫʹʮȱ(4Q184ȱlineȱ6),ȱandȱʹʸʲȱ(Provȱ7:16Ȭ17).ȱ (4) Bothȱwomenȱareȱdepictedȱtoȱdoȱtheȱsameȱthingsȱtoȱmen:ȱtheyȱlieȱinȱ ambushȱʡʥʸʠʺȱ(4Q184ȱlineȱ11ȱandȱProvȱ7:8)ȱandȱtryȱtoȱtrapȱmenȱwithȱ theirȱbodiesȱ(4Q184ȱlinesȱ3,ȱ14Ȭ17;ȱcf.ȱProvȱ7:22Ȭ23;ȱandȱProvȱ6:25ȱ–ȱ withȱeyelashes).ȱ (5) Bothȱwomenȱareȱalsoȱlocatedȱinȱtheȱsameȱplace,ȱtheȱsquares:ȱ ʺʥʡʧʸʡ (4Q184ȱlineȱ12;ȱProvȱ7:12).ȱȱ (6) Bothȱ women’sȱ feetȱ areȱ depictedȱ asȱ “descending“:ȱ (4Q184ȱ lineȱ 3ȱ –ȱ ʥʣʸʩ…ʤʩʬʢʸ;ȱandȱProvȱ5:5ȱ– ʺʥʣʸʩ ʤʩʬʢʸ).ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 51ȱ Philipȱ Alexander,ȱ ”Demonologyȱ inȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls”,ȱ inȱ Peterȱ W.ȱ Flintȱ andȱ Jamesȱ C.ȱ VanderKamȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ afterȱ Fiftyȱ Years:ȱ Aȱ Comprehensiveȱ Assessmentȱ (Leiden:ȱ E.J.ȱ Brill,ȱ 1999),ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ pp.ȱ 331Ȭ53ȱ (345).ȱ Otherȱ textsȱ aboutȱ demonsȱ whoȱ seduceȱ are,ȱ 1QSȱ 3:20Ȭ24;ȱ 4Q174ȱ 1Ȭ3,ȱ 7Ȭ9;ȱ andȱ 4Q510ȱ 16.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ G.J.ȱ Riley,ȱ”Demon”,ȱDDD,ȱpp.ȱ449,ȱ452.ȱ 52ȱ Strugnell,ȱpp.ȱ266Ȭ67.ȱȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱ

119ȱ

(7) Bothȱwomenȱareȱassociatedȱwithȱgoingȱastray:ȱinȱ4Q184ȱlineȱ1,ȱtheȱ womanȱ isȱ saidȱ toȱ utterȱ errorsȱ (ʺʥʲʥʺ),ȱ whileȱ inȱ Provȱ 7:25ȱ aȱ verbalȱ form ʤʲʺ ,ȱfromȱtheȱsameȱstem,ȱisȱusedȱnegativelyȱasȱaȱwarningȱnotȱ toȱ“err“ȱorȱ“goȱastray“ȱintoȱtheȱpathȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱȱ Thisȱlistȱwouldȱseemȱtoȱindicateȱquiteȱclearlyȱthatȱtheȱportraitȱinȱ4Q184ȱ hasȱbeenȱcomposedȱinȱtheȱshadowȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ 9.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ someȱ modificationsȱ toȱ theȱ earlierȱ creation.ȱ Inȱ 4Q184,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ simplyȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ followingȱ theȱ woman,ȱ butȱ havingȱ intercourseȱ withȱ herȱ thatȱ formsȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ theȱ imagery.ȱ WhereasȱforȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱmoreȱ subtle,ȱandȱnecessarilyȱso,ȱforȱweȱfindȱtheȱnotionȱofȱambiguityȱatȱplayȱinȱ theȱdescriptionsȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱsoȱasȱtoȱpresentȱtheȱchoicesȱofȱ rightȱ andȱ wrongȱ asȱ difficultȱ toȱ discern,ȱ andȱ theȱ sonȱ isȱ inȱ needȱ ofȱ instructionsȱallȱtheȱmore.ȱHence,ȱforȱtheȱmostȱpartȱofȱit,ȱonlyȱtheȱwayȱofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ describedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ death,ȱ andȱ sheȱ isȱ calledȱ “wicked“ȱ onlyȱ onceȱ (cf.ȱ Provȱ 6:25);ȱ asȱ forȱ theȱ womanȱ inȱ 4Q184,ȱ eveȬ rythingȱ aboutȱ herȱ andȱ belongingȱ toȱ herȱ isȱ describedȱ asȱ deadlyȱ andȱ wicked:ȱ herȱ words,ȱ heart,ȱ kidneys,ȱ legs,ȱ skirts,ȱ clothes,ȱ garments,ȱ adornments,ȱcouches,ȱdwellingsȱandȱhouse,ȱways,ȱpathsȱandȱgatesȱareȱ allȱbothȱevilȱandȱdeadlyȱ(linesȱ1Ȭ10). 53ȱMoreover,ȱwhileȱtheȱconsequenceȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ ofȱ beingȱ withȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ depictedȱ inȱ chthonicȱ terms,ȱ sheȱ isȱ neverȱ herselfȱ doomedȱ toȱ eternalȱ fireȱ asȱ isȱ theȱ womanȱ inȱ 4Q184ȱ(lineȱ7).54ȱThisȱmayȱbeȱaȱmatterȱofȱdateȱandȱcontext:ȱtheȱnotionȱofȱ punishmentȱofȱtheȱwickedȱinȱeternalȱfireȱisȱnotȱfoundȱbeforeȱ1ȱEnȱ10:6,ȱ 13;ȱ 18:15ȱ (cf.ȱ 1QSȱ 4:13),ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ foundȱ inȱ Benȱ Siraȱ orȱ Ecclesiastes.ȱ Thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ languageȱ hasȱ strongȱ overtonesȱ ofȱ apocalypticȱ language.55ȱ Finally,ȱinȱlineȱ8,ȱtheȱwomanȱinȱ4Q184ȱisȱdescribedȱasȱtheȱsourceȱofȱallȱ evilȱ (ʬʥʲ).ȱ Thisȱ phraseȱ isȱ reminscentȱ ofȱ Sirȱ 25:24ȱ (Msȱ C),56ȱ whichȱ hasȱ “Fromȱoneȱwoman,ȱiniquityȱbeginsȱ(ʯʥʲ ʺʬʧʺ),ȱandȱonȱaccountȱofȱher,ȱweȱ allȱdie.“ȱInȱdepictingȱaȱfemaleȱasȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱevil,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱBenȱ Siraȱisȱdrawingȱuponȱaȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱoriginȱofȱsin,ȱasȱfoundȱinȱGenȱ3,57ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 53ȱ Baumgartenȱ evenȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ netherworldȱ occursȱ elevenȱ times;ȱ seeȱBaumgarten,ȱp.ȱ139.ȱ 54ȱ JohnȱJ.ȱCollins,ȱJewishȱWisdomȱinȱtheȱHellenisticȱAgeȱ(Edinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1997),ȱ p.ȱ115.ȱ 55ȱ Seeȱ J.J.ȱ Collins,ȱ “Theȱ Originȱ ofȱ Evilȱ inȱ Apocalypticȱ Literatureȱ andȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls“,ȱinȱJ.A.ȱEmertonȱ(ed.),ȱCongressȱVolume:ȱJerusalem,ȱ1986ȱ(VTSup,ȱ41;ȱLeiden:ȱ E.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1995),ȱpp.ȱ25Ȭ38ȱ(37Ȭ38).ȱȱȱ 56ȱ SeeȱBeentjes,ȱBookȱofȱBenȱSiraȱinȱHebrew,ȱp.ȱ99.ȱSeeȱalsoȱ6.1.ȱforȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱ motifȱofȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSira.ȱ 57ȱ Itȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ ascertainȱ howȱ muchȱ Benȱ Siraȱ isȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ accountȱ inȱ Genȱ 3,ȱ orȱ whetherȱheȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱtheȱoriginȱofȱsinȱasȱGenesisȱpresentsȱit.ȱSirȱ 15:11Ȭ20ȱandȱ33:10Ȭ13ȱdoȱnotȱseemȱtoȱindicateȱthatȱheȱactuallyȱthinksȱwomanȱisȱtheȱ

120ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

althoughȱitȱisȱnotȱusedȱinȱaȱpedagogicalȱorȱassertiveȱmanner,ȱbutȱmoreȱ mentionedȱ inȱ passingȱ whileȱ describingȱ theȱ wickedȱ wife.58ȱ Theȱ difȬ ferenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ textsȱ probablyȱ liesȱ inȱ theȱ intentionȱ ofȱ theȱ citationȱandȱtheȱwayȱitȱisȱcited.ȱInȱ4Q184,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱʺʩʹʠʸȱisȱtoȱrecallȱtheȱ phraseȱ inȱ theȱ wisdomȱ tradition,ȱ “theȱ fearȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ isȱ theȱ beginningȱ (ʺʩʹʠʸ)ȱ ofȱ wisdom“ȱ inȱ Provȱ 1:7;ȱ 8:22;ȱ 9:10.ȱ Therefore,ȱ “sheȱ isȱ theȱ foreȬ mostȱ(ʺʩʹʠʸ)ȱofȱallȱtheȱwaysȱofȱiniquities“,ȱandȱthisȱhardlyȱrecallsȱGenȱ3;ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ remindsȱ oneȱ thatȱ theȱ womanȱ isȱ aȱ personificationȱ ofȱ theȱ wayȱ contraryȱtoȱwisdom,ȱsheȱisȱtheȱwayȱofȱfollyȱwhichȱdoesȱnotȱleadȱtoȱlife.59ȱ 4Q184ȱisȱtheȱonlyȱtextȱofȱitsȱkindȱaboutȱaȱwomanȱwhoȱisȱdescribedȱ inȱ suchȱ hellishȱ andȱ chthonicȱ language,ȱ andȱ withȱ soȱ manyȱ featuresȱ identicalȱ toȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbs.60ȱ Whileȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ juxtaposedȱ withȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ inȱ Proverbs,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ 4Q184ȱasȱweȱhaveȱitȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱanȱantiȬthesis.ȱ4Q185,ȱwhichȱisȱaboutȱ WomanȱWisdom,61ȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱtoȱbeȱcomposedȱinȱdirectȱcontrastȱtoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 58ȱ

59ȱ 60ȱ

61ȱ

beginningȱofȱevil.ȱSeeȱJ.ȱCollins,ȱApocalypticismȱinȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱ(TheȱLiteratureȱ ofȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls;ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1997),ȱpp.ȱ32Ȭ35.ȱ Collinsȱ probablyȱ saysȱ aptlyȱ thatȱ “itȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ anȱ adȱ hocȱ comment“,ȱ inȱ ApoȬ calypticism,ȱp.ȱ32.ȱHowever,ȱinȱanotherȱofȱhisȱworks,ȱheȱmentionsȱthatȱBenȱSiraȱisȱnotȱ concernedȱ aboutȱ theȱ wickedȱ wifeȱ butȱ isȱ explainingȱ whyȱ allȱ menȱ die,ȱ inȱ Collins,ȱ Jewishȱ Wisdomȱ inȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Age,ȱ p.ȱ 67.ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ thisȱ latterȱ statementȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ modified:ȱtheȱsurroundingȱtextsȱdoȱnotȱdealȱwithȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱdeathȱofȱallȱmen.ȱ Collins,ȱJewishȱWisdomȱinȱtheȱHellenisticȱAge,ȱp.ȱ115.ȱ 4Q525ȱfragmentȱ13ȱconsistsȱofȱfiveȱlines,ȱandȱitȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱaȱnegativeȱdescriptionȱofȱ aȱ woman.ȱ However,ȱ barelyȱ moreȱ thanȱ threeȱ wordsȱ canȱ beȱ decipheredȱ fromȱ eachȱ line,ȱandȱsuchȱaȱdescriptionȱtherefore,ȱcannotȱbeȱconclusive.ȱ4Q525ȱconsistsȱofȱfiftyȱ fragmentsȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ sapientialȱ text,ȱ possiblyȱ withȱ referencesȱ toȱ Womanȱ Wisdom.ȱ Seeȱ Émileȱ Puech,ȱ Qumrânȱ Grotteȱ 4ȱ XVIII:ȱ Textesȱ Hébreuxȱ (4Q521Ȭ4Q528,ȱ 4Q576Ȭ 4Q579)ȱ(DJDȱvol.ȱXXV;ȱ1998),ȱpp.ȱ115Ȭ78.ȱAlsoȱespecially,ȱJacquelineȱC.R.ȱdeȱRoo,ȱ“Isȱ 4Q525ȱ aȱ Qumranȱ Sectarianȱ Document?“ȱ inȱ Stanleyȱ E.ȱ Porterȱ andȱ Craigȱ A.ȱ Evansȱ (eds.),ȱTheȱScrollsȱandȱtheȱScriptures:ȱQumranȱFiftyȱYearsȱAfterȱ(JSPSup,ȱ26;ȱRoehampȬ tonȱ Instituteȱ Londonȱ Papers,ȱ 3;ȱ 1997),ȱ pp.ȱ 354Ȭ56.ȱ Herȱ essayȱ isȱ probablyȱ theȱ onlyȱ contributionȱwhichȱdealsȱwithȱ4Q525ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱwisdomȱliteratureȱinsteadȱofȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ makarismus,ȱ butȱ seeȱ also:ȱ É.ȱ Puech,ȱ “Theȱ collectionȱ ofȱ beatitudesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Greekȱ (4Q525ȱ 1Ȭ4ȱ andȱ Mtȱ 5,ȱ 3Ȭ12)“,ȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ inȱ Contextȱ (Studiumȱ Biblicumȱ Franciscanum,ȱ 38;ȱ Jerusalem:ȱ Franciscanȱ Printingȱ Press,ȱ 1993),ȱ pp.ȱ353Ȭ68;ȱ“4Q525ȱetȱlesȱpéricopesȱdesȱBéatitudesȱenȱBenȱSiraȱetȱMatthieu“,ȱRBȱ98ȱ (1991),ȱ pp.ȱ 80Ȭ106;ȱ Jamesȱ Charlesworth,ȱ “Theȱ Qumranȱ Beatitudesȱ (4Q525)ȱ andȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ (Mtȱ 5:3Ȭ11)“,ȱ RHPRȱ 80ȱ (2000),ȱ pp.ȱ 13Ȭ35;ȱ Josefȱ Heinzȱ Fabry,ȱ “Derȱ Makarismusȱ –ȱ mehrȱ alsȱ nurȱ eineȱ weisheitlicheȱ Lehrform:ȱ Gedankenȱ zuȱ demȱ neuȬ ediertenȱ Textȱ 4Q525“,ȱ inȱ Juttaȱ Hausmann,ȱ andȱ Hansȱ J.ȱ Zobelȱ (eds.),ȱ AlttesȬ tamentlicherȱ Glaubeȱ undȱ biblischeȱ Theologie:ȱ Festschriftȱ fürȱ Horstȱ Dieterȱ Preussȱ zumȱ 65.ȱ Geburtstagȱ(Stuttgart:ȱVerlagȱW.ȱKohlhammer,ȱ1992),ȱpp.ȱ362Ȭ71.ȱ Allegro,ȱ Qumrânȱ Caveȱ 4,ȱ p.ȱ 87;ȱ cf.ȱ Pl.ȱ XXIX.ȱ Also,ȱ Strugnell,ȱ pp.ȱ 269Ȭ73;ȱ andȱ HerȬ mannȱ Lichtenberger,ȱ “Eineȱ weisheitlicheȱ Mahnredeȱ inȱ denȱ Qumranfundenȱ (4Q185)“,ȱinȱMatthiasȱDelcorȱ(ed.),ȱQumrân:ȱsaȱpiété,ȱsaȱthéologieȱetȱsonȱmilieuȱ(BETL,ȱ 46;ȱ Paris:ȱ Editionsȱ Duculot,ȱ 1978),ȱ pp.ȱ 151Ȭ62.ȱ Thomasȱ Tobin,ȱ “4Q185ȱ andȱ Jewishȱ Wisdomȱ Literature“,ȱ inȱ Haroldȱ W.ȱ Attridge,ȱ Johnȱ Collins,ȱ andȱ Tobinȱ (eds.),ȱ Ofȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ

121ȱ

4Q184.ȱ Moreȱ importantly,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ 4Q184ȱ borrowsȱ heavilyȱ fromȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ withoutȱ beingȱ interestedȱ inȱ theȱ woman’sȱ “foreignness“.ȱ Theȱ imageryȱ alsoȱ makesȱ explicitȱ thatȱ followingȱ theȱ woman’sȱwayȱisȱtoȱhaveȱintercourseȱwithȱher,ȱandȱtheȱoutcomeȱofȱherȱ andȱherȱvictimsȱareȱthatȱofȱtheȱeternalȱfire.ȱ

5.3ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ SeptuagintȱProverbsȱ So,ȱ whileȱ theȱ previousȱ sectionsȱ dealȱ withȱ Hebrewȱ textsȱ whichȱ areȱ outsideȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ weȱ returnȱ toȱ Proverbs,ȱ albeitȱ aȱ translatedȱ versionȱ ofȱ it,ȱ inȱ Greek.ȱ Beforeȱ analysingȱ theȱ textsȱ inȱ SepȬ tuagintȱProverbsȱ(andȱinȱtheȱnextȱchapter,ȱWisdomȱofȱSolomonȱandȱtheȱ Greekȱ translationȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira),ȱ itȱ isȱ necessaryȱ toȱ layȱ downȱ someȱ imȬ portantȱgroundwork.ȱInasmuchȱasȱweȱareȱmovingȱfromȱHebrewȱtextsȱtoȱ Greek,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱforȱusȱtoȱsayȱsomethingȱaboutȱtheȱrelevantȱGreekȱ vocabulary,ȱ althoughȱ thisȱ isȱ lessȱ controversialȱ andȱ difficultȱ thanȱ theȱ Hebrew.ȱ

5.3.1ȱPreliminariesȱ Thereȱ isȱ sometimesȱ anȱ underlyingȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ atȱ leastȱattemptsȱtoȱofferȱaȱfaithfulȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱOT,ȱȱasȱclaimedȱinȱtheȱ LetterȱofȱAristeasȱandȱPhiloȱ(cf.ȱDeȱVitaȱMosisȱii.ȱ39).ȱHowever,ȱtheȱmanyȱ discrepanciesȱ betweenȱ theȱ Masoreticȱ textȱ andȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ includeȱ notȱonlyȱminorȱomissions,ȱadditions,ȱorȱchangesȱcausedȱbyȱscribalȱerror,ȱȱ butȱ alsoȱ sometimesȱ differencesȱ inȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ phrases,ȱ clauses,ȱ andȱ evenȱ chapters.ȱ Addingȱ toȱ theseȱ complicationsȱ isȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ passagesȱ doȱ notȱ followȱ theȱ sameȱ orderȱ asȱ theȱ Masoreticȱ text.ȱ NotȬ withstandingȱȱallȱȱtheseȱȱdiscrepanciesȱȱandȱȱforȱȱreasonsȱȱbeyondȱȱtheȱȱscopeȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Scribesȱ andȱ Scrolls:ȱ Studiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Intertestamentalȱ Judaismȱ andȱ theȱ ChrisȬ tianȱOriginsȱpresentedȱtoȱJohnȱStrugnellȱonȱtheȱOccasionȱofȱhisȱSixtiethȱBirthdayȱ(Collegeȱ Theologyȱ Societyȱ Resourcesȱ inȱ Religion,ȱ 5;ȱ Lanham,ȱ MD/Newȱ York/London:ȱ UniȬ versityȱPressȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1991),ȱpp.ȱ145Ȭ52.ȱTobinȱarguesȱconvincinglyȱthatȱ4Q185ȱisȱ aȱ preȬQumranicȱ text.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ fragmentsȱ haveȱ beenȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ Hasmoneanȱ period,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱcomposedȱthen.ȱTheȱexistingȱfragmentsȱareȱ probablyȱcopiesȱofȱtheȱoriginal.ȱTheȱcontent,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱwithȱtheȱoccurrenceȱ ofȱ theȱ tetragrammatonȱ (col.ȱ 2ȱ lineȱ 3)ȱ isȱ importantȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ anȱ earlyȱ dateȱ ofȱ composition.ȱ

122ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

ofȱourȱthesis,ȱtheȱSeptuagintȱtranslationsȱnonethelessȱdifferȱinȱtheȱextentȱ toȱwhichȱtheyȱattemptȱtoȱbe,ȱorȱareȱableȱtoȱbe,ȱliteral.62ȱȱ Withȱ regardȱ toȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbs,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ beenȱ generallyȱ recognisedȱ toȱ beȱ paraphrastic,63ȱ thereȱ areȱ timesȱ whereȱ itȱ matchesȱ theȱ originalȱ Hebrewȱ ratherȱ loosely,ȱ asȱ weȱ shallȱ see.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ crucialȱ factorsȱ isȱ thatȱ semanticȱ differencesȱ canȱ causeȱ intentionalȱ orȱ uninȬ tentionalȱchangesȱofȱsenseȱorȱemphasisȱ(cf.ȱΔ΅ΕΌνΑΓΖȱinȱIsaȱ7:14).ȱThisȱ isȱ aȱ veryȱ complicatedȱ subject,ȱ andȱ aȱ primaryȱ problemȱ inȱ translation.64ȱ Textualȱ criticalȱ scholarshipȱ hasȱ cautionedȱ thatȱ evenȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ renderingsȱ inȱ relativelyȱ “literal“ȱ textsȱ doȱ notȱ alwaysȱ representȱ theȱ meaningȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱwordȱadequately.65ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱweȱcannotȱ assumeȱ thatȱ allȱ theȱ Greekȱ renderingsȱ forȱ theȱ occurrencesȱ ofȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ representȱ itsȱ completeȱ rangeȱ ofȱ lexicalȱ meanings.66ȱ Thisȱ isȱ crucialȱ andȱ foundationalȱtoȱtheȱrestȱofȱourȱdiscussionȱonȱtheȱGreekȱtexts,ȱforȱweȱdoȱ findȱ inȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ thatȱ ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱ hasȱ beenȱ theȱ mostȱ frequentȱ renderingȱforȱʸʫʰ.ȱȱ Iȱ have,ȱ inȱ anȱ article,ȱ analysedȱ theȱ lexicalȱ renderingsȱ ofȱ ʸʫʰȱ andȱ itsȱ cognates,ȱ andȱ studiedȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱ foundȱ inȱ bothȱ Greekȱ textsȱandȱtheȱSeptuagint.67ȱTheȱresultsȱofȱwhichȱareȱtoȱargueȱagainstȱtheȱ conclusionsȱwhichȱJohannȱCookȱandȱMichaelȱFoxȱmadeȱthatȱeitherȱtheȱ occurrencesȱ ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱ foundȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ orȱ theȱ textsȱ directlyȱ relatingȱ toȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ containȱ ideasȱ ofȱ “forȬ eignness“.ȱ Iȱ shallȱ notȱ attemptȱ toȱ repeatȱ whatȱ wasȱ doneȱ inȱ thatȱ article.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱ essentialȱ forȱ meȱ toȱ summarizeȱ someȱ importantȱ pointsȱ beforeȱweȱstudyȱthoseȱtextsȱmoreȱthoroughlyȱhere.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 62ȱ Sidneyȱ Jellicoe,ȱ Theȱ Septuagintȱ andȱ Modernȱ Studyȱ (Oxford:ȱ Clarendonȱ Press,ȱ 1968),ȱ pp.ȱ38Ȭ41.ȱ 63ȱ E.ȱ Tov,ȱ Theȱ TextȬCriticalȱ Useȱ ofȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Researchȱ (Jerusalemȱ Biblicalȱ Studies,ȱ3;ȱJerusalem:ȱSimor,ȱ1981),ȱpp.ȱ47,ȱ63.ȱȱ 64ȱ E.ȱTov,ȱ“DidȱtheȱSeptuagintȱTranslatorsȱalwaysȱUnderstandȱtheirȱHebrewȱText?“ȱinȱ Theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ (VTSup,ȱ LXXII;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1999),ȱ pp.ȱ 203Ȭ18.ȱ Tovȱ explainsȱtheȱvariousȱtypesȱofȱconjecturalȱrenderings.ȱAlsoȱinȱtheȱsameȱvolume,ȱ“Theȱ NatureȱandȱStudyȱofȱtheȱTranslationȱTechniqueȱofȱtheȱLXX“,ȱpp.ȱ239Ȭ46.ȱ 65ȱ Tov,ȱTextȬCriticalȱUseȱofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱinȱBiblicalȱResearch,ȱp.ȱ56.ȱAlsoȱforȱcomparison,ȱ seeȱidem,ȱ“GreekȱWordsȱandȱHebrewȱMeanings“,ȱGreekȱandȱHebrewȱBible,ȱpp.ȱ109Ȭ28.ȱ 66ȱ Readȱ Tov’sȱ cautionȱ aboutȱ usingȱ theȱ Concordancesȱ inȱ Tov,ȱ TextȬCriticalȱ Useȱ ofȱ theȱ SeptuagintȱinȱBiblicalȱResearch,ȱp.ȱ145.ȱ 67ȱ Nancyȱ Tan,ȱ “Whereȱ isȱ Foreignnessȱ toȱ beȱ Foundȱ inȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbs?”ȱ CBQ,ȱ forthȬcoming.ȱ Alsoȱ seeȱ J.ȱ Cook,ȱ ”Hellenisticȱ Influenceȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ (LXX)?”,ȱ BIOSCSȱ 20ȱ (1987),ȱ pp.ȱ 30Ȭ43;ȱ ”ʤʸʕʕ ʦ ʤˉ ʕ ʠʑ ȱ (Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ Septuagint):ȱ Aȱ Metaphorȱ forȱ Foreignȱ Wisdom?”,ȱ ZAWȱ 106ȱ (1994),ȱ pp.ȱ 458Ȭ76ȱ (460);ȱ andȱ Fox,ȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ422Ȭ23.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ

123ȱ

Firstȱandȱforemost,ȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱ inȱtheȱotherȱGreekȱtextsȱisȱnotȱusedȱ exclusivelyȱ toȱ specifyȱ ethnicȱ foreignness.68ȱ Itȱ is,ȱ however,ȱ usedȱ toȱ denoteȱ nuancesȱ ofȱ “otherness”ȱ andȱ canȱextendȱ itsȱ usageȱ toȱ personsȱ orȱ things.ȱAsȱtoȱexactlyȱwhatȱconstitutesȱtheȱessenceȱofȱitsȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱ subject,ȱtheȱcontextsȱalwaysȱprovideȱsufficientȱclues.ȱInȱtheȱsameȱway,ȱ whenȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱisȱusedȱtoȱdesignateȱethnicȱforeignnessȱsuchȱasȱinȱHdt.ȱ 3.155,ȱtheȱsurroundingȱtextsȱdoȱnotȱfailȱtoȱgiveȱtheȱinformationȱasȱwell.ȱ Hence,ȱitȱis,ȱinȱmanyȱways,ȱratherȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱHebrewȱʸʦ,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱ discussedȱ inȱ Chapterȱ One.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ weȱ shouldȱ alsoȱ bearȱ inȱ mindȱ thatȱ inȱ Greek,ȱ thereȱ areȱ otherȱ wordsȱ whichȱ explicitlyȱ denoteȱ foreignnessȱ suchȱ asȱ ΦΏΏΓ·ΉΑφΖȱ andȱ ΦΏΏΓΚІΏΓΖ,ȱ andȱ theyȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱusedȱtoȱrenderȱʸʫʰȱinȱtheȱSeptuagint.ȱ Asȱforȱ theȱuseȱ ofȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱ inȱ theȱ Septuagint,ȱ weȱ detectȱ aȱ similarȱ semanticȱ range.ȱ Itsȱ dominantȱ occurrenceȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ expressionȱ ΌΉϲΖ ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱ(thirtyȬfiveȱoutȱofȱfiftyȬseven),ȱreferringȱtoȱaȱdeityȱotherȱ thanȱ Yahweh,ȱ whichȱ mightȱ haveȱ someȱ influenceȱ onȱ itsȱ otherȱ uses.ȱ Byȱ andȱ large,ȱ forȱ theȱ otherȱ occurrences,ȱ theȱ contextsȱ alwaysȱ indicateȱ theȱ nauncesȱ ofȱ itsȱ “otherness“:ȱ beȱ itȱ aȱ deviationȱ ofȱ Yahwisticȱ worship,ȱ orȱ whatȱ isȱ acceptedȱ asȱ rightȱ behavior,ȱ orȱ evenȱ ethnicȱ foreignness.ȱ Moreȱ importantly,ȱweȱestablishedȱthatȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱisȱnotȱaȱtechnicalȱrenderingȱ forȱʸʫʰȱandȱcontextȱisȱabsolutelyȱprimaryȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱessenceȱofȱitsȱ “otherness“.ȱȱ

5.3.2ȱPresentationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbs,ȱ withȱ itsȱ paraphrasticȱ feature,ȱ additionsȱ andȱ reȬ arrangementsȱinȱcomparisonȱtoȱitsȱcorrespondingȱMTȱhasȱledȱscholarsȱ toȱconclude,ȱeitherȱtheȱtranslatorȱhasȱaȱdifferentȱvorlageȱorȱthatȱtheȱtransȬ latorȱhasȱtakenȱtheȱlibertyȱtoȱtranslateȱtheȱMTȱinȱtheirȱownȱway. 69ȱTheȱ latterȱ view,ȱ however,ȱ hasȱ moreȱ advocates,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ believedȱ thatȱ theȱ compositionȱ wasȱ completedȱ nearȱ theȱ 2ndȱ centuryȱ BCE.70ȱ Hence,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 68ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Pl.ȱ Euthphrȱ 4bȱ andȱ Lys.ȱ 28.6;ȱ cf.ȱ “΅ࡑΏΏóΘΕ΍ΓΖ“ȱ inȱ http://www.perseus.ȱ tufts.edu/cgiȬbin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%234510ȱ (accessedȱ10/02/ȱ2008);ȱwhereȱtheȱrelatedȱGreekȱtextsȱcanȱbeȱconvenientlyȱaccessedȱ asȱwell.ȱȱ 69ȱ SeeȱE.ȱTov,ȱ“RecensionalȱDifferencesȱbetweenȱtheȱMasoreticȱTextȱandȱtheȱSeptuagintȱ ofȱProverbs”,ȱinȱGreekȱandȱHebrewȱBible,ȱpp.ȱ419Ȭ32ȱ(431).ȱ 70ȱ Seeȱ G.ȱ Gerleman,ȱ “Theȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbsȱ asȱ aȱ Hellenisticȱ Document”,ȱ OTSȱ 8ȱ (1950),ȱ pp.ȱ 15Ȭ27;ȱ J.ȱ Cook,ȱ Theȱ Septuagintȱ ofȱ Proverbs:ȱ Jewishȱ andȱ /ȱ orȱ Hellenisticȱ ProȬ verbs?ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Colouringȱ ofȱ LXXȱ Proverbsȱ (VTSup,ȱ 69;ȱ Leiden:ȱ E.J.ȱ Brill,ȱ 1997),ȱ pp.ȱ 1Ȭ2.ȱ Alsoȱ seeȱ theȱ Introductionȱ ofȱ DavidȬMarcȱ Hamonville,ȱ Lesȱ

124ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

SeptuagintȱProverbsȱshouldȱbeȱtreatedȱasȱaȱHellenisticȱdocumentȱinȱitsȱ ownȱright.ȱȱ Inȱ allȱ theȱ passagesȱ correspondingȱ toȱ theȱ MTȱ whichȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ ForeignȱWoman,ȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱhasȱbeenȱrendered.ȱTakingȱintoȱaccountȱofȱ theȱ conclusionsȱ madeȱ ofȱ theȱ lexicalȱ studiesȱ mentionedȱ above,ȱ itȱ isȱ thereforeȱclearȱthatȱtheȱtranslatorȱhasȱnotȱdesignatedȱethnicȱforeignnessȱ toȱ thisȱ womanȱ straightaway.ȱ Consequently,ȱ theȱ originalȱ intentȱ ofȱ theȱ MTȱhasȱbeenȱchangedȱandȱweȱshallȱnowȱstudyȱtheseȱpassagesȱcarefullyȱ belowȱ toȱ findȱ outȱ exactlyȱ whatȱ theȱ translatorȱ hasȱ doneȱ toȱ themȱ andȱ whatȱnuancesȱofȱ“otherness“ȱhasȱbeenȱassignedȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱȱȱ 5.3.2.1ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ2:12Ȭ22ȱȱȱȱ Theȱ structuralȱ significanceȱ ofȱ Provȱ 2ȱ forȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ hasȱ beenȱ dealtȱ withȱ inȱ anȱ earlierȱ chapter.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Septuagint,ȱ itȱ noȱ longerȱ retainsȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ peculiaritiesȱ whichȱ markȱ theȱ chapterȱ outȱ inȱ theȱ MT.ȱ Inȱ compositionalȱ termsȱ itȱ lacksȱ theȱ twentyȬtwoȱ linesȱ withȱ aȱ bicolonȱonȱeachȱline,ȱand,ȱinȱall,ȱsixȱlinesȱareȱadded.ȱInȱtermsȱofȱcontentsȱ andȱ structure,ȱ whileȱ theȱ protasisȱ ofȱ vv.ȱ 1Ȭ5ȱ isȱ retained,ȱ theȱ followingȱ apodasesȱ haveȱ beenȱ changed.ȱ Theȱ addedȱ exclamatoryȱ particleȱ Иȱ inȱ v.ȱ 13,ȱnowȱseemsȱtoȱmarkȱtheȱdivisionȱofȱtheȱchapterȱintoȱtwoȱparts,ȱwithȱ vv.ȱ 1Ȭ12ȱ onȱ whatȱ isȱ “good“,ȱ andȱ vv.ȱ 13Ȭ20ȱ onȱ theȱ “bad“.ȱ Thisȱ cleanȱ divisionȱ givesȱ someȱ internalȱ parallelismȱ andȱ balanceȱ –ȱ whileȱ vv.ȱ 1Ȭ5ȱ exhortȱ oneȱ toȱ searchȱ andȱ obtainȱ wisdom,ȱ andȱ vv.ȱ 6Ȭ12ȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱ promisesȱ ofȱ wisdom,ȱ theȱ contrastingȱ vv.ȱ 13Ȭ16ȱ condemnȱ theȱ waysȱ ofȱ thoseȱwhoȱareȱevil,ȱandȱvv.ȱ17Ȭ20ȱshowȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱevil.ȱToȱtheȱ conclusion,ȱ whichȱ contrastsȱ theȱ outcomesȱ ofȱ theȱ goodȱ (v.ȱ 21)ȱ andȱ theȱ evilȱ (v.ȱ 22),ȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ addsȱ aȱ bicolonȱ (inȱ v.ȱ 21),ȱ butȱ theȱ generalȱ messageȱ isȱ retained.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ someȱ reflectionȱ ofȱ theȱ originalȱ syntax,ȱ whichȱturnedȱtheȱHebrewȱintoȱaȱsingle,ȱlongȱsentence.ȱ Inȱv.ȱ16,ȱtheȱfirstȱwordȱisȱanȱinfinitive,ȱmakingȱitȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱv.ȱ 15,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱisȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱsentenceȱthatȱactuallyȱstartsȱinȱv.ȱ13.ȱȱ ȱ LXXȱProvȱ2:12Ȭ22ȱ 12ȱϣΑ΅ȱϹϾΗ΋Θ΅ϟȱΗΉȱΦΔϲȱϳΈΓІȱΎ΅ΎϛΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΔϲȱΦΑΓΈΕϲΖȱΏ΅ΏΓІΑΘΓΖȱΐ΋ΈξΑȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΔ΍ΗΘϱΑ.ȱ 13ȱИȱΓϡȱπ·Ύ΅Θ΅ΏΉϟΔΓΑΘΉΖȱϳΈΓϿΖȱΉЁΌΉϟ΅ΖȱΘΓІȱΔΓΕΉϾΉΗΌ΅΍ȱπΑȱϳΈΓϧΖȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΗΎϱΘΓΙΖ,ȱ 14ȱΓϡȱΉЁΚΕ΅΍ΑϱΐΉΑΓ΍ȱπΔϠȱΎ΅ΎΓϧΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΛ΅ϟΕΓΑΘΉΖȱπΔϠȱΈ΍΅ΗΘΕΓΚϜȱΎ΅ΎϜ,ȱȱ 15ȱЙΑȱ΅ϡȱΘΕϟΆΓ΍ȱΗΎΓΏ΍΅ϠȱΎ΅ϠȱΎ΅ΐΔϾΏ΅΍ȱ΅ϡȱΘΕΓΛ΍΅Ϡȱ΅ЁΘЗΑȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Proverbesȱ(LaȱBibleȱd’Alexandrie;ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ2000),ȱpp.ȱ21Ȭ155;ȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ 361Ȭ64.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ

125ȱ

16ȱΘΓІȱΐ΅ΎΕΣΑȱΗΉȱΔΓ΍ϛΗ΅΍ȱΦΔϲȱϳΈΓІȱΉЁΌΉϟ΅ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΑȱΘϛΖȱΈ΍Ύ΅ϟ΅Ζȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ·ΑЏΐ΋Ζ.ȱȱ 17ȱΙϡν,ȱΐφȱΗΉȱΎ΅Θ΅ΏΣΆϙȱΎ΅ΎχȱΆΓΙΏφȱψȱΦΔΓΏΉϟΔΓΙΗ΅ȱΈ΍Έ΅ΗΎ΅Ώϟ΅Αȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΑΉϱΘ΋ΘΓΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΈ΍΅ΌφΎ΋ΑȱΌΉϟ΅ΑȱπΔ΍ΏΉΏ΋ΗΐνΑ΋аȱ 18ȱσΌΉΘΓȱ·ΤΕȱΔ΅ΕΤȱΘХȱΌ΅ΑΣΘУȱΘϲΑȱΓϨΎΓΑȱ΅ЁΘϛΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΔ΅ΕΤȱΘХȱβΈϙȱΐΉΘΤȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΘЗΑȱ·΋·ΉΑЗΑȱΘΓϿΖȱΩΒΓΑ΅Ζȱ΅ЁΘϛΖаȱ 19ȱΔΣΑΘΉΖȱΓϡȱΔΓΕΉΙϱΐΉΑΓ΍ȱπΑȱ΅ЁΘϜȱΓЁΎȱΦΑ΅ΗΘΕνΜΓΙΗ΍ΑȱΓЁΈξȱΐχȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΎ΅Θ΅ΏΣΆΝΗ΍ΑȱΘΕϟΆΓΙΖȱΉЁΌΉϟ΅ΖаȱΓЁȱ·ΤΕȱΎ΅Θ΅ΏΣΐΆΣΑΓΑΘ΅΍ȱЀΔϲȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱπΑ΍΅ΙΘЗΑȱΊΝϛΖ.ȱȱ 20ȱΉϢȱ·ΤΕȱπΔΓΕΉϾΓΑΘΓȱΘΕϟΆΓΙΖȱΦ·΅ΌΣΖ,ΉЂΕΓΗ΅ΑȱΪΑȱΘΕϟΆΓΙΖȱΈ΍Ύ΅΍ΓΗϾΑ΋Ζȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΏΉϟΓΙΖ.ȱ 21ȱΛΕ΋ΗΓϠȱσΗΓΑΘ΅΍ȱΓϢΎφΘΓΕΉΖȱ·ϛΖ,ȱΩΎ΅ΎΓ΍ȱΈξȱЀΔΓΏΉ΍ΜΌφΗΓΑΘ΅΍ȱπΑȱ΅ЁΘϜ,ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱϵΘ΍ȱΉЁΌΉϧΖȱΎ΅Θ΅ΗΎ΋ΑЏΗΓΙΗ΍ȱ·ϛΑ,Ύ΅ϠȱϵΗ΍Γ΍ȱЀΔΓΏΉ΍ΜΌφΗΓΑΘ΅΍ȱπΑȱ΅ЁΘϜ.ȱ 22ȱϳΗΓϠȱΦΈΉΆЗΑȱπΎȱ·ϛΖȱϴΏΓІΑΘ΅΍ȱ,ȱΓϡȱΈξȱΔ΅ΕΣΑΓΐΓ΍ȱπΒΝΗΌφΗΓΑΘ΅΍ȱΦΔжȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ΅ЁΘϛΖ.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ vv.ȱ 13Ȭ16ȱ defineȱ theȱ evilȱ wayȱ andȱ identifyȱ thoseȱ whoȱ beȬ longȱtoȱthatȱway,ȱwhichȱv.ȱ12ȱwarnsȱagainst.ȱVerseȱ16ȱthereforeȱwarnsȱ thatȱtheseȱpeople,ȱnotȱonlyȱwillȱtheyȱdrawȱorȱremoveȱaȱpersonȱfromȱtheȱ straightȱwayȱ(ϳΈΓΙȱΉЁΌΉϟ΅Ζ),ȱbutȱtheyȱwillȱalsoȱcauseȱtheȱpersonȱtoȱbeȱ alienatedȱ (ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΑ)ȱ fromȱ “righteousȱ judgments“ȱ (Έ΍Ύ΅ϟ΅Ζȱ ·ΑЏΐ΋Ζ).ȱ Inȱtheȱnextȱverse,ȱwhichȱaddressesȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheȱ“son”ȱinȱtheȱvocative,ȱ cautionsȱhimȱnotȱtoȱbeȱovercomeȱbyȱ“evilȱcounsel“ȱ(Ύ΅ΎχȱΆΓΙΏφ).ȱHere,ȱ evilȱ counselȱ isȱ personifiedȱ andȱ continuesȱ toȱ beȱ soȱ inȱ theȱ subsequentȱ line,ȱwhereȱtheȱfeminineȱsingularȱparticipleȱisȱassigned.ȱ“She”ȱisȱtheȱoneȱ whoȱhasȱleftȱtheȱinstructionsȱfromȱherȱyouthȱandȱdisregardedȱtheȱgodlyȱ covenantȱ (Έ΍΅ΌφΎ΋Αȱ ΌΉϟ΅Α).ȱ Theȱ nextȱ verseȱ describesȱ herȱ fixingȱ herȱ houseȱbesideȱdeath,ȱandȱherȱcoursesȱ(ΘΓϿΖȱΩΒΓΑ΅Ζ)ȱbyȱHadesȱwithȱtheȱ “giants“ȱ(ΘЗΑȱ·΋·ΉΑЗΑ;ȱcf.ȱGenȱ14:5;ȱJoshȱ12:4;ȱ13:12).71ȱThenȱitȱgoesȱonȱ toȱwarnȱthatȱnoneȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱgoȱtoȱherȱreturnȱorȱobtainȱstraightȱpathsȱ (ΘΕϟΆΓΙΖȱ ΉЁΌΉϟ΅Ζ),ȱ andȱ thatȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ attainȱ yearsȱ ofȱ life.ȱ Ifȱ thoseȱ peopleȱ hadȱ goneȱ onȱ theȱ goodȱ pathsȱ (ΘΕϟΆΓΙΖȱ ΉЁΌΉϟ΅Ζ),ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱtheyȱwouldȱhaveȱfoundȱtheȱsmoothȱprogressȱofȱrighteousness.ȱȱ ThereȱisȱnoȱtraceȱofȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱLXXȱProvȱ2.ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ motifȱ hasȱ beenȱ substitutedȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 16Ȭ19ȱ withȱ “evilȱ counsel”.ȱ Thisȱ subject,ȱ introducedȱ byȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ translator,ȱ isȱ tiedȱ toȱ theȱ seductionȱofȱtheȱevilȱmenȱwhoȱleadsȱoneȱastrayȱasȱfoundȱinȱLXXȱProvȱ 1:10.ȱ LXXȱ Provȱ 2:20ȱ alsoȱ hasȱ aȱ differentȱ meaningȱ fromȱ theȱ MT.ȱ Whileȱ MTȱ exhortsȱ oneȱ (secondȱ masculineȱ singular)ȱ toȱ chooseȱ theȱ rightȱ path,ȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ continuesȱ inȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ warningȱ andȱ threatȱ aboutȱthoseȱ(thirdȱmasculineȱplural)ȱwhoȱchooseȱtheȱevilȱpath.ȱHence,ȱ inȱthisȱpassage,ȱtheȱnuanceȱofȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΑȱfoundȱhereȱhasȱnothingȱtoȱdoȱ withȱ ethnicȱ foreignnessȱ orȱ theȱ feminine,ȱ butȱ relatedȱ specificallyȱ toȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 71ȱ Fox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ375.ȱ

126ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

evilȱ ways.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ translatorȱ didȱ understandȱ theȱ originalȱ symbolism,ȱ heȱ hasȱnotȱretainedȱit,ȱandȱinsteadȱpersonifiesȱ“evilȱcounsel”ȱasȱtheȱsourceȱ ofȱtheȱevilȱmen,ȱandȱasȱaȱcounterpartȱforȱwisdom.ȱThisȱmight,ȱofȱcourse,ȱ representȱ aȱ sortȱ ofȱ translation.ȱ Recognisingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ heȱ hasȱ merelyȱ replacedȱ herȱ withȱ aȱ different,ȱ moreȱ abstractȱ figure.ȱTheȱkeyȱpoint,ȱhowever,ȱisȱthatȱheȱhasȱeitherȱfailedȱtoȱrealiseȱtheȱ significanceȱ ofȱ herȱ “foreignness”,ȱ orȱ moreȱ probably,ȱ deemedȱ itȱ altoȬ getherȱ irrelevantȱ orȱ inappropriateȱ forȱ hisȱ readership.ȱ Thisȱ marksȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ aȱ processȱ whereby,ȱ throughoutȱ theȱ translation,ȱ theȱ ForȬ eignȱWomanȱisȱdisplacedȱorȱtransformed.ȱȱ 5.3.2.2ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ5:3Ȭ20ȱ

ȱ

3ȱȱȱΐχȱΔΕϱΗΉΛΉȱΚ΅ϾΏϙȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϟаȱΐνΏ΍ȱ·ΤΕȱΦΔΓΗΘ΅ΊΉ΍ȱΦΔϲȱΛΉ΍ΏνΝΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱΔϱΕΑ΋Ζ,ȱϋȱΔΕϲΖȱΎ΅΍ΕϲΑȱΏ΍Δ΅ϟΑΉ΍ȱΗϲΑȱΚΣΕΙ··΅,ȱ 4ȱȱȱЂΗΘΉΕΓΑȱΐνΑΘΓ΍ȱΔ΍ΎΕϱΘΉΕΓΑȱΛΓΏϛΖȱΉЀΕφΗΉ΍ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱωΎΓΑ΋ΐνΑΓΑȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΐκΏΏΓΑȱΐ΅Λ΅ϟΕ΅ΖȱΈ΍ΗΘϱΐΓΙ.ȱ 5ȱȱȱΘϛΖȱ·ΤΕȱΦΚΕΓΗϾΑ΋ΖȱΓϡȱΔϱΈΉΖȱΎ΅ΘΣ·ΓΙΗ΍ΑȱΘΓϿΖȱΛΕΝΐνΑΓΙΖȱ΅ЁΘϜȱΐΉΘΤȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΌ΅ΑΣΘΓΙȱΉϢΖȱΘϲΑȱβΈ΋Α,ȱΘΤȱΈξȱϥΛΑ΋ȱ΅ЁΘϛΖȱΓЁΎȱπΕΉϟΈΉΘ΅΍аȱ 6ȱȱȱϳΈΓϿΖȱ·ΤΕȱΊΝϛΖȱΓЁΎȱπΔνΕΛΉΘ΅΍,ȱΗΚ΅ΏΉΕ΅ϠȱΈξȱ΅ϡȱΘΕΓΛ΍΅Ϡȱ΅ЁΘϛΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΓЁΎȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΉЄ·ΑΝΗΘΓ΍.ȱ 7ȱȱȱΑІΑȱΓЇΑ,ȱΙϡν,ȱΩΎΓΙνȱΐΓΙȱΎ΅ϠȱΐχȱΦΎϾΕΓΙΖȱΔΓ΍φΗϙΖȱπΐΓϿΖȱΏϱ·ΓΙΖаȱ 8ȱȱȱΐ΅ΎΕΤΑȱȱΔΓ΍φΗΓΑȱΦΔдȱ΅ЁΘϛΖȱΗχΑȱϳΈϱΑ,ȱΐχȱπ··ϟΗϙΖȱΔΕϲΖȱΌϾΕ΅΍ΖȱΓϥΎΝΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ΅ЁΘϛΖ,ȱȱ 9ȱȱȱϣΑ΅ȱΐχȱΔΕϱϙȱΩΏΏΓ΍ΖȱΊΝφΑȱΗΓΙȱΎ΅ϠȱΗϲΑȱΆϟΓΑȱΦΑΉΏΉφΐΓΗ΍Α,ȱ 10ȱϣΑ΅ȱΐχȱΔΏ΋ΗΌЗΗ΍ΑȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍Γ΍ȱΗϛΖȱϢΗΛϾΓΖ,ȱΓϡȱΈξȱΗΓϠȱΔϱΑΓ΍ȱΉϢΖȱΓϥΎΓΙΖȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟΝΑȱΉϢΗνΏΌΝΗ΍Α,ȱ 11ȱΎ΅ϠȱΐΉΘ΅ΐΉΏ΋ΌφΗϙȱπΔдȱπΗΛΣΘΝΑ,ȱψΑϟΎ΅ȱΩΑȱΎ΅Θ΅ΘΕ΍ΆЗΗ΍ΑȱΗΣΕΎΉΖȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΗЏΐ΅ΘϱΖȱΗΓΙ,ȱ 12ȱΎ΅ϠȱπΕΉϧΖȱ̓ЗΖȱπΐϟΗ΋Η΅ȱΔ΅΍ΈΉϟ΅Α,ȱΎ΅ϠȱπΏν·ΛΓΙΖȱπΒνΎΏ΍ΑΉΑȱψȱΎ΅ΕΈϟ΅ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΐΓΙаȱ 13ȱΓЁΎȱόΎΓΙΓΑȱΚΝΑχΑȱΔ΅΍ΈΉϾΓΑΘϱΖȱΐΉȱΎ΅ϠȱΈ΍ΈΣΗΎΓΑΘϱΖȱΐΉȱΓЁΈξȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΔ΅ΕνΆ΅ΏΏΓΑȱΘϲȱΓЇΖȱΐΓΙаȱ 14ȱΔ΅ΕвȱϴΏϟ·ΓΑȱπ·ΉΑϱΐ΋ΑȱπΑȱΔ΅ΑΘϠȱΎ΅ΎХȱπΑȱΐνΗУȱπΎΎΏ΋Ηϟ΅ΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΗΙΑ΅·Ν·ϛΖ.ȱ 15ȱΔϧΑΉȱЂΈ΅Θ΅ȱΦΔϲȱΗЗΑȱΦ··ΉϟΝΑȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΔϲȱΗЗΑȱ·ΕΉΣΘΝΑȱΔ΋·ϛΖ.ȱ 16ȱΐχȱЀΔΉΕΉΎΛΉϟΗΌΝȱΗΓ΍ȱΘΤȱЂΈ΅Θ΅ȱπΎȱΘϛΖȱΗϛΖȱΔ΋·ϛΖ,ȱΉϢΖȱΈξȱΗΤΖȱΔΏ΅ΘΉϟ΅Ζȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΈ΍΅ΔΓΕΉΙνΗΌΝȱΘΤȱΗΤȱЂΈ΅Θ΅аȱ 17ȱσΗΘΝȱΗΓ΍ȱΐϱΑУȱЀΔΣΕΛΓΑΘ΅,ȱΎ΅Ϡȱΐ΋ΈΉϠΖȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱΐΉΘ΅ΗΛνΘΝȱΗΓ΍ȱаȱ 18ȱψȱΔ΋·φȱΗΓΙȱΘΓІȱЂΈ΅ΘΓΖȱσΗΘΝȱΗΓ΍ȱϢΈϟ΅,ȱΎ΅ϠȱΗΙΑΉΙΚΕ΅ϟΑΓΙȱΐΉΘΤȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱΘϛΖȱπΎȱΑΉϱΘ΋ΘϱΖȱΗΓΙ.ȱȱ 19ȱσΏ΅ΚΓΖȱΚ΍Ώϟ΅ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΔЗΏΓΖȱΗЗΑȱΛ΅ΕϟΘΝΑȱϳΐ΍ΏΉϟΘΝȱΗΓ΍,ȱψȱΈξȱϢΈϟ΅ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱψ·ΉϟΗΌΝȱΗΓΙȱΎ΅ϠȱΗΓΑνΗΘΝȱΗΓ΍ȱπΑȱΔ΅ΑΘϠȱΎ΅΍ΕХȱπΑȱ·ΤΕȱΘϜȱΘ΅ϾΘ΋ΖȱΚ΍Ώϟθȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΗΙΐΔΉΕ΍ΚΉΕϱΐΉΑΓΖȱΔΓΏΏΓΗΘϲΖȱσΗϙ.ȱ 20ȱΐχȱΔΓΏϿΖȱϥΗΌ΍ȱΔΕϲΖȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟ΅Αȱΐ΋ΈξȱΗΙΑνΛΓΙȱΦ·ΎΣΏ΅΍ΖȱΘϛΖȱΐχȱϢΈϟ΅Ζаȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ

127ȱ

Unlikeȱthatȱofȱchapterȱ2,ȱtheȱstructureȱofȱthisȱchapterȱfollowsȱthatȱofȱtheȱ MTȱ almostȱ completely.72ȱ Inȱ 5:3,ȱ theȱ womanȱ isȱ calledȱ Κ΅ϾΏϙȱ ·ΙΑ΅΍Ύϟ,ȱ meaningȱ “aȱ womanȱ whoȱ isȱ base,ȱ cheap,ȱ andȱ worthless”73,ȱ andȱ ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱ ΔϱΕΑ΋Ζ,ȱ “aȱ womanȱ whoȱ prostitutesȱ herself”.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ termȱΔϱΕΑ΋,ȱgenerallyȱrefersȱtoȱ“fornication”ȱratherȱthanȱaȱdesignationȱ ofȱprofession.74ȱTheȱtranslator,ȱtherefore,ȱisȱreferringȱtoȱaȱwomanȱwhoȱisȱ promiscuous.ȱ Theȱ warningȱ startsȱ withȱ “doȱ notȱ payȱ attentionȱ to”ȱ her,ȱ whichȱ isȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ MT,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ subsequentȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ herȱ lipsȱ drippingȱ honey,ȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ transienceȱ whichȱ herȱ pleasureȱ affords,ȱareȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱMT,ȱasȱisȱv.ȱ4ȱwhichȱwarnsȱofȱtheȱafterȬeffects.ȱ Verseȱ 5ȱ isȱ muchȱ moreȱ elaborateȱ inȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ thanȱ inȱ MT.ȱ Theȱ translatorȱemphasisesȱthatȱthoseȱwhoȱdealȱwithȱherȱareȱbroughtȱdownȱ toȱ death,ȱ intoȱ Hades,ȱ byȱ theȱ “feetȱ ofȱ folly”ȱ (ΘϛΖȱ ·ΤΕȱ ΦΚΕΓΗϾΑ΋Ζȱ Γ΍ࡒȱ ΔϱΈΉΖ),ȱ andȱ saysȱ thatȱ herȱ stepsȱ areȱ “notȱ established”.ȱ Theȱ nextȱ verseȱ describesȱherȱwaysȱ–ȱsheȱdoesȱnotȱgoȱonȱtheȱpathsȱofȱlife,ȱandȱherȱownȱ pathsȱareȱslipperyȱandȱnotȱeasilyȱknown.ȱȱ Itȱisȱinȱv.ȱ20ȱthatȱweȱfindȱtheȱfirstȱclearȱexpressionȱbyȱtheȱtranslatorȱ ofȱtheȱwoman’sȱidentity.ȱThere,ȱitȱisȱrecommendedȱthatȱoneȱshouldȱnotȱ spendȱtimeȱwithȱanȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟ΅Α,ȱorȱtoȱbeȱtrappedȱinȱtheȱarms75ȱofȱΘϛΖȱΐχȱ ϢΈϟ΅Ζ.ȱSheȱisȱthusȱidentifiedȱsimplyȱasȱaȱwomanȱwhoȱisȱnotȱone’sȱwife,ȱ belongingȱ toȱ another,ȱ andȱ whoȱ isȱ promiscuous.ȱ Theȱ passageȱ givesȱ noȱ furtherȱ indicationȱ ofȱ theȱ ethnicȱ foreignerȱ here.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ vv.ȱ 14Ȭ20ȱ becomesȱ theȱ contextȱ forȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ theȱ seductionsȱ ofȱ anȱ immoralȱ womanȱ andȱ theirȱ consequences.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ weȱ couldȱ notȱtakeȱthisȱtoȱreferȱtoȱadulteryȱperȱse.ȱConsequently,ȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱ ForeignȱWomanȱisȱlostȱinȱthisȱtranslation.ȱȱȱȱ 5.3.2.3ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ6:24Ȭ35ȱ 24ȱΘΓІȱΈ΍΅ΚΙΏΣΗΗΉ΍ΑȱΗΉȱΦΔϲȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱЀΔΣΑΈΕΓΙȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΔϲȱΈ΍΅ΆΓΏϛΖȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ·ΏЏΗΗ΋ΖȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟ΅Ζ.ȱ 25ȱΐχȱΗΉȱΑ΍ΎφΗϙȱΎΣΏΏΓΙΖȱπΔ΍ΌΙΐϟ΅,ȱΐ΋ΈξȱΦ·ΕΉΙΌϜΖȱΗΓϧΖȱϴΚΌ΅ΏΐΓϧΖȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 72ȱ SeeȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ388Ȭ94.ȱ 73ȱȱ “Κ΅ϾΏoΖ“,ȱLS,ȱp.ȱ1919.ȱ 74ȱ “ΔϱΕΑ΋“,ȱLS,ȱp.ȱ1450.ȱTheȱSeptuagintȱtranslatorsȱrendersȱitȱforȱtheȱHebrewȱʤʰʦ,ȱHR,ȱ p.ȱ1195.ȱ 75ȱ Itȱisȱinterestingȱ toȱnoteȱ thatȱtheȱ MT’sȱpresentationȱofȱaȱ choiceȱbetweenȱbreastsȱhasȱ almostȱ disappearedȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 19Ȭ20ȱ ofȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ (Hamonville,ȱ p.ȱ 114).ȱ Itȱ is,ȱ however,ȱ replacedȱ byȱ aȱ choiceȱ betweenȱ becomingȱ “ΔΓΏΏΓΗΘϲΖ“,ȱ throughȱ constantȱ interactionȱ withȱ conjugalȱ love,ȱ andȱ becomingȱ “trappedȱ inȱ theȱ arms“ȱ ofȱ aȱ womanȱ whoȱisȱnotȱone’sȱown.ȱInȱthisȱway,ȱitȱremainsȱonlyȱasȱanȱecho,ȱimpliedȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ part,ȱ whereȱ theȱ verbȱ isȱ usedȱ passively,ȱ probablyȱ withȱ itsȱ commonȱ connotationȱ ofȱ constraint:ȱtheȱmanȱisȱtoȱavoidȱbeingȱheldȱinȱtheȱwoman’sȱ(dangerous)ȱembrace.ȱCf.ȱ “ΗΙΑνΛΓΙ“,ȱLS,ȱp.ȱ1714;ȱandȱ“΅ࡑ·ΎáΏ΋“,ȱLS,ȱp.ȱ9.ȱ

128ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱΐ΋ΈξȱΗΓΑ΅ΕΔ΅ΗΌϜΖȱΦΔϲȱΘЗΑȱ΅ЁΘϛΖȱΆΏΉΚΣΕΝΑаȱ 26ȱΘ΍ΐχȱ·ΤΕȱΔϱΕΑ΋ΖȱϵΗ΋ȱΎ΅ϠȱοΑϱΖȱΩΕΘΓΙ,ȱ·ΙΑχȱΈξȱΦΑΈΕЗΑȱΘ΍ΐϟ΅ΖȱΜΙΛΤΖȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΦ·ΕΉϾΉ΍.ȱ 27ȱΦΔΓΈφΗΉ΍ȱΘ΍ΖȱΔІΕȱπΑȱΎϱΏΔУ,ȱΘΤȱΈξȱϡΐΣΘ΍΅ȱΓЁȱΎ΅Θ΅Ύ΅ϾΗΉ΍;ȱ 28ȱύȱΔΉΕ΍Δ΅ΘφΗΉ΍ȱΘ΍ΖȱπΔдȱΦΑΌΕΣΎΝΑȱΔΙΕϱΖ,ȱΘΓϿΖȱΈξȱΔϱΈ΅ΖȱΓЁȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΎ΅Θ΅Ύ΅ϾΗΉ΍;ȱ 29ȱΓЂΘΝΖȱϳȱΉϢΗΉΏΌАΑȱΔΕϲΖȱ·ΙΑ΅ϧΎ΅ȱЂΔ΅ΑΈΕΓΑ,ȱΓЁΎȱΦΌУΝΌφΗΉΘ΅΍ȱΓЁΈξȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΔκΖȱϳȱΥΔΘϱΐΉΑΓΖȱ΅ЁΘϛΖ.ȱ 30ȱΓЁȱΌ΅Ιΐ΅ΗΘϲΑȱπκΑȱΥΏХȱΘ΍ΖȱΎΏνΔΘΝΑ,ȱΎΏνΔΘΉ΍ȱ·ΤΕȱϣΑ΅ȱοΐΔΏφΗϙȱΘχΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΜΙΛχΑȱΔΉ΍ΑЗΑаȱ 31ȱπΤΑȱΈξȱΥΏХ,ȱΦΔΓΘΉϟΗΉ΍ȱοΔΘ΅ΔΏΣΗ΍΅ȱΎ΅ϠȱΔΣΑΘ΅ȱΘΤȱЀΔΣΕΛΓΑΘ΅ȱ΅ЁΘΓІȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΈΓϿΖȱϹϾΗΉΘ΅΍ȱο΅ΙΘϱΑ.ȱ 32ȱϳȱΈξȱΐΓ΍ΛϲΖȱΈϢȱσΑΈΉ΍΅ΑȱΚΕΉΑЗΑȱΦΔЏΏΉ΍΅ΑȱΘϜȱΜΙΛϜȱ΅ЁΘΓІȱΔΉΕ΍ΘΓ΍ΉϧΘ΅΍,ȱ 33ȱϴΈϾΑ΅ΖȱΘΉȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΘ΍ΐϟ΅ΖȱЁΔΓΚνΕΉ΍,ȱΘϲȱΈξȱϷΑΉ΍ΈΓΖȱ΅ЁΘΓІȱΓЁΎȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱπΒ΅ΏΉ΍ΚΌφΗΉΘ΅΍ȱΉϢΖȱΘϲΑȱ΅ϢЗΑ΅.ȱ 34ȱΐΉΗΘϲΖȱ·ΤΕȱΊφΏΓΙȱΌΙΐϲΖȱΦΑΈΕϲΖȱ΅ЁΘϛΖаȱΓЁȱΚΉϟΗΉΘ΅΍ȱπΑȱψΐνΕθȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΎΕϟΗΉΝΖ,ȱ 35ȱΓЁΎȱΦΑΘ΅ΏΏΣΒΉΘ΅΍ȱΓЁΈΉΑϲΖȱΏϾΘΕΓΙȱΘχΑȱσΛΌΕ΅ΑȱΓЁΈξȱΐχȱΈ΍΅ΏΙΌϜȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΔΓΏΏЗΑȱΈЏΕΝΑ.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ unlikeȱ theȱ MT,ȱ theȱ translatorȱ beginsȱ inȱ v.ȱ 24ȱ byȱ idenȬ tifyingȱ theȱ womanȱ explicitlyȱ asȱ anȱ adulteress.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ wholeȱ unitȱ becomesȱ aȱ warningȱ againstȱ adultery,ȱ withȱ theȱ womanȱ explicitlyȱ idenȬ tifiedȱasȱtheȱwifeȱandȱpossessionȱofȱanother.ȱCookȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱtransȬ latorȱ didȱ notȱ confuseȱ ʲʸ ʺʹʠȱ with ʺʹʠ ʥʤʲʸ,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ interpretedȱ theȱ textȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱv.ȱ29,76ȱandȱheȱmayȱbeȱrightȱtoȱaȱcertainȱextent.ȱConȬ sideringȱtheȱoccurrenceȱofȱΔΓΑ΋ΕκΖȱinȱ7:5,ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱmoreȱprobableȱ thatȱ ʲʸ ʺʹʠȱ isȱ notȱ omittedȱ butȱ postponed.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ translatorȱ describesȱtheȱwoman’sȱwordsȱasȱslanderousȱ(Έ΍΅ΆΓΏϛΖ)ȱratherȱthanȱasȱ theȱ flatteriesȱ (ʺʷʬʤ)ȱ ofȱ MT.ȱ Theȱ Septuagintȱ passageȱ seemsȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ theȱ plightȱ ofȱ theȱ loverȱ seemsȱ toȱ originateȱ fromȱ theȱ slanderȱ ofȱ theȱ adulteress.ȱPossibly,ȱlikeȱPotiphar’sȱwifeȱwhoȱcriesȱ“Rape!”ȱtheȱadulterȬ essȱ shiftsȱ theȱ crimeȱ toȱ herȱ loverȱ alone.ȱ Inȱ anyȱ case,ȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ translatorȱ couldȱ notȱ orȱ wouldȱ notȱ distinguishȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignȱ woman”ȱ inȱ theȱ setȱ ofȱ warningsȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 20Ȭ25,ȱ andȱ itsȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ warningsȱ againstȱ adulteryȱ inȱ vv.ȱ 26Ȭ35.ȱ Therefore,ȱ fromȱ theȱ outsetȱ heȱ clearsȱtheȱconfusionȱandȱintroducesȱtheȱadulteressȱinȱv.ȱ24,ȱmergingȱtheȱ twoȱunitsȱintoȱaȱcoherentȱwarningȱagainstȱadultery.ȱȱ Soȱfar,ȱtheȱtranslatorȱhasȱidentifiedȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱdifferentȱ ways.ȱInȱ2:16,ȱsheȱisȱpersonifiedȱasȱ“evilȱcounsel”,ȱtheȱsourceȱofȱtheȱevilȱ men;ȱandȱinȱchapterȱ5,ȱsheȱisȱdescribedȱtoȱbeȱsimplyȱpromiscuousȱandȱ oneȱ whoȱ “belongsȱ toȱ another”,ȱ withȱ noȱ explicitȱ referenceȱ toȱ adultery;ȱ andȱthenȱhereȱinȱ6:20Ȭ35,ȱsheȱbecomesȱtheȱadulteress.ȱWeȱshallȱseeȱinȱtheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 76ȱ Cook,ȱTheȱSeptuagintȱofȱProverbs,ȱp.ȱ185Ȭ86.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ

129ȱ

nextȱ importantȱ passage,ȱwhereȱ theȱ ForeignȱWomanȱ isȱgivenȱspeechȱ inȱ theȱMT,ȱhowȱtheȱtranslatorȱcontinuesȱtoȱofferȱvariousȱwaysȱtoȱdescribeȱ theȱwomanȱwhileȱdisplacingȱherȱ“foreignness”.ȱ 5.3.2.4ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ7:4Ȭ23ȱ 4ȱȱȱΉϨΔΓΑȱΘχΑȱΗΓΚϟ΅ΑȱΗχΑȱΦΈΉΏΚχΑȱΉϨΑ΅΍,ȱΘχΑȱΈξȱΚΕϱΑ΋Η΍Αȱ·ΑЏΕ΍ΐΓΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΔΉΕ΍ΔΓϟ΋Η΅΍ȱΗΉ΅ΙΘХ,ȱ 5ȱȱȱϣΑ΅ȱΗΉȱΘ΋ΕφΗϙȱΦΔϲȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟ΅ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΔΓΑ΋ΕκΖ,ȱπΣΑȱΗΉȱΏϱ·Γ΍Ζȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΘΓϧΖȱΔΕϲΖȱΛΣΕ΍ΑȱπΐΆΣΏ΋Θ΅΍.ȱ 6ȱȱȱΦΔϲȱ·ΤΕȱΌΙΕϟΈΓΖȱπΎȱΘΓІȱΓϥΎΓΙȱ΅ЁΘϛΖȱΉϢΖȱΘΤΖȱΔΏ΅ΘΉϟ΅Ζȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΔ΅Ε΅ΎϾΔΘΓΙΗ΅,ȱ 7ȱȱȱ϶ΑȱΪΑȱϥΈϙȱΘЗΑȱΦΚΕϱΑΝΑȱΘνΎΑΝΑȱΑΉ΅Αϟ΅ΑȱπΑΈΉϛȱΚΕΉΑЗΑȱ 8ȱȱȱΔ΅Ε΅ΔΓΕΉΙϱΐΉΑΓΑȱΔ΅ΕΤȱ·ΝΑϟ΅ΑȱπΑȱΈ΍ϱΈΓ΍ΖȱΓϥΎΝΑȱ΅ЁΘϛΖȱȱ 9ȱȱȱΎ΅ϠȱΏ΅ΏΓІΑΘ΅ȱπΑȱΗΎϱΘΉ΍ȱπΗΔΉΕ΍ΑХ,ȱψΑϟΎ΅ȱΪΑȱψΗΙΛϟ΅ȱΑΙΎΘΉΕ΍ΑχȱϖȱΎ΅Ϡȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ·ΑΓΚЏΈ΋Ζȱ 10ȱψȱΈξȱ·ΙΑχȱΗΙΑ΅ΑΘλȱ΅ЁΘХ,ȱΉϨΈΓΖȱσΛΓΙΗ΅ȱΔΓΕΑ΍ΎϱΑ,ȱϋȱΔΓ΍ΉϧȱΑνΝΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱπΒϟΔΘ΅ΗΌ΅΍ȱΎ΅ΕΈϟ΅Ζ.ȱ 11ȱΦΑΉΔΘΉΕΝΐνΑ΋ȱΈνȱπΗΘ΍ΑȱΎ΅ϠȱΩΗΝΘΓΖ,ȱπΑȱΓϥΎУȱΈξȱΓЁΛȱψΗΙΛΣΊΓΙΗ΍ΑȱΓϡȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΔϱΈΉΖȱ΅ЁΘϛΖаȱ 12ȱΛΕϱΑΓΑȱ·ΣΕȱΘ΍Α΅ȱσΒΝȱϹνΐΆΉΘ΅΍,ȱΛΕϱΑΓΑȱΈξȱπΑȱΔΏ΅ΘΉϟ΅ΖȱΔ΅ΕΤȱΔκΗ΅Αȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ·ΝΑϟ΅ΑȱπΑΉΈΕΉϾΉ΍.ȱ 13ȱΉϨΘ΅ȱπΔ΍Ώ΅ΆΓΐνΑ΋ȱπΚϟΏ΋ΗΉΑȱ΅ЁΘϱΑ,ȱΦΑ΅΍ΈΉϧȱΈξȱΔΕΓΗЏΔУȱΔΕΓΗΉϧΔΉΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ΅ЁΘХȱ 14ȱ̋ΙΗϟΖȱΉϢΕ΋Α΍ΎφȱΐΓϟȱπΗΘ΍Α,ȱΗφΐΉΕΓΑȱΦΔΓΈϟΈΝΐ΍ȱΘΤΖȱΉЁΛΣΖȱΐΓΙаȱ 15ȱρΑΉΎ΅ȱΘΓϾΘΓΙȱπΒϛΏΌΓΑȱΉϢΖȱΗΙΑΣΑΘ΋ΗϟΑȱΗΓ΍,ȱΔΓΌΓІΗ΅ȱΘϲȱΗϲΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΔΕϱΗΝΔΓΑȱΉЂΕ΋ΎΣȱΗΉаȱ 16ȱΎΉ΍Εϟ΅΍ΖȱΘνΘ΅Ύ΅ȱΘχΑȱΎΏϟΑ΋ΑȱΐΓΙ,ȱΦΐΚ΍ΘΣΔΓ΍ΖȱΈξȱσΗΘΕΝΎ΅ȱΘΓϧΖȱΦΔдȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ̄Ϣ·ϾΔΘΓΙаȱ 17ȱΈ΍νΕΕ΅·Ύ΅ȱΘχΑȱΎΓϟΘ΋ΑȱΐΓΙȱΎΕϱΎУ,ȱΘϲΑȱΈξȱΓϨΎϱΑȱΐΓΙȱΎ΍ΑΑ΅ΐЏΐУаȱ 18ȱπΏΌξȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΔΓΏ΅ϾΗΝΐΉΑȱΚ΍Ώϟ΅ΖȱρΝΖȱϷΕΌΕΓΙ,ȱΈΉІΕΓȱΎ΅Ϡȱπ·ΎΙΏ΍ΗΌЗΐΉΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱσΕΝΘ΍аȱ 19ȱΓЁȱ·ΤΕȱΔΣΕΉΗΘ΍ΑȱϳȱΦΑφΕȱΐΓΙȱπΑȱΓϨΎУ,ȱΔΉΔϱΕΉΙΘ΅΍ȱΈξȱϳΈϲΑȱΐ΅ΎΕΤΑȱ 20ȱσΑΈΉΗΐΓΑȱΦΕ·ΙΕϟΓΙȱΏ΅ΆАΑȱπΑȱΛΉ΍ΕϠȱ΅ЁΘΓІ,ȱΈϢȱψΐΉΕЗΑȱΔΓΏΏЗΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱπΔ΅ΑφΒΉ΍ȱΉϢΖȱΘϲΑȱΓϨΎΓΑȱ΅ЁΘΓІ.ȱ 21ȱΦΔΉΔΏΣΑ΋ΗΉΑȱΈξȱ΅ЁΘϲΑȱΔΓΏΏϜȱϳΐ΍ΏϟθȱΆΕϱΛΓ΍ΖȱΘΉȱΘΓϧΖȱΦΔϲȱΛΉ΍ΏνΝΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱπΒЏΎΉ΍ΏΉΑȱ΅ЁΘϱΑ.ȱ 22ȱϳȱΈξȱπΔ΋ΎΓΏΓϾΌ΋ΗΉΑȱ΅ЁΘϜȱΎΉΔΚΝΌΉϟΖ,ȱГΗΔΉΕȱΈξȱΆΓІΖȱπΔϠȱΗΚ΅·χΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΩ·ΉΘ΅΍ȱΎ΅ϠȱГΗΔΉΕȱΎϾΝΑȱπΔϠȱΈΉΗΐΓϿΖȱ 23ȱύȱΝࡒΖȱσΏ΅ΚΓΖȱΘΓΒΉϾΐ΅Θ΍ȱΔΉΔΏ΋·АΖȱΉϢΖȱΘϲȱϏΔ΅Ε,ȱΗΔΉϾΈΉ΍ȱΈξȱГΗΔΉΕȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱϷΕΑΉΓΑȱΉϢΖȱΔ΅·ϟΈ΅ȱΓЁΎȱΉϢΈАΖȱϵΘ΍ȱΔΉΕϠȱΜΙΛϛΖȱΘΕνΛΉ΍.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ thisȱ keyȱ passage,ȱ theȱ womanȱ isȱ identifiedȱ asȱ theȱ womanȱ whoȱ isȱ “alien”ȱ(ΦΏΏΓΘΕϟ΅Ζ)ȱinȱsomeȱsense,ȱandȱevilȱ(ΔΓΑ΋ΕκΖ).ȱHerȱevilnessȱisȱ probablyȱ commentedȱ uponȱ hereȱ becauseȱ sheȱ isȱ depictedȱ asȱ activelyȱ seducingȱ theȱ youngȱ man.ȱ Theȱ translatorȱ retainsȱ theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ flatȬ teriesȱ(ΛΣΕ΍Αȱforȱʤʷʩʬʧʤ)ȱasȱinȱtheȱMT,ȱbutȱheȱdescribesȱtheseȱflatteriesȱinȱ

130ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

anȱaggressiveȱmannerȱ(πΐΆΣΏ΋Θ΅΍),ȱwhichȱisȱnotȱinȱtheȱMT.ȱTheȱfollowȬ ingȱ versesȱ portrayȱ herȱ spontaneity,ȱ whereȱ sheȱ looksȱ outȱ herȱ windowȱ seekingȱforȱaȱpotentialȱvictimȱ(vv.ȱ6Ȭ7),77ȱthenȱgoesȱdownȱtoȱtheȱstreetȱtoȱ grabȱ himȱ (vv.ȱ 10,ȱ 13).ȱ Sheȱ appearsȱ likeȱ aȱ prostitute,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ sheȱ isȱ dressedȱ provocatively,ȱ causingȱ theȱ youngȱ man’sȱ heartȱ toȱ flutterȱ (πΒϟΔΘ΅ΗΌ΅΍,ȱ v.ȱ 10).78ȱ Verseȱ 11aȱ describesȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ herȱ excitementȱ (ΦΑΉΔΘΉΕΝΐνΑ΋),79ȱ andȱ theȱ followingȱ linesȱ passȱ judgementȱ onȱ herȱ beȬ haviour,ȱ asȱ wastefulȱ andȱ ruinedȱ (ΩΗΝΘΓΖ),80ȱ forȱ sheȱ wandersȱ aboutȱ inȱ publicȱinsteadȱofȱremainingȱatȱhomeȱ(v.ȱ11cȬ12).ȱ ThereȱareȱvariousȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱMTȱandȱSeptuagintȱinȱwhatȱ follows,ȱfewȱofȱwhichȱneedȱconcernȱusȱhere.ȱItȱisȱinterestingȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱ theȱ youthȱ isȱ aȱ moreȱ activeȱ participantȱ (cf.ȱ v.ȱ 9),ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ obscureȱ referenceȱtoȱtheȱfullȱmoonȱisȱremovedȱ(v.ȱ20).ȱTheȱmostȱimportantȱpoint,ȱ though,ȱ isȱ thatȱ anyȱ ambiguityȱ aboutȱ theȱ woman’sȱ maritalȱ statusȱ isȱ resolvedȱ (vv.ȱ 19Ȭ20),ȱ andȱ theȱ portrayalȱ is,ȱ again,ȱ simplyȱ ofȱ anȱ agȬ gressive,ȱ dangerousȱ adulteress.ȱ Although,ȱ inȱ v.ȱ 5ȱ ΦΏΏΓΘΕϟ΅Ζȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ simplyȱ aȱ vagueȱ curtsyȱ towardȱ theȱ Hebrew,ȱ withoutȱ beingȱ specificȱ andȱindicatingȱonlyȱthatȱtheȱwomanȱbelongsȱtoȱanotherȱman.ȱAgain,ȱtheȱ translatorȱmakesȱnoȱmentionȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱThisȱtime,ȱheȱevenȱ ignoresȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ ambiguityȱ inȱ thisȱ passageȱ andȱ clarifiesȱ atȱ allȱ pointsȱthatȱtheȱsubject,ȱlikeȱ6:20Ȭ35ȱisȱexplicitlyȱaboutȱadulteryȱhere.ȱ 5.3.2.5ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ9:13Ȭ18dȱ 13ȱȱȱ̆ΙΑχȱΩΚΕΝΑȱΎ΅ϠȱΌΕ΅ΗΉϧ΅ȱπΑΈΉχΖȱΜΝΐΓІȱ·ϟΑΉΘ΅΍,ȱϋȱΓЁΎȱπΔϟΗΘ΅Θ΅΍ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ΅ϢΗΛϾΑ΋Αаȱ 14ȱȱȱπΎΣΌ΍ΗΉΑȱπΔϠȱΌϾΕ΅΍ΖȱΘΓІȱπ΅ΙΘϛΖȱΓϥΎΓΙȱπΔϠȱΈϟΚΕΓΙȱπΐΚ΅ΑЗΖȱπΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱΔΏ΅ΘΉϟ΅΍Ζȱ 15ȱȱȱΔΕΓΗΎ΅ΏΓΙΐνΑ΋ȱΘΓϿΖȱΔ΅Ε΍ϱΑΘ΅ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΎ΅ΘΉΙΌϾΑΓΑΘ΅ΖȱπΑȱΘ΅ϧΖȱϳΈΓϧΖȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ΅ЁΘЗΑȱ 16ȱȱȱͣΖȱπΗΘ΍ΑȱЀΐЗΑȱΦΚΕΓΑνΗΘ΅ΘΓΖ,ȱπΎΎΏ΍ΑΣΘΝȱΔΕϱΖȱΐΉȱаȱπΑΈΉνΗ΍ȱΈνȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱΚΕΓΑφΗΉΝΖȱΔ΅Ε΅ΎΉΏΉϾΓΐ΅΍ȱΏν·ΓΙΗ΅ȱȱ 17ȱȱȱ̡ΕΘΝΑȱΎΕΙΚϟΝΑȱψΈνΝΖȱΧΜ΅ΗΌΉȱΎ΅ϠȱЂΈ΅ΘΓΖȱΎΏΓΔϛΖȱ·ΏΙΎΉΕΓІ.ȱ 18ȱȱȱϳȱΈξȱΓЁΎȱΓϨΈΉΑȱϵΘ΍ȱ·΋·ΉΑΉϧΖȱΔ΅Εȱࢀȱ΅ЁΘϜȱϷΏΏΙΑΘ΅΍,ȱΎ΅ϠȱπΔϠȱΔνΘΉΙΕΓΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱΰΈΓΙȱΗΙΑ΅ΑΘλ.ȱȱ 18aȱΦΏΏΤȱΦΔΓΔφΈ΋ΗΓΑ,ȱΐχȱπ·ΛΕΓΑϟΗϙȱπΑȱΘХȱΘϱΔУȱΐ΋ΈξȱπΔ΍ΗΘφΗϙΖȱΘϲȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱΗϲΑȱϷΐΐ΅ȱΔΕϲΖȱ΅ЁΘχΑаȱȱ 18bȱΓЃΘΝΖȱ·ΤΕȱΈ΍΅ΆφΗϙȱЂΈΝΕȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΑȱΎ΅ϠȱЀΔΉΕΆφΗϙȱΔΓΘ΅ΐϲΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΑаȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 77ȱ Thisȱactionȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱculticȱsignificance,ȱseeȱFox,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱp.ȱ404.ȱ 78ȱ Hamonville,ȱpp.ȱ107,ȱ201.ȱHeȱthinksȱthatȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱagitationȱofȱtheȱwomanȱ inȱv.ȱ11ȱisȱreminscentȱwithȱPlato’sȱcommentaryȱinȱtheȱPhredeȱonȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱlove.ȱȱ 79ȱ “ΦΑ΅ΔΘΉΕϱΝ“,ȱLS,ȱp.ȱ118.ȱȱ 80ȱ “ΩΗΝΘΓΖ“,ȱLS,ȱp.ȱ267.ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ

131ȱ

18cȱΦΔϲȱΈξȱЂΈ΅ΘΓΖȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟΓΙȱΦΔϱΗΛΓΙȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΔϲȱΔ΋·ϛΖȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟ΅Ζȱΐχȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱΔϟϙΖ,ȱȱ 18dȱϤΑ΅ȱΔΓΏϿΑȱΊφΗϙΖȱΛΕϱΑΓΑ,ȱΔΕΓΗΘΉΌϜȱΈνȱΗΓ΍ȱσΘ΋ȱΊΝϛΖ.ȱ

WhileȱMTȱ9:13ȱlabelsȱtheȱwomanȱasȱfoolish,ȱandȱdescribesȱherȱasȱloud,ȱ LXXȱ9:13ȱcallsȱherȱtheȱ“foolishȱandȱboldȱwoman”.ȱΌΕ΅ΗΉϧ΅,ȱforȱ“bold”,ȱ isȱ usedȱ moreȱ frequentlyȱ inȱ theȱ negativeȱ senseȱ denotingȱ “rash”,ȱ “auȬ dacious”,ȱ “arrogant”ȱ andȱ “insolent”.81ȱ Septuagintȱ alsoȱ addsȱ twoȱ otherȱ descriptionsȱ forȱ thisȱ woman:ȱ sheȱ isȱ hungry,ȱ andȱ sheȱ knowsȱ noȱ shameȱ (΅ϢΗΛϾΑ΋Α).ȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ grandsonȱ usesȱ theȱ sameȱ descriptionȱ forȱ theȱ daughterȱwhoȱactsȱshamefully,ȱcausingȱgriefȱtoȱherȱfather,ȱandȱdespisedȱ byȱbothȱherȱfatherȱandȱhusbandȱ(Sirȱ22:4,ȱ5).82ȱTheȱtranslatorȱfollowsȱtheȱ MTȱinȱtheȱextentȱofȱpickingȱupȱallȱthatȱisȱsaidȱaboutȱtheȱwomanȱinȱtheȱ precedingȱpassagesȱtoȱpresentȱaȱpersonifiedȱwomanȱtoȱcompeteȱagainstȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ inȱ 9:1Ȭ6.ȱ However,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ womanȱ inȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbsȱisȱportrayedȱonlyȱasȱaȱpromiscuousȱwoman,ȱwhoȱisȱdescribedȱ toȱ beȱ anȱ adulteressȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ twoȱ passages,ȱ chapterȱ 9ȱ thereforeȱ conȬ sidersȱherȱimmodestyȱasȱfoolishness.ȱȱ Scholarshipȱ concursȱ thatȱ theseȱ additionsȱ toȱ LXXȱ 9:18ȱ areȱ originalȱ andȱ earlyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ almostȱ unanimousȱ textualȱ witnesses.ȱ Theseȱ warningsȱcontinueȱtoȱremonstrateȱtheȱ“foolishȱandȱboldȱwoman”,ȱandȱ v.ȱ 18aȱ seemsȱ toȱ alludeȱ toȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ textȱ ofȱ Sirȱ 41:20ȱ whereȱ Benȱ Siraȱ warnsȱaboutȱgazingȱatȱtheȱʤʸʦ.83ȱȱȱ Inȱ theȱ subsequentȱ lines,ȱ 18bȬ18c,ȱ thereȱ areȱ fourȱ occurrencesȱ ofȱ theȱ adjectiveȱ ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖ,ȱ toȱ whichȱ eachȱ isȱ pairedȱ withȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ water.ȱ Whileȱ theseȱ additionsȱ mightȱ recallȱ 5:15Ȭ17ȱ whichȱ isȱ aboutȱ viȬ gilantȱandȱexclusiveȱmaintenanceȱofȱone’sȱownȱproperty,ȱasȱCookȱsugȬ gests,ȱ butȱ itȱ mayȱ haveȱ alsoȱ adoptedȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ waterȱ fromȱ 9:17ȱ whereȱtheȱwomanȱoffersȱit.ȱUndeniably,ȱtheȱissueȱhereȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱProvȱ 5,ȱonȱtheȱkeenȱobservationȱofȱboundaries.ȱItȱrecommendsȱthatȱwhileȱoneȱ mayȱ crossȱ overȱ (Έ΍΅ΆφΗϙ)ȱ another’sȱ waterȱ (ЂΈΝΕȱ ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΑ)ȱ andȱ goȱ beyondȱ (ЀΔΉΕΆφΗϙ)ȱ another’sȱ riverȱ (ΔΓΘ΅ΐϲΑȱ ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΑ),ȱ oneȱ mustȱ denyȱoneselfȱanother’sȱwaterȱ(ЂΈ΅ΘΓΖȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟΓΙ)ȱandȱnotȱdrinkȱfromȱaȱ strangeȱfountainȱ(Δ΋·ϛΖȱΦΏΏΓΘΕϟ΅Ζ).ȱTheseȱtwoȱlinesȱinȱturn,ȱreiteratesȱ thatȱoneȱmustȱavoidȱanother’sȱwomanȱandȱnotȱtoȱlingerȱtoȱgazeȱatȱherȱinȱ v.ȱ18a.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱv.ȱ18cȱisȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱconverselyȱasȱaȱresponseȱ toȱ theȱ woman’sȱ offerȱ inȱ v.ȱ 17.ȱ So,ȱ whileȱ v.ȱ 18dȱ promisesȱ longȱ lifeȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ yieldȱ toȱ theȱ woman’sȱ seductions,ȱ itȱ alsoȱ drawsȱ theȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ outcomeȱ warnedȱ inȱ v.ȱ 18.ȱ Thisȱ passageȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ aȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 81ȱ “ΌΕεΗúΖ“,ȱLS,ȱpp.ȱ804Ȭ805.ȱ 82ȱ TheȱHebrewȱversionȱofȱthisȱchapterȱisȱnotȱavailable,ȱcf.ȱBeentjes,ȱBookȱofȱBenȱSiraȱinȱ Hebrew,ȱp.ȱ182.ȱ 83ȱ Cf.ȱ6.1.3.ȱ

132ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

warningȱ againstȱ adultery,ȱ againstȱ gettingȱ involvedȱ withȱ someone’sȱ wife.ȱ Again,ȱ weȱ findȱ inȱ thisȱ lastȱ passageȱ onȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ theȱ translatorȱ keepsȱ toȱ theȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ theȱ womanȱ asȱ aȱ promiscuousȱ womanȱ andȱ anȱ adulteressȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ earlierȱ passages.ȱ Theȱ womanȱ porȬ trayedȱinȱ9:13Ȭ18dȱdoesȱnotȱbearȱanyȱsymbolismȱasȱweȱfindȱinȱMTȱ9:13Ȭ 18.ȱ Weȱ shallȱ nowȱ lookȱ intoȱ theȱ otherȱ twoȱ passagesȱ inȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ outsideȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ whereȱ theȱ MTȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ butȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ completelyȱ removesȱ anyȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱ 5.3.2.6ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ22:14ȱ 14ȱȱȱΆϱΌΕΓΖȱΆ΅ΌϿΖȱΗΘϱΐ΅ȱΔ΅Ε΅ΑϱΐΓΙ,ȱϳȱΈξȱΐ΍Η΋ΌΉϠΖȱЀΔϲȱΎΙΕϟΓΙȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱπΐΔΉΗΉϧΘ΅΍ȱΉϢΖȱ΅ЁΘϱΑ.ȱȱ 14aȱΉϢΗϠΑȱϳΈΓϠȱΎ΅Ύ΅ϠȱπΑЏΔ΍ΓΑȱΦΑΈΕϱΖ,ȱΎ΅ϠȱΓЁΎȱΦ·΅ΔλȱΘΓІȱΦΔΓΗΘΕνΜ΅΍ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱΦΔдȱ΅ЁΘЗΑаȱȱ 14bȱΦΔΓΗΘΕνΚΉ΍ΑȱΈξȱΈΉϧȱΦΔϲȱϳΈΓІȱΗΎΓΏ΍κΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΎ΅ΎϛΖ.ȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱ TheȱfeminineȱformsȱofȱtheȱMTȱareȱnotȱretainedȱinȱv.ȱ14,ȱwhileȱtheȱrestȱofȱ theȱcontentsȱremainsȱtheȱsame.ȱTheȱʺʥʸʦȱisȱreplacedȱbyȱtheȱlawlessȱmanȱ (Δ΅Ε΅ΑϱΐΓΙ),ȱ andȱ Hamonvilleȱ thinksȱ thatȱ thisȱ echoesȱ theȱ translationsȱ inȱ 14:12ȱ andȱ 16:25.ȱ Theȱ additionȱ inȱ v.ȱ 14bȱ explainsȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ evilȱ waysȱ whichȱ areȱ beforeȱ suchȱ aȱ manȱ andȱ heȱ refusesȱ toȱ turnȱ fromȱ them.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ verseȱ reiteratesȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ turnȱ fromȱ theseȱ evilȱ ways.ȱ Theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ lostȱ inȱ thisȱ translation,ȱ butȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ theȱ evilȱ waysȱ seemsȱ toȱ makeȱ thisȱ textȱ recallȱtheȱwarningsȱagainstȱevilȱmen.ȱ 5.3.2.7ȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱ23:27Ȭ28ȱ 27ȱΔϟΌΓΖȱ·ΤΕȱΘΉΘΕ΋ΐνΑΓΖȱπΗΘϠΑȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱΓϨΎΓΖ,ȱΎ΅ϠȱΚΕν΅ΕȱΗΘΉΑϲΑȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΑаȱ 28ȱΓЈΘΓΖȱ·ΤΕȱΗΙΑΘϱΐΝΖȱΦΔΓΏΉϧΘ΅΍,ȱΎ΅ϠȱΔκΖȱΔ΅ΕΣΑΓΐΓΖȱΦΑ΅ΏΝΌφΗΉΘ΅΍.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ theȱ feminineȱ formsȱ inȱ theȱ MTȱ areȱ againȱ removed,ȱ soȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ aboutȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ andȱ theȱ prostituteȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ MT.ȱ Besides,ȱ allȱ theȱ contentsȱ areȱ completelyȱ different,ȱ exceptȱ theȱ referenceȱtoȱaȱnarrowȱwell.ȱItȱbecomesȱaȱwarningȱaboutȱtheȱhouseȱandȱ wellȱ ofȱ anotherȱ whichȱ areȱ describedȱ asȱ fullȱ ofȱ holesȱ andȱ veryȱ narrow,ȱ respectively.ȱVerseȱ28ȱassertsȱthatȱsuchȱaȱpersonȱisȱlawless,ȱwillȱperishȱ suddenly,ȱandȱwillȱbeȱcutȱoff.ȱȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱConclusionȱ

133ȱ

Aȱ ΔϟΌΓΖȱ ΘΉΘΕ΋ΐνΑΓΖȱ isȱ aȱ commonȱ phrase,ȱ usedȱ ofȱ “labouringȱ inȱ vain“ȱ orȱ “insatiableȱ appetites“.84ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ theȱ translatorȱ hasȱ usedȱ thisȱ familiarȱ imageȱ ofȱ theȱ “narrowȱ well“ȱ toȱ giveȱ aȱ newȱ meaning.ȱ Heȱ identifiesȱtheȱ΅ࡑΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱasȱaȱlawlessȱoneȱ(Δ΅ΕΣΑΓΐΓΖ),ȱandȱdepictsȱtheȱ futilityȱ andȱ theȱ perishabilityȱ ofȱ theȱ lawless.ȱ Verseȱ 28ȱ seemsȱ toȱ recallȱ LXXȱ2:22,ȱwhichȱitȱalsoȱdepictsȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱlawless.ȱInȱanyȱcase,ȱthereȱ isȱ noȱ specificȱ referenceȱ toȱ aȱ foreignȱ woman,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ vestigialȱ ΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱraisesȱmanyȱquestionsȱaboutȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱwrongdoers.ȱ 5.3.2.8ȱSectionȱConclusionȱ Atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ thisȱ section,ȱ weȱ observedȱ thatȱ ΅ࡑΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱ isȱ oftenȱ renderedȱ forȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ ʸʫʰ, ʸʦ andȱ ʸʧʠȱ byȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ translators.ȱ Weȱalsoȱestablishedȱtheȱfactȱthatȱcontextsȱareȱspecificȱwheneverȱethnicȱ foreignnessȱisȱintendedȱforȱtheȱuseȱofȱ΅ࡑΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖ.ȱȱ AsȱforȱtheȱSeptuagintȱpassagesȱonȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ theȱ translatorȱ hasȱ removedȱ theȱ referenceȱ toȱ “foreignness“ȱ andȱ theȱ useȱofȱΦΏΏϱΘΕ΍ΓΖȱinȱtheseȱpassagesȱonlyȱdepictsȱaȱwomanȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱ belongȱtoȱone,ȱandȱherȱethnicityȱisȱneverȱemphasisedȱnorȱspecified.ȱInȱ theȱ lengthyȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ theȱ woman,ȱ theȱ translatorȱ turnsȱ herȱ intoȱ aȱ promiscuousȱwomanȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱbelongȱinȱ5:1Ȭ20;ȱandȱinȱ6:20Ȭ35,ȱ7:5Ȭ 27,ȱ 9:13Ȭ18d,ȱheȱ turnsȱ herȱintoȱ anȱ adulteress.ȱ This,ȱ however,ȱ wouldȱ beȱ inappropriateȱinȱProvȱ2,ȱandȱsheȱisȱreplacedȱthereȱbyȱ“badȱcounsel“,ȱaȱ moreȱexplicitȱcounterpartȱtoȱWisdom.ȱElsewhere,ȱoutsideȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ 9,ȱsheȱvanishes.ȱWhatȱhappensȱhereȱinȱtheȱSeptuagintȱisȱlikeȱtheȱtextȱinȱ Qumran,ȱwhereȱtheȱwomanȱremains,ȱbutȱisȱnoȱlongerȱlinkedȱtoȱaȱmotifȱ ofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱȱ

5.4ȱChapterȱConclusionȱ Weȱ setȱ outȱ inȱ thisȱ chapterȱ toȱ pursueȱ howȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ developsȱ afterȱ herȱ appearanceȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ andȱ hopefullyȱ toȱ findȱ theȱ reasonsȱ toȱ herȱ declineȱ inȱ theȱ laterȱ literature.ȱ Theȱ datingȱ ofȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ materialsȱ makeȱ itȱ difficultȱ toȱ presentȱ themȱ inȱ aȱ chroȬ nologicalȱorder,ȱandȱtheȱmatterȱofȱlanguage,ȱandȱgeneralȱcontentsȱtakesȱ someȱpriorityȱinȱtheȱarrangementȱhere.ȱFirst,ȱweȱlookedȱatȱtheȱtwoȱshortȱ passagesȱ inȱ Proverbs,ȱ 22:14ȱ andȱ 23:26Ȭ28,ȱ whichȱ seemȱ toȱ alludeȱ toȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 84ȱ “ΔϟΌΓΖ“,ȱLS,ȱp.ȱ1403.ȱ

134ȱ

DirectȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱOtherȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ

Foreignȱ Womanȱ briefly,ȱ andȱ thenȱ theȱ obscureȱ occurrenceȱ inȱ Ecclȱ 7:26,ȱ whichȱ isȱ altogetherȱ moreȱ uncertain.ȱ Asȱ weȱ leaveȱ theȱ biblicalȱ texts,ȱ weȱ findȱdirectȱandȱobviousȱallusionsȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱ4Q184,ȱandȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbs.ȱ Sheȱ isȱ portrayedȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ termsȱ asȱ attractiveȱ andȱ seductive,ȱ trappingȱ herȱ victimsȱ toȱ leadȱ themȱ intoȱ destruction.ȱ However,ȱinȱbothȱofȱtheseȱtexts,ȱtheȱ“foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱmotifȱhasȱbeenȱ removedȱandȱdisplaced.ȱThisȱphenomenon,ȱasȱweȱshallȱseeȱinȱtheȱnextȱ chapter,ȱ isȱ alsoȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ andȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ theȱ chronologyȱofȱtheȱcompositionȱofȱtheȱtextsȱisȱaȱcontributingȱfactor.ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱSix:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ApocryphalȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱȱ ȱ Weȱhaveȱseenȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱthatȱasȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱ Womanȱ leavesȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ apartȱ fromȱ theȱ twoȱ passagesȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ andȱoneȱobscureȱverseȱinȱEcclesiastesȱwhichȱmayȱorȱmayȱnotȱalludeȱtoȱ her,ȱ 4Q184ȱ andȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbs,ȱ whichȱ haveȱ clearȱ depictionsȱ ofȱ her,ȱ choosesȱ toȱ removeȱ theȱ essenceȱ ofȱ herȱ “foreignness“.ȱ Thisȱ pheȬ nomenon,ȱ asȱ weȱ shallȱ seeȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ continuesȱ toȱ persistȱ inȱ theȱ parentȱ textȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ thoughȱ somewhatȱ retrievedȱ inȱ theȱ translatedȱ versionȱ ofȱ it,ȱ butȱ theȱ motifȱ itselfȱ isȱ totallyȱ ignoredȱ inȱ theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomon,ȱwhichȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱconcernedȱwithȱissuesȱofȱ“foreignness“.ȱByȱ observingȱtheȱwayȱtheseȱauthorsȱchange,ȱdevelopȱandȱignoreȱtheȱmotif,ȱ hopefullyȱaȱrationaleȱforȱtheȱtransformationȱofȱtheȱmotifȱcanȱbeȱreached.ȱ

6.1ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ InȱtheȱbookȱofȱBenȱSira,ȱtheȱfeminineȱformȱofȱʤʩʸʫʰȱdoesȱnotȱoccurȱatȱall.ȱ However,ȱ ʤʸʦȱ occursȱ twice,ȱ inȱ 9:3ȱ andȱ 41:20.ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ investigatesȱ whetherȱ theseȱ twoȱ occurrencesȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ WoȬ man,ȱ andȱ whether,ȱ moreȱ generally,ȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ survivesȱinȱtheȱworkȱofȱBenȱSiraȱinȱotherȱforms.ȱ

6.1.1ȱIntroductionȱtoȱBenȱSiraȱ TheȱbookȱofȱBenȱSiraȱcomprisesȱfiftyȬoneȱchapters.ȱMostȱofȱitsȱcontentsȱ areȱratherȱsimilarȱtoȱthoseȱofȱProverbs:ȱtheȱfirstȱfortyȬthreeȱchaptersȱandȱ theȱlastȱchapterȱgiveȱadviceȱconcerningȱrightȱethicsȱandȱbehaviour,ȱbutȱ mostȱofȱallȱitȱexhortsȱtoȱpiousȱlivingȱandȱdisciplineȱinȱmeditatingȱuponȱ andȱ studyingȱ theȱ Torah.ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ devotesȱ fourȱ passagesȱ ofȱ praiseȱ andȱ exhortationȱ toȱ personifiedȱ Wisdomȱ (6:18Ȭ37;ȱ 14:20Ȭ15:10;ȱ 24;ȱ 51:13Ȭ30);ȱ twoȱ passagesȱ ofȱ praiseȱ toȱ God’sȱ creationȱ (39:12Ȭ35;ȱ 42:15Ȭ43:33);ȱ andȱ chaptersȱ44Ȭ50ȱtoȱpraiseȱofȱtheȱancestorsȱofȱIsrael.ȱ Theȱprologueȱtellsȱusȱthatȱtheȱbookȱwasȱoriginallyȱwrittenȱby,ȱJesus,ȱ theȱsonȱofȱSira,ȱbutȱitȱhasȱbeenȱbetterȱknown,ȱuntilȱrecently,ȱinȱtheȱGreekȱ

136ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

translationȱmadeȱbyȱhisȱgrandson.ȱThatȱtranslationȱisȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱthirȬ tyȬeighthȱyearȱofȱtheȱreignȱofȱEuergetes,ȱprobablyȱinȱ132ȱBCE.1ȱScholarsȱ believeȱthatȱtheȱoriginalȱcompositionȱprobablyȱdatesȱtoȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱ theȱ secondȱ centuryȱ BCE,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ bookȱ doesȱ notȱ portrayȱ theȱ turȬ bulentȱtimesȱinȱPalestineȱusheredȱinȱbyȱtheȱnewȱreignȱofȱAntiochusȱIVȱ Epiphanes.ȱ InȱtheȱfollowingȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱtextsȱofȱBenȱSira,ȱIȱhaveȱtreatedȱtheȱ Hebrewȱ manuscriptsȱ andȱ theȱ Greekȱ textsȱ separately.ȱ Theȱ textualȱ witȬ nessesȱ ofȱ bothȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Greekȱ textsȱ areȱ mostȱ complicatedȱ inȱ natureȱ inȱ comparisonȱ toȱ allȱ theȱ otherȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ OT:2ȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ witnessesȱareȱincomplete,ȱandȱtheȱGreekȱrecensionsȱareȱalsoȱplaguedȱbyȱ corruptions.3ȱFortunately,ȱtheseȱproblemsȱhaveȱnoȱrealȱimpactȱonȱwhatȱIȱ amȱ goingȱ toȱ say,ȱ andȱ theȱ reasonȱ whyȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ manuscriptsȱ andȱ Greekȱ textsȱ areȱ dealtȱ withȱ separatelyȱ hereȱ isȱ notȱ tiedȱ toȱ textȬcriticalȱ concernsȱ butȱ toȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ Benȱ Siraȱ andȱ hisȱ grandson,ȱ someȬ timesȱ handleȱ theȱ sameȱ subjectȱ differently,ȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ whichȱ reflectsȱ theȱ particularȱhistoricalȱeraȱandȱethosȱinȱwhichȱeachȱworked.ȱ Itȱisȱnotoriouslyȱdifficultȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱeventsȱandȱdevelopmentsȱ inȱ theȱ centuriesȱ immediatelyȱ afterȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Ezraȱ andȱ Nehemiah.4ȱ Whatȱ isȱ certainȱ isȱ that,ȱ byȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ theȱ communityȱ hadȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱ

2ȱ

3ȱ 4ȱ

Patrickȱ Skehanȱ andȱ Alexanderȱ Diȱ Lella,ȱ Theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Translationȱ withȱNotesȱbyȱPatrickȱW.ȱSkehan;ȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱbyȱAlexanderȱA.ȱDiȱLellaȱ (AB,ȱ39;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1987),ȱpp.ȱ8Ȭ16.ȱȱ SkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ59.ȱConcerningȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱmanuscripts,ȱtheirȱorigin,ȱ scope,ȱ andȱ relationship,ȱ seeȱ Skehanȱ andȱ Diȱ Lella,ȱ pp.ȱ 51Ȭ62;ȱ Benjaminȱ Wright,ȱ Noȱ Smallȱ Difference:ȱ Sirach’sȱ Relationshipȱ toȱ itsȱ Hebrewȱ Parentȱ Textȱ (SBLȱ Septuagintȱ andȱ CognateȱStudiesȱSeries,ȱ26;ȱAtlanta,ȱGa.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1989);ȱMauriceȱGilbert,ȱ“Theȱ BookȱofȱBenȱSira:ȱImplicationsȱ forȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱtraditions“,ȱinȱShemayahuȱ Talmonȱ(ed.),ȱJewishȱCivilizationȱinȱtheȱHellenisticȬRomanȱPeriodȱ(JSPSup,ȱ10;ȱSheffield:ȱ JSOTȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱpp.ȱ81Ȭ91;ȱStefanȱReif,ȱ“TheȱDiscoveryȱofȱtheȱCambridgeȱGenizahȱ FragmentsȱofȱBenȱSira:ȱScholarsȱandȱTexts”,ȱinȱBeentjesȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱBookȱofȱBenȱSiraȱinȱ ModernȱResearchȱ(BZAW,ȱ255;ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1997),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ22;ȱandȱinȱtheȱ sameȱbook,ȱJohannesȱMarböck,ȱ“StructureȱandȱRedactionȱHistoryȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱBenȱ Sira:ȱ Reviewȱ andȱ Prospects”,ȱ pp.ȱ 61Ȭ80.ȱ Also,ȱ Beentjes,ȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Benȱ Siraȱ inȱ Hebrew.ȱ Thisȱ latterȱ workȱ hasȱ publishedȱ allȱ theȱ availableȱ Hebrewȱ texts,ȱ whichȱ willȱ beȱ usedȱ hereȱ asȱ theȱ primaryȱ sourceȱ forȱ myȱ analyses.ȱ Inȱ theȱ followingȱ discussions,ȱ allȱ ciȬ tationsȱareȱtakenȱfromȱthisȱcompilation.ȱ ScholarsȱhaveȱnoticedȱaȱgeneralȱtendencyȱforȱtheȱHebrewȱmanuscriptsȱtoȱbeȱalignedȱ toȱtheȱGreekȱtext,ȱwhichȱfurtherȱcomplicatesȱtheȱissue.ȱ Isaiahȱ Gafni,ȱ “Theȱ Historicalȱ Background”,ȱ inȱ Michaelȱ E.ȱ Stoneȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Jewishȱ WritingsȱofȱtheȱSecondȱTempleȱPeriod:ȱTheȱLiteratureȱofȱtheȱJewishȱPeopleȱinȱtheȱPeriodȱofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ andȱ theȱ Talmudȱ (CRINTȱ Sectionȱ 2,ȱ 2ȱ vols.;ȱ Assen:ȱ Vanȱ Gorcum,ȱ 1984),ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ pp.ȱ 1Ȭ31ȱ (2Ȭ7).ȱ Seeȱ Lesterȱ Grabbe,ȱ Judaicȱ Religionȱ inȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Period:ȱBeliefȱandȱPracticeȱfromȱtheȱExileȱtoȱYavnehȱ(London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2000),ȱpp.ȱ33Ȭ 35;ȱandȱPaoloȱSacchi,ȱTheȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱSecondȱTempleȱPeriodȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ285;ȱSheffield:ȱ SheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ2000),ȱpp.ȱ215Ȭ21.ȱȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

137ȱ

alreadyȱ consolidated,ȱ andȱ aȱ newȱ Jewishȱ identityȱ hadȱ begunȱ toȱ form.ȱ Thisȱ communityȱ hadȱ aȱ stongȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ needȱ forȱ undividedȱ allegianceȱtoȱtheȱYahwehȱcultȱandȱtheȱTemple,ȱalthoughȱthereȱisȱsilenceȱ aboutȱtheȱotherȱissueȱwhichȱhadȱconvulsedȱtheȱoriginalȱcommunityȱofȱ Returnȱ –ȱ thatȱ ofȱ intermarriage.5ȱ Otherȱ historicalȱ echoesȱ areȱ sometimesȱ detectedȱ inȱ theȱ book:ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ wasȱ writingȱ duringȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ theȱ SyrianȱWarsȱandȱthereȱmayȱbeȱsomeȱanxietiesȱaboutȱthisȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱ laterȱpartȱofȱtheȱwork,ȱbutȱtheyȱareȱfarȱfromȱobvious.6ȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ grandson,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ livedȱ inȱ aȱ periodȱ betterȱ knownȱ toȱ us.ȱ Heȱ wouldȱ haveȱ experiencedȱ inȱ hisȱ lifetimeȱ theȱ afterȬ effectsȱ ofȱ theȱ corruptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Highȱ Priests;ȱ theȱ persecutionsȱ byȱ theȱ newȱ Seleucidȱ rulers,ȱ andȱ others;7ȱ theȱ disputesȱ overȱ apostasyȱ (1ȱ Maccȱ 14);8ȱ andȱ theȱ victoriesȱ ofȱ theȱ Hasmoneans.9ȱ Itȱ wasȱ duringȱ theseȱ timesȱ thatȱHellenismȱbecameȱtheȱpredominantȱculture,ȱatȱleastȱamongȱcertainȱ strataȱ ofȱ theȱ community.10ȱ Theȱ proȬHasmoneanȱ booksȱ ofȱ Maccabeesȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱ

Cohen,ȱ Beginningsȱ ofȱ Jewishness,ȱ p.ȱ 245ȱ n.ȱ 12.ȱ Louisȱ H.ȱ Feldmanȱ estimatesȱ thatȱ theȱ incidenceȱofȱintermarriageȱwasȱlow,ȱinȱJewȱandȱGentileȱinȱtheȱAncientȱWorld:ȱAttitudesȱ andȱ Interactionsȱ fromȱ Alexanderȱ toȱ Justinianȱ (Princeton,ȱ Newȱ Jersey:ȱ Princetonȱ UniȬ versityȱ Press,ȱ 1993),ȱ p.ȱ 79.ȱ Theȱ literatureȱ ofȱ thatȱ timeȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ concernedȱ withȱtheȱJudaisingȱofȱgroupsȱwhoȱareȱinȱsomeȱwayȱrelatedȱbyȱJewishȱancestry,ȱthanȱ withȱintermarriageȱperȱse.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱbestȱexamplesȱisȱprobablyȱtheȱstoryȱofȱJosephȱ andȱ Aseneth,ȱ writtenȱ beforeȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ 115ȱ CE,ȱ defendingȱ theȱ notionȱ thatȱ JoȬ seph’sȱEgyptianȱwife,ȱAsenethȱwasȱconvertedȱintoȱJudaismȱbeforeȱsheȱwasȱmarried.ȱ SheȱforsookȱherȱformerȱwayȱofȱlifeȱandȱadoptedȱJudaism.ȱSeeȱRandallȱD.ȱChesnutt,ȱ “JosephȱandȱAseneth”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIII,ȱpp.ȱ969Ȭ71.ȱAlso,ȱseeȱDoronȱMendels,ȱTheȱLandȱ ofȱ Israelȱ asȱ aȱ Politicalȱ Conceptȱ inȱ Hasmoneanȱ Literature:ȱ Recourseȱ toȱ Historyȱ inȱ Secondȱ CenturyȱB.C.ȱClaimsȱtoȱtheȱHolyȱLandȱ(TSAJ,ȱ15;ȱTübingen:ȱMohr,ȱ1987),ȱp.ȱ56;ȱwhereȱ heȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Judithȱ andȱ theȱ Judaisingȱ ofȱ Anchior,ȱ theȱ Ammonite.ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ intermarriage,ȱ weȱ onlyȱ findȱ Tobȱ 4:12ȱ encouragingȱ enȬ dogamy;ȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ literatureȱ ofȱ thatȱ periodȱ doesȱ notȱ mentionȱ theȱ subject.ȱ Sirȱ 26:19ȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱbelow.ȱ 6ȱ Jamesȱ K.ȱ Aitken,ȱ “Biblicalȱ Interpretationȱ asȱ Politicalȱ Manifesto:ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ inȱ hisȱ SeȬ leucidȱSetting”,ȱJJSȱ51ȱ(2000),ȱpp.ȱ191Ȭ208.ȱ 7ȱ UrielȱRappaport,ȱ“MaccabeanȱRevolt”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ433Ȭ39.ȱȱ 8ȱ Johnȱ M.ȱ Barclay,ȱ “Whoȱ wasȱ consideredȱ anȱ apostateȱ inȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Diaspora?”ȱ inȱ GrahamȱStantonȱandȱG.S.ȱStroumsaȱ(eds.),ȱToleranceȱandȱIntoleranceȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ andȱChristianityȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱpp.ȱ80Ȭ97.ȱHeȱcauȬ tionsȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱ “apostasy”ȱ isȱ aȱ relativeȱ one.ȱ Alsoȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ volume,ȱ Danielȱ Schwartz,ȱ“TheȱOtherȱinȱ1ȱandȱ2ȱMaccabees”,ȱpp.ȱ30Ȭ37.ȱSeeȱalsoȱJ.M.ȱBarclay,ȱJewsȱ inȱ theȱ Mediterraneanȱ Diaspora:ȱ fromȱ Alexanderȱ toȱ Trajanȱ (323ȱ BCEȱ Ȭȱ 117ȱ CE)ȱ (EdinȬ burgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1996),ȱpp.ȱ37Ȭ53.ȱ 9ȱ Tessaȱ Rajak,ȱ “Hasmoneanȱ Dynasty”,ȱ ABDȱ vol.ȱ III,ȱ pp.ȱ 67Ȭ76;ȱ andȱ Jonathanȱ GoldȬ stein,ȱ“TheȱHasmoneanȱrevoltȱandȱtheȱHasmoneanȱdynasty”,ȱinȱCambridgeȱHistoryȱofȱ Judaismȱ(3ȱvols.;ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ292Ȭ351.ȱ 10ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ Hellenisation,ȱ Martinȱ Hengel,ȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Hellenismȱ (trans.ȱ J.ȱ Bowden;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1975);ȱ andȱ reviewȱ byȱ Collins,ȱ inȱ RelSRevȱ15ȱ(1989),ȱpp.ȱ226Ȭ28.ȱForȱaȱbriefȱsynopsis,ȱHansȱDieterȱBetz,ȱ“Hellenism”,ȱ ABDȱ vol.ȱ III,ȱ pp.ȱ 127Ȭ35;ȱ and,ȱ Grabbe,ȱ Judaismȱ fromȱ Cyrusȱ toȱ Hadrianȱ (Minneapolis:ȱ

138ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

seemȱ toȱ perceiveȱ thisȱ cultureȱ inȱ polarityȱ toȱ theȱ Jewishȱ faith,ȱ butȱ thereȱ wereȱ othersȱ whoȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ separateȱ theirȱ Jewishȱ identityȱandȱfaithȱfromȱHellenisticȱcultureȱwithoutȱentirelyȱrejectingȱtheȱ latter.ȱ Inevitably,ȱ theȱ issuesȱ whichȱ wereȱ ofȱ utmostȱ concernȱ forȱ theȱ grandsonȱwereȱdifferentȱfromȱthoseȱwhichȱBenȱSiraȱhimselfȱfaced,ȱandȱ theȱdifferentȱtimesȱandȱlocationsȱinȱwhichȱtheȱHebrewȱandȱGreekȱverȬ sionsȱ wereȱ createdȱ meanȱ thatȱ eachȱ wasȱ addressedȱ toȱ aȱ veryȱ differentȱ audience.11ȱ Weȱ shallȱ nowȱ proceedȱ toȱ examineȱ firstȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ textsȱ whereȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱseemsȱtoȱappear,ȱandȱthenȱtheȱGreekȱbelow.ȱ

6.1.2ȱTheȱHebrewȱTextsȱofȱ41:20Ȭ21ȱandȱ9:3ȱ Asȱ mentionedȱ earlier,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ directȱ referenceȱ toȱ “foreignȱ woman“ȱ inȱtheȱtextsȱofȱBenȱSira.ȱHowever,ȱthereȱareȱtwoȱoccurrencesȱofȱʤʸʦȱinȱ9:3ȱ andȱ41:20Ȭ21.ȱTheȱprincipalȱtextualȱwitnessesȱtoȱ41:20Ȭ21ȱmayȱbeȱtransȬ latedȱasȱfollows:12ȱ ȱ MsȱBȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ(XIȱr.)ȱ Mȱ ʤʰʮ[…]ʬ[…..] ʹʧʮ ʤʰʮ ʺ{ʷ}ʬʧʮ ʺʥʹ{ʧ}ʮ ʹʩʸʧ{ʤ}ʮ ʭʥʬʹ ʬ[.. ..]ȱ ʹʩʸʧʤ ʭʥʬʹ ʬʠʹʮʥ […˚…]ʨʩʡʤʮ ʤʹʠ [……]ʨʩʡʤʮ ʤʸʦ ʬʠ ʯʰʥʡʺʤʮʥȱ [.˚. ...] ʬ[…]ʷ[.] ʤʮʥ ʤʸ[.]ȱ Tableȱ6.1:ȱMssȱBȱandȱMȱofȱ41:20Ȭ21ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ AugsburgȱPress,ȱ1992),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ147Ȭ70.ȱAlso,ȱJ.J.ȱCollins,ȱ“CultȱandȱCulture:ȱTheȱ Limitsȱ ofȱ Hellenisationȱ inȱ Judea”,ȱ inȱ Collinsȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ E.ȱ Sterlingȱ (eds.),ȱ HelȬ lenismȱ inȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ (CJAS,ȱ 13;ȱ Indiana,ȱ Notreȱ Dame:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Notreȱ Dame,ȱ 2001),ȱ pp.ȱ 38Ȭ61;ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ book,ȱ Shayeȱ Cohen,ȱ “Hellenismȱ inȱ UnȬ expectedȱPlaces”,ȱpp.ȱ218Ȭ45.ȱ 11ȱ Theȱ grandsonȱ saysȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ migratedȱ toȱ Alexandriaȱ andȱ forȱ whateverȱ reasonsȱ whichȱ areȱ unknownȱ toȱ us,ȱ hisȱ newȱ contextȱ mustȱ alsoȱ haveȱ anȱ impactȱ onȱ howȱ heȱ perceivesȱhisȱnewȱworld.ȱTheȱgrandsonȱwroteȱtheȱprologueȱduringȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱ Hasmoneanȱdynasty,ȱwhenȱJohnȱHyrcanusȱwasȱtheȱrulerȱ(135Ȭ104ȱBCE).ȱUnderȱhisȱ reign,ȱ Samariaȱ wasȱ totallyȱ destroyedȱ andȱ herȱ peopleȱ enslavedȱ (Ant.ȱ 13.275Ȭ83;ȱ JWȱ 1.66),ȱandȱtheȱIdumeansȱjudaisedȱonȱaccountȱthatȱtheyȱandȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱbrothersȱ (Ant.ȱ 13.9.1ȱ §257;ȱ JWȱ 1.63).ȱ G.E.ȱ Sterling,ȱ “Judaismȱ betweenȱ Jerusalemȱ andȱ AlexȬ andria”ȱinȱJ.J.ȱCollinsȱandȱSterlingȱ(eds.),ȱHellenismȱinȱtheȱLandȱofȱIsrael,ȱpp.ȱ265Ȭ303.ȱȱ 12ȱ Thisȱ readingȱ isȱ attestedȱ byȱ combiningȱ theȱ readingȱ ofȱ Msȱ Bȱ (datedȱ twelfthȱ centuryȱ CE)ȱandȱMsȱMȱ(datedȱfirstȱcenturyȱBCE).ȱMsȱBȱisȱfragmentaryȱforȱthisȱpassageȱandȱ theȱ lastȱ twoȱ linesȱ areȱ missing;ȱ seeȱ Beentjes,ȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Benȱ Siraȱ inȱ Hebrew,ȱ pp.ȱ 72,ȱ 165.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ theȱ recto,ȱ itȱ retainsȱ ʤʹʠȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ line,ȱ whichȱ Msȱ Mȱ loses.ȱ Diȱ Lellaȱ reconstructsȱtheȱthirdȱandȱtheȱlastȱlineȱasȱ“m¾habî[t.]ȱȱ’e[lȱ’¾šetȱ’îš]”,ȱthatȱis,ȱ“ofȱgazingȱ atȱaȱman’sȱwife“ȱfromȱG;ȱseeȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ479.ȱHowever,ȱasȱtheȱreadingȱ shows,ȱthisȱemendationȱcanȱbeȱmisleading.ȱȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

139ȱ

TheȱcontinuingȱlinesȱareȱinȱM:ȱȱ ȱ ʪʬȱʤ[…] ʷʹʲʺʲȱʤʮȱȱȱȱ ʤʩʲʶʩ ʬʲ ʭʮʥʷʺ ʤʮʥ ȱ Defraudingȱtheȱshareȱwhichȱisȱnotȱyoursȱ Andȱsilenceȱwhenȱgreetedȱ Fromȱgazingȱ…ȱwomanȱ

Andȱlookingȱatȱtheȱʤʸʦȱ Whyȱdoȱyouȱdoȱviolenceȱ[…]ȱyours?ȱ Whyȱdoȱyouȱriseȱagainstȱherȱbed?ȱ

ȱ DiȱLellaȱtakesȱtheȱreferenceȱofȱʤʸʦȱtoȱbeȱtoȱ“anotherȱwoman“,ȱrenderingȱ itȱ asȱ equivalentȱ toȱ theȱ otherȱ occurrenceȱ inȱ 9:3ȱ (seeȱ below)ȱ andȱ underȬ standingȱthemȱasȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.13ȱTheȱ contextȱofȱ41:14Ȭ42:8ȱcontrastsȱwhatȱisȱfalseȱ(41:16Ȭ42:1)ȱwithȱtrueȱshameȱ (42:2Ȭ8).ȱ Theȱ fragmentaryȱ conditionȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ lineȱ inȱ v.ȱ 21ȱ makesȱ itȱ difficultȱ toȱ ascertainȱ theȱ meaning,ȱ butȱ weȱ areȱ certainȱ ofȱ theȱ contentȱ inȱ theȱ linesȱ whichȱ follow.ȱ Theyȱ allȱ concernȱ thingsȱ whichȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ doneȱtoȱaȱwoman.ȱSpecificallyȱforȱtheȱlastȱlineȱofȱv.ȱ21,ȱoneȱshouldȱnotȱ lookȱatȱtheȱʤʸʦ.ȱ Asȱforȱtheȱunitȱ9:3,ȱanotherȱbicolonȱisȱadded,ȱwhichȱisȱomittedȱinȱtheȱ 14ȱ Greekȱtext. ȱ ʟ ʤʩʺʣʥʶʮʡ ʬʥʴʺ ʯʴ /ȱȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ ʬʠ ʡʸʷʺ ʬʠȱ ʟʤʩʺʥʷʬʡ ʣʫʬʺ ʯʴ ʣʩʩʺʱʺʚʬʠ ʤʰʥʦ ʭ[.].ȱ Doȱnotȱgoȱnearȱtheȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ,ȱȱ lestȱyouȱfallȱintoȱherȱsnares.ȱ …ȱdoȱnotȱflirtȱwithȱtheȱprostitute,ȱȱ lestȱyouȱbeȱseizedȱintoȱherȱpunishment.15ȱ

Sirȱ 9:1ȱ beginsȱ withȱ aȱ warningȱ againstȱ findingȱ faultȱ withȱ one’sȱ wifeȱ whenȱsheȱhasȱbeenȱsensible.ȱThenȱBenȱSiraȱcontinuesȱwithȱanotherȱwarȬ ningȱnotȱtoȱletȱone’sȱwifeȱorȱwomenȱruleȱone’sȱlife,ȱfollowedȱbyȱtheȱlistȱ ofȱwomenȱtoȱavoidȱinȱ9:1Ȭ9.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱ SkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱpp.ȱ479,ȱ481.ȱ 14ȱ 9:1Ȭ9ȱ isȱ onlyȱ extantȱ inȱ Msȱ Aȱ (datedȱ eleventhȱ centuryȱ CE);ȱ seeȱ Beentjes,ȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Benȱ Siraȱ inȱ Hebrew,ȱ p.ȱ 33.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ omittedȱ theȱ pointingȱ inȱ thisȱ citation.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ someȱ versesȱ inȱ theȱ Cairoȱ Mssȱ whichȱ haveȱ vowelȬpointsȱ andȱ accents,ȱ seeȱ Diȱ Lella,ȱ Theȱ Hebrewȱ Textȱ ofȱ Sirach:ȱ Aȱ TextȬCriticalȱ andȱ Historicalȱ Studyȱ (Studiesȱ inȱ Classicalȱ LiȬ terature,ȱ1;ȱLondon,ȱParis:ȱMouton,ȱ1966),ȱp.ȱ97.ȱ 15ȱ TheȱwordȱʤʩʺʥʷʬȱisȱinterestingȱasȱitȱisȱnotȱaȱHebrewȱword,ȱbutȱanȱAramaicȱword.ȱItsȱ rootȱformȱisȱʠʺʥʷʬ,ȱwhichȱmeans,ȱ“1.ȱPunishment;ȱ2.ȱDiseaseȱorȱdefect.”ȱSeeȱMarcusȱ Jastrow,ȱAȱDictionaryȱofȱtheȱTargumim,ȱtheȱTalmudȱBabliȱandȱYerushalmi,ȱandȱtheȱMidȬ rashicȱLiteratureȱ(2ȱvols.;ȱNewȱYork:ȱPardesȱPublishingȱHouse,ȱ1950),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ717.ȱ

140ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

Sirȱ9:1Ȭ916ȱ 1ȱBeȱnotȱjealousȱofȱtheȱwifeȱofȱyourȱbosom,ȱ lestȱyouȱteachȱherȱtoȱdoȱevilȱagainstȱyou.ȱ 2ȱGiveȱnoȱwomanȱpowerȱoverȱyouȱ toȱtrampleȱuponȱyourȱdignity.ȱ 3ȱDoȱnotȱgoȱnearȱaȱstrangeȱwomanȱ(ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ),ȱ lestȱyouȱfallȱintoȱherȱsnares.ȱ 4ȱDoȱnotȱdallyȱwithȱaȱsingingȱgirl,ȱ lestȱyouȱbeȱcaptivatedȱbyȱherȱcharms.ȱ 5ȱEntertainȱnoȱthoughtsȱaboutȱaȱvirgin,ȱ lestȱyouȱbeȱenmeshedȱinȱdamagesȱforȱher.ȱ 6ȱGiveȱnotȱyourselfȱtoȱprostitutes,ȱ lestȱyouȱsurrenderȱyourȱinheritance.ȱ 7ȱGazeȱnotȱaboutȱtheȱlanesȱofȱtheȱcityȱ andȱwanderȱnotȱthroughȱitsȱsquares;ȱ 8ȱAvertȱyourȱeyesȱfromȱaȱcomelyȱwoman;ȱ gazeȱnotȱuponȱbeautyȱthatȱisȱnotȱforȱyouȱ–ȱ Throughȱwoman’sȱbeautyȱmanyȱhaveȱperished,ȱ andȱloveȱforȱitȱburnsȱlikeȱfire.ȱ 9ȱWithȱaȱmarriedȱwomanȱreclineȱnotȱatȱtableȱ norȱdrinkȱintoxicantsȱwithȱher,ȱ Lestȱyourȱheartȱinclineȱtowardȱherȱ andȱyouȱdeclineȱinȱbloodȱtoȱtheȱgrave.ȱ

ȱ Theȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱappearsȱinȱ9:3,ȱasȱoneȱofȱthese.ȱWhileȱsomeȱhaveȱsplitȱvv.ȱ1Ȭ 2ȱfromȱvv.ȱ3Ȭ9,ȱDiȱLellaȱmayȱbeȱrightȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱwholeȱsectionȱasȱ aȱsingleȱunit.17ȱTheȱconcernȱofȱtheȱunit,ȱhowever,ȱisȱmaleȱpassion,ȱratherȱ thanȱfemale.ȱTheȱopeningȱverseȱisȱaboutȱtheȱjealousȱstateȱofȱaȱhusbandȱ whichȱmayȱarouseȱwickedness.ȱThisȱisȱfollowedȱbyȱaȱwarningȱthatȱtheȱ manȱshouldȱnotȱletȱhimselfȱbeȱruledȱbyȱaȱwomanȱthroughȱhisȱpassions.ȱ Theȱlistȱofȱpossibleȱwomenȱwhoȱcouldȱ“rule“ȱhimȱthroughȱhisȱpassionsȱ orȱ lustȱ embracesȱallȱ kinds:ȱ theȱ ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱ (v.ȱ 3);ȱ prostitutesȱ (ʤʰʥʦ,ȱ vv.ȱ3,ȱ 6);ȱ theȱsingingȱgirlȱ(ʺʰʩʢʰʮ,ȱv.ȱ4);ȱtheȱvirginȱ(ʤʬʥʺʡ,ȱv.ȱ5);ȱtheȱgracefulȱwomanȱ (ʯʧ ʺʹʠʮ,ȱ v.ȱ 8);ȱ andȱ theȱ beautifulȱ womanȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ subject (ʪʠ ʠʬ ʩʴʩ,ȱ v.ȱ 8).ȱ Thusȱ theȱ listȱ rangesȱ fromȱ theȱ innocentȱ toȱ theȱ immodest,ȱstartingȱfromȱone’sȱownȱwifeȱ(v.ȱ2)ȱandȱconcludingȱwithȱoneȱ whoȱisȱexplicitlyȱnotȱ(v.ȱ8).ȱTheȱmainȱpointȱofȱtheȱteachingȱthen,ȱisȱtheȱ controlȱofȱone’sȱpassion.18ȱAllȱtheseȱwomenȱhaveȱtheȱinherentȱabilityȱtoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 16ȱ CitedȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ215.ȱ 17ȱ SkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱpp.ȱ218Ȭ19.ȱ 18ȱ Thisȱ interpretationȱ concursȱ withȱ Mauriceȱ Gilbert,ȱ “Benȱ Siraȱ etȱ laȱ femme”,ȱ RTLȱ 7ȱ (1976),ȱpp.ȱ426Ȭ42ȱ(431Ȭ32).ȱGilbertȱarguesȱagainstȱWarrenȱC.ȱTrenchard’sȱamplifyingȱ ofȱtheȱmisogynyȱofȱBenȱSiraȱwithȱthisȱlistȱofȱwomenȱhere,ȱsayingȱthatȱBenȱSiraȱwasȱ addressingȱ theȱ weaknessȱ ofȱ menȱ andȱ notȱ condemningȱ theseȱ women.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ W.ȱ Trenchard,ȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ Viewȱ ofȱ Women:ȱ Aȱ Literaryȱ Analysisȱ (BJ,ȱ 38;ȱ Chico,ȱ California:ȱ ScholarsȱPress,ȱ1982).ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

141ȱ

stealȱaȱman’sȱheartȱandȱmind,ȱifȱheȱallowsȱthemȱto.ȱTheȱmanȱshouldȱnot,ȱ therefore,ȱbeȱoverȬjealousȱofȱhisȱsensibleȱwife,ȱandȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱheȱ shouldȱ avoidȱ theseȱ otherȱ women.ȱ Theȱ unitȱ teachesȱ selfȬcontrol,ȱ moȬ destyȱandȱdisciplineȱinȱone’sȱdealingsȱwithȱwomen.ȱ Havingȱgraspedȱtheȱintentionȱofȱthisȱunit,ȱtheȱquestionȱarisesȱasȱtoȱ whyȱtheȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ isȱincludedȱinȱtheȱlist,ȱindeed,ȱincludedȱatȱtheȱveryȱstartȱ ofȱit.ȱDoesȱtheȱorderingȱimplyȱanȱintentionȱtoȱclassifyȱallȱtheseȱwomenȱ asȱtypesȱofȱtheȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ,ȱorȱhasȱBenȱSiraȱinȱmindȱspecificallyȱtheȱmotifȱofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ fromȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9?ȱ Fromȱ 41:21,ȱ weȱ canȱ onlyȱ conȬ cludeȱ thatȱ theȱ ʤʸʦȱ isȱ someoneȱ whoȱ mustȱ beȱ avoided,ȱ andȱ thatȱ asȬ sociationȱwithȱherȱbringsȱshame.ȱInȱ9:3,ȱBenȱSiraȱonlyȱwarnsȱofȱherȱtrap.ȱ Theȱchoiceȱofȱtheȱwordȱforȱtrap,ȱʤʩʺʣʥʶʮȱisȱveryȱinteresting.ȱThisȱnounȱisȱ notȱusedȱforȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbs,19ȱbutȱweȱdoȱfindȱitȱinȱEcclȱ 7:26,ȱandȱtheȱotherȱsimilarityȱbetweenȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱinȱSirȱ 9:3ȱandȱthatȱverseȱisȱthatȱbothȱtextsȱdoȱnotȱportrayȱtheȱ“foreignness“ȱofȱ theȱmotif.ȱHowever,ȱunlikeȱtheȱobscureȱtextȱofȱEcclȱ7:26ȱwhichȱmightȱbeȱ exploitingȱ theȱ symbolicȱ intentȱ ofȱ theȱ motifȱ asȱ “foolishness“ȱ andȱ “wicȬ kedness“,ȱSirȱ9:3ȱandȱ41:21ȱdoȱnotȱindicateȱanyȱsuchȱsymbolicȱorȱmetaȬ phoricalȱintent.ȱTheyȱareȱeachȱpracticalȱadviceȱforȱeverydayȱliving.ȱȱ Iȱ thinkȱ Sirȱ 9:6Ȭ9ȱ givesȱ furtherȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ Benȱ Siraȱ interpretsȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ asȱ representingȱ aȱ badȱ seductiveȱ woman,ȱ likeȱaȱprostitute.ȱAlthoughȱsheȱisȱnotȱmentionedȱexplicitly,ȱtheȱlanguageȱ usedȱ ofȱ theseȱ womenȱ resemblesȱ thatȱ usedȱ elsewhereȱ forȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱIȱhaveȱonlyȱcitedȱ9:6Ȭ7ȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱasȱtheyȱdifferȱfromȱtheȱ Greekȱ text,ȱ andȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ passageȱ isȱ almostȱ consonantȱ withȱtheȱGreek.ȱ ȱȱ Sirȱ9:6Ȭ7ȱ ʟʪʺʬʧʰ ʺʠ /ȱʡʥʱʺ ʯʴ ʪʹʴʰ ʤʰʦʦʬ ʯʺʺ ʬʠ ʟʤʺʩʡ ʸʧʠ ʭʮʥʹʬʥ ʪʩʰʩʲ ʤʠʸʮʡ ʬʡʰʺʤʬ ȱ ȱ Doȱnotȱgiveȱtoȱtheȱprostituteȱyourȱlife,ȱȱ lestȱyouȱspendȱaway20ȱyourȱinheritance,ȱ Toȱbeȱdisgraced21ȱinȱtheȱsightȱofȱyourȱeyesȱȱ andȱtoȱbeȱdeserted22ȱbehindȱherȱhouse.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 19ȱ TheȱqalȱimperfectȱofȱtheȱrelatedȱverbȱisȱusedȱinȱProvȱ6:26ȱofȱtheȱadulteress.ȱ 20ȱ Iȱdoubtȱʡʥʱʺȱshouldȱbeȱemendedȱtoȱʡʱʺȱasȱinȱ“surrender“,ȱwhichȱisȱrecommendedȱbyȱ SkehanȱandȱDiȱLellaȱ(p.ȱ218),ȱbutȱweȱshouldȱunderstandȱitȱasȱAramaic,ȱmeaningȱ“toȱ blowȱ away”;ȱ Jastrow,ȱ Aȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ theȱ Targumim,ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ p.ȱ 938.ȱ Alsoȱ seeȱ APOT,ȱ vol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ346.ȱ 21ȱ ʬʡʰʺʤȱisȱtheȱHithpaelȱofȱʬʡʰ,ȱmeaningȱ“toȱbeȱdefaced,ȱdegraded,ȱdisgraced”:ȱJastrow,ȱ vol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ869.ȱ 22ȱ ʭʮʥʹȱhasȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ“destroyed,ȱdeserted,ȱruined”;ȱJastrow,ȱAȱDictionaryȱofȱtheȱ Targumim,ȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ1597.ȱȱȱ

142ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

Hereȱ isȱ aȱ warningȱ againstȱ goingȱ toȱ aȱ prostitute;ȱ theȱ dangerȱ thatȱ oneȱ mayȱ loseȱ one’sȱ lifeȱ andȱ inheritanceȱ isȱ expressedȱ inȱ 9:6.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ difȬ ficultiesȱinȱinterpretingȱ9:7,ȱasȱmostȱcommentatorsȱagree,23ȱbutȱtheȱemȬ phasisȱofȱtheȱverseȱisȱclearlyȱonȱtheȱconsequenceȱofȱbeingȱdisgraced.ȱInȱ Proverbs,ȱ theȱ prostituteȱ isȱ notȱ portrayedȱ asȱ costingȱ muchȱ “aȱ loafȱ ofȱ bread“,ȱinȱcomparisonȱwithȱtheȱadulteress,ȱ“one’sȱlife“ȱ(Provȱ6:27).ȱBenȱ Sira,ȱhowever,ȱwarnsȱofȱtheȱpotentialȱdangerȱofȱlosingȱone’sȱinheritanceȱ toȱ her.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ heȱ alsoȱ portraysȱ theȱ prostituteȱ asȱ despisingȱ herȱ client,ȱprobablyȱafterȱheȱhasȱspentȱallȱhisȱfortuneȱonȱher.ȱTheȱlanguageȱ inȱ9:6Ȭ7ȱresemblesȱtheȱwarningsȱinȱProvȱ5ȱagainstȱtheȱForeignȱWoman:ȱ theȱ dangerȱ ofȱ approachingȱ herȱ houseȱ (Provȱ 5:8),ȱ losingȱ one’sȱ inȬ heritanceȱ (Provȱ 5:9Ȭ10)ȱ andȱ aȱ wastedȱ lifeȱ(Provȱ5:11).ȱ Interestingly,ȱ theȱ warningȱagainstȱregardingȱtheȱbeautyȱofȱaȱwomanȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱbelongȱ toȱoneȱinȱSirȱ9:8ȱremindsȱoneȱofȱProvȱ6:25;ȱandȱtheȱwarningȱofȱtheȱconȬ sequenceȱthatȱone’sȱbloodȱwillȱdescendȱtoȱtheȱpitȱinȱSirȱ9:9,ȱrecallsȱtheȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ wordȱ forȱ pit,ȱ ʤʧʥʹȱisȱtheȱsameȱasȱProvȱ22:14ȱandȱ23:27.24ȱ TheȱaboveȱpointsȱindicateȱthatȱBenȱSiraȱreȬinterpretsȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ asȱ aȱ realȱ figure.ȱ Theȱ useȱ ofȱ ʤʸʦȱ inȱ 9:3ȱ isȱ intendedȱ toȱ recallȱtheȱmotif,ȱbutȱheȱreȬappliesȱitȱtoȱtheȱkindsȱofȱwomenȱoneȱmeetsȱinȱ everydayȱ lifeȱ (9:1Ȭ11).ȱ Toȱ him,ȱ theȱ endȱ resultsȱ ofȱ beingȱ involvedȱ withȱ theseȱ womenȱ areȱ theȱ sameȱ asȱ withȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ –ȱ lossȱ ofȱ inȬ heritanceȱasȱwellȱasȱone’sȱlife.ȱȱ Benȱ Siraȱ isȱalsoȱ notȱ concernedȱ withȱ theȱ symbolicȱ meaningȱ ofȱ “forȬ eignness“ȱinȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱInȱfact,ȱheȱisȱnotȱoverlyȱ concernedȱatȱallȱaboutȱ“foreigners“ȱinȱhisȱwork.ȱThisȱisȱevidentȱinȱthatȱ heȱonlyȱusesȱʩʸʫʰȱthreeȱtimesȱ(Sirȱ10:22ȱ[MssȱA,ȱB];ȱ36:3ȱ[MsȱB];ȱ49:5ȱ[Msȱ 25ȱ B]). ȱ Sirȱ10:22ȱ Sojournerȱ(ʸʢ)ȱandȱstrangerȱ(ʸʦ),ȱalienȱ(ʩʸʫʰ)ȱandȱpoorȱmanȱ(ʹʸ)–ȱ theirȱgloryȱisȱtheȱfearȱofȱGod.ȱ ȱ Sirȱ36:3ȱ ShakeȱThyȱhandȱagainstȱtheȱstrangeȱpeopleȱ(ʸʫʰ)ȱ AndȱletȱthemȱseeȱThyȱpowerȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 23ȱ SeeȱAPOTȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ346.ȱApparently,ȱonlyȱtheȱVulgateȱhasȱretainedȱtheȱessenceȱofȱtheȱ textȱandȱCharlesȱhasȱtranslatedȱfromȱtheȱVulgateȱas,ȱ“toȱbeȱtreatedȱwithȱcontumelyȱ inȱtheȱsightȱofȱthineȱeyesȱandȱtoȱbeȱamazedȱbehindȱherȱhouse”.ȱNoteȱtheȱdifferencesȱ inȱtheȱtranslations.ȱȱ 24ȱ Cf.ȱ5.1.ȱ 25ȱ Forȱtheȱfollowingȱcitations,ȱtheyȱareȱtakenȱfromȱAPOTȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ351,ȱ440,ȱ504,ȱresȬ pectively.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

143ȱ

Sirȱ49:5ȱ Andȱtheirȱmightȱwasȱgivenȱuntoȱothers,ȱ Andȱtheirȱgloryȱtoȱaȱstrangeȱnationȱ(ʩʸʫʰ)ȱ

ȱ Weȱ findȱ inȱ theȱ chaptersȱ onȱ theȱ praiseȱ ofȱ theȱ fathers,ȱ whenȱ heȱ hasȱ theȱ opportunityȱtoȱblameȱtheȱforeignȱwomenȱforȱapostasyȱinȱtheȱincidentȱinȱ Baalȱ Peorȱ (45:23Ȭ24)ȱ andȱ forȱ Solomon’sȱ sinsȱ (47:19Ȭ20;ȱ seeȱ below),ȱ heȱ doesȱnot.ȱȱ ȱ Sirȱ45:23Ȭ24ȱ 23ȱPhinehasȱsonȱofȱEleazarȱranksȱthirdȱinȱgloryȱȱ forȱbeingȱzealousȱinȱtheȱfearȱofȱtheȱLord,ȱȱ andȱstandingȱfirm,ȱwhenȱtheȱpeopleȱturnedȱaway,ȱȱ inȱtheȱnobleȱcourageȱofȱhisȱsoul;ȱandȱheȱmadeȱatonementȱforȱIsrael.ȱ 24ȱThereforeȱaȱcovenantȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱestablishedȱwithȱhim,ȱȱ thatȱheȱshouldȱbeȱleaderȱofȱtheȱsanctuaryȱandȱofȱhisȱpeople,ȱȱ thatȱheȱandȱhisȱdescendantsȱshouldȱhaveȱtheȱdignityȱofȱtheȱpriesthoodȱforȬ ever.ȱ

ȱ Theȱforeignerȱinȱ49:5ȱisȱsimplyȱanȱinstrumentȱofȱGod’sȱpunishment.ȱInȱ fact,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ occurrenceȱ ofȱ “foreigner“ȱ inȱ aȱ negativeȱ lightȱ isȱ inȱ 36:3ȱ whereȱ heȱ lamentsȱ andȱ intercedesȱ forȱ God’sȱ interventionȱ toȱ saveȱ Israelȱ fromȱ foreignȱ dominationȱ andȱ toȱ restoreȱ theȱ landȱ (36:1Ȭ22).ȱ There,ȱ heȱ usesȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ nonȬIsraeliteȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ acknowledgeȱ Godȱ 26ȱȱ (36:5)ȱandȱpraysȱforȱhisȱdestruction,ȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱIsrael. ȱ Sirȱ36:3Ȭ5ȱ 3ȱLiftȱupȱyourȱhandȱagainstȱforeignȱnationsȱȱ andȱletȱthemȱseeȱyourȱmight.ȱȱ 4ȱAsȱyouȱhaveȱusedȱusȱtoȱshowȱyourȱholinessȱtoȱthem,ȱȱ soȱuseȱthemȱtoȱshowȱyourȱgloryȱtoȱus.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 26ȱ Thisȱ prayerȱ hasȱ foundȱ itsȱ wayȱ intoȱ theȱ twelfthȱ benedictionȱ ofȱ theȱ Eighteenȱ Benedictionsȱ orȱ theȱ Shemonehȱ Esreh.ȱ Seeȱ Josephȱ Heinemann,ȱ Prayerȱ inȱ theȱ Talmud:ȱ Formsȱ andȱ Patternsȱ (Berlin,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 1977),ȱ pp.ȱ 50Ȭ51;ȱ Kohlerȱ Kaufmann,ȱ“TheȱOriginȱandȱCompositionȱofȱtheȱ18ȱBenedictions”,ȱHUCAȱ1ȱ(1924),ȱ pp.ȱ 387Ȭ425;ȱ Carmineȱ Diȱ Sante,ȱ Jewishȱ Prayer:ȱ Theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ Liturgy,ȱ (trans.ȱ Matthewȱ J.ȱ O’Connell;ȱ Newȱ Jersey:ȱ Paulistȱ Press,ȱ 1991),ȱ pp.ȱ 109Ȭ110.ȱ Also,ȱ Stephanȱ Reif,ȱ “Prayerȱ inȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ Qumranȱ andȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Judaism:ȱ Aȱ ComȬ parativeȱOverview”,ȱinȱRenateȱEggerȬWenzelȱ(ed.),ȱBenȱSira’sȱGod:ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱ Internationalȱ Benȱ Siraȱ Conference,ȱ Durham,ȱ Ushawȱ College,ȱ 2001ȱ (BZAW,ȱ 321;ȱ Berlin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 2001),ȱ p.ȱ 333,ȱ n.ȱ 36.ȱ However,ȱ Solomonȱ Zeitlinȱ doesȱ notȱ thinkȱ thatȱSirȱ36ȱhasȱanythingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱprayer;ȱS.ȱZeitlin,ȱ“ShemonehȱEsreh”,ȱJQRȱ54ȱ (1964),ȱ pp.ȱ 208Ȭ49ȱ (249).ȱ Asȱ toȱ theȱ historicalȱ contextȱ ofȱ thisȱ lament,ȱ commentatorsȱ agreeȱthatȱv.ȱ10ȱrefersȱtoȱaȱspecificȱhostileȱenemy,ȱbutȱcannotȱdecideȱwhetherȱheȱisȱ Antiochusȱ theȱ Great,ȱ Seleucusȱ IV,ȱ orȱ anȱ Egyptianȱ ruler.ȱ APOTȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 441;ȱ andȱ W.O.E.ȱ Oesterley,ȱ Theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ theȱ Sonȱ ofȱ Sirachȱ orȱ Ecclesiasticusȱ (CB;ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1912),ȱ p.ȱ 230.ȱ Onlyȱ Diȱ Lellaȱ vouchesȱ forȱ Antiochusȱ theȱ Great,ȱ whomȱ heȱ believesȱ isȱ arrogantȱ enoughȱ toȱ declareȱ himselfȱ inȬ vincibleȱ(36.12),ȱseeȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ422.ȱ

144ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

5ȱThenȱtheyȱwillȱknow,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱknownȱȱ thatȱthereȱisȱnoȱGodȱbutȱyou,ȱOȱLord.ȱ

ȱ Thisȱsentimentȱisȱinȱkeepingȱwithȱtheȱpropheticȱbooks,ȱwhenȱtheyȱlookȱ towardȱtheȱjudgementȱofȱtheȱnations.ȱInȱaddition,ȱBenȱSiraȱactuallyȱfeelsȱ thatȱtheȱforeignerȱcanȱbeȱhonouredȱlikeȱanȱesteemedȱJewȱasȱlongȱasȱheȱ fearsȱ Godȱ inȱ 10:22ȱ (cf.ȱ 10:19Ȭ24).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ occurrence,ȱ ʸʢ,ȱ ʸʦ,ȱ ʩʸʫʰ,ȱ andȱ ʹʸȱ appearȱ together.ȱ Theseȱ fourȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ peopleȱ apparentlyȱ shareȱ somethingȱinȱcommon:ȱtheyȱareȱwithoutȱrightsȱinȱsomeȱwayȱorȱanotherȱ withȱregardsȱtoȱtheȱland.ȱTheȱresidentȱalien,ȱtheȱstranger,ȱtheȱforeignerȱ (ʸʦȱ andȱ ʩʸʫʰȱ occurringȱ togetherȱ referringȱ toȱ foreigner)ȱ andȱ theȱ imȬ poverishedȱ –ȱ theyȱ areȱ allȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ disadvantagedȱ socially,ȱ economically,ȱandȱpolitically.27ȱThisȱallȱsuggestsȱthatȱBenȱSiraȱdoesȱnotȱ haveȱinȱmindȱconnotationsȱofȱ“foreignness“ȱwhenȱheȱusesȱʤʸʦȱinȱ9:3ȱandȱ 41:21.ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ useȱ ʤʸʦ inȱ contrastȱ withȱ wisdom,ȱ asȱ inȱ Ecclȱ 7:26,ȱ whichȱ mightȱ inferȱ theȱ symbolismȱ ofȱ foolishness,ȱ andȱ forȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ theȱ ʤʸʦȱinȱhisȱworkȱisȱrepresentativeȱofȱtheȱrealȱwomenȱwhoȱareȱseductiveȱinȱ theȱ community,ȱ whetherȱ theyȱ eachȱ beȱ prostitute,ȱ virgin,ȱ singleȱ orȱ married.ȱTheȱreasonȱforȱhisȱgenerousȱdispositionȱtowardsȱforeignersȱinȱ generalȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ pinȬpoint.ȱ Whilstȱ mostȱ scholarsȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱ relativeȱpeaceȱduringȱBenȱSira’sȱlifetimeȱmightȱofferȱaȱgoodȱreasonȱforȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ xenophobia,ȱ thisȱ positionȱ mightȱ needȱ modificationȱ accordingȱ toȱ Jamesȱ Aitken’sȱ hypothesis.28ȱ Inȱ anyȱ case,ȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ apȬ plicationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱimageryȱsolelyȱtoȱtheȱcontextȱofȱnormalȱ maleȬfemaleȱ relationsȱ isȱ noteworthy,ȱ andȱ reminiscentȱ ofȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱweȱhaveȱalreadyȱseenȱtheȱimageryȱappliedȱinȱlaterȱtexts.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 27ȱ A.ȱDiȱLella,ȱ“Sirachȱ10:19Ȭ11:6:ȱTextualȱCriticism,ȱPoeticȱAnalysis,ȱandȱExegesis”,ȱinȱ C.L.ȱ Meyersȱ andȱ M.ȱ Connorȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Wordȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ Shallȱ Goȱ Forth:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ HonorȱofȱDavidȱNoelȱFreedmanȱinȱCelebrationȱofȱHisȱSixtiethȱBirthdayȱ(ASOR,ȱ1;ȱWinonaȱ Lake,ȱIndiana:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1982),ȱpp.ȱ157Ȭ64ȱ(159).ȱInȱaȱway,ȱtheseȱfourȱgroupsȱofȱ peopleȱ areȱ contrastedȱ withȱ theȱ peopleȱ mentionedȱ inȱ v.ȱ 20.ȱ Theȱ subjectȱ isȱ aȱ leaderȱ beingȱhonouredȱamongȱhisȱownȱkinsmenȱandȱcommunity.ȱTheȱsecondȱstichsȱinȱvv.ȱ 20ȱ andȱ 22ȱ emphasiseȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ fearsȱ Godȱ whoȱ isȱ soȱ honoured.ȱ Heȱ continuesȱtoȱexplainȱinȱv.ȱ23ȱthatȱitȱisȱwrongȱtoȱdespiseȱaȱwiseȱbutȱpoorȱmanȱandȱtoȱ honourȱ aȱ violentȱ man,ȱ and,ȱ asȱ aȱ summary,ȱ heȱ concludesȱ inȱ v.ȱ 24ȱ thatȱ whileȱ theȱ prince,ȱjudgeȱandȱrulerȱareȱhonoured,ȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱfearsȱGodȱisȱtheȱgreatest. 28ȱ Aitken,ȱ“BiblicalȱInterpretationȱasȱPoliticalȱManifesto”,ȱpp.ȱ191Ȭ208.ȱHeȱarguesȱthatȱ inȱ Sirȱ 44Ȭ50,ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ isȱ concernedȱ withȱ theȱ politicalȱ situationȱ ofȱ hisȱ nation.ȱ Heȱ elucidatesȱthatȱallȱisȱ notȱ peacefulȱ inȱPalestineȱwithȱtheȱSyrianȱwarsȱwhenȱ manyȱofȱ theirȱsoldiersȱwereȱdeportedȱtoȱEgyptȱtoȱserveȱtheȱforeignȱpowers.ȱNonetheless,ȱheȱ admitsȱthatȱtheȱbookȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱcomposedȱthroughȱaȱlongȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱandȱ notȱallȱtheȱpartsȱofȱtheȱbookȱreflectȱtheȱsameȱsituationȱinȱPalestine.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

145ȱ

6.1.3ȱTheȱGreekȱTextsȱofȱ9:3ȱandȱ41:20Ȭ21ȱ Weȱ haveȱ seenȱ howȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ textsȱ ofȱ Benȱ Siraȱ willȱ notȱ evokeȱ theȱ “foreignness“ȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ motif,ȱ althoughȱ heȱ borrowsȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ it,ȱ andȱ inȱ particular,ȱ choosesȱ theȱ moreȱ flexibleȱ andȱ amȬ biguousȱterm,ȱʤʸʦȱforȱher.ȱWeȱshallȱnowȱstudyȱhowȱBenȱSira’sȱgrandsonȱ ȱtranslatesȱtheȱoccurrencesȱofȱʤʸʦȱinȱ41:20Ȭ21ȱandȱ9:3.ȱ 41:20ȱ Ύ΅ϠȱΦΔϲȱΦΗΔ΅ΊΓΐνΑΝΑȱΔΉΕϠȱΗ΍ΝΔϛΖ,ȱ ΦΔϲȱϳΕΣΗΉΝΖȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱοΘ΅ϟΕ΅Ζȱ ȱ 41:21 Ύ΅ϠȱΦΔϲȱΦΔΓΗΘΕΓΚϛΖȱΔΕΓΗЏΔΓΙȱΗΙ··ΉΑΓІΖȱ,ȱ ΦΔϲȱΦΚ΅΍ΕνΗΉΝΖȱΐΉΕϟΈΓΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΈϱΗΉΝΖȱ Ύ΅ϠȱΦΔϲȱΎ΅Θ΅ΑΓφΗΉΝΖȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱЀΔΣΑΈΕΓΙ, ȱ 41.20ȱ Andȱforȱgreetingȱwithȱsilenceȱ Andȱforȱgazingȱatȱtheȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱοΘ΅ϟΕ΅Ζȱ ȱ 41:21ȱ Andȱforȱturningȱyourȱfaceȱfromȱkinsmenȱ Forȱtakingȱawayȱtheȱappointedȱshareȱandȱgiftȱ Andȱforȱlookingȱatȱaȱmarriedȱwoman.29ȱ

ȱ ThereȱisȱaȱdifferentȱorderingȱofȱtheȱcontentsȱinȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱcomparedȱ withȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ manuscripts.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱlinesȱ aboutȱtheȱʤʹʠȱandȱtheȱʤʸʦ seemȱtoȱbeȱmuchȱtheȱsame.ȱForȱtheȱgrandson,ȱ theȱ ʤʸʦȱ isȱ equivalentȱ toȱ theȱ ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱ οΘ΅ϟΕ΅Ζ,ȱ theȱ courtesan.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ ȱconfirmedȱinȱhisȱtranslationȱofȱ9:3:ȱ ΐχȱЀΔΣΑΘ΅ȱ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϠȱοΘ΅΍Ε΍ΊΓΐνΑϙ,ȱ ΐφΔΓΘΉȱπΐΔνΗϙΖȱΉ΍ΖࡑȱΘΤΖȱΘ΅·ϟΈ΅Ζȱ΅ЁΘϛΖ.ȱ ȱ Doȱnotȱgoȱnearȱtheȱcourtesanȱ(·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϠȱοΘ΅΍Ε΍ΊΓΐνΑϙ),ȱ Lestȱyouȱfallȱintoȱherȱtraps.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ thisȱ occurrence,ȱ theȱ grandsonȱ rendersȱ theȱ ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱ asȱ ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϠȱ οΘ΅΍Ε΍ΊΓΐνΑϙ,ȱ andȱ omitsȱ theȱ secondȱ colonȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ –ȱ perhapsȱ becauseȱ theȱ prostituteȱ isȱ alsoȱ mentionedȱ inȱ v.ȱ 6ȱ andȱ heȱ isȱ avoidingȱ repetition.30ȱ Althoughȱ atȱ oneȱ levelȱ theyȱ merelyȱ interpretȱ theȱ original,ȱ theȱ renderingsȱ ofȱ ʤʸʦȱ andȱ ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠȱ asȱ ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϲΖȱ οΘ΅ϟΕ΅Ζȱ andȱ ·ΙΑ΅΍ΎϠȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 29ȱ Seeȱ theȱ emendationsȱ recommendedȱ byȱ APOTȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ p.ȱ 468;ȱ andȱ Skehanȱ andȱ Diȱ Lella,ȱp.ȱ476.ȱ 30ȱ Itȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱtellȱwhetherȱtheȱgrandsonȱhasȱ9:7ȱasȱinȱMsȱA,ȱandȱcouldȱnotȱmakeȱ senseȱofȱitȱandȱchangesȱtheȱcontentsȱthereof,ȱorȱwhetherȱheȱhasȱaȱdifferentȱtext.ȱȱ

146ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

οΘ΅΍Ε΍ΊΓΐνΑϙȱ respectively,ȱintroduceȱaȱdifferentȱnuanceȱtoȱthatȱofȱBenȱ Sira’sȱoriginal.ȱTheseȱwordsȱareȱonlyȱusedȱhereȱinȱtheȱgrandson’sȱtransȬ lationȱandȱinȱ2ȱMaccȱ6:4,ȱwhereȱοΘ΅ϟΕ΅ȱisȱmentionedȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱ HellenisticȱGentiles.ȱ ȱ 2ȱMaccȱ6:4ȱȱ Forȱ theȱ templeȱ wasȱ filledȱ withȱ debaucheryȱ andȱ revelingȱ byȱ theȱ Gentiles,ȱ whoȱdalliedȱwithȱprostitutesȱ(οΘ΅΍ΕЗΑ)ȱȱ andȱhadȱintercourseȱwithȱwomenȱwithinȱtheȱsacredȱprecincts,ȱȱ andȱbesidesȱbroughtȱinȱthingsȱforȱsacrificeȱthatȱwereȱunfit.ȱ

ȱ TheȱοΘ΅ϟΕ΅΍ȱareȱnotȱtoȱbeȱequatedȱwithȱcommonȱprostitutes,31ȱbutȱwereȱ highȬclassȱ andȱ educated,32ȱ perhapsȱ somewhatȱ closeȱ toȱ theȱ Japaneseȱ geisha.ȱ Theyȱ originatedȱ inȱ Athensȱ andȱ becameȱ popularȱ inȱ theȱ sixthȱ centuryȱBCE.ȱWhenȱAlexandriaȱwasȱfounded,ȱtheȱprofessionȱofȱοΘ΅ϟΕ΅΍ȱ flourishedȱ thereȱ andȱ evenȱ becameȱ aȱ prominentȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ polis.33ȱ Theseȱ courtesansȱ wereȱ knownȱ forȱ theirȱ intelligence,ȱ andȱ accompaniedȱ menȱ inȱ theirȱ socialȱ functionsȱ atȱ partiesȱ andȱ festivities.ȱ Courtesansȱ reȬ servedȱ theȱ rightȱ toȱ chooseȱ theirȱ clientsȱ withȱ care.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ themȱ hadȱ theirȱownȱhouses,ȱandȱentertainedȱtheirȱguestsȱthere.ȱThereȱareȱpoemsȱ aboutȱthem,ȱasȱwellȱasȱsculpturesȱandȱpaintings.34ȱ Theȱ grandson’sȱ locationȱ inȱ Alexandria,ȱ whereȱ courtesansȱ wereȱ theȱ commonplace,ȱ makesȱ thisȱ translationȱ significant.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ courȬ tesansȱwereȱknownȱforȱtheirȱeducationȱandȱintelligence,ȱtheyȱwereȱalsoȱ necessarilyȱassociatedȱwithȱpromiscuityȱandȱextraȬmaritalȱsex.35ȱHence,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱ JohnȱMalowe,ȱTheȱGoldenȱAgeȱofȱAlexandria:ȱfromȱitsȱfoundationȱbyȱAlexanderȱtheȱGreatȱ inȱ331ȱBCȱtoȱitsȱCaptureȱbyȱtheȱArabsȱinȱȱ642ȱADȱ(London:ȱVictorȱGaollancz,ȱ1971),ȱpp.ȱ 126Ȭ29.ȱHeȱmentionsȱtheȱthreeȱclassesȱofȱprostitutesȱinȱtheȱHellenicȱperiod.ȱ 32ȱ Richardȱ Hawley,ȱ “Theȱ Problemȱ ofȱ Womenȱ Philosophersȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Greece”,ȱ inȱ Archer,ȱ Fischerȱ andȱ Wykeȱ (eds.),ȱ Womenȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Societies,ȱ pp.ȱ 70Ȭ87.ȱ Also,ȱ MaȬ rilynȱA.ȱKatz,ȱ“Ideologyȱandȱ“theȱstatusȱofȱwomen”ȱinȱancientȱGreece”,ȱinȱRichardȱ Hawleyȱ andȱ Barbaraȱ Levickȱ (eds.),ȱ Womenȱ inȱ Antiquity:ȱ Newȱ Assessmentsȱ (London:ȱ Routledge,ȱ1995),ȱpp.ȱ21Ȭ43.ȱInȱpartȱofȱherȱessay,ȱsheȱexploresȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱwivesȱ atȱ homeȱ versusȱ theȱ hetairas,ȱ whoȱ seemedȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ popularȱ thanȱ theȱ “proper”ȱ womenȱinȱtheȱhousehold.ȱ 33ȱ ProstitutionȱisȱprevalentȱinȱAlexandria.ȱInȱtheȱlaterȱperiod,ȱrabbisȱwereȱtaughtȱbyȱR.ȱ Nathanȱthat,ȱ“…ofȱtheȱtenȱpartsȱofȱprostitutionȱinȱtheȱworld,ȱnineȱareȱinȱAlexandriaȱ andȱtheȱotherȱinȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱworld”ȱ(EstherȱR.ȱ1.17);ȱseeȱTalȱIlan,ȱJewishȱWomenȱinȱ GrecoȬRomanȱPalestineȱ(Peabody,ȱMassachusetts:ȱHendrickson,ȱ1996),ȱp.ȱ217.ȱ 34ȱ Williamsȱ Dyfri,ȱ “Womenȱ inȱ Athenianȱ Vases:ȱ Problemsȱ ofȱ Interpretation”,ȱ inȱ CaȬ meronȱandȱKuhrtȱ(eds.),ȱImagesȱofȱWomenȱinȱAntiquity,ȱpp.ȱ97Ȭ105.ȱTheȱfloruitȱofȱtheȱ hetairaȱ wasȱ fromȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ sixthȱ century.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ oftenȱ portrayedȱ onȱ expensiveȱvases,ȱaffordableȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱrich.ȱ 35ȱ Thereȱ isȱ aȱ wellȬknownȱ speech,ȱ Againstȱ Neaira,ȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ BCEȱ AthenianȱoratorȱwhichȱisȱquotedȱbyȱDemosthenesȱ(59.122),ȱ“weȱhaveȱcourtesansȱforȱ pleasure,ȱ andȱ concubinesȱ forȱ theȱ dailyȱ serviceȱ ofȱ ourȱ bodies,ȱ butȱ wivesȱ forȱ theȱ productionȱofȱlegitimateȱoffspringȱandȱtoȱhaveȱreliableȱguardiansȱofȱourȱhouseholdȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

147ȱ

throughȱ hisȱ renderingȱ ofȱ ʤʸʦ,ȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ grandsonȱ makesȱ theȱ womanȱ representativeȱofȱanȱinstitutionȱprevalentȱinȱforeign,ȱHellenisticȱculture.ȱ Inȱthisȱway,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱheȱbringsȱtheȱassociationsȱofȱʤʸʦȱbackȱcloserȱtoȱ theȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱfoundȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.36ȱHowever,ȱtheȱ courtesanȱdoesȱnotȱbearȱtheȱfullȱsignificanceȱofȱthatȱmotif.ȱSheȱisȱonlyȱaȱ “foreign“ȱ prostitute,ȱ notȱ aȱ potentialȱ wifeȱ whoȱ canȱ leadȱ Israelitesȱ intoȱ apostasy,ȱ andȱ theȱ textȱ doesȱ notȱ describeȱ theȱ ʤʸʦȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ herȱ seȬ ductiveȱspeech.ȱ Theȱgrandson,ȱunlikeȱBenȱSira,ȱperceivesȱforeignersȱwithȱsomeȱsusȬ picion.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ twoȱ textsȱ toȱ consider:ȱ 10:22ȱ andȱ 47:19Ȭ20.ȱ Whileȱ Benȱ Siraȱ inȱ 10:22ȱ isȱ generousȱ withȱ allȱ foreignersȱ whoȱ mightȱ beȱ willingȱ toȱ embraceȱtheȱfearȱofȱGod,ȱtheȱgrandsonȱchangesȱtheȱwordsȱofȱtheȱtextȱsoȱ thatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱreferȱtoȱforeigners.ȱ ȱ 10:22ȱ ΔΏΓϾΗ΍ΓΖȱΎ΅ϠȱσΑΈΓΒΓΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΔΘΝΛϱΖ,ȱ ΘϲȱΎ΅ϾΛ΋ΐ΅ȱ΅ЁΘЗΑȱΚϱΆΓΖȱΎΙΕϟΓΙ.ȱ ȱ Theȱrich,ȱtheȱhonouredȱandȱtheȱpoor,ȱ TheirȱgloryȱisȱinȱtheȱfearȱofȱtheȱLord.ȱ

ȱ InsteadȱofȱtheȱfourȱtypesȱofȱpersonȱfoundȱinȱtheȱHebrew,ȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱ hasȱonlyȱthree,ȱandȱonlyȱtheȱlastȱofȱtheseȱisȱtheȱsame.ȱTheȱfirstȱthreeȱinȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ theȱ ʸʢ,ȱ ʸʦ,ȱ ʩʸʫʰ,ȱ haveȱ beenȱ replacedȱ withȱ theȱ ΔΏΓϾΗ΍ΓΖȱ Ύ΅΍ȱ σΑΈΓΒΓΖ.ȱ Inȱ partȱ thisȱ mayȱ beȱ aȱ textualȱ issue:ȱ Diȱ Lellaȱ believesȱ thatȱ ʣʦȱ wasȱ readȱ insteadȱ ofȱ ʸʦ,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ grandsonȱ hadȱ aȱ faultyȱ Vorlageȱ orȱ misreadȱ hisȱ text.ȱ However,ȱ Diȱ Lella’sȱ propositionȱ doesȱ notȱ explainȱ whatȱ happenedȱ withȱ ʸʢȱ andȱ ʩʸʫʰ.ȱ Whileȱ weȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ findȱ similarȱ characteristicsȱamongȱtheȱʸʢ,ȱʸʦ,ȱʩʸʫʰ,ȱandȱʹʸ,ȱtheȱΔΏΓϾΗ΍ΓΖ Ύ΅΍ȱσΑΈΓΒΓΖȱ andȱΔΘΝΛϱΖȱareȱcontrastingȱgroupsȱinȱsociety.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱevidentȱthatȱtheȱ grandsonȱactuallyȱunderstandsȱ“foreigner“ȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱmeantȱwhenȱʸʦȱ andȱʩʸʫʰȱoccurȱtogether,ȱrenderingȱbothȱwithȱaȱsingleȱGreekȱword.ȱHisȱ choiceȱ ofȱ σΑΈΓΒΓΖ,ȱ inȱ aȱ way,ȱ attemptsȱ toȱ alignȱ theȱ sectionȱ withȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ ΈΓΒΣΊΝȱ whichȱ recursȱ inȱ 10:23Ȭ31.ȱ ΔΏΓϾΗ΍ΓΖȱ isȱ probablyȱ chosenȱ toȱ makeȱ itȱ synonymousȱ withȱ theȱ σΑΈΓΒΓΖ.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ theȱ grandson’sȱ translationȱ changesȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ andȱ removesȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ property.”ȱ Also,ȱ seeȱ LS,ȱ p.ȱ 700.ȱ Inȱ Aeschylus,ȱ οΘ΅ϟΕ΋Η΍Ζȱ denotesȱ “unchastity”.ȱ Plutarchȱ usedȱ οΘ΅΍ΕΉϾΓΐ΅΍ȱ withȱ theȱ connotationȱ ofȱ “prostitutingȱ oneself”.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱcenturyȱBCEȱhistorianȱClearchusȱusedȱοΘ΅ϟΕ΍Ηΐ΅ȱtoȱmeanȱ“harlotry”.ȱȱ 36ȱ R.ȱ EggerȬWenzel,ȱ “Dennȱ harteȱ Knechtschaftȱ undȱ Schandeȱ istȱ es,ȱ wennȱ eineȱ Frauȱ ihrenȱMannȱernährt”,ȱinȱI.ȱKrammerȱ(ed.)ȱEinzelneȱundȱseineȱGemeinschaftȱbeiȱBenȱSiraȱ (BZAW,ȱ 270;ȱ Berlin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 1998),ȱ pp.ȱ 23Ȭ49ȱ (34).ȱ Heȱ proposesȱ aȱ Hellenisticȱ contextȱ forȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ theseȱ women,ȱ andȱ believesȱ thatȱ theȱ motifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱbehindȱit.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱdifferentiateȱtheȱHebrewȱandȱ theȱGreekȱtextsȱinȱhisȱanalysis.ȱ

148ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

anyȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ acceptingȱ foreignersȱ asȱ recipientsȱ ofȱ Yahweh’sȱ Laws.ȱ Theȱ rationaleȱ forȱ thisȱ reȬinterpretationȱ mayȱ beȱ understoodȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ Hasmoneanȱ rule,ȱ underȱ whichȱ theȱ residentȱalienȱ (ʡʹʥʺ ʸʢ)ȱ wasȱ notȱgrantedȱtheȱsameȱstatusȱasȱanȱIsraelite,ȱandȱwasȱnotȱgivenȱrightsȱtoȱ resideȱinȱJerusalemȱ(TȱNega‘imȱVIȱ2).37ȱTheȱPhariseesȱlaterȱdidȱnotȱagreeȱ withȱ theȱ forcedȱ conversionȱ ofȱ theȱ Gentilesȱ byȱ theȱ Hasmoneans,ȱ andȱ differentiatedȱ betweenȱ theȱ “righteousȱ proselytes“ȱ andȱ others.ȱ Theȱ HeȬ brewȱtextȱgivesȱtheȱimpressionȱthatȱtheȱresidentȱalienȱandȱtheȱforeignerȱ canȱ gainȱ theȱ sameȱ esteemȱ andȱ statusȱ asȱ theȱ honouredȱ Jew,ȱ asȱ longȱ asȱ eachȱ embracesȱ Yahweh’sȱ Law.38ȱ Byȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ grandson,ȱ theȱ imȬ plicationsȱofȱthatȱstatementȱdoȱnotȱcorrespondȱwithȱtheȱrealitiesȱofȱtheȱ Hasmoneanȱlaw.ȱ Theȱ nextȱ textȱ toȱ considerȱ isȱ 47:19Ȭ20,ȱ whereȱ thereȱ areȱ furtherȱ difȬ ferencesȱbetweenȱtheȱHebrewȱ(MsȱB)ȱandȱGreekȱtext:ȱ ȱ Hebrewȱ(MsȱB)ȱ Greekȱ ʪʩʬʱʫ ʭʹʰʬ ʯʺʺʥȱ19aȱ Δ΅Ε΅ΑνΎΏ΍Α΅ΖȱΘΤΖȱΏ΅·ϱΑ΅ΖȱΗΓΙȱ ·ΙΑ΅΍ΒϠΑȱ ȱʟʪʺʩʥʢʡ ʭʩʬʹʮʺʥȱȱ bȱ Ύ΅ϠȱπΑΉΒΓΙΗ΍ΣΗΌ΋ΖȱπΑȱΘ૶ȱ ΗЏΐ΅ΘϟȱΗΓΙȱ ʪʣʥʡʫʡ ʭʥʮ ʯʺ[.]ʥȱ20aȱ τΈΝΎ΅ΖȱΐЗΐΓΑȱπΑȱΘϜȱΈϱΒϙȱΗΓΙȱ ʪʩʲʥʶʩ ʺʠ ʬʬʧʺʥȱȱȱȱȱbȱ Ύ΅ϠȱπΆΉΆφΏΝΗ΅ΖȱΘϲȱΗΔνΕΐ΅ȱΗΓΙȱȱ ʪʩʠʶʠʶ ʬʲ ʳʠ [...]ȱȱȱȱȱcȱ πΔ΅·΅·ΉϧΑȱϴΕ·χΑȱπΔϠȱΘΤȱΘνΎΑ΅ȱ ΗΓΙȱ ʪʡʫʹʮ ʬʲ ʤʧʰʠʥȱȱȱȱȱdȱ Ύ΅ϠȱΎ΅Θ΅ΑΙ·ϛΑ΅΍ȱπΔϠȱΘϜȱ ΦΚΕΓΙΗϾΑ΋ȱΗΓΙȱ 19aȱButȱyouȱgiveȱtoȱtheȱwomenȱȱȱȱȱ Butȱyouȱbroughtȱwomenȱtoȱlieȱbyȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱyourȱfollyȱ yourȱsideȱ bȱȱȱȱȱandȱyouȱletȱthemȱruleȱoverȱȱ andȱthroughȱyourȱbodyȱyouȱwereȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱyourȱbodyȱ broughtȱtoȱsubjectionȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 37ȱ Ze’evȱ Falk,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Jewishȱ Lawȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Commonwealthȱ (AZGJU,ȱ 11;ȱ LeiȬ den:ȱBrill,ȱ1972Ȭ78),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ274Ȭ75.ȱ 38ȱ SeeȱJ.K.ȱAitken,ȱ“TheȱSemanticsȱofȱ’Glory’ȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ–ȱTracesȱofȱaȱdevelopmentȱofȱ PostȬbiblicalȱ Hebrew?”,ȱ inȱ T.ȱ Maraokaȱ andȱ J.ȱ F.ȱ Elwoldeȱ (eds.),ȱ Sirach,ȱ Scrolls,ȱ andȱ Sages:ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ aȱ Secondȱ Internationalȱ Symposiumȱ onȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ ofȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls,ȱBenȱSira,ȱandȱtheȱMishnah,ȱheldȱatȱLeidenȱUniversity,ȱ15Ȭ17ȱDecemberȱ1997ȱ(STDJ,ȱ 33;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1999),ȱ1Ȭ24.ȱAitkenȱbelievesȱthatȱtheȱlexemesȱusedȱforȱ“glory”ȱandȱ “honour”ȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱ Torahȱ andȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ divineȱ presence,ȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱtempleȱandȱtheȱpriesthood.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

20aȱandȱ[youȱbrought?]ȱaȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱblemishȱtoȱyourȱgloryȱ bȱȱȱandȱyouȱdefileȱyourȱbedȱ cȱȱȱ[…]ȱwrathȱuponȱyourȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱdescendantsȱ dȱȱȱandȱsighingȱuponȱyourȱbedȱ

149ȱ

Youȱbroughtȱblemishȱtoȱyourȱ gloryȱ andȱyouȱdesecratedȱyourȱ offspringȱ bringingȱwrathȱuponȱyourȱ childrenȱ andȱgrievingȱbecauseȱofȱyourȱ folly.ȱ

Tableȱ6.2:ȱTheȱHebrewȱ(MsȱB)ȱandȱGreekȱtextȱofȱ47:19Ȭ20ȱ

Inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ text,ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ blamesȱ Solomon’sȱ follyȱ forȱ allowingȱ womenȱtoȱruleȱoverȱhimȱ(v.ȱ19).ȱHeȱchastisesȱSolomonȱforȱdefilingȱhisȱ bedȱwhichȱresultedȱinȱGod’sȱwrathȱonȱhisȱdescendantsȱandȱmuchȱgriefȱ onȱ hisȱ deathbedȱ (v.ȱ 20).ȱ Versesȱ 21,ȱ 23aȱ recountȱ theȱ divisionȱ ofȱ theȱ kingdomȱandȱtheȱenemiesȱSolomonȱmade,ȱreferringȱtoȱhisȱfollyȱandȱtheȱ consequentȱ punishment.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Greekȱ text,ȱ theȱ grandsonȱ reservesȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ follyȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ v.ȱ 20,ȱ butȱ vv.ȱ 19b,ȱ 20a,ȱ 20cȱ retainȱ muchȱ theȱsameȱmeaningȱasȱtheȱHebrewȱtext.ȱTheȱkeyȱpointȱisȱinȱv.ȱ20b,ȱwhereȱ “bed“ȱ hasȱ beenȱ replacedȱ byȱ “offspring“ȱ (literally,ȱ “seed“).ȱ Theȱ Greekȱ seemsȱtoȱunderstandȱthatȱSolomon’sȱwomenȱhaveȱledȱtoȱdefilementȱofȱ hisȱ childrenȱ andȱ hisȱ line,ȱ somethingȱ whichȱ isȱ hardlyȱ toȱ beȱ associatedȱ withȱ simpleȱ promiscuity,ȱ butȱ probablyȱ recallsȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ (cf.ȱ Ezraȱ 9:2;ȱ 10:2).ȱ Thereȱ isȱ somethingȱ moreȱ here,ȱ then,ȱ thanȱsimpleȱpunishment,ȱandȱtheȱgrandsonȱseemsȱtoȱmakeȱanȱimplicitȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ foreignnessȱ ofȱ theȱ women.ȱ Further,ȱ heȱ mayȱ haveȱ understoodȱ“defilingȱofȱone’sȱbed“ȱasȱequivalentȱtoȱhavingȱintercourseȱ withȱaȱGentile,ȱaccordingȱtoȱHasmoneanȱunderstandingsȱ(MȱSanhedrinȱ IXȱ 6;ȱ TBȱ Abodaȱ Zaraȱ 36b). 39ȱ Theȱ oneȱ caughtȱ inȱ suchȱ anȱ actȱ wouldȱ beȱ killed.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ theȱ grandsonȱ isȱ fullyȱ consciousȱ ofȱ theȱ stigmaȱ ofȱ idolatryȱassociatedȱwithȱsuchȱconsummation.ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ beȱ aȱ mistakeȱ toȱ assumeȱ thatȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ grandsonȱ hasȱ setȱ outȱ toȱ imposeȱ aȱ quiteȱ newȱ themeȱ onȱ theȱ material,ȱ butȱ hisȱ translationȱ hereȱ andȱ elsewhereȱ seemsȱ toȱ implyȱ aȱ concernȱ withȱ foreigners,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ specificallyȱ foreignȱ women,ȱ thatȱ isȱ absentȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ oriȬ ginal.ȱ Whereȱ Benȱ Siraȱ himselfȱ stripsȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ motifȱ ofȱ itsȱ originalȱ implications,ȱ andȱ makesȱ itȱ referȱ simplyȱ toȱ sexualȱ mattersȱ –ȱ somethingȱ whichȱ weȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ seenȱ inȱ otherȱ textsȱ –ȱ theȱ grandsonȱ appliesȱitȱtoȱtheȱcircumstancesȱofȱhisȱownȱtimeȱandȱplace.ȱInȱdoingȱso,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 39ȱ Falk,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Jewishȱ Lawȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Commonwealth,ȱ vol.ȱ II,ȱ pp.ȱ 271Ȭ72.ȱ Theȱ sinȱisȱequivalentȱtoȱhavingȱintercourseȱwithȱaȱmenstruant,ȱslave,ȱorȱoneȱbetrothed.ȱ

150ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

consciouslyȱ orȱ unconsciouslyȱ heȱ reȬintroducesȱ theȱ elementȱ ofȱ “forȬ eignness“.ȱThisȱisȱespeciallyȱvisibleȱinȱtheȱwayȱheȱlinksȱtheȱwomanȱwithȱ theȱcourtesansȱofȱHellenisticȱculture,ȱbutȱitȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱreflectedȱinȱhisȱ treatmentȱofȱSolomon’sȱsins.ȱ

6.1.4ȱTheȱOtherȱPortrayalsȱofȱBadȱWomenȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ Fromȱ 9:3Ȭ11,ȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ Benȱ Siraȱ wasȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ languageȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Givenȱ hisȱ faȬ mouslyȱ negativeȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ womenȱ moreȱ generally,40ȱ weȱ mayȱ finishȱ byȱ exploringȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ heȱ makesȱ useȱ ofȱ thatȱ imageryȱ elseȬ whereȱinȱhisȱdepictionsȱofȱfemaleȱseductionȱandȱentrapment.ȱȱ Theȱmostȱobviousȱplaceȱtoȱbeginȱisȱwithinȱtheȱsectionȱ25:13Ȭ26:27,41ȱ withȱitsȱcontrastingȱportraitsȱofȱtheȱgoodȱandȱbadȱwife,ȱbutȱhereȱweȱfindȱ littleȱthatȱisȱdirectlyȱreminscentȱofȱtheȱfigureȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱTheȱonlyȱ timeȱ Benȱ Siraȱ portraysȱ aȱ womanȱ activelyȱ seducingȱ menȱ isȱ inȱ 26:9Ȭ12,ȱ whereȱinȱv.ȱ9ȱtheȱwifeȱisȱsaidȱtoȱseduceȱwithȱherȱeyes.ȱInȱvv.ȱ10Ȭ12,ȱBenȱ Siraȱ shiftsȱ theȱ warningȱ againstȱ one’sȱ wifeȱ toȱ warningsȱ aboutȱ one’sȱ daughter.ȱOneȱshouldȱwatchȱoutȱforȱtheȱwayȱaȱdaughterȱusesȱherȱeyesȱ toȱ seduce:ȱ menȱ areȱ easilyȱ attractedȱ toȱ her,ȱ andȱ sheȱ mayȱ becomeȱ promiscuous.ȱ ȱ Sirȱ26:9Ȭ1242ȱ 9ȱByȱherȱeyelidsȱandȱherȱhaughtyȱstareȱ anȱunchasteȱwifeȱcanȱbeȱrecognized.ȱ 10ȱKeepȱstrictȱwatchȱoverȱanȱunrulyȱwife,ȱȱ lest,ȱfindingȱanȱopportunity,ȱsheȱmake[sic]ȱuseȱofȱitȱ 11ȱFollowȱcloseȱifȱherȱeyesȱareȱbold,ȱ andȱbeȱnotȱsurprisedȱifȱsheȱbetraysȱyou:ȱ 12ȱAsȱaȱthirstyȱtravelerȱwithȱeagerȱmouthȱ drinksȱfromȱanyȱwaterȱthatȱheȱfinds,ȱ Soȱsheȱsitsȱdownȱbeforeȱeveryȱtentȱpegȱ Andȱopensȱherȱquiverȱforȱeveryȱarrow.ȱ

ȱ Elsewhereȱinȱtheȱsection,ȱ25:20ȱcomparesȱtheȱstruggleȱofȱaȱwickedȱwifeȱ toȱ restrainȱ herȱ tongueȱ withȱ anȱ agedȱ manȱ strugglingȱ toȱ climbȱ steps.ȱ 25:16Ȭ20ȱ describesȱaȱ wickedȱ wifeȱandȱ theȱ harmȱdoneȱ toȱ herȱ oppressedȱ husband.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 40ȱ Bothȱ scholars,ȱ Trenchardȱ andȱ Gilbertȱ agreeȱ thatȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ quantityȱ Benȱ Siraȱ portraysȱ moreȱ negativeȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ woman,ȱ butȱ Gilbertȱ disagreesȱ thatȱ Benȱ Siraȱ isȱ aȱ misogynist;ȱseeȱGilbert,ȱ“BenȱSiraȱetȱlaȱfemme”,ȱp.ȱ442.ȱȱ 41ȱ Forȱthisȱtext,ȱtheȱonlyȱHebrewȱtextȱextantȱisȱinȱ25:13,ȱ17Ȭ24;ȱ26:1Ȭ3,ȱ13Ȭ17ȱofȱMsȱC;ȱforȱ theȱrestȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱweȱareȱdependentȱonȱtheȱGreekȱversion.ȱ 42ȱ CitedȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ344.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

151ȱ

Sirȱ25:16Ȭ2043ȱ 16ȱWithȱaȱdragonȱorȱaȱlionȱIȱwouldȱratherȱdwellȱ thanȱliveȱwithȱanȱevilȱwoman.ȱ 17ȱWickednessȱchangesȱaȱwoman’sȱlooks,ȱ andȱmakesȱherȱsullenȱasȱaȱfemaleȱbear.ȱ 18ȱWhenȱherȱhusbandȱsitsȱamongȱhisȱneighbors,ȱ aȱbitterȱsighȱescapesȱhimȱunawares.ȱ 19ȱThereȱisȱaȱscarceȱanyȱevilȱlikeȱthatȱinȱaȱwoman;ȱ mayȱsheȱfallȱtoȱtheȱlotȱofȱtheȱsinner!ȱ 20ȱLikeȱaȱsandyȱhillȱtoȱagedȱfeetȱ isȱaȱrailingȱwifeȱtoȱaȱquietȱman.ȱ

ȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱspecificȱdepictionȱofȱwhatȱkindȱofȱevilȱdeedsȱsheȱcommits,ȱ although,ȱ besidesȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ herȱ tongue,ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ makesȱ aȱ reȬ ferenceȱtoȱtheȱgatheringȱofȱherȱfriendsȱ(v.ȱ18).ȱPossibly,ȱtheȱcontentsȱofȱ herȱspeechȱareȱwickedness,ȱandȱvv.ȱ16,ȱ18ȱmayȱbeȱalludingȱtoȱtheȱnagȬ gingȱwifeȱasȱinȱProvȱ21:9,ȱ19;ȱ25:24;ȱ27:15.ȱAnotherȱmentionȱofȱspeechȱisȱ foundȱinȱ26:5Ȭ6.ȱ ȱ Sirȱ26:5Ȭ644ȱ 5ȱThereȱareȱthreeȱthingsȱatȱwhichȱmyȱheartȱquakes,ȱȱ aȱfourthȱbeforeȱwhichȱIȱquail:ȱ Throughȱfalseȱchargesȱinȱpublic,ȱtrialȱbeforeȱallȱtheȱpeople,ȱ Andȱlyingȱtestimonyȱareȱeachȱharderȱtoȱbearȱthanȱdeath,ȱ 6ȱAȱwifeȱjealousȱofȱanotherȱwifeȱisȱheartacheȱandȱmourningȱ andȱaȱscourgingȱtongueȱlikeȱtheȱotherȱthree.ȱ

ȱ Theȱ firstȱ verseȱ hereȱ concernsȱ slander,ȱ whileȱ theȱ secondȱ dealsȱ withȱ aȱ quarrelȱbetweenȱjealousȱrivalȱwives.ȱTheȱlastȱmentionȱofȱfemaleȱspeechȱ isȱfoundȱinȱ26:27,ȱwhereȱaȱloudȬmouthedȱwomanȱ(·ΙΑχȱΐΉ·κΏϱΚΝΑΓΖ)ȱ andȱaȱwomanȱfullȱofȱwordsȱ(·ΏΝΗΗЏΈ΋Ζ)ȱareȱcomparedȱwithȱaȱtrumpetȱ usedȱ forȱ war,ȱ andȱ livingȱ withȱ suchȱ womenȱ withȱ livingȱ aȱ lifeȱ ofȱ warȬ 45ȱȱ fare. ȱ Sirȱ26:2746ȱ ButȱaȱloudȬmouthed,ȱscoldingȱwifeȱcanȱbeȱrecognizedȱ asȱaȱbattleȱtrumpetȱsignalingȱattack.ȱ Anyȱhumanȱbeingȱwhoȱmatchesȱthatȱchallengeȱ willȱspendȱhisȱlifeȱamidȱtheȱturbulenceȱofȱwarȱ

ȱ 25:20ȱandȱ26:27ȱfitȱcloselyȱwithȱtheȱportrayalȱofȱrepeatedȱspeechȱwhichȱ isȱaȱcommonȱtraitȱofȱtheȱnaggingȱwife,ȱbutȱnoneȱofȱtheȱaboveȱportrayalsȱ describeȱ women’sȱ speechesȱ asȱ seductive.ȱ Thus,ȱ theyȱ hardlyȱ resembleȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 43ȱ 44ȱ 45ȱ 46ȱ

CitedȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ343.ȱ CitedȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ344.ȱ SkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ352.ȱ CitedȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ345.ȱ

152ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱ Theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ consequencesȱ areȱ littleȱ closer;ȱ 26:22ȱ doesȱ useȱ deathȱ asȱ aȱ threat,ȱ toȱ deterȱ oneȱ fromȱ inȬ volvement,ȱ butȱ theȱ warningȱ isȱ specificallyȱ againstȱ adultery,ȱ andȱ theȱ womanȱisȱdescribedȱasȱaȱ“towerȱofȱdeath“.ȱ ȱ Sirȱ26:2247ȱ Aȱhiredȱwomanȱisȱasȱspittle,ȱ Butȱaȱmarriedȱwomanȱisȱreckonedȱasȱaȱtowerȱofȱdeathȱtoȱthemȱthatȱuseȱher.ȱ

ȱ Theȱdepictionȱofȱdeathȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱadulteryȱisȱtooȱcommonȱtoȱ beȱ meaningful,ȱ andȱ theȱ particularȱ expressionȱ usedȱ hereȱ isȱ notȱ foundȱ amongȱthoseȱusedȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbs.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱthereȱareȱthreeȱversesȱwhichȱseemȱtoȱborrowȱfromȱtheȱ passagesȱconcerningȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ–ȱ26:19Ȭ21.ȱȱ ȱ Sirȱ26:19Ȭ2148ȱ 19ȱMyȱson,ȱkeepȱintactȱtheȱprimeȱofȱyourȱlifeȱ byȱnotȱsurrenderingȱyourȱstrengthȱtoȱstrangersȱ(ΦΏΏΓΘΕϟΓ΍Ζ);ȱ 20ȱSingleȱoutȱfromȱallȱtheȱlandȱaȱgoodlyȱfieldȱ andȱthereȱwithȱconfidenceȱsowȱtheȱseedȱofȱyourȱincreaseȱȬȱ 21ȱSoȱshallȱyouȱhaveȱyourȱoffspringȱaroundȱyouȱ growingȱupȱconfidentȱinȱtheirȱbreeding.ȱ

ȱ Inȱv.ȱ19,ȱtheȱsonȱisȱadmonishedȱtoȱkeepȱhimselfȱhealthyȱandȱnotȱtoȱgiveȱ hisȱ strengthȱ toȱ strangersȱ (ΦΏΏΓΘΕϟΓ΍Ζ).ȱ Versesȱ 20Ȭ21ȱ describeȱ inȱ metaȬ phoricalȱ termsȱ anȱ exhortationȱ toȱ findȱ aȱ goodȱ wifeȱ andȱ produceȱ offȬ springȱofȱone’sȱownȱ(ϥΈ΍΅ȱΗΔνΕΐ΅Θ΅).ȱVerseȱ22ȱthenȱcontinuesȱwithȱtheȱ depictionȱofȱtheȱprostituteȱasȱspittleȱandȱtheȱmarriedȱwomanȱasȱaȱtowerȱ ofȱdeath.ȱTheȱwholeȱcontextȱadmonishesȱtheȱsonȱandȱurgesȱhimȱtoȱfindȱ aȱgoodȱwifeȱtoȱmarryȱandȱproduceȱoffspring.49ȱHeȱshouldȱpreserveȱhisȱ virilityȱforȱhisȱownȱandȱnotȱforȱunderservingȱwomen,ȱlikeȱtheȱprostituteȱ andȱ theȱ adulteress.ȱ Verseȱ 19ȱ resemblesȱ theȱ languageȱ inȱ Provȱ 5:10Ȭ20ȱ aboutȱ preservingȱ one’sȱ propertiesȱ withinȱ theȱ communityȱ andȱ notȱ shaȬ ringȱ themȱ withȱ foreignersȱ throughȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman.ȱ Asȱ weȱ haveȱ seen,ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ isȱ notȱ concernedȱ aboutȱ foreignersȱ here,ȱ andȱ whatȱ isȱ retainedȱinȱtheȱlanguageȱisȱtoȱdoȱwithȱreservingȱone’sȱownȱforȱoneselfȱ byȱensuringȱthatȱone’sȱwifeȱisȱfaithfulȱandȱherȱoffspringȱone’sȱown.ȱThisȱ appearsȱ toȱ reflectȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbs,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ MT.50ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 47ȱ 48ȱ 49ȱ 50ȱ

CitedȱfromȱAPOTȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ404.ȱ CitedȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ345.ȱ SkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ351.ȱ Seeȱ5.3.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ

153ȱ

ThereȱisȱanotherȱpassageȱinȱBenȱSiraȱwhereȱaȱwomanȱandȱherȱnetsȱ 51ȱȱ areȱmentionedȱ–ȱSirȱ6:23Ȭ31,ȱwhichȱdescribesȱWomanȱWisdom. ȱ Sirȱ6:23Ȭ3152ȱ 23ȱListen,ȱmyȱson,ȱandȱtakeȱmyȱadvice;ȱ refuseȱnotȱmyȱcounsel.ȱ 24ȱPutȱyourȱfeetȱintoȱherȱnetȱ andȱyourȱneckȱintoȱherȱnoose.ȱ 25ȱStoopȱyourȱshouldersȱandȱcarryȱherȱ andȱbeȱnotȱirkedȱatȱherȱbonds.ȱ 26ȱWithȱallȱyourȱsoulȱdrawȱcloseȱtoȱher;ȱ withȱallȱyourȱstrengthȱkeepȱherȱways.ȱ 27ȱSearchȱherȱout,ȱdiscoverȱher;ȱȱ seekȱherȱandȱyouȱwillȱfindȱher.ȱ Thenȱwhenȱyouȱhaveȱher,ȱdoȱnotȱletȱherȱgo;ȱ 28ȱThusȱyouȱwillȱafterwardȱfindȱrestȱinȱherȱȬȱ sheȱwillȱbeȱtransformedȱintoȱyourȱdelight.ȱ 29ȱHerȱnetȱwillȱbecomeȱyourȱthroneȱofȱmajesty;ȱ herȱnoose,ȱyourȱapparelȱofȱspunȱgold.ȱ 30ȱHerȱyokeȱwillȱbeȱyourȱgoldȱadornment;ȱ herȱbonds,ȱyourȱpurpleȱcord.ȱ 31ȱYouȱwillȱwearȱherȱasȱyourȱgloriousȱapparel,ȱ bearȱherȱasȱyourȱsplendidȱcrown.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ anȱ interestingȱ reversal,ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ usesȱ theȱ imageryȱ ofȱ huntingȱ toȱ exȬ hortȱ oneȱ toȱ beȱ caughtȱ inȱ theȱ netsȱ ofȱ Womanȱ Wisdom,ȱ toȱ beȱ yokedȱ byȱ herȱ (vv.ȱ 24Ȭ25),ȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ seekȱ herȱ likeȱ aȱ hunterȱ (vv.ȱ 26Ȭ28).ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ acknowledgesȱ thatȱ seekingȱ wisdomȱ isȱ hardȱ workȱ andȱ requiresȱ perȬ serverance,ȱ selfȬdisciplineȱ andȱ commitment:ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ forȱ theȱ faintȬ heartedȱorȱfoolhardy.ȱBenȱSiraȱfurtherȱelaboratesȱhowȱtheȱnetsȱwillȱturnȱ intoȱ protection,ȱ purpleȱ cordȱ andȱ splendidȱ crownȱ andȱ theȱ yokeȱ intoȱ aȱ perfectȱ garment,ȱ goldenȱ ornamentȱ andȱ gloriousȱ robeȱ (vv.ȱ 29Ȭ31).ȱ Theȱ purpleȱcordȱmentionedȱinȱv.ȱ30ȱisȱthatȱwhichȱIsraelitesȱareȱrequiredȱtoȱ putȱ onȱ (asȱ inȱ Numȱ 15:38Ȭ39)ȱ toȱ remindȱ themȱ toȱ keepȱ allȱ theȱ comȬ mandmentsȱandȱnotȱtoȱfollowȱtheȱdesiresȱofȱtheirȱheartsȱandȱwhatȱtheyȱ see.53ȱ So,ȱ Womanȱ Wisdomȱ isȱ portrayedȱ asȱ keepingȱ themȱ onȱ theȱ rightȱ pathȱtoȱfulfillȱtheȱcommandmentsȱofȱYahweh.ȱ WhileȱProverbsȱspeaksȱofȱtheȱurgentȱneedȱtoȱseekȱWomanȱWisdom,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ portrayȱ Wisdomȱ herselfȱ asȱ aȱ huntress;ȱ thatȱ imageryȱ isȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 51ȱ ThisȱpassageȱisȱextantȱinȱMsȱAȱandȱ2Q18,ȱandȱwithȱv.ȱ28ȱinȱMsȱC;ȱcf.ȱBeentjes,ȱBookȱofȱ BenȱSiraȱinȱ Hebrew,ȱpp.ȱ133Ȭ34.ȱ2Q18,ȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱcenturyȱ BCEȱorȱfirstȱ halfȱofȱ theȱfirstȱcenturyȱCE,ȱisȱveryȱfragmentaryȱandȱonlyȱsomeȱofȱtheȱlastȱlettersȱandȱwordsȱ ofȱ theȱ linesȱ visible.ȱ Theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ Mssȱ Aȱ andȱ Cȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ areȱ quiteȱ similar.ȱ 52ȱ CitedȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱSkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱpp.ȱ190Ȭ91.ȱ 53ȱ SkehanȱandȱDiȱLella,ȱp.ȱ194.ȱ

154ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

reservedȱ forȱ theȱ trapsȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ andȱ theȱ evilȱ men.ȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱtransferȱofȱitȱrecallsȱtheȱsortȱofȱambiguityȱinȱtheȱportrayalsȱofȱtheȱ twoȱpersonifiedȱwomenȱandȱevilȱmen,ȱwhichȱweȱfindȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱIsȱ thisȱdeliberate?ȱSirȱ9:3ȱcertainlyȱdepictsȱtheȱʤʸʦȱinȱtermsȱofȱtraps.ȱHowȬ ever,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱBenȱSiraȱusesȱdifferentȱwordsȱforȱtraps,ȱ andȱ doesȱ notȱ himselfȱ depictȱ theȱ ʤʸʦȱ asȱ aȱ hunter.ȱ Theseȱ pointsȱ seemȱ toȱ indicateȱ thatȱ Benȱ Siraȱ doesȱ notȱ intendȱ toȱ evokeȱ ambiguity,ȱ butȱ hasȱ simplyȱ transferredȱ theȱ imageryȱ ofȱ hunting,ȱ inȱ aȱ positiveȱ manner,ȱ toȱ WomanȱWisdom.ȱ Fromȱ allȱ thisȱ weȱ mayȱ concludeȱ thatȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱimageryȱisȱratherȱlimited.ȱInȱgeneral,ȱheȱprefersȱtoȱuseȱhisȱownȱ imagery.ȱWhileȱheȱclearlyȱknewȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱandȱwasȱprobablyȱawareȱ ofȱ itsȱ allusions,ȱ heȱ developsȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ themesȱ quiteȱ differently.ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ thereȱ isȱ nothingȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ concernedȱ withȱ theȱ foreignȱ womanȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ issuesȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ orȱ apostasy;ȱ inȬ sofarȱasȱheȱusesȱtheȱfigureȱatȱall,ȱheȱsimplyȱlinksȱherȱtoȱissuesȱofȱsexualȱ morality.ȱ Toȱ aȱ limitedȱ extent,ȱ thisȱ shiftȱ isȱ reversedȱ inȱ theȱ Greekȱ transȬ lation,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ preparedȱ againstȱ aȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ newȱ tensionsȱ beȬ tweenȱ Jewsȱ andȱ foreigners,ȱ butȱ thisȱ hardlyȱ representsȱ aȱ directȱ conȬ tinuationȱ ofȱ theȱ motifȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9.ȱ Asȱ wasȱ theȱ caseȱ withȱ theȱ textsȱ whichȱweȱreviewedȱinȱtheȱlastȱchapter,ȱBenȱSira’sȱworkȱseemsȱtoȱreflectȱ aȱ reȬuseȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ motif,ȱ strippingȱ itȱ ofȱ itsȱ originalȱ conȬ notations.ȱ

6.2ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ WisdomȱofȱSolomonȱ Soȱ far,ȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ fromȱ variousȱ textsȱ thatȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ isȱ notȱ forgottenȱ inȱ laterȱ literature,ȱ butȱ thatȱ theȱ imageryȱ associatedȱwithȱherȱisȱappliedȱtoȱnewȱthemes.ȱTheȱoriginalȱconnotationsȱ ofȱ theȱ figureȱ areȱ removedȱ orȱ lost.ȱ Finally,ȱ weȱ mayȱ sayȱ aȱ littleȱ aboutȱ aȱ workȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ mightȱ expectȱ herȱ toȱ appear,ȱ givenȱ itsȱ interestȱ inȱ foreignness,ȱ butȱ inȱ whichȱ sheȱ doesȱ not.ȱ Theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ wasȱ probablyȱ composedȱ stillȱ later,ȱ towardsȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ centuryȱ CEȱ andȱ theȱ authorȱ remainsȱ unknown.54ȱ Theȱ bookȱ hasȱ aȱ tripartiteȱ diȬ visionȱintoȱdistinctȱthemes:ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 54ȱ DavidȱWinstonȱarguesȱforȱtheȱtimeȱperiodȱ30Ȭ50ȱCEȱforȱtheȱdateȱofȱcomposition;ȱseeȱ D.ȱWinston,ȱWisdomȱofȱSolomon:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱ (AB,ȱ 43;ȱ Gardenȱ City,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ 1979),ȱ pp.ȱ 20Ȭ23,ȱ n.ȱ 34.ȱ Heȱ explainsȱ thatȱ scholarsȱ differȱ inȱ theirȱ opinionsȱ concerningȱ theȱ dateȱ ofȱ composition,ȱ whichȱ rangeȱfromȱ220ȱBCEȱ–ȱ50ȱCE.ȱSeeȱalsoȱAPOTȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ520Ȭ21.ȱTheȱbasicȱcriterionȱforȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱWisdomȱofȱSolomonȱ

155ȱ

(1)ȱ 1:1Ȭ6:2155ȱ emphasisesȱ theȱ promiseȱ ofȱ immortalityȱ forȱ theȱ righteous,ȱ asȱaȱdeterrentȱforȱevilȱmen;ȱȱ (2)ȱ6:12Ȭ9:18ȱisȱaboutȱSolomon’sȱquestȱandȱpraiseȱforȱwisdom;ȱȱ (3)ȱ10:1Ȭ19:22ȱisȱaboutȱWisdom’sȱsalvificȱactȱinȱtheȱExodus.ȱȱ Thereȱ areȱ twoȱ sectionsȱ whichȱ seemȱ toȱ interruptȱ theȱ narrationȱ ofȱ theȱ latterȱsectionȱofȱtheȱbook:ȱtheȱexpositionsȱonȱGod’sȱmercyȱ(11:15Ȭ12:27)ȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ originȱ ofȱ idolatryȱ (13:1Ȭ15:19).56ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ likelyȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱusesȱtheȱtwoȱmainȱthemesȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱpartsȱ ofȱhisȱwork.57ȱ Iȱdoȱnotȱthinkȱthatȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱgiveȱtooȱmuchȱspaceȱtoȱdrawingȱ outȱ theȱ dependenceȱ ofȱ theȱ themesȱ inȱ 6:12Ȭ9:18ȱ onȱ Proverbs.ȱ Theȱ porȬ trayalȱ ofȱ personifiedȱ wisdomȱ asȱ theȱ soughtȬafterȱ wifeȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ isȱ beyondȱ doubtȱ basedȱ primarilyȱ onȱ theȱ exhortationȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ toȱ seekȱher.58ȱTheȱdistinctiveȱcontributionȱofȱtheȱWisdomȱofȱSolomonȱisȱitsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

55ȱ

56ȱ

57ȱ

58ȱ

identifyingȱtheȱdateȱofȱcompositionȱisȱtheȱidentificationȱofȱaȱhistoricalȱperiodȱwhenȱ theȱJewsȱinȱEgyptȱwereȱpersecutedȱbyȱtheȱlocals.ȱHowever,ȱaȱspecificȱtimeȱperiodȱisȱ difficultȱtoȱpinpointȱbecauseȱthereȱwereȱseveralȱsuchȱeventsȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱfromȱ 220ȱ BCEȱ untilȱ theȱ firstȱ centuryȱ CE.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ forȱ aȱ conciseȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ pastȱ scholarshipȱconcerningȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱHellenisticȱphilosophiesȱinȱtheȱbook,ȱseeȱC.ȱ Larcher,ȱLeȱLivreȱdeȱlaȱSagesseȱouȱlaȱSagesseȱdeȱSalomonȱ(O.P.ȱCommentary,ȱÉtudesȱBiȬ bliques;ȱParis:ȱJ.ȱGabalda,ȱ1983),ȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ146Ȭ61.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ differencesȱ ofȱ opinionȱ concerningȱ theȱ transitionalȱ chaptersȱ 6ȱ andȱ 10.ȱ Personifiedȱwisdomȱisȱtheȱsubjectȱinȱtheseȱchaptersȱandȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱ belongingȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱdivision.ȱSeeȱWinston,ȱpp.ȱ9Ȭ12.ȱȱ Thereȱareȱmanyȱstudiesȱonȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱ10:1Ȭ19:22ȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱwholeȱbook,ȱ andȱ howȱ oneȱ shouldȱ interpretȱ theseȱ twoȱ sectionsȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ structureȱ withinȱ itself.ȱForȱaȱsurveyȱofȱsuchȱworks,ȱseeȱMoynaȱMcGlynn,ȱDivineȱJudgementȱandȱDivineȱ BenevolenceȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱWisdomȱ(WUNT,ȱ139;ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2001),ȱpp.ȱ4Ȭ 9.ȱ Heȱ proposesȱ aȱ circularȱ argumentȱ inȱ theȱ structure,ȱ followingȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ Callimachus’sȱAetia.ȱAlso,ȱSamuelȱCheon,ȱTheȱExodusȱStoryȱinȱtheȱWisdomȱofȱSolomon:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Interpretationȱ (JSPSup,ȱ 23;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 1997);ȱ andȱ M.ȱ Gilbert,ȱ Laȱ Critiqueȱ desȱ dieuxȱ dansȱ leȱ Livreȱ deȱ laȱ Sagesseȱ (Sgȱ 13Ȭ15)ȱ (AnBib,ȱ53;ȱRome:ȱBiblicalȱInstituteȱPress,ȱ1973).ȱ SeeȱP.ȱSkehan,ȱ“TheȱLiteraryȱRelationshipȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱWisdomȱtoȱEarlierȱWisdomȱ Writings”,ȱinȱIsraeliteȱPoetryȱandȱWisdom,ȱpp.ȱ173Ȭ91.ȱAlso,ȱR.J.ȱClifford,ȱ“Proverbsȱasȱ aȱSourceȱforȱWisdom”,ȱinȱN.ȱCalduchȬBenagesȱandȱJ.ȱVermeylenȱ(eds.),ȱTreasuresȱofȱ Wisdomȱ(FestschriftȱM.ȱGilbert;ȱLeuven:ȱLeuvenȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱpp.ȱ255Ȭ63.ȱ HeȱarguesȱthatȱnotȱonlyȱisȱtheȱfigureȱWomanȱWisdomȱborrowedȱfromȱProverbs,ȱbutȱ thereȱ areȱ fiveȱ otherȱ themesȱ asȱ well:ȱ 1.ȱ theȱ righteousȱ personȱ asȱ theȱ locusȱ whereȱ divineȱ actionȱ becomesȱ visible;ȱ 2.ȱ Godȱ asȱ fatherȱ whoȱ teachesȱ hisȱ sonȱ byȱ aȱ processȱ involvingȱcorrectionȱandȱevenȱpunishmentȱ(Δ΅΍ΈΉϟ΅ȱ=ȱ ʸʕʱ˒ʮ);ȱ3.ȱtheȱwiseȱking;ȱ4.ȱlifeȱ andȱ deathȱ asȱ moreȱ thanȱ biologicalȱ realities;ȱ 5.ȱ theȱ worldȱ (ΎϱΗΐΓΖ)ȱ protectingȱ theȱ righteousȱandȱpunishingȱtheȱwicked.ȱ OtherȱdevelopmentsȱofȱthisȱthemeȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱwisdomȱofȱBenȱSiraȱ6:18Ȭ 37;ȱ 14:20Ȭ27;ȱ 24;ȱ 51:13Ȭ30;ȱ andȱ 11QPsaȱ Sirȱ 51.ȱ Theyȱ depictȱ theȱ actȱ ofȱ seekingȱ andȱ findingȱ wisdomȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ courtshipȱ andȱ sex.ȱ Forȱ commentaryȱ onȱ Wisȱ 7Ȭ9,ȱ seeȱ Winston,ȱ pp.ȱ 163Ȭ209;ȱ APOTȱ vol.ȱ I,ȱ pp.ȱ 545Ȭ50;ȱ Ernestȱ G.ȱ Clarke,ȱ Theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ(CB;ȱLondon:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1973),ȱpp.ȱ48Ȭ65.ȱTheȱfeaturesȱofȱ

156ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

specificȱportrayalȱofȱtheȱseekerȱasȱtheȱkingȱofȱIsrael,ȱSolomon.ȱThisȱporȬ trayalȱisȱnotȱwithoutȱpurpose:ȱtheȱaddressesȱtoȱtheȱrulersȱofȱtheȱearthȱinȱ 1:1,ȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ oppressorsȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ Egyptȱ inȱ 10:15,ȱ makeȱ theȱ author’sȱ portrayalȱofȱanȱIsraeliteȱkingȱseekingȱforȱwisdomȱasȱwifeȱanȱexemplaryȱ modelȱ ofȱ wisdomȱ andȱ righteousness.ȱ Consequently,ȱ 6:19Ȭ9:18ȱ functionȱ asȱaȱcentralȱfocusȱofȱtheȱ“good“ȱandȱareȱpittedȱagainstȱtwoȱantitheses,ȱ eitherȱsideȱofȱit.ȱ

6.2.1ȱTheȱThemeȱofȱ1:1Ȭ6:11ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ bookȱ isȱ addressedȱ toȱ theȱ rulersȱ ofȱ theȱ earth,ȱ 1:1Ȭ6:11ȱ foȬ cussesȱonȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱevilȱorȱgodlessȱ(ΦΗΉΆΉ΍ࡏΖ).59ȱTheȱauthorȱpresentsȱ hisȱ doctrineȱofȱ immortalityȱ inȱ theȱframeworkȱ ofȱ theȱphilosophyȱ ofȱ lifeȱ heldȱbyȱtheȱgodless.ȱTheȱfirstȱspeechȱofȱtheȱgodlessȱinȱ2:1Ȭ20ȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱ anȱ elaborationȱ ofȱ theȱ speechȱ ofȱ theȱ evilȱ menȱ inȱ Provȱ 1:11Ȭ14.ȱ Theȱ followingȱtableȱhighlightsȱtheȱsimilarȱvocabulariesȱandȱideasȱfoundȱesȬ peciallyȱinȱWisȱ2:7Ȭ12ȱandȱLXXȱProvȱ1:11Ȭ14.ȱ ȱ Wisȱ2:7Ȭ12ȱ LXXȱProvȱ1:11Ȭ14ȱ (v.ȱ7)ȱCostlyȱ(ΔΓΏΙΘΉΏΓІΖ)ȱwineȱ (v.ȱ13)ȱseizeȱexpensiveȱ (ΔΓΏΙΘΉΏϛ)ȱpossessionsȱ ȱ letȱusȱfillȱ(ΔΏφΗΝΐΉΑ)ȱourȱ Letȱusȱfillȱ(ΔΏ΋ΗΌЗΐΉΑ)ȱ housesȱȱ (v.ȱ14)ȱthrowȱinȱyourȱlotȱ (v.ȱ9)ȱourȱlotȱ(ΎΏϛΕΓΖ)ȱ (ΎΏϛΕΓΑ)ȱ ȱ Theȱideaȱofȱsharingȱtheȱevilȱ Theȱideaȱofȱsharingȱtheȱevilȱ men’sȱplot.ȱ men’sȱplot.ȱ (vv.ȱ10,ȱ12)ȱTheȱevilȱmen’sȱtargetȱ (v.ȱ11)ȱTheȱevilȱmen’sȱtargetȱisȱ isȱtheȱrighteousȱ(ΈϟΎ΅΍ΓΑ).ȱ theȱrighteousȱ(ΈϟΎ΅΍ΓΑ).ȱ (vv.ȱ11,ȱ12)ȱTheȱideaȱofȱsettingȱ (v.ȱ12)ȱTheȱideaȱofȱsettingȱanȱ ambushȱ(ΉࡑΑΈΕΉϾΗΝΐΉΑ)ȱforȱtheirȱ anȱambushȱ(ΉࡑΑΈΕΉϾΝ)ȱforȱtheirȱ targets.ȱ targets.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ personifiedȱwisdomȱasȱtheȱfirstȱofȱGod’sȱcreation,ȱmovingȱacrossȱtheȱearth,ȱseekingȱ forȱrighteousȱbeings,ȱtakingȱherȱresidenceȱinȱIsrael,ȱandȱtheȱexhortationȱtoȱsubmitȱtoȱ herȱdisciplinesȱareȱrootedȱinȱProvȱ8,ȱandȱespeciallyȱtheȱpassagesȱonȱWomanȱWisdomȱ inȱBenȱSira.ȱ 59ȱ Inȱthisȱcontext,ȱitȱresemblesȱPssȱ9ȱandȱ10ȱ(orȱLXXȱPsȱ9)ȱwhereȱtheȱgodlessȱandȱevilȱ areȱtheȱrulersȱofȱtheȱforeignȱnations.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱWisdomȱofȱSolomonȱ

(v.ȱ20)ȱTheȱintentionȱtoȱterȬ minateȱtheȱlifeȱofȱtheirȱtargets.ȱ

157ȱ

(vv.ȱ11,ȱ12)ȱTheȱintentionȱtoȱterȬ minateȱtheȱlifeȱofȱtheirȱtargets.ȱ

Tableȱ6.3:ȱAȱComparisonȱofȱtheȱSimilarȱVocabulariesȱinȱWisȱ2:7Ȭ12ȱandȱLXXȱProvȱ1:11Ȭ14ȱ

Inȱ comparingȱ theseȱ twoȱ speeches,ȱ someȱ interestingȱ resultsȱ surface.ȱ First,ȱ theȱ tableȱ aboveȱ showsȱ thatȱ theȱ mainȱ contentsȱ ofȱ bothȱ speechesȱ shareȱtheȱsameȱvocabularyȱandȱideas:ȱtheȱdesireȱofȱtheseȱmenȱtoȱgratifyȱ themselvesȱwithȱmaterialȱgoodsȱ(Wisȱ2:7;ȱProvȱ1:13);ȱandȱtheȱpersuasionȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ theirȱ “lot“ȱ (Wisȱ 2:9;ȱ Provȱ 1:14).ȱ Secondly,ȱ theirȱ mainȱ plotȱisȱoneȱandȱtheȱsame:ȱtheirȱtargetȱisȱtheȱrighteousȱ(Wisȱ2:10,ȱ12;ȱProvȱ 1:11);ȱtheirȱplanȱisȱtoȱlayȱanȱambush,ȱwithȱtheȱconnotationȱofȱactingȱinȱ secretȱ(Wisȱ2:12;ȱProvȱ1:11,ȱ12);ȱandȱtheirȱultimateȱaimȱisȱtoȱmurderȱtheȱ righteousȱ(Wisȱ2:20;ȱProvȱ1:11,ȱ12).ȱThirdly,ȱtheȱcomparisonȱofȱtheȱtwoȱ passagesȱ alsoȱ showsȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ makesȱ aȱ deliberateȱ attemptȱ toȱ elaborateȱ onȱ theȱ rationaleȱ forȱ theȱ evilȱ men’sȱ actionsȱasȱfoundȱinȱaȱmoreȱabbreviatedȱformȱinȱProvȱ1:11Ȭ14.ȱ TheȱspeechesȱofȱtheȱevilȱmenȱinȱWisȱ2ȱareȱbasedȱonȱideasȱwhichȱtheȱ authorȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ contradict,ȱ butȱ whichȱ were,ȱ interestingly,ȱ rootedȱ inȱ conventionalȱideas,ȱsometimesȱmanifestedȱinȱProverbsȱorȱotherȱwisdomȱ literature.60ȱSo,ȱtheȱgodlessȱmen’sȱclaimsȱthatȱHadesȱisȱinsubstantialȱ(vv.ȱ 1Ȭ3),ȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ theȱ powerȱ toȱ shortenȱ andȱ overcomeȱ theȱ promisedȱ secureȱlifeȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱ(vv.ȱ19Ȭ20),ȱandȱthatȱtheȱmemoryȱofȱaȱpersonȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 60ȱ Itȱisȱalsoȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱauthor’sȱcompositionȱofȱtheȱgodlessȱspeechȱhereȱ reflectsȱ theȱ latter’sȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ theȱ teachingsȱ inȱ theȱ OT.ȱ J.P.ȱ Weisengoffȱ hasȱ givenȱ quiteȱanȱexhaustiveȱlist:ȱ “Thus,ȱbreathȱinȱtheȱnostrilsȱisȱsmokeȱ(Wisȱ2:2c),ȱbutȱinȱtheȱBibleȱitȱisȱtheȱbreathȱofȱ Godȱandȱmakesȱoneȱaȱlivingȱbeingȱ(Genȱ2:7;ȱJobȱ27:3);ȱoblivionȱisȱtheȱfateȱofȱallȱafȬ terȱdeathȱ(Wisȱ2:4aȬb),ȱbutȱinȱtheȱBibleȱoblivionȱisȱtheȱfateȱofȱtheȱwickedȱ(Pssȱ9:6;ȱ 34:16;ȱProvȱ10:7),ȱwhileȱtheȱjustȱenjoyȱremembranceȱwithȱposterityȱ(Provȱ10:7;ȱPsȱ 112:6;ȱcf.ȱWisȱ4:1;ȱ8:13;ȱ10:14);ȱtheȱ’impious’ȱproposeȱtoȱoppressȱwidows,ȱtheȱold,ȱ andȱtheȱpoorȱ(Wisȱ2:10),ȱgroupsȱwhich,ȱaccordingȱtoȱO.T.ȱprescriptions,ȱareȱtoȱbeȱ treatedȱ withȱ kindnessȱ andȱ generosityȱ (Deutȱ 16:14;ȱ 24:17Ȭ19;ȱ 28:50;ȱ Psȱ 72:2Ȭ3;ȱ Isȱ 1:17;ȱ10:2;ȱ47:6).ȱTheȱcombinationȱψȱΐΉΕϠΖȱψΐЗΑȱΎ΅ϠȱϳȱΎΏϛΕΓΖ seemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱ borrowedȱ fromȱ theȱ Greekȱ ofȱ Isȱ 57Ȭ6[sic].ȱ .̐óΐΓΖȱ andȱ Δ΅΍ΈΉí΅ (Wisȱ 2:12)ȱ refer,ȱ althoughȱ perhapsȱ notȱ exȬclusively,ȱ toȱ theȱ Mosaicȱ Lawȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ traditionsȱ inȱ whichȱ youngȱ Jewsȱ wereȱ initiated.ȱ Inȱ Wisȱ 2:12aȱ ϶Θ΍ȱ ΈϾΗΛΕ΋ΘΓΖȱ ψΐ૙Αȱ πΗΘ΍Αȱ isȱ identicalȱ withȱ theȱ Greekȱ ofȱ Isȱ 3:10.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ authorȱ himselfȱ describesȱ theȱ ’impious’ȱ asȱ ΘΓІȱ ΎΙΕϟΓΙȱ ΦΔΓΗΘΣΑΘΉΖȱ (Wisȱ 3:10),ȱ whichȱ canȱ scarcelyȱ meanȱ anythingȱbutȱ’thoseȱwhoȱrevoltedȱfromȱYahweh’.”ȱ Inȱ J.P.ȱ Weisengoff,ȱ “Theȱ Impiousȱ ofȱ Wisdomȱ 2”,ȱ CBQȱ 11ȱ (1949),ȱ pp.ȱ 40Ȭ65ȱ (61Ȭ62).ȱ Weisengoff,ȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ elimination,ȱ debatesȱ withȱ previousȱ scholarshipȱ inȱ idenȬ tifyingȱtheȱgodlessȱinȱWisȱ2ȱasȱthoseȱschoolsȱrepresentingȱSadduccess,ȱPhariseesȱandȱ Ecclesiastes.ȱȱ

158ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

willȱ beȱ erasedȱ atȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ deathȱ (vv.ȱ 4Ȭ5),ȱ areȱ allȱ inȱ disagreementȱ withȱ theȱ claimsȱ madeȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ andȱ Benȱ Sira.ȱ Inȱ Proverbs,ȱ theȱ underworldȱisȱusedȱasȱaȱformȱofȱthreatȱtoȱdeterȱwickedȱbehaviour,ȱandȱ prematureȱdeathȱfunctionsȱasȱretributionȱtoȱevilȱmenȱ(cf.ȱProvȱ1:26Ȭ27,ȱ 31Ȭ32;ȱ2:21bȬ22;ȱ11:19;ȱSirȱ21:10;ȱ28:21;ȱ33:14;ȱetȱcetera),ȱwhileȱinȱBenȱSira,ȱ theȱ righteousȱ benefitsȱ onlyȱ throughȱ beingȱ heldȱ inȱ everlastingȱ reȬ membranceȱ(Sirȱ39:9).ȱElsewhere,ȱtheȱauthorȱseeksȱtoȱproveȱtheȱgodlessȱ wrongȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ theȱ promiseȱ ofȱ immortalityȱ forȱ theȱ righteous.61ȱ Hisȱaffirmationȱthatȱlifeȱcontinuesȱafterȱdeath,ȱandȱthereforeȱthatȱHades,ȱ theȱ underworld,ȱ isȱ real,ȱ impliesȱ thatȱ aȱ longȱ lifeȱ onȱ earthȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ important,ȱ butȱ aȱ righteousȱ oneȱ is.ȱ Thus,ȱ heȱ admitsȱ thatȱ theȱ righteousȱ mayȱ liveȱ shortȱ lives,ȱ andȱ mayȱ sufferȱ prematureȱ deathȱ (whichȱ isȱ geȬ nerallyȱ consideredȱ aȱ curseȱ inȱ theȱ OT;ȱ Psȱ 55:23),ȱ butȱ mostȱ importantly,ȱ theȱLordȱremembersȱthemȱ(Wisȱ3).ȱTheȱmemorialȱofȱtheȱjustȱisȱnoȱlongerȱ dependentȱ onȱ humansȱ asȱ inȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ butȱ God.ȱ Theȱ authorȱ inȱ Wisȱ 5ȱ picksȱupȱtheȱgodlessȱmen’sȱspeechȱagain,ȱonȱtheirȱdayȱofȱjudgementȱinȱ theȱ afterlife,ȱ andȱ portraysȱ theirȱ remorseȱ forȱ theirȱ foolishness.ȱ ConȬ sequently,ȱheȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱrighteousȱareȱindeedȱdeliveredȱandȱsavedȱ fromȱtheȱevilȱmenȱbyȱGod.ȱ Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱthereȱisȱalsoȱanȱechoȱofȱtheȱideaȱthatȱtheȱrewardȱofȱ evilȱ menȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ futilityȱ andȱ emptiness,ȱ asȱ inȱ LXXȱ Provȱ 9:12ȱ (adȬ ditions).ȱȱ ȱ LXXȱProvȱ9:12ȱadditions62ȱ 12aȱ Heȱ whoȱ reliesȱ onȱ deceitsȱ –ȱ heȱ shepherdsȱ theȱ winds.ȱ Thisȱ oneȱ willȱ pursueȱaȱflyingȱbirdȱ 12bȱ Forȱ heȱ hasȱ abandonedȱ theȱ roadsȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ vineyardȱ (and)ȱ heȱ hasȱ strayedȱfromȱtheȱpathsȱofȱhisȱownȱfield.ȱ 12cȱHeȱtraversesȱaȱwaterlessȱdesertȱandȱaȱlandȱassignedȱtoȱdroughts;ȱandȱheȱ gathersȱbarrennessȱwithȱ(his)ȱhands.ȱ

ȱ InȱWisȱ5:6Ȭ14,ȱtheȱauthorȱdepictsȱhowȱtheȱevilȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheirȱlivesȱ realiseȱthatȱtheirȱpathȱisȱlackingȱinȱlight,ȱandȱheȱdescribesȱitȱinȱtermsȱofȱ aimlessȱwanderingȱinȱtheȱdesert:ȱtheirȱlivesȱareȱmeaninglessȱandȱfutile.ȱȱ ȱ Wisȱ5:6Ȭ14ȱȱ 6ȱSoȱitȱwasȱweȱwhoȱstrayedȱfromȱtheȱwayȱofȱtruth,ȱȱ andȱtheȱlightȱofȱrighteousnessȱdidȱnotȱshineȱonȱus,ȱȱ andȱtheȱsunȱdidȱnotȱriseȱuponȱus.ȱ 7ȱWeȱtookȱourȱfillȱofȱtheȱpathsȱofȱlawlessnessȱandȱdestruction,ȱȱ andȱweȱjourneyedȱthroughȱtracklessȱdeserts,ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 61ȱ SeeȱJ.P.ȱWeisengoff,ȱ“DeathȱandȱImmortalityȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱWisdom”,ȱCBQȱ3ȱ(1941),ȱ pp.ȱ 104Ȭ33;ȱ J.J.ȱ Collins,ȱ “Theȱ Rootȱ ofȱ Immortalityȱ –ȱ Deathȱ inȱ theȱ Contextȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Wisdom”,ȱHTRȱ(1978),ȱpp.ȱ177Ȭ92.ȱ 62ȱ CitedȱfromȱFox’sȱtranslation,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱpp.ȱ418Ȭ19.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱWisdomȱofȱSolomonȱ

159ȱ

butȱtheȱwayȱofȱtheȱLordȱweȱhaveȱnotȱknown.ȱ 8ȱWhatȱhasȱourȱarroganceȱprofitedȱus?ȱȱ Andȱwhatȱgoodȱhasȱourȱboastedȱwealthȱbroughtȱus?ȱ 9ȱ“Allȱthoseȱthingsȱhaveȱvanishedȱlikeȱaȱshadow,ȱȱ andȱlikeȱaȱrumorȱthatȱpassesȱby;ȱ 10ȱlikeȱaȱshipȱthatȱsailsȱthroughȱtheȱbillowyȱwater,ȱȱ andȱwhenȱitȱhasȱpassedȱnoȱtraceȱcanȱbeȱfound,ȱȱ noȱtrackȱofȱitsȱkeelȱinȱtheȱwaves;ȱ 11ȱorȱas,ȱwhenȱaȱbirdȱfliesȱthroughȱtheȱair,ȱȱ noȱevidenceȱofȱitsȱpassageȱisȱfound;ȱȱ theȱlightȱair,ȱlashedȱbyȱtheȱbeatȱofȱitsȱpinionsȱȱ andȱpiercedȱbyȱtheȱforceȱofȱitsȱrushingȱflight,ȱȱ isȱtraversedȱbyȱtheȱmovementȱofȱitsȱwings,ȱȱ andȱafterwardȱnoȱsignȱofȱitsȱcomingȱisȱfoundȱthere;ȱ 12ȱorȱas,ȱwhenȱanȱarrowȱisȱshotȱatȱaȱtarget,ȱȱ theȱair,ȱthusȱdivided,ȱcomesȱtogetherȱatȱonce,ȱ ȱsoȱthatȱnoȱoneȱknowsȱitsȱpathway.ȱ 13ȱSoȱweȱalso,ȱasȱsoonȱasȱweȱwereȱborn,ȱȱ ceasedȱtoȱbe,ȱandȱweȱhadȱnoȱsignȱofȱvirtueȱtoȱshow,ȱȱ butȱwereȱconsumedȱinȱourȱwickedness.”ȱ 14ȱBecauseȱtheȱhopeȱofȱtheȱungodlyȱȱ isȱlikeȱthistledownȱcarriedȱbyȱtheȱwind,ȱȱ andȱlikeȱaȱlightȱfrostȱdrivenȱawayȱbyȱaȱstorm;ȱȱ itȱisȱdispersedȱlikeȱsmokeȱbeforeȱtheȱwind,ȱȱ andȱitȱpassesȱlikeȱtheȱremembranceȱofȱaȱguestȱwhoȱstaysȱbutȱaȱday.ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ analogyȱ ofȱ desertȱ wanderingȱ isȱ alsoȱ pickedȱ upȱ againȱ inȱ theȱ laterȱ chaptersȱ ofȱ theȱ book.ȱ Inȱ Wisȱ 16Ȭ19,ȱ theȱ authorȱ depictsȱ Israel’sȱ desertȱ experienceȱ asȱ notȱ aimlessȱ butȱ guidedȱ byȱ theȱ divineȱ light,ȱ whichȱ isȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ herȱ enemies,ȱ theȱ Egyptians,ȱ wanderingȱ inȱ theȱ desert,ȱ andȱ withoutȱlight.ȱ Theȱaboveȱshortȱanalysisȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱmainȱcontentȱofȱtheȱgodlessȱ men’sȱ speechȱ echoesȱ theȱ vocabularyȱ ofȱ theȱ evilȱ menȱ inȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱConcerningȱtheirȱphilosophyȱofȱlife,ȱitȱisȱnotȱoneȱbasedȱonȱ Greekȱphilosophy,63ȱbutȱintrinsicallyȱonȱOTȱtraditions.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 63ȱ AsȱsuggestedȱbyȱLarcher,ȱLeȱLivreȱdeȱlaȱSagesse,ȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ211.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱLarcherȱalsoȱ interpretsȱ theȱ bookȱ asȱ resonatingȱ withȱ theȱ philosophy,ȱ lifeȱ andȱ customsȱ ofȱ theȱ Greeksȱ andȱ theȱ Romans.ȱ Also,ȱ thisȱ contrastsȱ withȱ Davidȱ Seeley’sȱ propositionȱ forȱ tracingȱ theȱ sourceȱ toȱ variousȱ Greekȱ philosophiesȱ basedȱ onȱ hisȱ analysisȱ thatȱ theȱ godlessȱ haveȱ twoȱ separateȱ aims:ȱ materialismȱ andȱ removingȱ theȱ righteous.ȱ Heȱ cannotȱfindȱanȱoriginȱforȱtheȱlatterȱinȱtheȱOT.ȱSeeȱD.ȱSeeley,ȱ“Narrative,ȱtheȱRightȬ eousȱManȱandȱtheȱPhilosopher:ȱAnȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱStoryȱofȱtheȱDikaiosȱinȱWisdomȱ1Ȭ 5”,ȱ JSPȱ 7ȱ (1990),ȱ pp.ȱ 55Ȭ78.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ 1ȱ Kgsȱ 21ȱ narratesȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Naboth,ȱ plottedȱ byȱ theȱ paganȱ queen,ȱ asȱ notȱ onlyȱ dueȱ toȱ covetingȱ ofȱ hisȱ land,ȱ butȱ alsoȱbecauseȱheȱwasȱrighteous,ȱseeȱChapterȱThree.ȱTheȱkingsȱandȱleadersȱofȱJudahȱ areȱ alsoȱ accusedȱ ofȱ theȱ bloodȱ ofȱ theȱ innocentȱ andȱ theȱ prophets,ȱ forȱ speakingȱ righteousnessȱ (2ȱ Kgsȱ 21:16;ȱ 24:4;ȱ Jerȱ 7:6;ȱ Ezekȱ 22:16).ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ Deutȱ 19:11Ȭ13ȱ

160ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

6.2.2ȱTheȱThemeȱofȱ10:1Ȭ19:22ȱ Theȱ firstȱ antithesisȱ toȱ wisdom,ȱ then,ȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱbutȱtheȱevilȱmenȱassociatedȱwithȱherȱbyȱtheirȱroleȱinȱthatȱ work.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ mightȱ seemȱ alsoȱ toȱ offerȱ anȱ opportunityȱ toȱ presentȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman:ȱ 10:1Ȭ19:22ȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ foreignȱ oppressorsȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ andȱ hasȱ aȱ moreȱ generalȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ threatȱ ofȱ foreignnessȱ (especiallyȱ Egyptian).ȱ Theȱ threatȱ depictedȱ hereȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ foreignness,ȱandȱspecifically,ȱthoseȱfromȱtheȱEgyptians.ȱȱ Theȱ authorȱ beginsȱ byȱ firstȱ makingȱ aȱ clearȱ differentiationȱ betweenȱ differentȱ ethnicȱ groups:ȱ theȱ nationȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ theȱ foreignersȱ inȱ theȱ landȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ toȱ possessȱ (Wisȱ 12:3Ȭ4),ȱ andȱ theȱ foreignersȱ inȱ theȱ landȱ fromȱwhichȱIsraelȱisȱtoȱbeȱdeliveredȱ(Wisȱ11:15Ȭ19;ȱ16Ȭ19).ȱHavingȱmadeȱ thisȱ distinction,ȱ heȱ emphasisesȱ thatȱ theȱ problemȱ withȱ theȱ foreignersȱ isȱ theirȱidolatry,ȱwhichȱheȱarguesȱisȱtheȱrootȱofȱtheirȱoppressiveȱandȱevilȱ nature.ȱTheȱauthorȱtreatsȱthisȱsubjectȱinȱtheȱfirstȱpartȱofȱWisȱ11Ȭ15.ȱHeȱ contrastsȱIsrael’sȱrelationshipȱwithȱGodȱandȱtheȱforeigners’ȱdependenceȱ onȱ idolatry.ȱ Whereȱ theȱ historicalȱ eventsȱ actuallyȱ haveȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Israel’sȱseductionȱintoȱidolatry,ȱtheyȱareȱignored,ȱasȱinȱ18:20Ȭ23:ȱȱ ȱ Wisȱ18:20Ȭ23ȱȱ 20ȱTheȱexperienceȱofȱdeathȱtouchedȱalsoȱtheȱrighteous,ȱȱ andȱaȱplagueȱcameȱuponȱtheȱmultitudeȱinȱtheȱdesert,ȱȱ butȱtheȱwrathȱdidȱnotȱlongȱcontinue.ȱ 21ȱForȱaȱblamelessȱmanȱwasȱquickȱtoȱactȱasȱtheirȱchampion;ȱ heȱbroughtȱforwardȱtheȱshieldȱofȱhisȱministry,ȱȱ prayerȱandȱpropitiationȱbyȱincense;ȱȱ heȱwithstoodȱtheȱangerȱandȱputȱanȱendȱtoȱtheȱdisaster,ȱȱ showingȱthatȱheȱwasȱyourȱservant.ȱ 22ȱHeȱconqueredȱtheȱwrathȱnotȱbyȱstrengthȱofȱbody,ȱnotȱbyȱforceȱofȱarms,ȱȱ butȱbyȱhisȱwordȱheȱsubduedȱtheȱavenger,ȱȱ appealingȱtoȱtheȱoathsȱandȱcovenantsȱgivenȱtoȱourȱancestors.ȱ 23ȱForȱwhenȱtheȱdeadȱhadȱalreadyȱfallenȱonȱoneȱanotherȱinȱheaps,ȱȱ heȱintervenedȱandȱheldȱbackȱtheȱwrath,ȱȱ andȱcutȱoffȱitsȱwayȱtoȱtheȱliving. ȱ

ȱ Theȱ authorȱ describesȱ idolatryȱ asȱ hatefulȱ toȱ Godȱ (Wisȱ 12:23;ȱ 14:11ȱ asȱ “ΆΈνΏΙ·ΐ΅“ȱabominationȱtoȱGod).ȱȱ ȱ Wisȱ12:23ȱȱ Thereforeȱthoseȱwhoȱlivedȱunrighteously,ȱinȱaȱlifeȱofȱfolly,ȱȱ youȱtormentedȱthroughȱtheirȱownȱabominationsȱ(ΆΈνΏΙ·ΐ΅).ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ depictsȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ killsȱ notȱ becauseȱ ofȱ materialism,ȱ butȱ ofȱ hatred.ȱ Psȱ 10ȱ alsoȱ depictsȱtheȱambushȱofȱtheȱhelplessȱ(ʤʫʬʧ;ȱLXXȱ9:29ȱȬȱΔνΑ΋Θ΅).ȱTherefore,ȱthisȱideaȱisȱ notȱabsentȱinȱtheȱOT.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱWisdomȱofȱSolomonȱ

161ȱ

Wisȱ14:11ȱ Thereforeȱthereȱwillȱbeȱaȱvisitationȱalsoȱuponȱtheȱheathenȱidols,ȱȱ because,ȱthoughȱpartȱofȱwhatȱGodȱcreated,ȱȱ theyȱbecameȱanȱabomination,ȱsnaresȱforȱhumanȱsoulsȱȱ andȱaȱtrapȱforȱtheȱfeetȱofȱtheȱfoolishȱ(ΆΈνΏΙ·ΐ΅).ȱ

ȱ Thenȱheȱmakesȱidolatryȱtheȱsourceȱofȱallȱevilsȱandȱmoralȱillsȱbecauseȱitȱ isȱinherentlyȱaȱrejectionȱofȱGodȱ(Wisȱ11:14),ȱtoȱwhomȱeverythingȱgoodȱ ȱandȱmoralȱbelongsȱ(Wisȱ14:22Ȭ27).ȱ Wisȱ11:14ȱ Forȱthoughȱtheyȱhadȱmockinglyȱrejectedȱhimȱȱ whoȱlongȱbeforeȱhadȱbeenȱcastȱoutȱandȱexposed,ȱȱ atȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱeventsȱtheyȱmarveledȱatȱhim,ȱȱ whenȱtheyȱfeltȱthirstȱinȱaȱdifferentȱwayȱfromȱtheȱrighteous.ȱ ȱ Wisȱ14:22Ȭ27ȱ 22ȱThenȱitȱwasȱnotȱenoughȱforȱthemȱtoȱerrȱaboutȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱGod,ȱȱ butȱthoughȱlivingȱinȱgreatȱstrifeȱdueȱtoȱignorance,ȱȱ theyȱcallȱsuchȱgreatȱevilsȱpeace.ȱȱ 23ȱForȱwhetherȱtheyȱkillȱchildrenȱinȱtheirȱinitiations,ȱȱ orȱcelebrateȱsecretȱmysteries,ȱȱ orȱholdȱfrenziedȱrevelsȱwithȱstrangeȱcustoms,ȱ 24ȱtheyȱnoȱlongerȱkeepȱeitherȱtheirȱlivesȱorȱtheirȱmarriagesȱpure,ȱȱ butȱtheyȱeitherȱtreacherouslyȱkillȱoneȱanother,ȱȱ orȱgrieveȱoneȱanotherȱbyȱadultery,ȱȱ 25ȱandȱallȱisȱaȱragingȱriotȱofȱbloodȱandȱmurder,ȱȱ theftȱandȱdeceit,ȱcorruption,ȱfaithlessness,ȱtumult,ȱperjury,ȱȱ 26ȱconfusionȱoverȱwhatȱisȱgood,ȱforgetfulnessȱofȱfavors,ȱȱ defilingȱofȱsouls,ȱsexualȱperversion,ȱȱ disorderȱinȱmarriages,ȱadultery,ȱandȱdebauchery.ȱȱ 27ȱForȱtheȱworshipȱofȱidolsȱnotȱtoȱbeȱnamedȱȱ isȱtheȱbeginningȱandȱcauseȱandȱendȱofȱeveryȱevil.ȱ

ȱ Finally,ȱtheȱauthorȱexpounds,ȱatȱgreatȱlength,ȱonȱtheȱoriginȱofȱidolatryȱ andȱ attemptsȱ toȱ proveȱ itsȱ futility,ȱ inȱ Wisȱ 13Ȭ15.ȱ Heȱ seemsȱ toȱ followȱ Isaiah’sȱ prophecyȱ inȱ Isaȱ 44:9Ȭ20ȱ forȱ hisȱ presentation.64ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ inȱ theȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ Israel’sȱ thirstȱ inȱ theȱ wildernessȱ andȱ desert,ȱ andȱ theȱ proclamationȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ asȱ theȱ God,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ hisȱ affirmationȱ ofȱ GodȱasȱIsrael’sȱrockȱinȱIsaȱ44:1Ȭ8,ȱjustȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱexpositionȱonȱidolatry,ȱ isȱalsoȱfoundȱinȱWisȱ11.ȱLikewise,ȱtheȱtoneȱofȱaȱforgivingȱandȱmercifulȱ GodȱspeakingȱtoȱallureȱhisȱpeopleȱtoȱrepentȱbeforeȱhimȱisȱfoundȱinȱIsaȱ 44:1Ȭ6,ȱ8,ȱ21Ȭ28;ȱitȱisȱalsoȱfoundȱinȱtheȱportrayalȱofȱaȱpatientȱandȱmercifulȱ GodȱinȱWisȱ11:9,ȱ20Ȭ12:27.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 64ȱ Gilbertȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱformsȱofȱidolatriesȱlistedȱinȱthisȱchapterȱareȱalreadyȱidentifiedȱ inȱtheȱOT,ȱandȱtheyȱareȱnotȱparticularȱonlyȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱcomposition;ȱseeȱGilbert,ȱ Laȱcritiqueȱdesȱdieux,ȱpp.ȱ78Ȭ94,ȱ205Ȭ10.ȱ

162ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

Theȱaboveȱpointsȱindicateȱaȱcoupleȱofȱfeaturesȱwhichȱareȱsimilarȱtoȱ theȱsymbolismȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman:ȱforeignersȱandȱforeignȱworship.ȱ However,ȱtheȱauthorȱdoesȱnotȱemployȱaȱfemaleȱfigureȱforȱhisȱthesis,ȱbutȱ goesȱ directlyȱ intoȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ idolatryȱ itself.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ oneȱ obviousȱ reasonȱforȱthisȱabandonmentȱandȱitȱisȱbecauseȱtheȱauthorȱisȱnotȱawareȱ ofȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.65ȱAsȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱtheȱauthorȱknewȱ SeptuagintȱProverbsȱandȱBenȱSira,ȱusingȱthemȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱsectionsȱ ofȱ hisȱ book.ȱ Butȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ heȱ knewȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Proverbs.ȱSinceȱSeptuagintȱProverbsȱnoȱlongerȱemploysȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ andȱ merelyȱ portraysȱ herȱ asȱ aȱ seductiveȱ adulteressȱ inȱ theȱ community,ȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ wouldȱ haveȱ noȱ accessȱtoȱthisȱcharacterȱinȱherȱoriginalȱform.ȱFurther,ȱthereȱareȱnuancesȱ inȱtheȱsymbolismȱofȱtheȱ“foreignness“ȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱwhichȱareȱ differentȱ fromȱ whatȱ theȱ authorȱ saysȱ aboutȱ “foreignness“ȱ inȱ hisȱ work.ȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ doesȱ notȱ depictȱ “foreign“ȱ elementsȱ asȱ leadingȱ Israelȱ astrayȱ intoȱ apostasy.ȱ Theȱ “foreigners“ȱinȱ hisȱ workȱ areȱ thoseȱ opȬ pressingȱ andȱ persecutingȱ Israel.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ simplyȱ hostileȱ enemiesȱ whoȱ areȱidolatrous,ȱandȱthereȱareȱnoȱissuesȱaboutȱdefiningȱtheȱboundsȱofȱtheȱ Jewishȱ community,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ “foreigners“ȱ areȱ clearlyȱ identifiableȱ asȱ Egyptians.ȱ Allȱ inȱ all,ȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ doesȱ notȱ dealȱ withȱ Israelȱ committingȱ apostasy,ȱ butȱ withȱ theȱ oppressiveȱ situationȱ whichȱ theȱ EgyptiansȱhaveȱcreatedȱforȱIsrael,ȱandȱtheirȱidolatryȱisȱtoȱbeȱblamedȱforȱ theirȱcruelȱattitudes.ȱ Onȱtheȱfaceȱofȱit,ȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱWisdomȱofȱ Solomonȱmayȱseemȱsurprising,ȱgivenȱitsȱinterestȱinȱforeignnessȱandȱitsȱ useȱofȱProverbs.ȱItȱseemsȱlikely,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱauthorȱwasȱunawareȱ ofȱ herȱ existenceȱ inȱ theȱ originalȱ Proverbs,ȱ andȱ anyway,ȱ hisȱ concernsȱ aboutȱforeignersȱareȱveryȱdifferent.ȱWhenȱweȱreachȱtheȱperiodȱinȱwhichȱ thisȱbookȱwasȱcomposed,ȱtheȱconcernsȱofȱtheȱfifthȱcenturyȱareȱfarȱinȱtheȱ past,ȱ andȱ theȱ imageryȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ isȱ beingȱ filteredȱ throughȱ newȱ textsȱ andȱcontexts.ȱ

6.3ȱChapterȱConclusionȱandȱSummaryȱ Inȱ theȱ lastȱ chapter,ȱ weȱ sawȱ howȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ deȬ velopedȱinȱwisdomȱtextsȱwhichȱhaveȱdirectȱreferencesȱtoȱher.ȱWeȱnotedȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 65ȱ WinstonȱisȱcertainȱthatȱtheȱauthorȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱHebrew,ȱandȱevenȱifȱheȱdoes,ȱitȱisȱ throughȱsecondaryȱsources;ȱseeȱWinston,ȱp.ȱ63.ȱ

ȱ

ChapterȱConclusionȱandȱSummaryȱ

163ȱ

thatȱ theȱ connotationȱ ofȱ “foreignness“ȱ wasȱ muchȱ weakenedȱ alreadyȱ inȱ Ecclesiastes,ȱ andȱ hadȱ essentiallyȱ disappearedȱ inȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbsȱ andȱtheȱQumranȱtext.ȱInȱthisȱchapterȱIȱbeganȱtheȱsearchȱforȱtheȱForeignȱ WomanȱinȱBenȱSiraȱthroughȱtheȱoccurrencesȱofȱʤʸʦȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱtextsȱ 9:3ȱandȱ41:21.ȱTheȱlatterȱverseȱonlyȱmentionsȱthatȱoneȱshouldȱnotȱlookȱatȱ theȱʤʸʦ,ȱandȱtheȱsurroundingȱtextsȱgiveȱnoȱclueȱasȱtoȱwhoȱsheȱmightȱbe.ȱ Aȱcarefulȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱpassageȱinȱ9:1Ȭ11ȱshowedȱthatȱBenȱSira’sȱʤʸʦȱisȱ describedȱinȱtheȱ sameȱ languageȱasȱ theȱForeignȱ Woman.ȱHowever,ȱ sheȱ hasȱ becomeȱmerelyȱaȱ representativeȱ ofȱ theȱ badȱ seductiveȱ women,ȱ andȱ noȱlongerȱsymbolisesȱforeignnessȱorȱtheȱlureȱofȱapostasyȱasȱinȱProverbs.ȱ Theȱ Greekȱ equivalentsȱ ofȱ theseȱ twoȱ occurrencesȱ renderȱ ʤʸʦȱ asȱ “courȬ tesan“,ȱandȱtheȱtranslationȱfurtherȱemphasisesȱtheȱconcretenessȱofȱthisȱ womanȱ figure,ȱ whileȱ associatingȱ herȱ withȱ newȱ concernsȱ aboutȱ “foreignness“.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ Greekȱ renderingȱ stillȱ lacksȱ theȱ fullȱ sigȬ nificanceȱ ofȱ theȱ motifȱ asȱ theȱ “foreignȱ wife“,ȱ withȱ herȱ potentialȱ toȱ leadȱ Israelȱintoȱidolatryȱandȱapostasy.ȱ Fromȱtheȱotherȱtexts,ȱsuchȱasȱ10:22;ȱ45:23Ȭ24;ȱ47:19Ȭ20ȱandȱ49:5,ȱitȱisȱ clearȱ thatȱ Benȱ Siraȱ isȱ notȱ xenophobicȱ andȱ hasȱ noȱ overtȱ resentmentȱ towardȱ theȱ foreigners.ȱ Inȱ 36:3,ȱ heȱ doesȱ prayȱ forȱ theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ foreigners,ȱ butȱ inȱ anȱ eschatologicalȱ context,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ sentimentȱ derivedȱ fromȱ theȱ OTȱ prophets.ȱ Theȱ grandson,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ displaysȱsomeȱanxietyȱaboutȱforeignersȱtypicalȱofȱhisȱtime.ȱHeȱchangesȱ theȱcontentsȱofȱ10:22ȱ(MsȱA)ȱsoȱthatȱanȱhonourȱnoȱlongerȱappliesȱtoȱforȬ eignersȱorȱresidentȱaliens,ȱbutȱtoȱaȱdifferentȱJewishȱsocialȱclass.ȱInȱ47:19Ȭ 20,ȱ theȱ grandsonȱ mayȱ alsoȱ implyȱ thatȱ Solomon’sȱ intermarriagesȱ reȬ sultedȱinȱ“defiled“ȱoffspring,ȱtheȱcauseȱofȱGod’sȱwrath;ȱtheȱHebrewȱofȱ 47:19Ȭ20ȱ (Msȱ B)ȱ hadȱ merelyȱ condemnedȱ Solomon’sȱ follyȱ forȱ allowingȱ womenȱ toȱ ruleȱ overȱ him.ȱ Bothȱ changesȱ byȱ theȱ grandsonȱ probablyȱ reflectȱ Hasmoneanȱ regulations:ȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ case,ȱ nonȬIsraelitesȱ wereȱ grantedȱnoȱrightsȱtoȱresideȱinȱJerusalem,ȱimplyingȱaȱdifferenceȱofȱstatus,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ second,ȱ theȱ sinȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ orȱ sexȱ withȱ aȱ Gentileȱ wasȱ punishableȱbyȱtheȱdeathȱpenalty.ȱȱ Weȱalsoȱexaminedȱtheȱpassageȱ25:13Ȭ26:17,ȱwhereȱtheȱgoodȱwifeȱisȱ comparedȱtoȱtheȱbadȱwife,ȱfindingȱnoȱtraceȱofȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱ Woman.ȱ Theȱ subsequentȱ 26:19Ȭ21ȱ didȱ seemȱ toȱ reflectȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ Provȱ 5:10Ȭ12.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ Benȱ Siraȱ makesȱ noȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ foreignersȱ withȱ whomȱ theȱ MTȱ isȱ concerned.ȱ Overall,ȱ itȱ becameȱ clearȱ that,ȱalthoughȱBenȱSiraȱisȱawareȱofȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman,ȱheȱ reȬinterpretsȱherȱtoȱbeȱsimplyȱaȱseductiveȱimmoralȱwoman.ȱȱ Inȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomon,ȱ weȱ sawȱ howȱ theȱ authorȱ usesȱ theȱ overallȱ structureȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱinȱhisȱwork,ȱandȱtwoȱmajorȱcharactersȱfromȱit,ȱ theȱ evilȱ menȱ andȱ Womanȱ Wisdom.ȱ Theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ theȱ evilȱ menȱ inȱ

164ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱtheȱApocryphalȱLiteratureȱ

Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ isȱ dependentȱ onȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbs,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ formerȱ alsoȱ introducesȱ newȱ perspectivesȱ toȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ evilȱ inȱ comparisonȱ toȱ theȱ earlierȱ work.ȱ Itȱ isȱ evidentȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ doesȱ notȱ knowȱMTȱProverbsȱbutȱreliesȱonȱSeptuagintȱProverbs.ȱTheȱstudyȱofȱtheȱ themeȱinȱtheȱthirdȱpartȱofȱhisȱworkȱshowsȱthatȱheȱisȱattackingȱidolatryȱ andȱ accusingȱ itȱ ofȱ beingȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ corruptionȱ forȱ theȱ foreignȱ opȬ pressors.ȱHowever,ȱasȱheȱisȱonlyȱawareȱofȱSeptuagintȱProverbs,ȱwhichȱ depictsȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ simplyȱ asȱ anȱ adulteress,ȱ heȱ findsȱ itȱ irȬ relevantȱforȱthatȱwithȱwhichȱheȱwantsȱtoȱdeal.ȱȱ Thisȱ chapter,ȱ continuingȱ fromȱ theȱ previousȱ one,ȱ chartsȱ howȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ developsȱ inȱ theȱ wisdomȱ apocryphalȱ literature.ȱ Weȱ seeȱ thatȱ theȱ “foreignness“ȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ isȱ maybeȱ resuscitatedȱ aȱ littleȱ inȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ grandson.ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱisȱconfinedȱbyȱitsȱparentȱtextȱandȱtheȱfullȱessenceȱofȱ theȱ symbolismȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ hardlyȱ grasped.ȱ Theȱ disapȬ pearanceȱ ofȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ theȱ laterȱ wisdomȱ liȬ teratureȱofȱtheȱOTȱisȱaȱgradualȱprocess.ȱFirstȱitȱpetersȱoutȱinȱEcclȱ7:26,ȱ andȱ throughȱ Benȱ Siraȱ andȱ hisȱ grandson,ȱ butȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ SepȬ tuagintȱ Proverbs,ȱ itȱ isȱ completelyȱ lost.ȱ Theȱ translatorȱ ofȱ Septuagintȱ ProverbsȱdrawsȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱfurtherȱawayȱfromȱitsȱ symbolismȱ ofȱ “foreignness“ȱ andȱ apostasy.ȱ Heȱ makesȱ noȱ referenceȱ toȱ “foreignness“ȱ inȱ hisȱ translation,ȱ andȱ heȱ changesȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ allȱ theȱ passagesȱtoȱadultery.ȱByȱtheȱtimeȱitȱreachesȱtheȱhandsȱofȱtheȱauthorȱofȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomon,ȱ theȱ originalȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ noȱ longerȱ exists.ȱ Asȱ timeȱ drawsȱ on,ȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ withȱ “foreignȱwomen“ȱnoȱlongerȱbearsȱtheȱsameȱurgencyȱandȱmeaningȱasȱitȱ didȱinȱtheȱearlyȱpostȬexilicȱperiodȱinȱJerusalem,ȱandȱwithȱtheȱfadingȱofȱ thatȱproblemȱcomesȱaȱfadingȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWoman’sȱearlierȱresonance.ȱȱ

ȱ

ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ ȱ Thisȱ thesisȱ hasȱ hadȱ twoȱ mainȱ purposes.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ isȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ womanȱidentifiedȱbyȱʤʸʦȱandȱʤʩʸʫʰȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱshouldȱreallyȱbeȱunȬ derstoodȱasȱ“foreign”:ȱherȱnatureȱisȱanȱallusionȱtoȱtheȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱ inȱtheȱintermarriageȱcrisisȱofȱtheȱpostȬexilicȱperiod,ȱandȱbeyondȱthat,ȱtoȱ aȱ motifȱ inȱ earlierȱ literature.ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ allusionȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ concernedȱ withȱ strictȱ ethnicȱ definition,ȱ rather,ȱ aȱ wellȬestablishedȱ ideaȱ thatȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ leadȱ Israelitesȱ intoȱ apostasy,ȱ andȱ soȱ intoȱ desȬ truction.ȱOurȱsecondȱpurposeȱwasȱtoȱtrackȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱmotifȱitself.ȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱdrawsȱonȱthatȱmotifȱofȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱandȱapostasy,ȱesȬ tablishedȱinȱtheȱDeuteronomisticȱHistoryȱandȱsomeȱlegalȱmaterial,ȱbutȱ itsȱsymbolicȱpresentationȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱseemsȱtoȱmarkȱbothȱaȱ highȱpointȱandȱaȱconclusionȱtoȱtheȱtheme.ȱSubsequentȱworks,ȱalthoughȱ keenȱtoȱdrawȱonȱtheȱimageryȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱfigureȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱ generallyȱplayȱdownȱherȱforeignness,ȱandȱoftenȱpresentȱherȱsimplyȱasȱaȱ symbolȱofȱdangerousȱfemaleȱsexualityȱorȱtheȱarchetypalȱadulteress.ȱThisȱ mayȱ resultȱ fromȱ misunderstandingȱ aȱ characterȱ whoseȱ natureȱ isȱ soȱ closelyȱtiedȱtoȱtheȱideologiesȱandȱconcernsȱofȱaȱparticularȱperiod,ȱsoonȱ afterȱ theȱ Return,ȱ butȱ itȱ alsoȱ indicatesȱ aȱ moreȱ fundamentalȱ shiftȱ ofȱ interestsȱ andȱ understandingsȱ inȱ Jewishȱ culture.ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ reȬ cogniseȱ theȱ originalȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ ifȱ weȱ areȱ toȱ unȬ derstandȱ theȱ centralȱ concernsȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9;ȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ importantȱ toȱ recognise,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ thoseȱ concernsȱ gaveȱ wayȱ toȱ othersȱ inȱ laterȱ literature,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ motifȱ changedȱ accordingly.ȱ Inȱapproachingȱthisȱtopic,ȱweȱbeganȱwithȱaȱlexicographicalȱstudyȱinȱ ChapterȱOne,ȱwhichȱshowedȱthatȱʸʫʰȱisȱessentiallyȱassociatedȱwithȱideasȱ ofȱ“foreignness”,ȱalthoughȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ ourȱ modernȱ naȬ tionalisticȱunderstanding.ȱWeȱsawȱthatȱʸʦȱisȱaȱmoreȱgeneralȱterm,ȱwhichȱ denotesȱsomeȱtypeȱofȱ“otherness”,ȱalthoughȱatȱtimesȱitȱcanȱmeanȱ“forȬ eign”.ȱHowever,ȱwhenȱtheȱtwoȱtermsȱappearȱtogether,ȱtheyȱmustȱhaveȱ theȱ narrowerȱ senseȱ “foreign”.ȱ Therefore,ȱ theȱ womanȱ weȱ findȱ inȱ ProȬ verbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱisȱquintessentiallyȱaȱ“foreignȱwoman”.ȱ Theȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱoccurrencesȱofȱ“foreignȱwomen”ȱappearȱinȱtheȱ accountsȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ mixedȱ marriages.ȱ IfȱProverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ wasȱ writtenȱ closeȱ toȱ thatȱ period,ȱasȱ isȱoftenȱ asserted,ȱthatȱcontextȱcannotȱbeȱignored,ȱnorȱcanȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱveryȱ termȱ “foreignȱ woman”ȱ wouldȱ haveȱ hadȱ aȱ powerfulȱ resonanceȱ forȱ soȱ

166ȱ

ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ

longȱasȱmemoriesȱpersistedȱofȱtheȱupheavalsȱoverȱintermarriage.ȱWhenȱ weȱ lookedȱ intoȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ inȱ Chapterȱ Two,ȱ weȱ foundȱ thatȱ theȱ issueȱofȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱwasȱtiedȱupȱwithȱbroaderȱproblemsȱofȱethnicityȱ andȱselfȬdefinition,ȱandȱwithȱtheȱfamiliarȱproblemȱofȱtheȱ“peopleȱofȱtheȱ land.”ȱ Indeed,ȱ thereȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ deliberateȱ attemptȱ toȱ forgeȱ aȱ connectionȱbetweenȱthatȱgroupȱandȱtheȱ“peoplesȱofȱtheȱland”ȱtoȱwhomȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ prohibitionsȱ refer.ȱ Theȱ evokingȱ ofȱ theȱ DeuteȬ rononomicȱ andȱ Deuteronomisticȱ prohibitionsȱ againstȱ intermarriageȱ withȱthoseȱpeoples,ȱtheȱoriginalȱinhabitantsȱofȱtheȱland,ȱmakesȱitȱclearȱ thatȱtheȱeffortsȱinȱEzraȬNehemiahȱareȱrootedȱinȱanȱearlierȱtradition.ȱ FollowingȱtheȱleadȱofȱNehȱ13:26,ȱinȱChapterȱThree,ȱweȱreviewedȱtheȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ thatȱ traditionȱ inȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Kings.ȱ Thereȱ weȱ exaȬ minedȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱofȱKingȱSolomon,ȱtoȱwhomȱexplicitȱ referenceȱ isȱ madeȱ inȱ theȱ laterȱ debate,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ whatȱ isȱ anȱ almostȱ archetypalȱ portraitȱ ofȱ aȱ “foreignȱ wife”,ȱ whoȱ corruptsȱ andȱ leadsȱ herȱ husbandȱintoȱapostasyȱandȱfinallyȱdestructionȱ–ȱQueenȱJezebel.ȱWeȱalsoȱ foundȱ someȱ evidenceȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ similarȱ ideasȱ runȱ throughȱ theȱ presentationȱ ofȱ Judahiteȱ kingsȱ asȱ goodȱ orȱ bad,ȱ withȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ badȱ onesȱ explicitlyȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ “foreign”ȱ motherȱ orȱ woman.ȱ Thus,ȱ thereȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ persistentȱ motifȱ runningȱ throughȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Kings,ȱinȱwhichȱ“foreignȱwomen”ȱcorruptȱandȱleadȱtheȱkingsȱastray.ȱItȱ isȱtheȱkingsȱthemselves,ȱinȱturn,ȱwhoȱleadȱtheȱnationȱintoȱapostasy,ȱandȱ destruction.ȱThisȱmotifȱisȱinherentlyȱaȱDeuteronomisticȱproduct,ȱwhichȱ isȱ developedȱ fromȱ theȱ Deuteronomicȱ prohibitions,ȱ andȱ whichȱ conȬ tributesȱ toȱ theȱ Deuteronomisticȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ reasonsȱ forȱ Israelȇsȱ declineȱandȱfall.ȱ ItȱseemsȱlikelyȱthatȱȱtheȱfigureȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ 9ȱ isȱ itselfȱ rootedȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ tradition,ȱ andȱ isȱ notȱ simply,ȱ therefore,ȱ aȱ productȱofȱtheȱintermarriageȱcrisisȱinȱtheȱearlyȱpostȬexilicȱperiod.ȱLikeȱ theȱ opponentsȱ ofȱ mixedȱ marriagesȱ inȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ itȱ drawsȱ onȱ theȱ DeuteronomicȱandȱDeuteronomisticȱassociationȱofȱforeignȱwomenȱwithȱ apostasy.ȱ Thoseȱ rootsȱ areȱ shown,ȱ notȱ least,ȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ itȱ usesȱ theȱ motifȱinȱaȱratherȱdifferentȱway.ȱInȱChapterȱFourȱweȱexaminedȱtheȱwaysȱ inȱwhichȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱportrayȱtheȱForeignȱWoman.ȱThereȱsheȱisȱaȱpoeticȱ creation,ȱ andȱ notȱ justȱ simplyȱ depictingȱ theȱ dangersȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ withȱ “foreigners”,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ presupposesȱ aȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ thoseȱ danȬ gers.ȱSheȱisȱaȱ“foreign”ȱwomanȱnotȱbecauseȱtheȱauthorȱisȱtryingȱtoȱmakeȱ someȱpointȱaboutȱethnicityȱdirectly,ȱbutȱbecauseȱcontemporaryȱreaders,ȱ whoȱ wereȱ familiarȱ withȱ theȱ motifȱ inȱ otherȱ literatureȱ and/orȱ withȱ theȱ reasonsȱforȱtheȱdissolutionȱofȱmixedȱmarriagesȱafterȱtheȱReturn,ȱwouldȱ knowȱ whatȱ itȱ isȱ thatȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ do:ȱ theyȱ leadȱ unwaryȱ Jewsȱ astray,ȱ intoȱ apostasyȱ andȱ destruction.ȱ Theȱ backgroundȱ motif,ȱ andȱ theȱ

ȱ

ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ

167ȱ

recentȱcrisis,ȱmeantȱthatȱtheȱ“foreignness”ȱofȱaȱwomanȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱasȱ aȱsortȱofȱpoeticȱshorthand.ȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ putsȱ muchȱ ofȱ itsȱ messageȱ acrossȱ throughȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ symbolicȱcharactersȱandȱtheirȱspeeches.ȱTheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱnotȱtheȱ onlyȱ “bad”ȱ character,ȱ andȱ herȱ roleȱ isȱ clearlyȱ equivalentȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ villainsȱinȱchapterȱ1.ȱBothȱtemptȱtheȱinnocentȱintoȱevil,ȱontoȱtheȱwrongȱ paths,ȱandȱbothȱactȱasȱantithesesȱtoȱpersonifiedȱWisdom,ȱanotherȱpoeticȱ creation,ȱ whoȱ standsȱ forȱ guidanceȱ alongȱ theȱ rightȱ path,ȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ piousȱlivingȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱwillȱofȱYahweh.ȱWhileȱtheȱbadȱcharactersȱ surelyȱandȱcertainlyȱleadȱtoȱdestructionȱandȱdeath,ȱwisdomȱleadsȱoneȱtoȱ blessingsȱandȱabundantȱlife.ȱBothȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱandȱpersonifiedȱ Wisdomȱpresentȱthemselvesȱasȱdesirableȱandȱattractive,ȱandȱtheyȱcomȬ peteȱ withȱ eachȱ otherȱ toȱ lureȱ Jewsȱ onȱ toȱ theirȱ paths.ȱ Bothȱ offerȱ suȬ perficiallyȱ similarȱ things,ȱ andȱ bothȱ speakȱ persuasively,ȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ choiceȱisȱdifficultȱwithoutȱhelp,ȱbutȱtheȱnatureȱofȱeachȱisȱrevealedȱtoȱtheȱ readerȱ byȱ theirȱ namesȱ —ȱ andȱ weȱ sawȱ that,ȱ inȱ chapterȱ 9,ȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ actuallyȱ reȬnamed,ȱ toȱ makeȱ explicitȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ sheȱ isȱ theȱ foolishȱchoiceȱ(presumablyȱinȱcaseȱanyoneȱhadȱfailedȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱpointȱ previously).ȱ Muchȱ ofȱ thisȱ symbolismȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ establishedȱ inȱ otherȱstudiesȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9;ȱinȱcombinationȱwithȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱ theȱ“foreignȱwomen/wives”ȱmotifȱelsewhere,ȱthisȱoffersȱanȱexplanationȱ forȱtheȱotherwiseȱpuzzlingȱ“foreignness”ȱofȱtheȱwoman,ȱandȱdiscountsȱ anyȱneedȱtoȱreȬinterpretȱtheȱadjectivesȱagainstȱnormalȱHebrewȱusage.ȱ Goingȱaȱlittleȱbeyondȱwhatȱwasȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱweȱmayȱnoteȱhereȱ thatȱallȱthisȱgoesȱtoȱemphasiseȱthatȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱcannotȱusefullyȱbeȱreadȱ asȱ thoughȱ itȱ belongsȱ toȱ someȱ corpusȱ ofȱ literatureȱ quiteȱ distinctȱ andȱ separateȱ fromȱ otherȱ biblicalȱ materialȱ orȱ theȱ communityȱ whichȱ createdȱ andȱtransmittedȱit:ȱthisȱisȱveryȱmuchȱaȱJewishȱwork,ȱwrittenȱinȱaȱJewishȱ context,ȱ andȱ addressingȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ Jewishȱ community.ȱ Thatȱ theȱ workȱ drawsȱ onȱ Deuteronomicȱ writingȱ elsewhereȱ seemsȱ beyondȱ disȬ pute, 1ȱandȱitȱisȱhardlyȱsurprisingȱthatȱitȱshouldȱbeȱawareȱofȱaȱmotifȱfromȱ thatȱliteratureȱwhichȱhadȱprovokedȱsuchȱseriousȱproblemsȱinȱtheȱcomȬ munityȱofȱtheȱReturn.ȱThereȱareȱtwoȱotherȱinterestingȱpointsȱraisedȱforȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ byȱ itsȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ motif.ȱ Firstly,ȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ motifȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ compositionȱ ofȱ theȱ workȱ mayȱ giveȱ goodȱ groundsȱ forȱ supposingȱ thatȱ personifiedȱ Wisdomȱ wasȱ actuallyȱ createdȱ asȱ aȱ counterpartȱ toȱ theȱ ForȬ eignȱWoman,ȱratherȱthan,ȱasȱisȱusuallyȱassumed,ȱviceȱversa.2ȱSecondly,ȱitȱ isȱtemptingȱtoȱspeculateȱthatȱtheȱattributionȱtoȱSolomon,ȱifȱitȱisȱoriginalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱ 2ȱ

Cf.ȱ2.2ȱandȱChapterȱThree.ȱ Cf.ȱBlenkinsopp,ȱ“TheȱSocialȱContextȱofȱtheȱSoȬCalledȱOutsiderȬWomanȱinȱProverbsȱ IȬIX”,ȱp.ȱ466.ȱȱ

168ȱ

ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ

toȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9,ȱ mayȱ beȱ loadedȱ withȱ moreȱ significanceȱ thanȱ suchȱ attributionsȱhaveȱelsewhereȱinȱwisdomȱliterature:ȱitȱisȱSolomonȇsȱwives,ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ whoȱ areȱ theȱ mostȱ famouslyȱ corruptingȱ “foreignȱ women”.3ȱ Neitherȱofȱtheseȱpoints,ȱalas,ȱcanȱreallyȱbeȱpursuedȱmuchȱfurtherȱonȱtheȱ availableȱevidence.ȱ Onceȱcreated,ȱtheȱpoeticȱfiguresȱofȱbothȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱandȱherȱ counterpart,ȱ Womanȱ Wisdom,ȱ wereȱ availableȱ toȱ laterȱ Jewishȱ writers,ȱ andȱ bothȱ wereȱ used.ȱ Weȱ findȱ reminiscencesȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ althoughȱ notȱ explicitȱ ones,ȱ inȱ twoȱ otherȱ passagesȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ whichȱ seemȱtoȱknowȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱandȱalsoȱanȱobscureȱreferenceȱtoȱherȱinȱEcclȱ 7:26.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ moreȱ obviousȱ referencesȱ toȱ herȱ areȱ foundȱ outsideȱ theȱHebrewȱBible,ȱinȱaȱlateȱtextȱfromȱQumranȱ(4Q184)ȱandȱinȱBenȱSira.ȱ Weȱ consideredȱ theseȱ textsȱ inȱ chaptersȱ 5ȱ andȱ 6,ȱ alongsideȱ theȱ Greekȱ SeptuagintȱtranslationȱofȱProverbsȱandȱtheȱWisdomȱofȱSolomon.ȱInȱallȱ theseȱ laterȱ materialȱ weȱ detectedȱ aȱ fairlyȱ consistentȱ tendencyȱ eitherȱ toȱ excludeȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱinȱcontextsȱwhereȱweȱmightȱexpectȱtoȱfindȱ her,ȱ orȱ toȱ stripȱ awayȱ herȱ “foreignness”.ȱ Inȱ 4Q184,ȱ sheȱ isȱ depictedȱ asȱ activelyȱseducingȱandȱȱtrappingȱtheȱrighteous,ȱinȱaȱwayȱwhichȱisȱevenȱ moreȱsexuallyȱprovocativeȱthanȱtheȱportrayalȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9.ȱThereȱcanȱ hardlyȱ beȱ anyȱ doubtȱ thatȱ theȱ womanȱ inȱ thisȱ textȱ isȱ modelledȱ onȱ theȱ womanȱ inȱ Proverbs,ȱ andȱ herȱ symbolicȱ functionȱ mayȱ beȱ similarȱ —ȱ butȱ sheȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ saidȱ toȱ beȱ “foreign”.ȱ Theȱ Septuagintȱ versionȱ ofȱ Proverbs,ȱ whichȱ isȱ farȱ fromȱ beingȱ aȱ simpleȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrew,ȱ alsoȱnoȱlongerȱexplicitlyȱdepictsȱherȱ“foreignness”,ȱandȱitȱdescribesȱherȱ usingȱaȱtermȱwhichȱcan,ȱbutȱusuallyȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱethnicȱimplications.ȱ InȱtheȱGreekȱProvȱ2:16,ȱsheȱisȱreplacedȱbyȱaȱnewȱpersonification,ȱ“badȱ counsel”,ȱ andȱ inȱ otherȱ passagesȱ sheȱ becomesȱ simplyȱ aȱ commonȱ adulȬ teress.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ translatorȱ recognisedȱ theȱ originalȱ connotationsȱ ofȱ theȱ character,ȱ whichȱ isȱ questionable,ȱ heȱ presumablyȱ didȱ notȱ considerȱ thatȱ hisȱ readershipȱ would.ȱ Theȱ treatmentȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Benȱ Siraȱ isȱ comȬ parable:ȱ heȱ portraysȱ theȱ ʤʸʦȱ asȱ generallyȱ embodyingȱ theȱ variousȱ “badȱ women”ȱinȱtheȱcommunity.ȱ Relativeȱdatingȱofȱtheseȱtextsȱisȱdifficult,ȱbutȱarguablyȱunimportant:ȱ theyȱ showȱ somethingȱ whichȱ wasȱ apparentlyȱ consistentȱ acrossȱ aȱ longȱ period.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ reȬintroductionȱ ofȱ anyȱ emphasisȱ onȱ “foreignness”ȱ afterȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ comesȱ inȱ theȱ Greekȱ versionȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ whichȱ translatesȱ theȱ womanȱ toȱ aȱ Hellenisticȱ context,ȱ andȱ makesȱ herȱ aȱ “courtesan”.ȱ Althoughȱ thisȱ seemsȱ toȱ restoreȱ someȱ essenceȱ ofȱ “forȬ eignness”ȱandȱofȱtheȱcorruptionȱofȱJewsȱinȱaȱcertainȱway,ȱtheȱmotifȱnoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 3ȱȱ

Blenkinsopp,ȱ “Theȱ Socialȱ Contextȱ ofȱ theȱ SoȬCalledȱ OutsiderȬWomanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ IȬ IX”,ȱpp.ȱ457Ȭ58.ȱ

ȱ

ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ

169ȱ

longerȱ symbolisesȱ apostasyȱ inȱ itsȱ completeȱ sense,ȱ andȱ theȱ figureȱ remainsȱtheȱtangible,ȱpromiscuousȱwomanȱofȱtheȱHebrew.ȱSo,ȱjudgingȱ fromȱ whatȱ weȱ haveȱ ofȱ theȱ literatureȱ producedȱ inȱ theȱ centuriesȱ afterȱ Proverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱitȱseemsȱthat,ȱwhereȱtheȱwomanȱdoesȱappear,ȱsheȱisȱdisȬ associatedȱ fromȱ theȱ earlier,ȱ evocativeȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignȱ woman”,ȱ withȱ itsȱ connotationsȱ ofȱ “apostasy”,ȱ andȱ sheȱ becomesȱ anotherȱ literaryȱ constructionȱsymbolisingȱbadȱwomenȱorȱsexualȱmisconductȱinȱgeneral.ȱ Thisȱdrawsȱonȱherȱmostȱobviousȱcharacteristics,ȱofȱbeingȱindependent,ȱ insidious,ȱseductiveȱandȱprovocative,ȱbutȱmissesȱtheȱmainȱpointȱofȱtheȱ original.ȱ Byȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomon,ȱ whoseȱ knowledgeȱofȱProverbsȱwas,ȱinȱanyȱcase,ȱprobablyȱfilteredȱthroughȱtheȱ Septuagintȱ version,ȱ theȱ originalȱsignificanceȱ ofȱ theȱmotifȱ hasȱ beenȱ lostȱ altogether,ȱandȱtheȱfigureȱdisappears.ȱTheseȱtwoȱlinkedȱchaptersȱofȱourȱ studyȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ motifȱ didȱ notȱ justȱ vanishȱ intoȱ thinȱ airȱ throughȱ neglectȱ byȱ thisȱ time:ȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ womanȱ persistedȱ acrossȱ severalȱ centuries,ȱ butȱ herȱ significanceȱ didȱ not.ȱ Itȱ isȱ easierȱ toȱ observeȱ theȱ pheȬ nomenonȱthanȱtoȱexplainȱit,ȱgivenȱourȱignoranceȱofȱmuchȱthatȱwasȱhapȬ peningȱduringȱthatȱperiod,ȱbutȱitȱseemsȱlikelyȱthat,ȱasȱtheȱconcernȱwithȱ “foreignȱ wives”ȱ receded,ȱ andȱ newȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ identityȱ establishedȱ themselves,ȱ theȱ wholeȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ “foreignȱ woman”ȱ ceasedȱtoȱbeȱ evocative.ȱOnceȱagain,ȱweȱmayȱnote,ȱinȱpassing,ȱthatȱthisȱ hasȱ someȱ consequencesȱ forȱ understandingȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9:ȱ atȱ theȱ riskȱ ofȱ circularȱargument,ȱitȱdoesȱtendȱtoȱaffirmȱthatȱtheȱworkȱwasȱcomposedȱ quiteȱearlyȱinȱtheȱpostȬexilicȱperiod.ȱ Thereȱareȱsomeȱbroaderȱimplicationsȱofȱtheȱconclusionsȱreachedȱinȱ thisȱ thesis.ȱ Firstȱ andȱ foremost,ȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ isȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theȱ depictionsȱ ofȱ adulterousȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ propheticȱ literature,ȱwhoȱconstituteȱaȱseparateȱsetȱofȱ“badȱwoman”ȱimagesȱinȱtheȱ Bible.ȱTheȱForeignȱWomanȱisȱaȱ“foreigner”ȱandȱitȱdoesȱnotȱmatterȱtoȱtheȱ authorsȱifȱsheȱworshipsȱaȱdeityȱotherȱthanȱYahweh:ȱherȱownȱfidelityȱisȱ notȱtheȱissue,ȱbutȱherȱeffectȱonȱtheȱfidelityȱofȱothers.ȱMoreȱimportantly,ȱ adulteryȱ doesȱ notȱ itselfȱ defineȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ –ȱ asȱ weȱ seeȱ inȱ theȱ exampleȱ ofȱ Jezebel,ȱ whoȱ isȱ neverȱ portrayedȱ asȱ unfaithfulȱ toȱ herȱ husband,ȱwhateverȱherȱotherȱfaults.ȱWhatȱtheȱDeuteronomicȱandȱDeuȬ teronomisticȱ authorsȱ fearȱ most,ȱ isȱ thatȱ sheȱ willȱ becomeȱ theȱ wifeȱ ofȱ anȱ Israeliteȱ andȱ lureȱ himȱ intoȱ becomingȱ unfaithfulȱ toȱ Yahweh.ȱ Theȱ adulterousȱ womanȱ inȱ theȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ (especiallyȱ Hosea,ȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Ezekiel),ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ typifiesȱ Israelȱ asȱ Yahweh’sȱ covenantedȱ butȱ unfaithfulȱ wife.ȱ Itȱ isȱ wrongȱ forȱ herȱ notȱ toȱ remainȱ faithfulȱtoȱherȱdeity,ȱYahweh,ȱandȱwhenȱsheȱdoesȱbreakȱfaithȱwithȱhim,ȱ theȱapostasyȱisȱdepictedȱasȱadultery.ȱAsȱtheȱendȱresultȱofȱbothȱimageriesȱ

170ȱ

ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ

isȱ apostasy,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ tendencyȱ forȱ themȱ toȱ beȱ linked;4ȱ thisȱ isȱ hardlyȱ surprising,ȱgivenȱpassagesȱlikeȱProvȱ6:20Ȭ35,ȱwhereȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱmudȬ diesȱ theȱ watersȱ byȱ discussingȱ adulteryȱ itself,ȱ andȱ givenȱ alsoȱ theȱ laterȱ literaryȱ conversionȱ ofȱ foreignȱ womanȱ toȱ simpleȱ adulteress.ȱ Ourȱ studyȱ shows,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ weȱ areȱ actuallyȱ dealingȱ withȱ twoȱ completelyȱ differentȱtraditions,ȱwhichȱoriginateȱfromȱdifferentȱsources.ȱ Sinceȱ thatȱ isȱ theȱ case,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ ourȱ taskȱ hereȱ toȱ trackȱ theȱ deveȬ lopmentȱ ofȱ theȱ propheticȱ motif.ȱ Itȱ isȱ interesting,ȱ however,ȱ toȱ observeȱ thatȱtheȱtwoȱmotifsȱwereȱlaterȱsometimesȱtoȱcoalesce.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱsomeȱ suchȱ mergerȱ happensȱ inȱ theȱ laterȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ centuryȱ CE,ȱ inȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Revelationȱ (seeȱ especiallyȱ 2:18Ȭ29;ȱ 17:1Ȭ6;ȱ andȱ 18:1Ȭ20).5ȱ Theȱ tendencyȱ afterȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ toȱ depictȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ asȱ aȱ realȱ adulteressȱ createdȱ aȱ fertileȱ contextȱ forȱ theȱ twoȱ imageriesȱ toȱ bondȱ inȱ aȱ moreȱintricateȱway.ȱConceptsȱofȱtheȱproperȱworshipȱofȱdeitiesȱchangedȱ duringȱthisȱperiod,ȱofȱcourse,ȱandȱtheȱbookȱofȱRevelationȱunderstandsȱ thatȱ theȱ wholeȱ worldȱ isȱ inȱ aȱ stateȱ ofȱ apostasyȱ ifȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ worshipȱ Jesus.ȱThisȱprovidesȱaȱwayȱforȱtheȱtwoȱ“badȱwoman”ȱimageries,ȱoneȱtheȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ Israelȱ asȱ adulteress,ȱ toȱ bearȱ theȱ sameȱ significanceȱforȱtheȱstateȱofȱapostasy.ȱ Inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ aboveȱ point,ȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ theȱ NTȱ literatureȱ moreȱ generallyȱ deservesȱ separateȱ andȱ furtherȱ study.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Revelationȱ –ȱ Johnȱ 4:1Ȭ26,ȱ whereȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ womanȱinȱsomeȱwayȱisȱportrayedȱasȱaȱparticularȱtypeȱofȱ“foreigner”ȱtoȱ theȱJews,ȱandȱasȱseductiveȱinȱaȱdifferentȱsense,ȱseemsȱtoȱresonateȱwithȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ featuresȱ associatedȱ withȱ ȱ theȱ ForeignȱWoman,ȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ biblicalȱ period. 6ȱ Itȱ isȱ beyondȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ thisȱ thesisȱ toȱ considerȱtheȱmanyȱotherȱcomplexȱfactorsȱatȱworkȱinȱtheȱliteraryȱhistory,ȱ theȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ bothȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ faiths,ȱ andȱ theirȱ perceptionsȱ ofȱ “foreignness”.ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ worthȱ notingȱ thatȱ theȱ conceptsȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱandȱ“ethnicity”ȱhaveȱkeptȱcroppingȱupȱinȱourȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 4ȱ

5ȱ

6ȱ

Galeȱ A.ȱ Yee,ȱ Poorȱ Banishedȱ Childrenȱ ofȱ Eve:ȱ Womanȱ asȱ Evilȱ inȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ Textȱ (MinȬ neapolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ2003);ȱespeciallyȱChapterȱ7,ȱ“TheȱOtherȱWomanȱinȱProverbs:ȱ MyȱMan’sȱNotȱHomeȱ–ȱHeȱTookȱHisȱMoneybagȱwithȱHim”,ȱpp.ȱ135Ȭ58.ȱ DavidȱAune,ȱRevelationȱ1Ȭ5ȱ(WBC,ȱ52;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1997),ȱpp.ȱlviiȬlxx,ȱ 205;ȱ Revelationȱ 17Ȭ22,ȱ pp.ȱ 920Ȭ22ȱ ;ȱ J.ȱ Massyngbaerdeȱ Ford,ȱ Revelation:ȱ Introduction,ȱ TranslationȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ38;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1975),ȱpp.ȱ 56,ȱ 277Ȭ307,ȱ403;ȱCharles,ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ andȱ ExegeticalȱCommentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Revelationȱ ofȱ Stȱ Johnȱ(ICC;ȱ2ȱvols.;ȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark;ȱ1920),ȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱxxivȬlv,ȱ71;ȱvol.ȱII,ȱp.ȱ62;ȱ Johnȱ Sweet,ȱ Revelationȱ (SCMȱ Pelicanȱ Commentaries;ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press,ȱ 1979),ȱ p.ȱ 95,ȱ254.ȱȱ SeeȱinȱparticularȱRaymondȱBrown’sȱcommentary,ȱwhereȱheȱarguesȱthatȱJesusȱinȱtheȱ Gospelȱ ofȱ Johnȱ isȱ portrayedȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ personifiedȱ Wisdom;ȱ R.ȱ Brown,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱJohnȱ(AB;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1966),ȱ p.ȱlxxvii.ȱȱ

ȱ

ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ

171ȱ

discussion.ȱ Thisȱ thesisȱ hasȱ emphasisedȱ theȱ complexitiesȱ ofȱ theseȱ conȬ cepts,ȱ theȱ detailedȱ studyȱ ofȱ whichȱ liesȱ outsideȱ ourȱ purview.ȱ NoneȬ theless,ȱthisȱstudyȱappreciatesȱtheȱshiftingȱboundariesȱofȱtheseȱconceptsȱ andȱ underlinesȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ judgementȱ ofȱ “ethnicity”ȱ asȱ “forȬ eign”ȱorȱnotȱisȱdependentȱonȱspecificȱhistoricalȱandȱideologicalȱcontext.ȱ Asȱnotedȱelsewhere,ȱconceptsȱofȱ“foreignness”ȱinȱEzraȬNehemiahȱdifferȱ starklyȱ fromȱ thoseȱ ofȱ otherȱ works,ȱ evenȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ generalȱ period,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Isaȱ 56Ȭ66,ȱ letȱ aloneȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Ruthȱ andȱ Chronicles.ȱ Theȱ limitedȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱsubjectȱinȱthisȱthesisȱwill,ȱIȱhope,ȱcontributeȱtoȱ anyȱfurtherȱstudyȱofȱthisȱsubject.ȱ Lastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱsayȱaȱlittleȱaboutȱtheȱtheologicalȱ significanceȱofȱourȱconclusions.ȱInȱtheȱearlierȱchapters,ȱweȱhaveȱshownȱ howȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ derivedȱ fromȱ theȱ Deuteronomisticȱ tradition,ȱ andȱ thisȱ affiliationȱ hasȱ broaderȱtheologicalȱimplications.ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱapparentlyȱinterpretsȱtheȱ DeuteronomisticȱmotifȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱtheȱapostasyȱofȱtheȱIsraelitesȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ inherentȱ unfaithfulnessȱ toȱ Yahweh,ȱ asȱ theȱ resultȱofȱencounteringȱstrongȱandȱsubtleȱtemptation:ȱifȱitȱisȱdifficultȱforȱ theȱ uninstructedȱ toȱ resistȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman,ȱ then,ȱ byȱ implication,ȱ itȱ wasȱ difficultȱ forȱ theȱ Israelites,ȱ evenȱ Solomon,ȱ toȱ resistȱ theȱ foreignȱ womenȱtheyȱencountered.ȱAtȱaȱliteralȱlevel,ȱperhapsȱthereȱisȱaȱmessageȱ forȱ itsȱ ownȱ time:ȱ becauseȱ Israelȱ livesȱ inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ foreigners,ȱ theȱ tendencyȱ toȱ apostatiseȱ lurksȱ atȱ everyȱ corner,ȱ forȱ theseȱ foreignersȱ haveȱ theȱ powerȱ toȱ lureȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ astrayȱ andȱ thenȱ leadȱ themȱ toȱ destruction.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱ“historical”ȱdimensionȱhereȱisȱimportant,ȱandȱ deservesȱ moreȱ studyȱ thanȱ itȱ hasȱ traditionallyȱ received,ȱ ultimately,ȱ however,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱisȱaboutȱequippingȱoneselfȱtoȱmakeȱchoicesȱandȱ beȱfaithful:ȱitȱisȱeasyȱtoȱbeȱledȱastrayȱwithoutȱrealisingȱit,ȱandȱprotectionȱ requiresȱaȱpersonalȱcommitmentȱtoȱheedingȱinstruction.ȱThereȱisȱmuchȱ moreȱthatȱcouldȱbeȱsaidȱaboutȱallȱofȱthis,ȱbutȱthatȱdiscussionȱliesȱbeyondȱ theȱscopeȱofȱthisȱthesis.ȱItȱisȱenoughȱtoȱshow,ȱIȱhope,ȱthatȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9’sȱ Foreignȱ Womanȱ imageryȱ isȱ aboutȱ soȱ muchȱ moreȱ thanȱ sexualȱ misȬ demeanoursȱorȱCanaaniteȱcults.ȱ Theȱ symbolicȱ associationȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Woman’sȱ “foreignness”ȱ withȱ apostasy,ȱ andȱ theȱ consequentȱ condemnationȱ ofȱ herȱ isȱ notȱ conȬ genialȱtoȱaȱmodernȱworldview.ȱAlthoughȱhistoricallyȱitȱreflectsȱspecificȱ xenophobicȱattitudesȱinȱtheȱexilicȱandȱearlyȱpostȬexilicȱperiod,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱ interpretedȱ toȱ implyȱ thatȱ everythingȱ “foreign”ȱ isȱ destructiveȱ andȱ beyondȱ redemption.ȱ Despiteȱ itsȱ wholesaleȱ reȬinterpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ motif,ȱtheȱadaptationȱandȱchangeȱofȱtheȱForeignȱWomanȱfigureȱinȱlaterȱ literature,ȱ toȱ symboliseȱ onlyȱ badnessȱ orȱ “(morally)ȱ badȱ women”ȱ inȱ general,ȱ doesȱ remedyȱ thatȱ problem.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ introducesȱ another,ȱ

172ȱ

ConclusionsȱandȱImplicationsȱ

withȱmisogynyȱessentiallyȱtakingȱtheȱplaceȱofȱxenophobia,ȱespeciallyȱinȱ BenȱSira.ȱItȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱaccuseȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱofȱoutrightȱmisogyny,ȱnotȱ leastȱ becauseȱ theȱ authorȱ offersȱ aȱ balancing,ȱ positiveȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ WomanȱWisdom,ȱwhoȱoffersȱtheȱwayȱofȱfaithfulnessȱtoȱYahweh.7ȱMoreȱ importantly,ȱ whateverȱ oneȱ mightȱ thinkȱ ofȱ hisȱ usingȱ femaleȱ atȬ tractivenessȱ asȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ partȱ ofȱ hisȱ imagery,ȱ thatȱ authorȱ isȱ notȱ reallyȱ interestedȱ inȱ genderȱ asȱ such.ȱ Whenȱ theȱ motifȱ losesȱ itsȱ symbolicȱ value,ȱhowever,ȱmostȱnotablyȱinȱ4Q1848ȱandȱBenȱSira,ȱissuesȱofȱgenderȱ comeȱ toȱ theȱ forefront:ȱ itȱisȱ notȱ foreignȱ womenȱ whoȱ areȱ dangerous,ȱ butȱ womenȱmoreȱgenerally.ȱIfȱweȱwantȱtoȱretainȱthisȱpowerfulȱimagery,ȱareȱ weȱ thenȱ leftȱ withȱ aȱ choiceȱ betweenȱ fearingȱ foreignnessȱ andȱ fearingȱ femaleȱsexuality?ȱOurȱstudyȱhasȱdoneȱmuchȱtoȱilluminateȱtheȱpurposeȱ ofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9,ȱandȱtoȱhighlightȱaȱsignificantȱbiblicalȱtheme,ȱbut,ȱasȱsoȱ often,ȱitȱmayȱhaveȱreplacedȱanȱexegeticalȱproblemȱwithȱaȱmoreȱseriousȱ theologicalȱone.ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 7ȱ

8ȱ

Thisȱisȱacknowledgedȱbyȱotherȱfeministȱbiblicalȱscholarsȱsuchȱas:ȱC.ȱCamp,ȱ“Womanȱ Wisdomȱ asȱ Rootȱ Metaphor:ȱ Aȱ Theologicalȱ Consideration”,ȱ inȱ Kennethȱ Hoglund,ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Listeningȱ Heartȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 58;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 1987),ȱ pp.ȱ 45Ȭ76ȱ(51);ȱ Maier,ȱ “Conflictingȱ Attractions”,ȱ p.ȱ 108ȱ (cf.ȱ 1.1);ȱ G.ȱ Baumann,ȱ “Aȱ Figureȱ ofȱ Manyȱ Facets:ȱ Theȱ Literaryȱ andȱ Theologicalȱ Functionsȱ ofȱ Personifiedȱ WisdomȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9”,ȱWisdomȱandȱPsalms,ȱpp.ȱ44Ȭ78.ȱȱȱ Aubin,ȱMelissa,ȱ“’Sheȱisȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱallȱtheȱwaysȱofȱperversity’:ȱFemininityȱandȱ Metaphorȱinȱ4Q184”,ȱWomenȱinȱJudaism:ȱAȱMultidisciplinaryȱJournalȱ2.2ȱ(2001),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ 23;ȱSidnieȱWhiteȱCrawford,ȱ“LadyȱWisdomȱandȱDameȱFollyȱatȱQumran”,ȱWisdomȱandȱ Psalms,ȱpp.ȱ205Ȭ17ȱ(217).ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Appendix:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ OtherȱForeignȱWomenȱandȱIntermarriagesȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ inȱtheȱOTȱȱ ȱ Inȱtheȱmainȱtext,ȱweȱhaveȱfocussedȱprincipallyȱuponȱportraitsȱofȱforeignȱ womenȱ whoȱ areȱ “bad”.ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ clear,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ notȱ allȱ foreignȱ womenȱ areȱ condemnedȱ inȱ theȱ literatureȱ whichȱ weȱ haveȱ beenȱ discussingȱ –ȱ andȱ alsoȱ importantȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ reasons,ȱ whyȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ condemned.ȱ Weȱ shallȱ examineȱ thatȱ subjectȱ brieflyȱ inȱ thisȱ apȬ pendix,ȱstartingȱwithȱtheȱtwoȱinstancesȱfromȱtheȱbooksȱofȱKings.ȱ Elijahȱ meetsȱ theȱ widowȱ ofȱ Zarephathȱ whileȱ heȱ isȱ fleeingȱ fromȱ JeȬ zebel’sȱ campaignsȱ againstȱ Yahweh’sȱ prophetsȱ (1ȱ Kgsȱ 17:8Ȭ24).ȱ Atȱ EliȬ jah’sȱcommand,ȱtheȱwidowȱprovidesȱfoodȱforȱhimȱalthoughȱsheȱandȱherȱ childȱ areȱ inȱ needȱ themselves,ȱ dueȱ toȱ aȱ drought.ȱ Elijahȱ miraculouslyȱ suppliesȱ food,ȱ andȱ subsequentlyȱ resurrectsȱ herȱ deadȱ son.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ incidentȱ causesȱ herȱ toȱ beȱ overcomeȱ withȱ aweȱ andȱ sheȱ proclaimsȱ herȱ beliefȱthatȱsheȱhasȱbeenȱvisitedȱbyȱtheȱtrueȱprophetȱofȱaȱpowerfulȱdeity.ȱ Thisȱ unnamedȱ Sidonianȱ widowȱ standsȱ inȱ starkȱ contrastȱ toȱ Queenȱ Jezebel,ȱ theȱ Sidonianȱ princess.ȱ Inȱ drought,ȱ theȱ widowȱ suffersȱ aȱ comȬ moner’sȱdearthȱofȱfoodȱwithȱexpectationsȱofȱimminentȱdeath,ȱwhileȱtheȱ queenȱ feastsȱ dailyȱ withȱ herȱ prophetsȱ andȱ priests.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ widowȱexperiencesȱdivineȱdailyȱprovisionsȱofȱfood,ȱwhileȱtheȱqueenȱhasȱ toȱ sendȱ herȱ kingȱ andȱ theȱ stewardȱ ofȱ theȱ palaceȱ toȱ huntȱ forȱ waterȱ andȱ provisions;ȱ andȱ whileȱ theȱ widow’sȱ sonȱ isȱ resurrectedȱ fromȱ deathȱ onȱ accountȱ ofȱ herȱ hospitalityȱ toȱ Elijah,ȱ theȱ queen’sȱ familyȱ andȱ herȱ desȬ cendantsȱsufferȱdivineȱwrathȱandȱareȱcutȱoffȱfromȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱIsraelȱ andȱJudah.ȱFurthermore,ȱwhileȱtheȱwidowȱcomesȱtoȱacknowledgeȱElijahȱ asȱaȱprophetȱofȱtheȱtrueȱdeity,ȱtheȱqueenȱcontinuesȱtoȱseekȱtheȱbloodȱofȱ Yahweh’sȱprophets.ȱ TheȱotherȱimportantȱinstanceȱisȱtheȱQueenȱofȱShebaȱ(1ȱKgsȱ10:1Ȭ13),1ȱ whoȱcomesȱtoȱvisitȱKingȱSolomon,ȱapparentlyȱtoȱverifyȱallȱthatȱsheȱhasȱ heardȱ ofȱ hisȱ reputedȱ wisdomȱ andȱ fortuneȱ (v.ȱ 1).ȱ This,ȱ perhaps,ȱ recallsȱ Solomon’sȱprayerȱatȱtheȱdedicationȱofȱtheȱTempleȱ(1ȱKgsȱ8:41Ȭ43)ȱ–ȱitȱisȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ whatȱ aȱ foreignerȱ beingȱ drawnȱ toȱ Israelȱ mightȱ do.ȱ Theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱ

Theȱ placeȱ Shebaȱ hasȱ notȱ beenȱ definitielyȱ located,ȱ cf.ȱ Cogan,ȱ p.ȱ 315;ȱ alsoȱ seeȱ theȱ conjectureȱofȱKennethȱKitchenȱconcerningȱtheȱlocationȱofȱShebaȱin,ȱK.ȱKitchen,ȱ“SheȬ baȱandȱArabia”,ȱTheȱAgeȱofȱSolomon,ȱpp.ȱ127Ȭ39.ȱ

174ȱ ȱ

Appendixȱ

DtrHȱreportsȱthatȱsheȱisȱimpressedȱandȱconvincedȱbyȱwhatȱsheȱhasȱseenȱ andȱ heard,ȱ andȱ thatȱ sheȱ praisesȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ Yahweh,ȱ acknowledgingȱ hisȱpowerȱandȱblessingȱonȱtheȱpeopleȱinȱSolomon’sȱkingdomȱ(vv.ȱ6Ȭ9).ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ thisȱ episodeȱ mightȱ beȱ deemedȱ political,2ȱ theȱ DtrH’sȱportrayalȱofȱthisȱforeignȱwomanȱisȱconsistentȱwithȱhisȱtheme.ȱ BothȱtheȱwidowȱofȱZarephathȱandȱtheȱQueenȱofȱShebaȱshareȱsomeȱ commonȱ characteristics:ȱ (1)ȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ seekingȱ marriageȱ withȱ anyȱ Israeliteȱ men;ȱ (2)ȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ portrayedȱ asȱ involvedȱ withȱ anyȱ foreignȱ religion;ȱ(3)ȱtheyȱmakeȱconfessionsȱofȱtheȱgreatnessȱandȱsovereigntyȱofȱ Yahweh.ȱTheseȱtwoȱforeignȱwomenȱareȱcertainlyȱdifferentȱfromȱtheȱʭʩʹʰȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰȱ weȱ haveȱ metȱ earlierȱ inȱ eachȱ ofȱ theseȱ respects.ȱ Theȱ contrastingȱ characteristicsȱ showȱ whatȱ theȱ DtrHȱ considersȱ acceptableȱ andȱ unacȬ ceptableȱ “foreignness”,ȱ andȱ theȱ DtrHȱ doesȱ notȱ considerȱ allȱ foreignȱ womenȱtoȱbeȱbadȱandȱtoȱbeȱunwelcomed.ȱAsȱlongȱasȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱcrossȱ certainȱ boundaries.ȱ Asȱ withȱ theȱ booksȱofȱ Kings,ȱ theȱ otherȱ DtrHȱbooksȱ suchȱasȱJoshuaȱandȱJudgesȱalsoȱseemȱtoȱportrayȱsomeȱforeignȱwomenȱinȱ aȱ positiveȱ light,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Rahabȱ (Joshȱ 2;ȱ 6:17Ȭ25)3ȱ andȱ Jael,ȱ theȱ Keniteȱ (Judgȱ 4:17Ȭ22;ȱ 5:24Ȭ31)4.ȱ Again,ȱ neitherȱ ofȱ theseȱ womenȱ seekȱ marriagesȱwithȱIsraelites,ȱnorȱareȱtheyȱexplicitlyȱconnectedȱwithȱforeignȱ cults,ȱ andȱ bothȱ actȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ ofȱ Israel.5ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱ

3ȱ 4ȱ

5ȱ

Dueȱ toȱ theȱ uncertaintyȱ aboutȱ theȱ historicityȱ ofȱ Sheba,ȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ differingȱ opinionsȱconcerningȱtheȱmotivationȱofȱthisȱepisode.ȱCoganȱthinksȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱlegendȱ amongȱwisdomȱcircles,ȱacclaimingȱtheȱwisdomȱandȱwealthȱofȱSolomon,ȱinȱCogan,ȱp.ȱ 315.ȱ Grayȱ arguesȱ againstȱ theȱ genreȱ ofȱ wisdomȱ saga,ȱ interpretingȱ theȱ episodeȱ asȱ anȱ echoȱ ofȱ Solomon’sȱ extensiveȱ tradeȱ missions,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ historical;ȱ seeȱ Gray,ȱ pp.ȱ 238Ȭ42ȱ andȱ Kitchen,ȱ pp.ȱ 127Ȭ39.ȱ Also,ȱ forȱ aȱ readingȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ discourseȱ ofȱ prowessȱ andȱ otherness,ȱ seeȱ Susanneȱ GillmayrȬBucher,ȱ “’Sheȱ cameȱ toȱ testȱ himȱ withȱ hardȱ questions’:ȱ foreignȱ womenȱ andȱ theirȱ viewȱ onȱ Israel“,ȱ Biblicalȱ Interpretationȱ 15ȱ (2007),ȱ135Ȭ50.ȱ Cf.ȱ1.2.ȱ Baruchȱ Halpern,ȱ “Kenites”,ȱ ABDȱ vol.ȱ IV,ȱ pp.ȱ 17Ȭ20;ȱ A.ȱ Malamat,ȱ “Mariȱ andȱ theȱ Bible”,ȱ JAOSȱ 82ȱ (1962),ȱ pp.ȱ 144Ȭ46.ȱ Inȱ Judges,ȱ theȱ Kenitesȱ areȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ Midianiteȱ tribesȱtoȱwhichȱJethro,ȱMoses’sȱfatherȬinȬlaw,ȱbelongedȱ(Judgȱ1:16;ȱ4:11).ȱȱ ForȱRahab,ȱseeȱK.M.ȱCampbell,ȱ“Rahab’sȱCovenant:ȱAȱshortȱnoteȱonȱJoshuaȱiiȱ9Ȭ21”,ȱ VTȱ22ȱ (1972),ȱpp.ȱ243Ȭ44.ȱCampbellȱhasȱdemonstratedȱtheȱunderlyingȱstructureȱofȱ aȱ covenantȱ inȱ theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ thisȱ passage.ȱ Also,ȱ J.A.ȱ Soggin,ȱ Joshua:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (trans.ȱ R.A.ȱ Wilson;ȱ OTL;ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press,ȱ 1972),ȱ pp.ȱ 41Ȭ43.ȱ Heȱ notesȱ thatȱ RaȬ hab’sȱspeechȱinȱJoshȱ2:8Ȭ14ȱisȱcomposedȱofȱthoseȱelements,ȱwouldȱproclaimȱtoȱindiȬ cateȱ aȱ beliefȱ inȱ Yahweh.ȱ Forȱ Jael,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ Judgȱ 1:16ȱ providesȱ theȱ backgroundȱ informationȱ whichȱ explainsȱ theȱ friendlyȱ termsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ andȱ theȱ KeȬ nites.ȱAlso,ȱthisȱfriendlyȱrelationshipȱprobablyȱcontinuedȱfromȱtheȱtimeȱofȱMoses.ȱSeeȱ A.ȱ Cody,ȱ “Exodusȱ 18,ȱ 12:ȱ Jethroȱ Acceptsȱ aȱ Covenantȱ withȱ theȱ Israelites”,ȱ Bibȱ 49ȱ (1968),ȱ pp.ȱ 153Ȭ66;ȱ Georgeȱ Mendenhall,ȱ “Midian”,ȱ ABDȱ vol.ȱ IV,ȱ pp.ȱ 815Ȭ18ȱ (816).ȱ MendenhallȱexplainsȱthatȱtheȱsacrificeȱofȱJethro’sȱofferingȱandȱhisȱparticipationȱinȱtheȱ commonȱmealȱwasȱanȱactȱofȱJethroȱandȱIsraelȱenteringȱintoȱaȱcovenantȱofȱpeace.ȱAlȬ thoughȱheȱthinksȱthatȱIsraelȱwasȱobliviousȱtoȱJethro’sȱintention.ȱJael’sȱactȱshouldȱbeȱ

ȱ

Appendixȱ

175ȱȱ

“good”ȱ foreignȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ DtrHȱ abandonȱ theirȱ foreignnessȱ toȱ joinȱ Israelȱ andȱ theȱ Israeliteȱ religon,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ persuadingȱ Israelitesȱ toȱ travelȱinȱtheȱoppositeȱdirection.ȱ Then,ȱthereȱareȱtwoȱotherȱwomenȱwhomȱtheȱDtrHȱportrayedȱtoȱbeȱ “bad”ȱ andȱ “foreign”ȱ butȱ areȱ notȱ directlyȱ associatedȱ withȱ theirȱ foreignȱ deities;ȱ rather,ȱ theyȱ pledgedȱ theirȱ allegianceȱ toȱ theirȱ nationȱ thanȱ towardsȱtheirȱhusband,ȱandȱloverȱ–ȱSamson’sȱtwoȱPhilistineȱwomen,ȱaȱ womanȱ fromȱ Timnah,ȱ andȱ Delilahȱ (Judgȱ 14;ȱ 16:1Ȭ22).6ȱ Thereȱ areȱ manyȱ similarȱthemesȱsharedȱinȱtheȱnarrativesȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱwomen,ȱandȱtheyȱ haveȱbeenȱsometimesȱconsideredȱasȱdoublets.7ȱInȱbothȱcases,ȱtheȱDtrHȱ bringsȱusȱtoȱtheȱbedroomȱscenesȱofȱSamsonȱandȱhisȱwomen.ȱThere,ȱhisȱ womenȱpersuadeȱandȱcoaxȱhimȱtoȱrevealȱsecrets.8ȱAndȱinȱbothȱcases,ȱtheȱ women’sȱ motivationȱ wereȱ initiatedȱ byȱ theȱ Philistineȱ menȱ (cf.ȱ 14:15;ȱ 16:5).ȱ Also,ȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ withȱ Delilah,ȱ sheȱ didȱ notȱ seekȱ marriageȱ withȱ him.ȱ Theȱ mainȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theseȱ womenȱ areȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ seductive,ȱ seekingȱsexualȱrelationsȱwithȱSamson,ȱandȱtheyȱareȱpowerfulȱwithȱtheirȱ persuasionȱ andȱ coaxing.ȱ Moreȱ importantly,ȱ whatȱ distinguishesȱ theseȱ twoȱ badȱ womenȱ fromȱ theȱ otherȱ badȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ inȱ DtrHȱ asȱ mentionedȱ inȱ Chapterȱ Three,ȱ isȱ probablyȱ theirȱ locationȱ outsideȱ ofȱ theȱ boundariesȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ and,ȱ whileȱ Samson’sȱ firstȱ “foreign”ȱ wifeȱ diedȱ tragically,ȱDelilahȱwasȱnotȱhisȱwife,ȱbutȱaȱlover.ȱAnotherȱsimilarȱportraitȱ ofȱtheȱ“bad”ȱwomenȱwhoȱseducesȱthroughȱspeech,ȱwhichȱfallsȱoutsideȱ ofȱtheȱDeuteronomisticȱliteratureȱisȱPotiphar’sȱwifeȱ(Genȱ39).9ȱAsȱmenȬ tionedȱ earlier,ȱ likeȱ Samson’sȱ women,ȱ sheȱ isȱ notȱ seekingȱ maritalȱ relaȬ tionshipȱwithȱJoseph,ȱandȱsheȱisȱlocatedȱinȱEgypt.ȱ ApartȱfromȱtheȱDeuteronomisticȱliterature,ȱwhichȱseemsȱtoȱfollowȱaȱ moreȱ consistentȱ patternȱ inȱ itsȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ “bad”ȱ andȱ “good”ȱ nonȬ Israeliteȱwivesȱandȱwomen,10ȱthereȱisȱlittleȱconsistencyȱinȱtheȱOT.ȱMostȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ understoodȱinȱtheȱlightȱofȱthisȱbackground,ȱandȱthatȱsheȱactedȱinȱloyaltyȱtoȱtheȱlong,ȱ friendlyȱandȱbindingȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱIsraelites.ȱ 6ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ statedȱ whetherȱ Delilahȱ isȱ aȱ Philistineȱ althoughȱ Jewishȱ traditionsȱ claimȱ so.ȱ AaronȱRothkoff,ȱ“Samson”,ȱEncJudȱvol.ȱXIV,ȱp.ȱ773.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱothersȱthinkȱ thatȱ Delilahȱ isȱ aȱ Canaanite,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ J.A.ȱ Soggin,ȱ Judges:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (trans.ȱ JohnȱBowden;ȱOTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1981),ȱpp.ȱ228Ȭ30.ȱ 7ȱ Soȱ demonstratedȱ byȱ Jichanȱ Kim,ȱ Theȱ Structureȱ ofȱ theȱ Samsonȱ Cycleȱ (Kampen,ȱ NeȬ therlands:ȱ Kokȱ Pharosȱ Publishingȱ House,ȱ 1993).ȱ Hisȱ thesisȱ attemptsȱ toȱ proveȱ thatȱ Judgȱ13Ȭ16ȱisȱaȱliteraryȱunit.ȱHeȱdemonstratesȱanȱinternalȱliteraryȱstructure,ȱthroughȱ theȱuseȱofȱnumbersȱandȱsomeȱrepetitiveȱwordsȱandȱthemes,ȱwhichȱdisplayedȱaȱcycliȬ calȱmotifȱandȱlinearȱthrustȱinȱtheȱstory.ȱ 8ȱ Cf.ȱ4.2.ȱ 9ȱ Thisȱ storyȱ isȱ generallyȱ consideredȱ asȱ JE,ȱ Gerhardȱ vonȱ Rad,ȱ Genesis:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (trans.ȱJohnȱH.ȱMarks;ȱOTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1961),ȱp.ȱ359.ȱ 10ȱ Itȱisȱbestȱtoȱclarifyȱhereȱthatȱthereȱare,ȱofȱcourse,ȱplentyȱofȱotherȱforeignȱwomenȱwhoȱ appearȱbrieflyȱbutȱtheirȱpresenceȱisȱincidental.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheyȱareȱjustȱ“there”,ȱ

176ȱ ȱ

Appendixȱ

notably,ȱthereȱareȱ“foreignȱwives”ȱwhomȱeminentȱmenȱmarryȱwithoutȱ condemnationȱ–ȱHagar,ȱwifeȱofȱAbrahamȱandȱZipporah,ȱwifeȱofȱMoses.ȱ Theseȱtwoȱwomenȱareȱportrayedȱbyȱtheȱauthorsȱmoreȱasȱ“insiders”ȱthanȱ “outsiders”.ȱAlthoughȱHagarȱisȱsentȱawayȱbyȱSarahȱandȱAbraham,ȱtheȱ authorȱdealsȱwithȱherȱsympatheticallyȱandȱincludesȱherȱinȱtheȱeyesȱandȱ underȱ theȱ careȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ (Genȱ 16:7Ȭ16;ȱ 21:15Ȭ21).ȱ Moreȱ importantly,ȱ Hagarȱ isȱ sentȱ awayȱ notȱ becauseȱ ofȱ “intermarriage”,ȱ butȱ becauseȱ theȱ promiseȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ regardingȱ Isaacȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ contestedȱ (Genȱ 21:11Ȭ 13).ȱInȱaȱsimilarȱvein,ȱZipporahȱisȱportrayedȱasȱwiseȱandȱkeenȱtoȱobeyȱ Yahweh’sȱcall,ȱsavingȱtheȱlivesȱofȱbothȱMosesȱandȱtheirȱsonȱ(Exodȱ4:24Ȭ 26).11ȱ Yahwehȱ doesȱ notȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ discontentȱ withȱ herȱ marriageȱ toȱ Mosesȱandȱinsteadȱpunishesȱthoseȱwhoȱcomplainȱagainstȱitȱ(Numȱ11).12ȱ Generally,ȱthough,ȱinȱtheȱearlyȱpartȱofȱtheȱPentateuch,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱ marriageȱ withinȱ theȱ familyȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ desirable,13ȱ andȱ marriageȱ withȱ Canaanitesȱ mostȱ undesirableȱ (cf.ȱ Genȱ 24:3Ȭ4).ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ latter,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ toȱ terminateȱ suchȱ relationshipsȱ wasȱ notȱ onlyȱ aȱ righteousȱ deed,ȱbutȱcouldȱavertȱsomeȱpunishments,ȱwhereasȱtheȱcontinuationȱofȱ suchȱ relationshipsȱ broughtȱ punishmentȱ andȱ condemnation.ȱ Sarah,ȱ ReȬ bekah,ȱ Leahȱ andȱ Rachelȱ areȱ allȱ kinȱ ofȱ Abraham,ȱ andȱ therefore,ȱ theyȱ makeȱdesirableȱwives.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱEsau’sȱwivesȱareȱnotȱdesirable,ȱ becauseȱtheyȱareȱHittites.ȱOnȱaccountȱofȱtheseȱwives,ȱIsaacȱandȱRebekahȱ pleadȱwithȱJacobȱnotȱtoȱmarryȱCanaaniteȱwomen,ȱorȱtheyȱwillȱdieȱ(Genȱ 26:34Ȭ35;ȱ 27:46Ȭ28:2;ȱ 28:6Ȭ9).ȱ Interestingly,ȱ sandwichedȱ betweenȱ Isaac’sȱ disgustȱandȱRebekah’sȱdisdainȱoverȱEsau’sȱwivesȱisȱtheȱtaleȱofȱtheȱlossȱ ofȱ theȱ latter’sȱ birthȬrightȱ toȱ hisȱ brother,ȱ whichȱ endsȱ withȱ Esauȱ takingȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ forȱ example,ȱ Sisera’sȱ motherȱ andȱ herȱ maidsȱ inȱ Judgȱ 5:28Ȭ29;ȱ andȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ QueenȱTahpenesȱinȱ1ȱKgsȱ11:20.ȱȱ 11ȱ Scholarsȱ haveȱ recognisedȱ theȱ difficultiesȱ ofȱ thisȱ account.ȱ Seeȱ H.ȱ Kosmala,ȱ “Theȱ Bloodyȱ Husband”,ȱ VTȱ 12ȱ (1962),ȱ pp.ȱ 14Ȭ28;ȱ J.ȱ Morgenstern,ȱ “’Theȱ Bloodyȱ HusȬ band’(?)ȱ (Exod.ȱ 4:24Ȭ26)ȱ Onceȱ Again”,ȱ HUCAȱ 34ȱ (1963),ȱ pp.ȱ 35Ȭ70.ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ theȱ mostȱ appropriateȱ interpretationȱ toȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ probablyȱ givenȱ byȱ Bernhardȱ Robinson,ȱ “ZipporahȱtoȱtheȱRescue:ȱAȱContextualȱStudyȱofȱExodusȱivȱ24Ȭ6”,ȱVTȱ36ȱ(1986),ȱpp.ȱ 447Ȭ61.ȱȱ 12ȱ Itȱisȱsometimesȱsuggestedȱthatȱanotherȱwifeȱisȱreferredȱtoȱhereȱinȱthisȱcomplaint.ȱTheȱ SeptuagintȱtranslatesȱCushȱinȱtwoȱways:ȱasȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱdescendantsȱofȱHamȱ(Genȱ 10:6Ȭ8;ȱ1ȱChrȱ1:8Ȭ10)ȱandȱinȱallȱtheȱotherȱoccurrencesȱasȱreferringȱtoȱ̄΍Ό΍ΓΔ΍΅,ȱthatȱis,ȱ Ethiopia.ȱHence,ȱtheȱreferenceȱtoȱanotherȱwifeȱwhomȱMosesȱtookȱduringȱhisȱjourney.ȱ However,ȱ Johnȱ vanȱ Setersȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱ “Cush”ȱ shouldȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ notȱ onlyȱ denotingȱ peopleȱ groups,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ colourȱ “black”.ȱ Itȱ makesȱ theȱ contextȱ meaningful,ȱ asȱ Miriamȱ wasȱ punishedȱ forȱ herȱ complaintȱ withȱ leprosyȱ “asȱ whiteȱ asȱ snow”.ȱ Seeȱ J.ȱ vanȱ Seters,ȱ Theȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ Moses:ȱ Theȱ Yahwistȱ asȱ Historianȱ inȱ Exodusȱ andȱ Numbersȱ(Louisville,ȱKentucky:ȱWestminster/JohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱpp.ȱ238Ȭ39.ȱ 13ȱ IȱthinkȱitȱisȱprobableȱthatȱtheȱcontentȱofȱtheȱcomplaintȱbyȱMiriamȱisȱalsoȱderivedȱfromȱ thisȱgeneralȱperception,ȱandȱweȱfindȱaȱsimilarȱcommentȱinȱJudgȱ14:3ȱasȱwell.ȱ

ȱ

Appendixȱ

177ȱȱ

wivesȱfromȱtheȱIshmaelitesȱinȱanȱattemptȱtoȱappeaseȱhisȱfather.14ȱThen,ȱ inȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ howȱ Dinah’sȱ brothersȱ avengedȱ theȱ rapeȱ ofȱ theirȱ sister,ȱ theȱ exterminationȱ ofȱ theȱ Shechemitesȱ isȱ presentedȱ asȱ quiteȱ justifiedȱ (Genȱ 34).15ȱ Finally,ȱ Judah’sȱ Canaaniteȱ wifeȱ andȱ childrenȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ responsibleȱ forȱ theȱ disastersȱ andȱ chaosȱ inȱ theȱ familyȱ untilȱ heȱ rectifiesȱ hisȱ relationshipȱ withȱ hisȱ daughterȬinȬlaw,ȱ Tamar,ȱ whoseȱ originȱ isȱ notȱ specifiedȱ(Genȱ38).16ȱ Inȱ theȱ patriarchalȱ narratives,ȱ whatȱ constitutesȱ aȱ “foreign”ȱ wifeȱ isȱ differentȱ fromȱ whatȱ isȱ understoodȱ inȱ theȱ laterȱ literature,ȱ andȱ kinshipȱ tiesȱ crossȱ geographicalȱ boundariesȱ toȱ Ur,ȱ Abraham’sȱ hometown,ȱ andȱ acrossȱ theȱ desertȱ toȱ theȱ Ishmaelites.ȱ Inȱ laterȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ theȱ nation,ȱIsraelȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱdreamtȱofȱconsideringȱtheȱdescendantsȱofȱ theȱpeopleȱlivingȱinȱthoseȱareasȱasȱȱbeingȱtheirȱkin,ȱandȱtheȱdescendantsȱ ofȱ Esauȱ areȱ consideredȱ “foreigners”ȱ likeȱ theȱ Egyptiansȱ byȱ Deutȱ 23:7.ȱ However,ȱ thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ nonȬIsraeliteȱ wivesȱ whoȱ areȱ “good”ȱ andȱ reȬ gardedȱ favourablyȱ byȱ Yahweh,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ foreignȱbyȱ“patriarchal”ȱstandards.ȱ Anotherȱgoodȱexampleȱofȱhowȱoneȱkindȱofȱintermarriageȱisȱdeemedȱ punishableȱ byȱ deathȱ whileȱ anotherȱ isȱ acceptable,ȱ isȱ shownȱ inȱ theȱ obscureȱ incidentȱ atȱ BaalȬPeorȱ (Numȱ 25;ȱ 31).17ȱ Asȱ mentionedȱ earlierȱ inȱ theȱmainȱtext,ȱwhileȱNumȱ25ȱandȱ31ȱcondemnsȱtheȱ“foreignȱwomen”ȱasȱ deservingȱ death,ȱ later,ȱ Mosesȱallowsȱ theȱ Midianiteȱ virginsȱ toȱ beȱ takenȱ asȱ wivesȱ byȱ theȱ Israelites,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ guiltyȱ ofȱ theȱ crimeȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 14ȱ Seeȱ Nahumȱ M.ȱ Sarna,ȱ Genesisȱ (JPSȱ Torahȱ Commentary;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ JPS,ȱ 1989),ȱ p.ȱ 189.ȱHeȱsuggestsȱthatȱ thisȱpassageȱreiteratesȱtheȱreasonsȱforȱEsau’sȱineligibilityȱandȱ thatȱheȱdidȱnotȱdeserveȱtheȱrightsȱtoȱtheȱheirshipȱofȱIsaac.ȱVonȱRadȱunderstandsȱthisȱ finalȱtextȱasȱaȱconglomerationȱofȱtwoȱtraditions,ȱexplainingȱwhyȱJacobȱleftȱhisȱfamilyȱ toȱlookȱforȱLaban;ȱnamelyȱ–ȱ(1)ȱheȱhasȱdeceivedȱEsauȱandȱ(2)ȱhisȱparentsȱforbadeȱhimȱ toȱmarryȱCanaaniteȱwomenȱbyȱsendingȱhimȱoffȱtoȱlookȱforȱaȱwifeȱamongȱRebekah’sȱ relatives,ȱinȱvonȱRad,ȱseeȱvonȱRad,ȱp.ȱ281.ȱ 15ȱ WenhamȱarguesȱthatȱJacob’sȱcriticismȱofȱSimeonȱandȱLeviȱdoesȱnotȱinȱanyȱwayȱimplyȱ thatȱitȱisȱalrightȱtoȱenterȱintoȱmarriageȱcovenantsȱwithȱtheȱShechemites,ȱbutȱthatȱheȱisȱ simplyȱafraidȱofȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱbreachingȱtheȱpreȬconditionsȱtoȱtheȱcovenantȱsoȱ violently.ȱTheȱCanaanitesȱprovedȱtheyȱwereȱquiteȱdishonourableȱinȱtheȱwholeȱaffairȱ (v.ȱ23).ȱWenhamȱthinksȱthatȱoneȱofȱtheȱpurposesȱofȱthisȱepisodeȱisȱtoȱshowȱwhyȱtheȱ blessingȱofȱtheȱfirstȬbornȱtoȱreignȱoverȱhisȱbrothersȱwentȱtoȱJudahȱ(49:3Ȭ8)ȱinsteadȱofȱ SimeonȱandȱLevi,ȱandȱReubenȱwhoȱhadȱcommittedȱincestȱ(Genȱ46:10).ȱSeeȱhisȱcomȬ mentary,ȱWenham,ȱGenesis,ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ473Ȭ74.ȱ 16ȱ Inȱ theȱ Aggadah,ȱ sheȱ isȱ theȱ daughterȱ ofȱ Shemȱ whichȱ identifiesȱ herȱ asȱ ofȱ Israeliteȱ descentȱ andȱ aȱ nonȬCanaaniteȱ (Genȱ 9:26Ȭ27).ȱ Bustanayȱ Oded,ȱ “Tamar”,ȱ EncJudȱ vol.ȱ XV,ȱpp.ȱ782Ȭ83.ȱHowever,ȱmanyȱcommentatorsȱthinkȱthatȱsheȱisȱaȱCanaaniteȱbecauseȱ theȱcontextȱisȱsetȱinȱthatȱregion.ȱWenham,ȱp.ȱ366;ȱvonȱRad,ȱp.ȱ358ȱandȱWestermann,ȱ Genesisȱ 37Ȭ50,ȱ p.ȱ50.ȱ Also,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ Shelah,ȱ theȱ survivingȱ offspringȱ throughȱ theȱ Canaaniteȱwife,ȱisȱsparedȱbecauseȱJudahȱrightedȱhisȱwrongsȱwithȱTamar.ȱ 17ȱ Cf.ȱ2.2.ȱ

178ȱ ȱ

Appendixȱ

seduction.ȱInterestingly,ȱwhenȱthisȱincidentȱisȱrecalledȱinȱotherȱpartsȱofȱ theȱ OT,ȱ noȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ areȱ mentioned:ȱ Deutȱ 4:3;ȱ 23:4Ȭ6;ȱ Joshȱ 22:17Ȭ18;ȱ 24:9Ȭ10;ȱ Hosȱ 9:10;ȱ Micȱ 6:3Ȭ5;ȱ Nehȱ 13:2;ȱ Psȱ 106:28.ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ mightȱ beȱ twofold,ȱ thatȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ BaalȬPeorȱ isȱ rememberedȱ onlyȱforȱitsȱapostasyȱplottedȱbyȱBalaam,ȱandȱ/ȱorȱbecauseȱtheȱconclusionȱ toȱ theȱ storyȱ inȱ Numȱ 31ȱ resultedȱ inȱ someȱ formȱ ofȱ intermarriageȱ whichȱ fitsȱ uncomfortablyȱ withȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ story.ȱ Inȱ anyȱ case,ȱ thisȱ storyȱ punishesȱ thoseȱ “foreignȱ women”ȱ whoȱ plottedȱ theȱ apostasyȱ ofȱ theȱ IsȬ raelites,ȱandȱacceptsȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱnotȱinvolvedȱinȱit.ȱ Perhapsȱ theȱ moreȱ excitingȱ accountsȱ ofȱ intermarriagesȱ areȱ thoseȱ writtenȱ inȱ theȱ postȬexilicȱ period,ȱ nearȱ toȱ theȱ eraȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ –ȱ Chronicles18ȱandȱtheȱbookȱofȱRuth.ȱTheȱgenealogiesȱinȱChroniclesȱshowȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ doesȱ notȱ treatȱ foreignersȱ whoȱ intermarriedȱ withȱ IsȬ raelitesȱwithȱaversion.ȱAccordingȱtoȱSaraȱJaphet,ȱChroniclesȱdefinesȱtheȱ IsraelitesȱasȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱdescendedȱfromȱJacob’sȱsonsȱandȱespeciallyȱ thoseȱ whoȱ soughtȱ Yahwehȱ atȱ theȱ Templeȱ inȱ Jerusalem.19ȱ Theȱ ChroȬ nicler,ȱ however,ȱ includesȱ “foreigners”ȱ ofȱ twoȱ sorts:ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ interȬ marriedȱwithȱIsraelites;20ȱandȱtheȱʸʢȱwhoȱbecameȱpartȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱ ofȱIsraelȱthroughȱparticipationȱinȱtheȱworshipȱofȱYahwehȱ(1ȱChrȱ2:55).ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱ Onȱ theȱ issuesȱ ofȱ dating,ȱ seeȱ H.G.M.ȱ Williamson,ȱ 1ȱ andȱ 2ȱ Chroniclesȱ (NCB;ȱ London:ȱ Marshall,ȱMorganȱ&ȱScott,ȱ1982),ȱp.ȱ16.ȱ 19ȱ Saraȱ Japhet,ȱ Theȱ Ideologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Chroniclesȱ andȱ Itsȱ Placeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Thoughtȱ (BEAT,ȱ9;ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain,ȱBern,ȱNewȱYork,ȱParis:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1989),ȱpp.ȱ267Ȭ351.ȱ Also,ȱ seeȱ Williamson,ȱ Israelȱ inȱ theȱ Booksȱ ofȱ Chroniclesȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1977);ȱ Jonathanȱ E.ȱ Dyck,ȱ Theȱ Theocraticȱ Ideologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ (BIS,ȱ33;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1998);ȱandȱidem,ȱ“TheȱIdeologyȱofȱIdentityȱinȱChronicles”,ȱinȱ MarkȱG.ȱBrettȱ(ed.),ȱEthnicityȱandȱtheȱBibleȱ(BIS,ȱ19;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1996),ȱpp.ȱ89Ȭ116.ȱInȱ theȱ latterȱ essay,ȱ Dyckȱ contendsȱ withȱ Williamsonȱ thatȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ isȱ anȱ “inȬ clusivist”ȱandȱ“assimilist”.ȱHeȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱmainȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱChroniclerȱisȱtoȱ justifyȱ theȱ superiorityȱ ofȱ theȱ southernȱ tribesȱ andȱ Jerusalemȱ againstȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Israel.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ Dyckȱ admitsȱ thatȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ doesȱ notȱ excludeȱ membershipȱtoȱtheȱlargerȱgroupȱtheȱwayȱEzraȬNehemiahȱdoes.ȱȱ 20ȱ TheȱChroniclerȱdoesȱnotȱlimitȱthisȱgroupȱtoȱforeignȱwomen,ȱbutȱalsoȱacceptsȱforeignȱ menȱ whoȱ marriedȱ Israeliteȱ women:ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Jether,ȱ theȱ Ishmaeliteȱ (1ȱ Chrȱ 2:17)ȱ andȱ Jarha,ȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ (1ȱ Chrȱ 2:34).ȱ Asȱ forȱ theȱ foreignȱ women,ȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ includesȱ Judah’sȱ Canaaniteȱ unnamedȱ wife,ȱ daughterȱ ofȱ Shuaȱ andȱ Tamar,ȱ whoseȱ originȱisȱalsoȱnotȱmentioned,ȱasȱinȱGenȱ38ȱ(1ȱChrȱ 2:3Ȭ4).ȱTheȱdescendantsȱofȱShelahȱ fromȱtheȱCanaaniteȱwifeȱappearȱinȱanȱappendixȱinȱ4:21Ȭ23ȱwhereȱtheyȱareȱregardedȱ asȱcraftsmenȱwhoȱruledȱinȱMoabȱforȱaȱtime,ȱbutȱlaterȱreturnedȱ toȱ Bethlehem,ȱwhileȱ theȱdescendantsȱofȱJudahȱenjoyȱtheȱprivilegeȱofȱanȱelaborateȱaccountȱinȱ2:5ȱtoȱ4:20.ȱInȱ particular,ȱtheȱChroniclerȱmentionsȱinȱ1ȱChrȱ4:17Ȭ18ȱthatȱoneȱofȱtheȱmembersȱofȱtheȱ clansȱ ofȱ Judahȱ marriesȱ theȱ daughterȱ ofȱ Pharoah.ȱ Herȱ name,ȱ Bithiah,ȱ isȱ probablyȱ hebraisedȱinȱthisȱtext.ȱDoubtsȱhaveȱbeenȱcastȱonȱtheȱhistoricityȱofȱthis.ȱSeeȱS.ȱJaphet,ȱ FirstȱandȱSecondȱChronicles:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱpp.ȱ114Ȭ 15.ȱJaphetȱsuggestsȱthatȱitȱisȱunfathomableȱthatȱaȱcommonerȱcouldȱmarryȱaȱPharoah’sȱ daughter.ȱ Theȱ conjectureȱ thatȱ Meredȱ isȱ actuallyȱ Caleb,ȱ whoȱ marriesȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ princessȱ inȱ Exodȱ 2:7ȱ isȱ anȱ attractiveȱ alternative.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ pieceȱ ofȱ evidenceȱ isȱ theȱ

ȱ

Appendixȱ

179ȱȱ

AnotherȱinterestingȱpointȱisȱtheȱwayȱtheȱChroniclerȱdealsȱwithȱtheȱ accountsȱ ofȱ theȱ Judeanȱ kingsȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ DtrHȱ presentation,ȱ whichȱweȱexaminedȱearlier:ȱnoȱrelationshipȱisȱestablishedȱbetweenȱtheȱ judgementȱandȱtheȱmentionȱofȱtheȱkings’ȱmothers.ȱTheȱChroniclerȱhasȱaȱ differentȱ agendaȱ here.ȱ First,ȱ althoughȱ heȱ generallyȱ followsȱ theȱ DtrH’sȱ judgementȱ ofȱ theȱ goodȱ andȱ evilȱ kings,ȱ heȱ withholdsȱ commentȱ onȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ Abijahȱ andȱ Jehoahaz.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ omissionȱ forȱ theȱ latterȱ hasȱ beenȱdeemedȱaȱscribalȱerror,21ȱtheȱformerȱisȱportrayedȱinȱaȱpositiveȱlightȱ throughȱ hisȱ speechȱ andȱ hisȱ campaignȱ toȱ restrainȱ Jeroboamȱ ofȱ Israelȱ fromȱ furtherȱ apostasy.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ forȱ Rehoboamȱ andȱ Manasseh,ȱ whomȱ theȱ DtrHȱ judgedȱ toȱ beȱ evil,ȱ theȱChroniclerȱ presentsȱaȱ periodȱ inȱ theirȱ reignȱ whereȱ theyȱ didȱ right.ȱ Correspondingly,ȱ forȱ theȱ goodȱ kingsȱ ofȱtheȱDtrH,ȱnamelyȱAsa,ȱJehoshaphat,ȱJoash,ȱAmaziahȱandȱUzziah,ȱtheȱ Chroniclerȱ recordsȱ periodsȱ ofȱ disobedienceȱ toȱ theȱ Law.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱpresentsȱanȱalternateȱpatternȱinȱtheȱaccountsȱ–ȱbetweenȱgoodȱ reignsȱ andȱ evilȱ reigns.ȱ Theȱ exceptionsȱ areȱ Jehoramȱ andȱ Ahaziah,ȱ andȱ Athaliahȱ–ȱtheyȱareȱallȱdeemedȱevil.ȱ Thirdly,ȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ ceasesȱ toȱ reportȱ theȱ namesȱ andȱ originsȱ ofȱ theȱmothersȱfromȱtheȱreignȱofȱManassehȱonward.ȱJaphetȱsuggestsȱthatȱ theȱomissionȱisȱconsistentȱwithȱtheȱgeneralȱwayȱtheȱChroniclerȱusesȱhisȱ sourcesȱfromȱthatȱpoint,ȱsinceȱheȱalsoȱabandonsȱtheȱperiodsȱofȱgoodȱandȱ evilȱ reigns.22ȱ Theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Manassehȱ isȱ uniqueȱ becauseȱ heȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ kingȱ depictedȱ asȱ havingȱ begunȱ hisȱ reignȱ inȱ wickednessȱ andȱ laterȱ asȱ havingȱrepentedȱandȱsoughtȱYahweh.ȱManassehȱisȱportrayedȱpositivelyȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ mentionȱ ofȱ Arameanȱ namesȱ forȱ theȱ Manassiteȱ stock:ȱ Maacahȱ andȱ Hammolechethȱ andȱ Manasseh’sȱ Arameanȱ concubineȱ (1ȱ Chrȱ 7:14).ȱ However,ȱ vv.ȱ 14Ȭ19ȱ areȱ badlyȱ corrupted.ȱForȱaȱpossibleȱexplanationȱseeȱJaphet,ȱFirstȱandȱSecondȱChronicles,ȱpp.ȱ174Ȭ 79;ȱ andȱ Williamson,ȱ 1ȱ andȱ 2ȱ Chronicles,ȱ p.ȱ 79.ȱ Anotherȱ detailȱ whichȱ showsȱ theȱ inclusivenessȱ ofȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ isȱ toȱ deemȱ theȱ childrenȱ ofȱ theȱ intermarriageȱ withȱ Ammoniteȱ andȱ Moabiteȱ womenȱ asȱ Israeliteȱ (2ȱ Chrȱ 24:25Ȭ26).ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ mothersȱ ofȱ Joash’sȱ conspiratorsȱ areȱ namedȱ asȱ Shimeath,ȱ theȱ Ammonitess,ȱ andȱ Shimrith,ȱ theȱ Moabitess.ȱ Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ 2ȱ Kgsȱ 12:22,ȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ theȱ fathersȱ areȱ Shimeathȱ andȱ Shomer.ȱ Theȱ Chroniclerȱ identifiesȱ themȱ asȱ mothersȱ byȱ theȱ feminineȱ formsȱ ofȱ AmȬ moniteȱ andȱ Moabite.ȱ Thisȱ latterȱ ethnicȱ detailȱ isȱ alsoȱ absentȱ inȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Kings.ȱ Joash’sȱ conspiratorsȱ areȱ understoodȱ toȱ beȱ Israelitesȱ fromȱ theȱ northernȱ kingdom.ȱ Japhetȱsuggestsȱthatȱwhileȱmostȱpersonsȱareȱidentifiedȱbyȱtheirȱfather’sȱnames,ȱsuchȱ occurrencesȱ areȱ notȱ unknown.ȱ However,ȱ sheȱ valuesȱ theȱ authenticityȱ ofȱ Kingsȱ overȱ theȱChronicler.ȱSeeȱJaphet,ȱTheȱIdeologyȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱChronicles,ȱpp.ȱ350Ȭ51;ȱandȱFirstȱ andȱ Secondȱ Chronicles,ȱ pp.ȱ 852Ȭ54,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ changesȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ madeȱ toȱ theȱ textȱinȱ2ȱKgsȱ12:21Ȭ22.ȱWhileȱtheȱreasonȱforȱthisȱmayȱbeȱdifficultȱtoȱdiscern,ȱaȱpossibleȱ explanationȱ mayȱ beȱ theȱ consistentȱ attemptsȱ ofȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ intermarriageȱwithȱforeignersȱandȱtheȱcontinualȱclaimsȱthatȱtheyȱandȱtheirȱchildrenȱ areȱIsraelite.ȱȱȱ 21ȱ Japhet,ȱFirstȱandȱSecondȱChronicles,ȱp.ȱ1063.ȱ 22ȱ Japhet,ȱFirstȱandȱSecondȱChronicles,ȱp.ȱ1004.ȱ

180ȱ ȱ

Appendixȱ

laterȱinȱhisȱreign,ȱbecauseȱtheȱChroniclerȱisȱmakingȱaȱtheologicalȱpointȱ thatȱhisȱlengthyȱreignȱisȱaȱ“blessing”.23ȱ Allȱ theȱ aboveȱ pointsȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ hasȱ hisȱ ownȱ theologicalȱthemeȱtoȱexpound:ȱeveryȱkingȱisȱindividuallyȱpunishedȱforȱ hisȱ evilȱ deedsȱ orȱ rewardedȱ forȱ hisȱ goodȱ deeds.24ȱ Therefore,ȱ Japhetȱ believesȱ thatȱ theȱ Chronicler’sȱ expandedȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ ZeȬ dekiah,ȱwhichȱaddsȱtheȱaccountsȱofȱtheȱsinsȱofȱtheȱleaders,ȱpriests,ȱandȱ peopleȱ is,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ offeringȱ theȱ reasonȱ whyȱ theȱ exileȱ occurredȱ atȱ thatȱ time.ȱThus,ȱeveryȱgenerationȱisȱresponsibleȱforȱitsȱownȱsins,ȱandȱtheȱsinsȱ committedȱ duringȱ Zedekiah’sȱ reignȱ haveȱ nothingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ theȱ preȬ viousȱ generationsȱ ofȱ kings.ȱ Thisȱ perspectiveȱ differsȱ starklyȱ fromȱ theȱ DtrHȱwhichȱrepeatedlyȱblamesȱtheȱsinsȱofȱManassehȱforȱtheȱexileȱhintsȱ thatȱ theȱ ʺʥʩʸʫʰ ʭʩʹʰȱ andȱ Jezebelȱ areȱ theȱ realȱ culprits.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ light,ȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ cancelsȱ theȱ DtrH’sȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ “foreign”ȱ mothersȱasȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱking’sȱevilȱbehavior.ȱ TheȱbookȱofȱRuth,ȱlikeȱChroniclesȱdoesȱnotȱviewȱintermarriageȱwithȱ “foreigners”ȱ negatively.ȱ Mostȱ commentatorsȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Ruthȱ wasȱ writtenȱ toȱ counterȱ theȱ restrictiveȱ claimsȱ ofȱ EzraȬNehemiahȱ concerningȱ intermarriage,ȱ andȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ goodȱ reasonȱ toȱ doubtȱ thisȱ explanation,25ȱorȱtoȱdenyȱthatȱtheȱnarratorȱisȱopposedȱtoȱtheȱprohibitionȱ inȱ Deutȱ 23.26ȱ Asȱ Goulder,ȱ amongȱ manyȱ othersȱ hasȱ pointedȱ out,ȱ theȱ authorȱseemsȱtoȱinjectȱironyȱintoȱtheȱstoryȱbyȱaddingȱtheȱgenealogyȱofȱ 4:18Ȭ22,ȱ whichȱ includesȱ Davidȱ asȱ aȱ fourthȱ generationȱ descendantȱ ofȱ BoazȱthroughȱRuth.27ȱThisȱagainȱrecallsȱtheȱfurtherȱprohibitionȱinȱDeutȱ 23:7Ȭ8ȱonȱacceptanceȱofȱdescendantsȱfromȱtheȱEgyptiansȱandȱEdomitesȱ untilȱ theȱ fourthȱ generation.ȱ Asȱ weȱ sawȱ earlier,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Deutȱ 23ȱ isȱ usedȱasȱtheȱmajorȱproofȬtextȱforȱtheȱDtrHȱandȱEzraȬNehemiahȱbansȱonȱ intermarriage.ȱTheȱsignificanceȱofȱthisȱDeuteronomicȱlawȱagainstȱinterȬ marriageȱinȱtheȱearlyȱpostȬexilicȱperiod,ȱandȱtheȱfocusȱofȱtheȱstoryȱuponȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 23ȱ Japhet,ȱFirstȱandȱSecondȱChronicles,ȱpp.ȱ1002Ȭ1004.ȱ 24ȱ Japhet,ȱTheȱIdeologyȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱChronicles,ȱpp.ȱ162Ȭ63;ȱWilliamson,ȱ1ȱandȱ2ȱChronicles,ȱ pp.ȱ31Ȭ33.ȱ 25ȱ Twoȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ assumeȱ aȱ preȬexilicȱ dateȱ forȱ Ruthȱ are:ȱ J.M.ȱ Sasson,ȱ Ruth:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Translationȱ withȱ aȱ Philogicalȱ Commentaryȱ andȱ aȱ FormalistȬFolkloristȱ Interpretationȱ (BalȬ timore:ȱJohnȱHopkinsȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1979);ȱandȱEdwardȱF.ȱCampbell,ȱRuth:ȱAȱNewȱ Translationȱ(AB,ȱ7;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1975).ȱ 26ȱ MichaelȱGoulder,ȱ“Ruth:ȱaȱhomilyȱonȱDeuteronomyȱ22Ȭ25?”ȱinȱDavidȱClinesȱandȱH.ȱ McKay,ȱ (eds.),ȱ Ofȱ Prophetsȇȱ Visionsȱ andȱ theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Sages:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Honourȱ ofȱ R.ȱ NormanȱWhybrayȱonȱHisȱ70thȱBirthdayȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ162;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱpp.ȱ 307Ȭ319.ȱGoulderȱdemonstratesȱhowȱtheȱauthorȱusesȱtheȱsameȱimportantȱcatchwordsȱ asȱtheȱlawsȱfoundȱinȱDeutȱ22Ȭ25ȱbutȱcontradictsȱthem.ȱAlso,ȱseeȱTȱandȱD.ȱThompson,ȱ “SomeȱLegalȱProblemsȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱRuth”,ȱVTȱ18ȱ(1968),ȱpp.ȱ79Ȭ99;ȱD.R.G.ȱBeattie,ȱ “TheȱBookȱofȱRuthȱasȱEvidenceȱofȱIsraeliteȱLegalȱPractice”,ȱVTȱ24ȱ(1974),ȱpp.ȱ252Ȭ67.ȱ 27ȱ Goulder,ȱpp.ȱ314Ȭ16.ȱ

ȱ

Appendixȱ

181ȱȱ

it,ȱindicateȱaȱconcernȱaboutȱtheȱissueȱofȱintermarriageȱwhichȱisȱprobablyȱ relatedȱ toȱ thatȱ period.ȱ Itȱ isȱ interestingȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Ruthȱ presentedȱ theȱ mostȱ difficultiesȱ forȱ rabbinicȱ attemptsȱ toȱ substantiateȱ rulingsȱagainstȱintermarriage.28ȱToȱovercomeȱtheȱproblem,ȱtheyȱarguedȱ thatȱ theȱ interdictionȱ inȱ Deutȱ 23:3Ȭ7ȱ refersȱ onlyȱ toȱ theȱ maleȱ populationȱ andȱnotȱtheȱfemale,ȱandȱtheyȱlaterȱinterpretedȱRuthȱ1:16ȱasȱreferringȱtoȱ theȱproselytisationȱofȱRuth.ȱ TheȱbookȱofȱRuthȱisȱexceptionalȱbecauseȱitȱisȱsuggestingȱthatȱinterȬ marriageȱ canȱ beȱ aȱ goodȱ thing.ȱ Elsewhere,ȱ intermarriageȱ andȱ foreignȱ womenȱ evokeȱ mixedȱ reactions.ȱ Theȱ DtrHȱ acceptsȱ suchȱ womenȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱnotȱadherentsȱofȱaȱforeignȱreligionȱbut,ȱpreferably,ȱpiousȱYahwists;ȱ theȱChronicler,ȱperhapsȱsurprisingly,ȱgivenȱhisȱlinksȱtoȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱ essentiallyȱstripsȱoutȱofȱhisȱretellingȱtheȱmotifȱofȱforeignȱwomenȱleadingȱ toȱ apostasy.ȱ Theȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ Genesisȱ operateȱ withȱ differentȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ ethnicityȱ andȱ noȱ preȬconceptionȱ ofȱ aȱ covenantȱ relationship,ȱ whichȱ makesȱ directȱ comparisonȱ withȱ DtrHȱ difficult.ȱ Theȱ motifȱ possiblyȱ apȬ pearsȱthereȱinȱaȱmoreȱrestrictedȱandȱqualifiedȱform.ȱ Withȱregardȱtoȱtheȱprincipalȱthemeȱofȱthisȱthesis,ȱweȱmightȱsayȱthatȱ theȱ materialsȱ hereȱ serveȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ DtrHȱ motifȱ isȱ neitherȱ asȱ absoluteȱ norȱ asȱ whollyȱ “racial”ȱ inȱ itsȱ approachȱ asȱ oneȱ mightȱ assume.ȱ Moreȱgenerally,ȱtheȱvarietyȱinȱtheȱliteratureȱhelpsȱtoȱemphasiseȱthatȱtheȱ problemȱofȱtheȱ“foreignȱwives”,ȱandȱitsȱunderlyingȱideology,ȱrelatesȱtoȱ aȱratherȱspecificȱtimeȱandȱspace.ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 28ȱ D.R.G.ȱ Beattie,ȱ Theȱ Targumȱ ofȱ Ruthȱ (Theȱ Aramaicȱ Bible;ȱ Edinburgh:ȱ Tȱ &ȱ Tȱ Clark,ȱ 1994),ȱpp.ȱ20Ȭ21.ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ ȱ Ahlström,ȱ G.W.,ȱ Aspectsȱ ofȱ Syncretismȱ inȱ Israeliteȱ Religionȱ (trans.ȱ E.J.ȱ Sharpe;ȱ HoraeȱSoedeblomianae,ȱ5;ȱLund:ȱC.W.K.ȱGleerup,ȱ1963).ȱ Aitken,ȱJames,ȱ“TheȱSemanticsȱofȱ‘Glory‘ȱinȱBenȱSiraȱ–ȱTracesȱofȱaȱDevelopmentȱ inȱ PostȬBiblicalȱ Hebrew?“ȱ inȱ T.ȱ Muraokaȱ andȱ J.F.ȱ Elwoldeȱ (eds.),ȱ Sirach,ȱ Scrolls,ȱ andȱ Sages:ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ aȱ Secondȱ Internationalȱ Symposiumȱ onȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ ofȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls,ȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ andȱ theȱ Mishnah,ȱ heldȱ atȱ Leidenȱ University,ȱ15Ȭ17ȱDecemberȱ1997ȱ(STDJ,ȱ33;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1999),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ24.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“BiblicalȱInterpretationȱasȱPoliticalȱManifesto:ȱBenȱSiraȱinȱhisȱSeleucidȱ Setting“,ȱJJSȱ51ȱ(2000),ȱpp.ȱ191Ȭ208.ȱ Allegro,ȱ Johnȱ M.,ȱ “Theȱ Wilesȱ ofȱ theȱ Wickedȱ Woman:ȱ Aȱ Sapientialȱ Wordȱ fromȱ Qumran’sȱFourthȱCave“,ȱPEQȱ96ȱ(1964),ȱpp.ȱ53Ȭ55.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Qumrânȱ Caveȱ 4:ȱ Iȱ (4Q158Ȭ4Q186)ȱ (withȱ theȱ collaborationȱ ofȱ A.A.ȱ Anderson;ȱDJD,ȱvol.ȱV;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1968).ȱ Allen,ȱLeslieȱC.,ȱPsalmsȱ101Ȭ150ȱ(WBC,ȱ21;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1983).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Theȱ Valueȱ ofȱ Rhetoricalȱ Criticismȱ inȱ Psalmȱ 69“,ȱ JBLȱ 105ȱ (1986),ȱ pp.ȱ 577Ȭ98.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“ʧʫˇ“,ȱNIDOTEȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ103Ȭ105.ȱ Aletti,ȱJ.N.,ȱ“SeductionȱetȱparoleȱenȱProverbesȱIȱ–ȱIX“,ȱVTȱ27ȱ(1977),ȱpp.ȱ129Ȭ44.ȱ Alexander,ȱ Philip,ȱ “Demonologyȱ inȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls“,ȱ inȱ Peterȱ Flintȱ andȱ Jamesȱ C.ȱ VanderKamȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ afterȱ Fiftyȱ Years:ȱ Aȱ ComprehensiveȱAssessmentȱ(2ȱvols.;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1999),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ331Ȭ53.ȱ Andreasen,ȱN.A.,ȱ“TheȱRoleȱofȱtheȱQueenȱMotherȱinȱIsraeliteȱSociety“,ȱCBQȱ45ȱ (1983),ȱpp.ȱ179Ȭ94.ȱ Aubin,ȱMelissa,ȱ“’Sheȱisȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱallȱtheȱwaysȱofȱperversity’:ȱFemininityȱ andȱMetaphorȱinȱ4Q184“,ȱWomenȱinȱJudaism:ȱAȱMultidisciplinaryȱJournalȱ2.2ȱ (2001),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ23.ȱ Aune,ȱDavid,ȱRevelationȱ(WBC,ȱ52;ȱ3ȱvols.;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1997Ȭ98).ȱ ȱ Bailey,ȱRandalȱC.,ȱ”Eliam”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ459Ȭ60.ȱ Barclay,ȱ Johnȱ M.,ȱ Jewsȱ inȱ theȱ Mediterraneanȱ Diaspora:ȱ Fromȱ Alexanderȱ toȱ Trajanȱ (323ȱ BCEȱ Ȭȱ 117ȱ CE)ȱ (Edinburgh:ȱ Tȱ &ȱ Tȱ Clark;ȱ Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ CaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1996).ȱ –––––––,ȱ“WhoȱwasȱconsideredȱanȱapostateȱinȱtheȱJewishȱDiaspora?“ȱinȱGrahamȱ N.ȱStantonȱandȱGuyȱS.ȱStroumsaȱ(eds.),ȱToleranceȱandȱIntoleranceȱinȱEarlyȱJuȬ daismȱandȱChristianityȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱpp.ȱ 80Ȭ97.ȱ

184ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Barthélemy,ȱ D.ȱ andȱ O.ȱ Rickenbacher,ȱ Konkordanzȱ zumȱ Hebräischenȱ Sirachȱ (Göttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1973).ȱ Barton,ȱGeorge,ȱAȱCriticalȱandȱExegeticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱbookȱEcclesiastesȱ(ICC;ȱ Edinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1908).ȱ Baumann,ȱA.,ȱ“ʤʕʮ ʕːȱII“,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIII,ȱpp.ȱ260Ȭ65.ȱ Baumann,ȱ Gelinde,ȱ Dieȱ Weisheitsgestaltȱ inȱ Proverbienȱ 1Ȭ9:ȱ traditionsgeschichtlicheȱ undȱtheologischeȱStudienȱ(ForschungenȱzumȱAltenȱTestament,ȱ16;ȱTübingen:ȱ Mohr,ȱ1996).ȱ –––––––,ȱ“AȱFigureȱwithȱManyȱFacets:ȱTheȱLiteraryȱandȱTheologicalȱFunctionsȱ ofȱ Personifiedȱ Wisdomȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9“,ȱ inȱ Athalyaȱ Brennerȱ andȱ Caroleȱ Fontaineȱ(eds.),ȱWisdomȱandȱPsalmsȱ(TheȱFeministȱCompanionȱtoȱtheȱBible,ȱ Secondȱseriesȱ2;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱpp.ȱ44Ȭ78.ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ J.M.,ȱ “Onȱ theȱ Natureȱ ofȱ theȱ Seductressȱ inȱ 4Q184“,ȱ RevQȱ 15.57Ȭ8ȱ (1991),ȱpp.ȱ133Ȭ43.ȱ Beard,ȱ Maryȱ andȱ Johnȱ Henderson,ȱ “Withȱ Thisȱ Bodyȱ Iȱ Theeȱ Worship:ȱ Sacredȱ ProstitutionȱinȱAntiquity“,ȱGenderȱandȱHistoryȱ9ȱ(1997),ȱpp.ȱ480Ȭ503.ȱ Beattie,ȱD.R.G.,ȱ“TheȱBookȱofȱRuthȱasȱEvidenceȱofȱIsraeliteȱLegalȱPractice“,ȱVTȱ 24ȱ(1974),ȱpp.ȱ252Ȭ67.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Theȱ Targumȱ ofȱ Ruth:ȱ Translated,ȱ withȱ Introduction,ȱ Apparatus,ȱ andȱ Notesȱ (TheȱAramaicȱBible;ȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1994).ȱ Beentjes,ȱ Pancratiusȱ C.,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Benȱ Siraȱ inȱ Hebrew:ȱ Aȱ Textȱ Editionȱ ofȱ Allȱ ExtantȱHebrewȱManuscriptsȱandȱaȱSynopsisȱofȱAllȱParallelȱHebrewȱBenȱSiraȱTextsȱ (VTSup,ȱ68;ȱLeiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1997).ȱ Beentjes,ȱPancratiusȱC.ȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱBookȱofȱBenȱSiraȱinȱModernȱResearch:ȱProceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Firstȱ Internationalȱ Benȱ Siraȱ Conference,ȱ 18Ȭ31ȱ Julyȱ 1996,ȱ Soesterberg,ȱ Netherlandsȱ(BZAW,ȱ255;ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1997).ȱ BenȬBarak,ȱZafrira,ȱ“TheȱStatusȱandȱRightȱofȱtheȱG¼bîrâ“,ȱJBLȱ110ȱ(1991),ȱpp.ȱ23Ȭ 34.ȱ Bendor,ȱShunya,ȱTheȱSocialȱStructureȱofȱAncientȱIsrael:ȱTheȱInstitutionȱofȱtheȱFamilyȱ (Beitȱ ’Ab)ȱ fromȱ theȱ Settlementȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ Monarchyȱ (Jerusalemȱ Biblicalȱ Studies,ȱ7;ȱJerusalem:ȱSimor,ȱ1996).ȱ Berlin,ȱ Adele,ȱ ”Bathsheba”,ȱ inȱ Carolȱ L.ȱ Meyers,ȱ Toniȱ Cravenȱ andȱ Rossȱ S.ȱ Kraemerȱ (eds.),ȱ Womenȱ inȱ Scripture:ȱ Aȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ Namedȱ andȱ Unnamedȱ Womenȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Theȱ Apocryphalȱ /ȱ Deuterocanonicalȱ Booksȱ andȱ theȱ NewȱTestamentȱ(Boston,ȱNewȱYork:ȱHoughtonȱMifflinȱCompany,ȱ2000),ȱpp.ȱ 57Ȭ58.ȱ Bertholet,ȱA.,ȱDieȱStellungȱderȱIsraelitenȱundȱderȱJudenȱzuȱdenȱFremdenȱ(Freiburgȱi.ȱ B.,ȱLeipzig:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ[PaulȱSiebeck],ȱ1896).ȱ –––––––,ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱHebrewȱCivilisationȱ(trans.ȱA.K.ȱDallas;ȱLondon:ȱGeorgeȱG.ȱ Harrap,ȱ1926).ȱ Blenkinsopp,ȱ Joseph,ȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ Law:ȱ Theȱ Orderingȱ ofȱ Lifeȱ inȱ Israelȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Judaismȱ(OxfordȱBibleȱseries;ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1983).ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

185ȱ

–––––––,ȱ “Theȱ SocialȬContextȱ ofȱ theȱ SoȬcalledȱ OutsiderȬWomanȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ IȬ IX“,ȱBibȱ72ȱ(1991),ȱpp.ȱ457Ȭ73.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Templeȱ andȱ Societyȱ inȱ Achaemenidȱ Judah“,ȱ inȱ P.R.ȱ Daviesȱ (ed.),ȱ SecondȱTempleȱStudies:ȱ1.ȱPersianȱPeriodȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ117;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ 1991),ȱpp.ȱ22Ȭ53.ȱ –––––––,ȱ EzraȬNehemiah:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press;ȱ Louisville,ȱ Kentucky:ȱWestminster/JohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ2000).ȱ Boström,ȱGustav,ȱProverbiastudien:ȱdieȱWeisheitȱundȱdasȱfremdeȱWeibȱinȱSprücheȱ1Ȭ9ȱ (LUÅȱN.F.ȱAvd.1,ȱ30,ȱ3;ȱLund:ȱC.W.K.ȱGleerup,ȱ1935).ȱ Bowen,ȱNancy,ȱ“TheȱQuestȱforȱtheȱHistoricalȱG¼bîrâ“,ȱCBQȱ64ȱ(2001),ȱpp.ȱ597Ȭ 618.ȱ Braun,ȱRoddyȱL.,ȱFirstȱChroniclesȱ(WBC,ȱ14;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1986).ȱ Brenner,ȱAthalya,ȱ“Provȱ1Ȭ9:ȱAnȱFȱVoice?“,ȱinȱBrennerȱandȱF.ȱvanȱDijkȬHemmesȱ (eds.),ȱOnȱGenderingȱTexts:ȱFemaleȱandȱMaleȱVoicesȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱ(BIS,ȱ1;ȱ Leiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1993),ȱpp.ȱ113Ȭ30.ȱ Brenner,ȱAthalyaȱ(ed.),ȱAȱFeministȱCompanionȱtoȱSamuelȱandȱKingsȱ(TheȱFeministȱ CompanionȱtoȱtheȱBible,ȱ5;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ Brenner,ȱAthalyaȱandȱCaroleȱFontaineȱ(eds.),ȱWisdomȱandȱPsalmsȱ(TheȱFeministȱ Companionȱ toȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ Secondȱ seriesȱ 2;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ1998).ȱ Brooke,ȱGeorgeȱJ.,ȱ“BodyȱPartsȱinȱBarkhiȱNafshiȱandȱtheȱQualificationsȱforȱMemȬ bershipȱ ofȱ theȱ Worshippingȱ Community”,ȱ inȱ Danielȱ K.ȱ Falk,ȱ Florentinoȱ GarcíaȱMartínezȱandȱEileenȱM.ȱSchullerȱ(eds.),ȱSapiential,ȱLiturgicalȱandȱPoȬ eticalȱTextsȱfromȱQumranȱ(STDJ,ȱ35;ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱThirdȱMeetingȱofȱtheȱ Internationalȱ Organizationȱ forȱ Qumranȱ Studiesȱ Osloȱ 1998;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brillȱ Academic,ȱ2000).pp.ȱ79Ȭ94.ȱ Brown,ȱRaymond,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱJohnȱ(AB,ȱ29;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ1966).ȱ Buchberger,ȱ Hannes,ȱ “Zumȱ Ausländerȱ inȱ derȱ altägyptischenȱ Literaturȱ –ȱ eineȱ Kritik“,ȱWOȱ20Ȭ21ȱ(1989Ȭ90),ȱpp.ȱ5Ȭ34.ȱ Budd,ȱPhilipȱJ.,ȱNumbersȱ(WBC,ȱ5;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1984).ȱ Burgmann,ȱ Hans,ȱ “Theȱ Wickedȱ Woman:ȱ Derȱ Makkabäerȱ Simon?“ȱ RevQȱ 8.31ȱ (1974),ȱpp.ȱ323Ȭ59.ȱ Burns,ȱJohnȱJ.,ȱ“Solomon’sȱEgyptianȱHorsesȱandȱExoticȱWives“,ȱForumȱ7ȱ(1991),ȱ 29Ȭ44.ȱ Burrows,ȱM.,ȱ“TheȱComplaintȱofȱLaban’sȱDaughters“,ȱJAOSȱ57ȱ(1937),ȱpp.ȱ259Ȭ 76.ȱ Bush,ȱFredericȱW.,ȱRuth.ȱEstherȱ(WBC,ȱ9;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1996).ȱ ȱ Camp,ȱ Claudiaȱ V.,ȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ Feminineȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ (Bibleȱ andȱ LiteratureȱSeries,ȱ11;ȱSheffield:ȱAlmondȱPress,ȱ1985).ȱ ȱ

186ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

–––––––,ȱ“WomanȱWisdomȱasȱRootȱMetaphor:ȱAȱTheologicalȱConsideration“,ȱinȱ KennethȱHoglund,ȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.),ȱTheȱListeningȱHeartȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ58;ȱSheffield:ȱ SheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1987),ȱpp.ȱ45Ȭ76.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “What’sȱ soȱ Strangeȱ aboutȱ theȱ Strangeȱ Woman?“ȱ inȱ Davidȱ Jobling,ȱ Peggyȱ Dayȱ andȱ Geraldȱ T.ȱ Sheppardȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ theȱ Politicsȱ ofȱ Exegesis:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ Normanȱ K.ȱ Gottwaldȱ onȱ Hisȱ SixtyȬfifthȱ Birthdayȱ (Cleveland,ȱOhio:ȱPilgrimȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱpp.ȱ17Ȭ32.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Wise,ȱ Strangeȱ andȱ Holy:ȱ Theȱ Strangeȱ Womanȱ andȱ theȱ Makingȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 320:ȱ Gender,ȱ Culture,ȱ Theory,ȱ 9;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ2000).ȱ Campbell,ȱEdwardȱF.,ȱRuth:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱ(AB,ȱ7;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ1975).ȱ Campbell,ȱ K.M.,ȱ ”Rahab’sȱ Covenant:ȱ Aȱ shortȱ noteȱ onȱ Joshuaȱ iiȱ 9Ȭ21”,ȱ VTȱ 22ȱ (1972),ȱpp.ȱ243Ȭ44.ȱ Carmignac,ȱ J.,ȱ “Poèmeȱ allégoriqueȱ surȱ laȱ secteȱ rivale“,ȱ RevQȱ 5.19ȱ (1965),ȱ pp.ȱ 361Ȭ74.ȱ Charles,ȱ R.H.,ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ andȱ Exegeticalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Revelationȱ ofȱ Stȱ Johnȱ (ICC;ȱ2ȱvols.;ȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark;ȱ1920).ȱ Charlesworth,ȱ Jamesȱ H.,ȱ Graphicȱ Concordanceȱ toȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ (Theȱ Princetonȱ TheologicalȱSeminaryȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ ScrollsȱProject;ȱTübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohr;ȱLouisville,ȱKentucky:ȱWestminster/JohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ1991).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Theȱ Qumranȱ Beatitudesȱ (4Q525)ȱ andȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ (Mtȱ 5:3Ȭ 11)“,ȱRHPRȱ80ȱ(2000),ȱpp.ȱ13Ȭ35.ȱ Cheon,ȱ Samuel,ȱ Theȱ Exodusȱ Storyȱ inȱ theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomon:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Interpretationȱ(JSPSup,ȱ23;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1997).ȱ Chesnutt,ȱRandallȱD.,ȱ“JosephȱandȱAseneth”,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIII,ȱpp.ȱ969Ȭ71.ȱ Childs,ȱ Brevardȱ S.,ȱ “Onȱ Readingȱ theȱ ElijahȱNarratives“,ȱ Intȱ 34ȱ (1980),ȱ pp.ȱ 128Ȭ 37.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Isaiah:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ Louisville,ȱ Kentucky:ȱ Westminster/Johnȱ KnoxȱPress,ȱ2001).ȱ Christianson,ȱEricȱS.,ȱAȱTimeȱtoȱTell:ȱNarrativeȱStrategiesȱinȱEcclesiastesȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ 280;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1999).ȱ Clarke,ȱ Ernestȱ G.,ȱ Theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Solomonȱ (CB;ȱ London:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1973).ȱ Clifford,ȱ Richardȱ J.,ȱ Proverbs:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ Norwich,ȱ England:ȱ SCMȱ Press;ȱLouisville,ȱKentucky:ȱWestminster/JohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ1999).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Proverbsȱ asȱ aȱ Sourceȱ forȱ Wisdom“,ȱ inȱ CalduchȬBenagesȱ andȱ VerȬ meylenȱ(eds.),ȱTreasuresȱofȱWisdom,ȱpp.ȱ255Ȭ63.ȱ Clive,ȱ Christieȱ J.,ȱ Raceȱ andȱ Nation:ȱ Aȱ Readerȱ (Taurisȱ Historyȱ Readers;ȱ London:ȱ I.B.ȱTauris,ȱ1998).ȱ Cody,ȱA.,ȱ“Exodusȱ18,ȱ12:ȱJethroȱAcceptsȱaȱCovenantȱwithȱtheȱIsraelites“,ȱBibȱ49ȱ (1968),ȱpp.ȱ153Ȭ66.ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

187ȱ

Cogan,ȱMordechai,ȱIȱKings:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ10;ȱGardenȱ City,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ2001).ȱ Cogan,ȱ Mordechaiȱ andȱ Hayimȱ Tadmor,ȱ IIȱ Kings:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Translationȱ andȱ Commentaryȱ(AB,ȱ11;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1988).ȱ Cohen,ȱ Shayeȱ J.D.,ȱ Theȱ Beginningsȱ ofȱ Jewishness:ȱ Boundaries,ȱ Varieties,ȱ UnȬ certaintiesȱ (Hellenisticȱ Cultureȱ andȱ Society,ȱ 31;ȱ Berkeley,ȱ Losȱ Angeles:ȱ UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1999).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Hellenismȱ inȱ Unexpectedȱ Places“,ȱ inȱ Johnȱ J.ȱ Collinsȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ E.ȱ Sterlingȱ (eds.),ȱ Hellenismȱ inȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ (CJAS,ȱ 13;ȱ Notreȱ Dame,ȱ Indiana:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDame,ȱ2001),ȱpp.ȱ218Ȭ45.ȱ Collins,ȱJohnȱJ.,ȱ“ReviewȱofȱMartinȱHengel,ȱJudaismȱandȱHellenism“,ȱRelSRevȱ15ȱ (1989),ȱpp.ȱ226Ȭ28.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Theȱ Originȱ ofȱ Evilȱ inȱ Apocalypticȱ Literatureȱ andȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls“,ȱinȱJ.A.ȱEmertonȱ(ed.),ȱCongressȱVolume:ȱJerusalem,ȱ1986ȱ(VTSup,ȱ41;ȱ Leiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1995),ȱpp.ȱ25Ȭ38.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Apocalypticismȱ inȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ (Theȱ Literatureȱ ofȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls;ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1997).ȱ –––––––,ȱ Jewishȱ Wisdomȱ inȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Ageȱ (OTL;ȱ Louisville,ȱ Kentucky:ȱ Westminster/JohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ1997;ȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1998).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Cultȱ andȱ Culture:ȱ Theȱ Limitsȱ ofȱ Hellenisationȱ inȱ Judea“,ȱ inȱ Collinsȱ andȱ Sterlingȱ (eds.),ȱ Hellenismȱ inȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ (CJAS,ȱ 13;ȱ Notreȱ Dame,ȱ Indiana:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDame,ȱ2001),ȱpp.ȱ38Ȭ61.ȱ Coogan,ȱ Michaelȱ D.,ȱ Storiesȱ fromȱ Ancientȱ Canaanȱ (Philadelphia:ȱ Westminsterȱ Press,ȱ1978).ȱ Cook,ȱJohann,ȱ“HellenisticȱInfluenceȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱProverbsȱ(LXX)?ȱ“ȱBIOSCSȱ 20ȱ(1987),ȱpp.ȱ30Ȭ42.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“TheȱDatingȱofȱSeptuagintȱandȱProverbs“,ȱETLȱ69.3ȱ(1993),ȱpp.ȱ383Ȭ99.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “ʤʸʕʕ ʦ ʤʕˇʠʑ (Proverbsȱ 1ȱ –ȱ 9ȱ Septuagint):ȱ Aȱ Metaphorȱ forȱ Foreignȱ Wisdom?“ȱZAWȱ106ȱ(1994),ȱpp.ȱ458Ȭ76.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Theȱ Septuagintȱ ofȱ Proverbs:ȱ Jewishȱ and/orȱ Hellenisticȱ Proverbs?ȱ (VTSup,ȱ 69;ȱLeiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1997).ȱ Craigie,ȱPeter,ȱPsalmsȱ1Ȭ50ȱ(WBC,ȱ19;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1983).ȱ Crawford,ȱ Sidnieȱ White,ȱ “Ladyȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ Dameȱ Follyȱ atȱ Qumran“,ȱ inȱ BrennerȱandȱFontaineȱ(eds.),ȱinȱWisdomȱandȱPsalms,ȱpp.ȱ205Ȭ17.ȱ Crenshaw,ȱ Jamesȱ L.,ȱ Ecclesiastes:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱWestminsterȱPress,ȱ1988).ȱ ȱ Davies,ȱ Erylȱ W.,ȱ Numbersȱ (NCB;ȱ London:ȱ Marshallȱ Pickering;ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Michigan:ȱEerdmans,ȱ1995).ȱ Davies,ȱ Philipȱ R.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Studies,ȱ Iȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 117;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ ShefȬ fieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1991).ȱ Day,ȱJohn,ȱ“Asherahȱ(Deity)“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ483Ȭ87.ȱ

188ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

–––––––,ȱYahwehȱandȱtheȱGodsȱandȱGoddessesȱofȱCanaanȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ265;ȱSheffield:ȱ SheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ2000).ȱ Deȱ Moor,ȱ J.C.,ȱ “Theȱ Peaceȱ Offeringȱ inȱ Ugaritȱ andȱ Israel“,ȱ inȱ D.ȱ Attema,ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Schriftȱ enȱ Uitleg:ȱ Studiesȱ vanȱ oudȬleerlingen,ȱ collegaȇsȱ enȱ vriendenȱ aangebodenȱaanȱProf.ȱDr.ȱW.H.ȱGispenȱterȱgelegenheidȱvanȱzijnȱvijfentwintigjarigȱ ambtsjubileumȱ alsȱ hoogleraarȱ aanȱ deȱ Vrijeȱ Universiteitȱ teȱ Amsterdamȱ enȱ terȱ gelegenheidȱ vanȱ hetȱ bereikenȱ vanȱ deȱ zeventigjarigeȱ leeftijdȱ (Kampen:ȱ Uitgeversmij.ȱJ.H.ȱKok,ȱ1970),ȱpp.ȱ112Ȭ17.ȱ Depla,ȱAnnette,ȱ“WomanȱinȱAncientȱEgyptianȱWisdomȱLiterature“,ȱinȱLéonieȱJ.ȱ Archer,ȱSusanȱFischler,ȱandȱMariaȱWykeȱ(eds.),ȱWomenȱinȱAncientȱSocieties:ȱ AnȱIllusionȱinȱtheȱNightȱ(London:ȱMacmillan;ȱRoutledge,ȱ1997),ȱpp.ȱ24Ȭ52.ȱ DeȱRoo,ȱJacquelineȱC.R.,ȱ”Isȱ4Q525ȱaȱQumranȱSectarianȱDocument?”ȱinȱStanleyȱ E.ȱ Porterȱ andȱ Craigȱ A.ȱ Evansȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Scrollsȱ andȱ theȱ Scriptures:ȱ Qumranȱ Fiftyȱ Yearsȱ Afterȱ (JSPSup,ȱ 26;ȱ Roehamptonȱ Instituteȱ Londonȱ Papers,ȱ 3;ȱ Sheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱpp.ȱ338Ȭ67.ȱ Dever,ȱ William,ȱ “‘Willȱ theȱ Realȱ Israelȱ Pleaseȱ Standȱ Up?’ȱ Partȱ II:ȱ Archaeologyȱ andȱtheȱReligionsȱofȱAncientȱIsrael“,ȱBASORȱ298ȱ(1995),ȱpp.ȱ37Ȭ58.ȱ DeVries,ȱSimonȱJ.,ȱ1ȱKingsȱ(WBC,ȱ12;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1985).ȱ Diȱ Lella,ȱ Alexanderȱ A.,ȱ Theȱ Hebrewȱ Textȱ ofȱ Sirach:ȱ Aȱ TextȬCriticalȱ andȱ Historicalȱ Studiesȱ(StudiesȱinȱClassicalȱLiterature,ȱ1;ȱHague:ȱMouton,ȱ1966).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Conservativeȱ andȱ Progressiveȱ Theology:ȱ Sirachȱ andȱ Wisdom“,ȱ CBQȱ 28ȱ(1966),ȱpp.ȱ139Ȭ54.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Sirachȱ 10:19Ȭ11:6:ȱ Textualȱ Criticism,ȱ Poeticȱ Analysis,ȱ andȱ Exegesis“,ȱ inȱ Carolȱ L.ȱ Meyersȱ andȱ M.ȱ Connorȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Wordȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ Shallȱ Goȱ Forth:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ Davidȱ Noelȱ Freedmanȱ inȱ Celebrationȱ ofȱ Hisȱ Sixtiethȱ Birthdayȱ(ASOR,ȱ1;ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱIndiana:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1982),ȱpp.ȱ157Ȭ64.ȱ Diȱ Sante,ȱ Carmine,ȱ Jewishȱ Prayer:ȱ Theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ Liturgyȱ (trans.ȱ MatthewȱJ.ȱO’Connell;ȱNewȱJersey:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1991).ȱ DutcherȬWalls,ȱPatricia,ȱNarrativeȱArt,ȱPoliticalȱRhetoric:ȱTheȱCaseȱofȱAthaliahȱandȱ Joashȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ209;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1996)ȱ Dyck,ȱJonathanȱE.,ȱ“TheȱIdeologyȱofȱIdentityȱinȱChronicles“,ȱinȱMarkȱBrettȱ(ed.),ȱ EthnicityȱandȱtheȱBibleȱ(BIS,ȱ19;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1996),ȱpp.ȱ89Ȭ116.ȱ –––––––,ȱTheȱTheocraticȱIdeologyȱofȱtheȱChroniclerȱ(BIS,ȱ33;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1998).ȱ Dyfri,ȱ Williams,ȱ “Womenȱ inȱ Athenianȱ Vases:ȱ Problemsȱ ofȱ Interpretation“,ȱ inȱ Averilȱ Cameronȱ andȱ Amélieȱ Kuhrtȱ (eds.),ȱ Imagesȱ ofȱ Womenȱ inȱ Antiquityȱ (London:ȱCroomȱHelm,ȱ1983),ȱpp.ȱ97Ȭ105.ȱ ȱ EggerȬWenzel,ȱRenate,ȱ“DennȱharteȱKnechtschaftȱundȱSchandeȱistȱes,ȱwennȱeineȱ Frauȱ ihrenȱ Mannȱ ernährt“,ȱ inȱ I.ȱ Krammerȱ (ed.),ȱ Derȱ Einzelneȱ undȱ seineȱ GemeinschaftȱbeiȱBenȱSiraȱ(BZAW,ȱ270;ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1998),ȱpp.ȱ 23Ȭ49.ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

189ȱ

EggerȬWenzel,ȱ Renateȱ (ed.),ȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ God:ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Internationalȱ Benȱ SiraȱConference,ȱDurham,ȱUshawȱCollege,ȱ2001ȱ(BZAW,ȱ321;ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱ Gruyter,ȱ2002).ȱ Ehrlich,ȱCarlȱS.,ȱ“Shilhimȱ(place)ȱ“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱV,ȱp.ȱ1213.ȱ Emerton,ȱJ.A.,ȱ“JudahȱandȱTamar“,ȱVTȱ29ȱ(1979),ȱpp.ȱ403Ȭ15.ȱ Eriksen,ȱ Thomasȱ Hylland,ȱ “Ethnicity,ȱ Class,ȱ Raceȱ andȱ Nation“,ȱ inȱ Johnȱ Hutchinsonȱ andȱ Anthonyȱ D.ȱ Smithȱ (eds.),ȱ Ethnicityȱ (Oxfordȱ Readers;ȱ Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱpp.ȱ28Ȭ31.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Ethnicity,ȱ raceȱ andȱ nation“,ȱ inȱ Montserratȱ Guibernauȱ andȱ Johnȱ Rexȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Ethnicityȱ Reader:ȱ Nationalism,ȱ Multiculturalismȱ andȱ Migrationȱ (Cambridge:ȱPolityȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱpp.ȱ33Ȭ42.ȱ Erlandsson,ȱS.,ȱ“ʤʰʦ“,ȱTDOT19ȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ99Ȭ104.ȱ Erman,ȱ A.ȱ “Eineȱ ägyptischeȱ Quelleȱ derȱ ‘Sprücheȱ Salomos‘”,ȱ SPAWȱ 15ȱ (1924),ȱ 86Ȭ93,ȱtab.ȱVIȱf.ȱ Eskenazi,ȱTamaraȱandȱKentȱH.ȱRichardsȱ(eds.),ȱSecondȱTempleȱStudies:ȱ2.ȱTempleȱ andȱ Communityȱ inȱ theȱ Persianȱ Periodȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 175;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ JSOTȱ Press,ȱ 1994).ȱ Eskenazi,ȱTamaraȱandȱEleanoreȱP.ȱJudd,ȱ“MarriageȱtoȱaȱStrangerȱinȱEzraȱ9Ȭ10”,ȱ inȱSecondȱTempleȱStudiesȱ2,ȱpp.ȱ266Ȭ85.ȱ EvelynȬWhite,ȱHughȱG.,ȱ“TranslationȱofȱHesiodȱWorks“ȱinȱ[email protected].ȱ Eyre,ȱC.J.,ȱ“CrimeȱandȱAdulteryȱinȱAncientȱEgypt“,ȱJEAȱ70ȱ(1984),ȱpp.ȱ92Ȭ105.ȱ ȱ Fabry,ȱH.ȬJ.ȱandȱH.ȱLambertyȬZielinski,ȱ“ʡʸʲII/III“,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIX,ȱpp.ȱ327Ȭ34.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Derȱ Makarismusȱ –ȱ mehrȱ alsȱ nurȱ eineȱ weisheitlicheȱ Lehrform:ȱ GeȬ dankenȱzuȱdemȱneuȬediertenȱTextȱ4Q525“,ȱinȱJuttaȱHausmann,ȱandȱHansȱJ.ȱ Zobelȱ (eds.),ȱ Alttestamentlicheȱ Glaubeȱ undȱ biblischeȱ Theologie:ȱ Festschriftȱ fürȱ Horstȱ Dieterȱ Preussȱ zumȱ 65.ȱ Geburtstagȱ (Stuttgart:ȱ Verlagȱ W.ȱ Kohlhammer,ȱ 1992),ȱpp.ȱ362Ȭ71.ȱ Falk,ȱZe’ev,ȱIntroductionȱtoȱJewishȱLawȱofȱtheȱSecondȱCommonwealthȱ(AZGJU,ȱ11;ȱ2ȱ vols.;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1972Ȭ78).ȱ Farmer,ȱKathleen,ȱ“TheȱMisleadingȱTranslationsȱinȱtheȱNewȱRevisedȱStandardȱ VersionȱofȱProverbs“,ȱTheȱFeministȱPilgrimȱ(1995),ȱpp.ȱ38Ȭ41.ȱ Faulkner,ȱR.,ȱAȱConciseȱDictionaryȱofȱMiddleȱEgyptianȱ(Oxford:ȱGriffithȱInstitute,ȱ AshmoleanȱMuseum,ȱ1999).ȱ Feldman,ȱLouisȱH.,ȱJewȱandȱGentileȱinȱtheȱAncientȱWorld:ȱAttitudesȱandȱInteractionsȱ fromȱ Alexanderȱ toȱ Justinianȱ (Princeton,ȱ Newȱ Jersey:ȱ Princetonȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1993).ȱ Fichtner,ȱ Johannes,ȱ Dieȱ altorientalischeȱ Weisheitȱ inȱ ihrerȱ israelitischȬjüdischenȱ Ausprägung:ȱeineȱStudieȱzurȱNationalisierungȱderȱWeisheitȱinȱIsraelȱ(BZAW,ȱ62;ȱ Giessen:ȱAlfredȱTöpelmann,ȱ1933).ȱ Ford,ȱMassyngberdeȱJ.,ȱRevelation:ȱIntroduction,ȱTranslationȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ 38;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1975).ȱ

190ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Fox,ȱMichaelȱV.,ȱ“IdeasȱofȱWisdomȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9“,ȱJBLȱ116ȱ(1997),ȱpp.ȱ613Ȭ33.ȱ –––––––,ȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ 18A;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ2000).ȱ Frankel,ȱRafael,ȱ“Jotbah“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIII,ȱp.ȱ1020.ȱ ȱ Gafni,ȱIsaiah,ȱ“TheȱHistoricalȱBackground“,ȱinȱMichaelȱE.ȱStoneȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱJewishȱ WritingsȱofȱtheȱSecondȱTempleȱPeriod:ȱTheȱLiteratureȱofȱtheȱJewishȱPeopleȱinȱtheȱ PeriodȱofȱtheȱSecondȱTempleȱandȱtheȱTalmudȱ(CRINTȱSectionȱ2,ȱ2ȱvols.;ȱAssen:ȱ VanȱGorcum,ȱ1984),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ31.ȱ Gaines,ȱ Janetȱ H.,ȱ Musicȱ inȱ theȱ Oldȱ Bones:ȱ Jezebelȱ Throughȱ theȱ Agesȱ (Carbondale:ȱ SouthernȱIllinoisȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999).ȱ Gardiner,ȱ A.H.,ȱ Egyptianȱ Grammarȱ (Oxford:ȱ Griffithȱ Institute,ȱ Ashmoleanȱ MuȬ seum,ȱrev.ȱ3rdȱedn,ȱ1994).ȱ Gaster,ȱTheodore,ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScripturesȱ(GardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubledayȱ AnchorȱBooks,ȱ1976).ȱ GazovȬGinzberg,ȱA.M.,ȱ“DoubleȬMeaningȱinȱaȱQumranȱWork:ȱTheȱWilesȱofȱtheȱ WickedȱWoman“,ȱRevQȱ6.22ȱ(1967),ȱpp.ȱ279Ȭ85.ȱ Gemser,ȱ B.,ȱ Sprücheȱ Salomosȱ (HAT,ȱ ersteȱ Reihe,ȱ 16;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ Mohr,ȱ 2ndȱ edn,ȱ 1963).ȱ Gerleman,ȱ G.,ȱ “Theȱ Septuagintȱ Proverbsȱ asȱ aȱ Hellenisticȱ Document“,ȱ OTSȱ 8ȱ (1950),ȱpp.ȱ15Ȭ27.ȱ Gibson,ȱJ.C.L.,ȱCanaaniteȱMythsȱandȱLegendsȱ(Edinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ2ndȱedn,ȱ 1977).ȱ Gilbert,ȱMaurice,ȱLaȱcritiqueȱdesȱdieuxȱdansȱleȱLivreȱdeȱlaȱSagesseȱ(Sgȱ13Ȭ15)ȱ(AnBib,ȱ 53;ȱRome:ȱBiblicalȱInstituteȱPress,ȱ1973).ȱ –––––––,ȱ“BenȱSiraȱetȱlaȱfemme“,ȱRTLȱ7ȱ(1976),ȱpp.ȱ426Ȭ42.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira:ȱ Implicationsȱ forȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ traȬ ditions“,ȱ inȱ Shemayahuȱ Talmonȱ (ed.),ȱ Jewishȱ Civilizationȱ inȱ theȱ HellenisticȬ RomanȱPeriodȱ(JSPSupp,ȱ10;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱpp.ȱ81Ȭ91.ȱ GillmayrȬBucher,ȱSusanne,ȱ“’Sheȱcameȱtoȱtestȱhimȱwithȱhardȱquestions’:ȱforeignȱ womenȱandȱtheirȱviewȱonȱIsrael“,ȱBiblicalȱInterpretationȱ15ȱ(2007),ȱ135Ȭ50.ȱ Glatt,ȱD.A.,ȱChronologicalȱDisplacementȱinȱBiblicalȱandȱRelatedȱLiteraturesȱ(SBLDS,ȱ 139;ȱAtlanta,ȱGa.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1993).ȱ GlazierȬMcDonald,ȱ Beth,ȱ Malachi:ȱ Theȱ Divineȱ Messengerȱ (SBLDS,ȱ 98;ȱ Atlanta,ȱ Ga.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1986).ȱ Goldingay,ȱJ.E.,ȱ“ProverbsȱVȱandȱIX“,ȱRBȱ84ȱ(1977),ȱpp.ȱ80Ȭ93.ȱ Goldstein,ȱJonathan,ȱ“TheȱHasmoneanȱrevoltȱandȱtheȱHasmoneanȱdynasty“,ȱinȱ DaviesȱandȱFinkelsteinȱ(eds.),ȱCambridgeȱHistoryȱofȱJudaism,ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ292Ȭ 351.ȱ Grabbe,ȱ Lester,ȱ Judaismȱ fromȱ Cyrusȱ toȱ Hadrianȱ (2ȱ vols.;ȱ Minneapolis,ȱ MN:ȱ ForȬ tressȱPress,ȱ1992).ȱ –––––––,ȱWisdomȱofȱSolomonȱ(OTG;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1997).ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

191ȱ

–––––––,ȱEzraȬNehemiahȱ(OTȱReading;ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1998).ȱ –––––––,ȱ Judaicȱ Religionȱ inȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Period:ȱ Beliefȱ andȱ Practiceȱ fromȱ theȱ ExileȱtoȱYavnehȱ(London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2000).ȱ Goodfriend,ȱElaineȱA.,ȱ“Prostitution“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱV,ȱpp.ȱ505Ȭ10.ȱ Goulder,ȱ Michael,ȱ “Ruth:ȱ aȱ homilyȱ onȱ Deuteronomyȱ 22Ȭ25?“ȱ inȱ Clinesȱ andȱ McKayȱ(eds.),ȱOfȱProphetsȇȱVisionsȱandȱtheȱWisdomȱofȱSages,ȱpp.ȱ307Ȭ319.ȱ Gray,ȱJohn,ȱIȱ&ȱIIȱKings:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1964).ȱ ȱ Habel,ȱNormanȱC.,ȱ“TheȱSymbolismȱofȱWisdomȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9“,ȱIntȱ26ȱ(1972),ȱ pp.ȱ131Ȭ57.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Theȱ Landȱ isȱ Mine:ȱ Sixȱ Biblicalȱ Landȱ Ideologiesȱ (OBT;ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ AugsburgȱFortress,ȱ1995).ȱ Halpern,ȱBaruch,ȱ“Kenites“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIV,ȱp.ȱ20.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“WhyȱManassehȱisȱBlamedȱforȱtheȱBabylonianȱExile:ȱTheȱEvolutionȱofȱ aȱBiblicalȱTradition“,ȱVTȱ48ȱ(1998),ȱpp.ȱ473Ȭ514.ȱ Hamilton,ȱ Victor,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Genesis:ȱ Chaptersȱ 18Ȭ50ȱ (NICOT;ȱ Grandȱ Rapids:ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ1995).ȱ Hamonville,ȱ DavidȬMarc,ȱ lesȱ Proverbesȱ (laȱ Bibleȱ d’Alexandrie,ȱ 17;ȱ Paris:ȱ Cerf,ȱ 2000).ȱ Harrington,ȱDanielȱJ.,ȱ“TheȱQumranȱSapientialȱTextsȱinȱtheȱContextȱofȱBiblicalȱ andȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Literature“,ȱ inȱ Lawrenceȱ H.ȱ Schiffman,ȱ Emanuelȱ Tovȱ andȱJamesȱC.ȱVanderKamȱ(eds.),ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls:ȱFiftyȱYearsȱAfterȱTheirȱ Discoveryȱ (Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ Congress,ȱ Julyȱ 20Ȭ25,ȱ 1997;ȱ Jerusalem:ȱIsraelȱExplorationȱSociety,ȱ2000),ȱpp.ȱ256Ȭ62.ȱ Hawley,ȱRichard,ȱ“TheȱProblemȱofȱWomenȱPhilosophersȱinȱAncientȱGreece“,ȱinȱ Léonieȱ J.ȱ Archer,ȱ Susanȱ Fischerȱ andȱ Mariaȱ Wykeȱ (eds.),ȱWomenȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Societiesȱ(London:ȱMacmillan;ȱRoutledge,ȱ1997),ȱpp.ȱ70Ȭ87.ȱ Heinemann,ȱ Joseph,ȱ Prayerȱ inȱ theȱ Talmud:ȱ Formsȱ andȱ Patternsȱ (SJ,ȱ 9;ȱ Berlin:ȱ WalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1977).ȱ Hengel,ȱ Martin,ȱ Hengel,ȱ Martin,ȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Hellenismȱ (trans.ȱ J.ȱ Bowden;ȱ 2ȱ vols.;ȱPhiladelphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1975).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Theȱ politicalȱ andȱ socialȱ historyȱ ofȱ Palestineȱ fromȱ Alexanderȱ toȱ AntiochusȱIIIȱ(333Ȭ187ȱBCE)ȱ“,ȱinȱW.D.ȱDaviesȱandȱLouisȱFinkelsteinȱ(eds.),ȱ Cambridgeȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Judaismȱ (3ȱ vols.;ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1989),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ35Ȭ78.ȱ Hertz,ȱJ.H.,ȱTheȱAuthorisedȱDailyȱPrayerȱBookȱwithȱCommentaryȱ(London:ȱShapiroȱ Vallentine,ȱ1959).ȱ Hill,ȱAndrew,ȱMalachi:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ 25D;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1998).ȱ Hobbs,ȱT.R.,ȱ2ȱKingsȱ(WBC,ȱ13;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1985).ȱ Holloway,ȱStevenȱW.,ȱ“Kings,ȱBookȱofȱ1Ȭ2“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ69Ȭ83.ȱ ȱ

192ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Hugenberger,ȱGordonȱPaul,ȱMarriageȱasȱaȱCovenant:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱBiblicalȱLawȱandȱ EthicsȱGoverningȱMarriageȱDeveloped,ȱfromȱtheȱPersepectiveȱofȱMalachiȱ(VTSup,ȱ 52;ȱLeiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1994).ȱ Humbert,ȱ Paul,ȱ Recherchesȱ surȱ lesȱ sourcesȱ Égyptiennesȱ deȱ laȱ littératureȱ sapientialeȱ d’Israelȱ (Memoires/Neuchatelȱ University,ȱ 7;ȱ Neuchatel:ȱ Neuchatelȱ UniȬ versity,ȱ1929).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Laȱ femmeȱ étrangèreȱ duȱ livreȱ desȱ Proverbes“,ȱ Revueȱ desȱ etudesȱ sémiȬ tiquesȱ(1937),ȱpp.ȱ49Ȭ64.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “ȱ Lesȱ adjectifsȱ ‘zâr‘ȱ etȱ ‘nokrî‘ȱ etȱ laȱ ‘Femmeȱ Étrangère‘ȱ desȱ Proverbesȱ Bibliques“,ȱ inȱ Mélangesȱ syriensȱ offertsȱ àȱ M.ȱ Renéȱ Dussandȱ Iȱ (Paris:ȱ Librairieȱ OrientaliseȱPaulȱGeuthner,ȱ1939),ȱpp.ȱ259Ȭ66.ȱ Hunter,ȱM.,ȱ“Lilith“,ȱDDD,ȱpp.ȱ973Ȭ76.ȱ ȱ Ilan,ȱ Tal,ȱ Jewishȱ Womenȱ inȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ Palestineȱ (Peabody,ȱ Massachussets:ȱ Hendrickson,ȱ1996).ȱ Ishida,ȱTomoo,ȱTheȱRoyalȱDynastiesȱinȱAncientȱIsrael:ȱAȱStudyȱonȱtheȱFormationȱandȱ DevelopmentȱofȱRoyalȬdynasticȱIdeologyȱ(BZAW,ȱ142;ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyȬ ter,ȱ1977).ȱ ȱ Janzen,ȱ David,ȱ WitchȬhunts,ȱ Purityȱ andȱ Socialȱ Boundaries:ȱ Theȱ Expulsionȱ ofȱ theȱ Foreignȱ Womenȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 9Ȭ10ȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 350;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ2002).ȱ Japhet,ȱSara,ȱTheȱIdeologyȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱChroniclesȱandȱItsȱPlaceȱinȱBiblicalȱThoughtȱ (BEAT,ȱ9;ȱNewȱYork:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1989).ȱ Jastrow,ȱMarcus,ȱAȱDictionaryȱofȱtheȱTargumim,ȱtheȱTalmudȱBabliȱandȱYerushalmi,ȱ andȱ theȱ Midrashicȱ Literatureȱ (2ȱ vols.;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Pardesȱ Publishingȱ House,ȱ 1950).ȱ –––––––,ȱIȱ&ȱIIȱChronicles:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1993).ȱ Jellicoe,ȱ Sidney,ȱ Theȱ Septuagintȱ andȱ Modernȱ Studyȱ (Oxford:ȱ Clarendonȱ Press,ȱ 1968).ȱ Jones,ȱGwilymȱH.,ȱ1ȱ&ȱ2ȱChroniclesȱ(OTG;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1993).ȱ ȱ Katz,ȱ Marilynȱ A.,ȱ “Ideologyȱ andȱ theȱ ‘statusȱ ofȱ women‘ȱ inȱ ancientȱ Greece“,ȱ inȱ Richardȱ Hawleyȱ andȱ Barbaraȱ Levickȱ (eds.),ȱ Womenȱ inȱ Antiquity:ȱ Newȱ Assessmentsȱ(London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1995),ȱpp.ȱ21Ȭ43.ȱ Katzenstein,ȱJacobȱH.,ȱTheȱHistoryȱofȱTyre:ȱFromȱtheȱBeginningȱofȱtheȱSecondȱMilleȬ niumȱ B.C.E.ȱ untilȱ theȱ Fallȱ ofȱ theȱ NeoȬBabylonianȱ Empireȱ inȱ 539ȱ B.C.E.ȱ (Beerȱ Sheva:ȱBenȬGurionȱUniversityȱofȱtheȱNegevȱPress,ȱ2ndȱrev.ȱedn,ȱ1997).ȱ Kaufmann,ȱ Kohler,ȱ “Theȱ Originȱ andȱ Compositionȱ ofȱ theȱ 18ȱ Benedictions“,ȱ HUCAȱ1ȱ(1924),ȱpp.ȱ387Ȭ425.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

193ȱ

Kayatz,ȱ C.,ȱ Studienȱ zuȱ Proverbienȱ 1Ȭ9:ȱ Eineȱ formȬȱ undȱ motivgeschichtlicheȱ UnterȬ suchungȱ unterȱ Einbeziehungȱ ägyptischenȱ Vergleichsmaterialsȱ (WMANTȱ 22;ȱ NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱNeukirchenȱVerlag,ȱ1966).ȱ Kim,ȱJichan,ȱTheȱStructureȱofȱtheȱSamsonȱCycleȱ(Kampen:ȱKokȱPharos,ȱ1993).ȱ Kitchen,ȱ Kenneth,ȱ “Shebaȱ andȱ Arabia“,ȱ inȱ Lowellȱ K.ȱ Handyȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Ageȱ ofȱ Solomon:ȱScholarshipȱatȱtheȱTurnȱofȱtheȱMilleniumȱ(StudiesȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱandȱ Cultureȱ ofȱ theȱ Ancientȱ Nearȱ East,ȱ 11;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brillȱ Academic,ȱ 1997),ȱ pp.ȱ 127Ȭ39.ȱ Kosmala,ȱH.,ȱ“TheȱBloodyȱHusband“,ȱVTȱ12ȱ(1962),ȱpp.ȱ14Ȭ28.ȱ Kotter,ȱWadeȱR.,ȱ“Bozkath“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱI,ȱp.ȱ774.ȱ Kruger,ȱ Paul,ȱ “Promiscuityȱ orȱ Marriageȱ Fidelity?ȱ Aȱ Noteȱ onȱ Provȱ 5:15Ȭ18“,ȱ JNSLȱ13ȱ(1987),ȱpp.ȱ61Ȭ68.ȱ Kuhn,ȱKarlȱGeorg,ȱKonkordanzȱzuȱdenȱQumrantextenȱ(Göttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱ Ruprecht,ȱ1960),ȱpp.ȱ88Ȭ89.ȱ ȱ Lambert,ȱW.G.,ȱBabylonianȱWisdomȱLiteratureȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1960).ȱ Lang,ȱBernhard,ȱ“ʸʫʰ“,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIX,ȱpp.ȱ425Ȭ29.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Dieȱ weisheitlicheȱ Lehrrede:ȱ eineȱ Untersuchungȱ vonȱ Sprücheȱ 1Ȭ7ȱ (SBS,ȱ 54;ȱ Stuttgart:ȱKBWȱVerlag,ȱ1977).ȱ –––––––,ȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbs:ȱ Anȱ Israeliteȱ Goddessȱ Redefinedȱ (Newȱ York:ȱPilgrimȱPress,ȱ1986).ȱ Larcher,ȱ C.,ȱ Leȱ Livreȱ deȱ laȱ Sagesseȱ ouȱ Laȱ Sagesseȱ deȱ Salomonȱ (O.ȱ P.ȱ commentary,ȱ EBib;ȱ3ȱvols.;ȱParis:ȱJ.ȱGabalda,ȱ1983Ȭ85).ȱ Lemaire,ȱAndré,ȱ“AshdodienȱetȱJudéenȱàȱL’èpoqueȱPerse:ȱNeȱ13,24“,ȱinȱK.ȱvanȱ Lerbergheȱ andȱ A.ȱ Schoorsȱ (eds.),ȱ Immigrationȱ andȱ Emigrationȱ withinȱ theȱ AncientȱNearȱEast:ȱFestschriftȱE.ȱLipiÚskiȱ(OLA,ȱ65;ȱLeuven:ȱUitgeverijȱPeetersȱ enȱDepartementȱOriëntalistiek,ȱ1995),ȱpp.ȱ153Ȭ63.ȱ Lemche,ȱ Nielsȱ Peter,ȱ Theȱ Canaanitesȱ andȱ Theirȱ Lands:ȱ Theȱ Traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ Canaanitesȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ110;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1991).ȱ –––––––,ȱ Theȱ Israelitesȱ inȱ Historyȱ andȱ Traditionȱ (Libraryȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Israel;ȱ London:ȱSPCK;ȱLouisville,ȱKentucky:ȱWestminster/JohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ1998).ȱ Lesko,ȱ Leonardȱ J.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Aȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ Lateȱ Egyptianȱ (5ȱ vols.;ȱ California:ȱ B.C.ȱ Scribe,ȱ1982Ȭ90).ȱ Levine,ȱBaruchȱA.,ȱLeviticusȱ(JPSȱTorahȱCommentary;ȱPhiladelphia:ȱJPS,ȱ1989).ȱ –––––––,ȱNumbers:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ4,ȱ2ȱ vols.;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1993;ȱ2000).ȱ Lewis,ȱTheodoreȱJ.,ȱ“Dead,ȱAbodeȱofȱthe“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ101Ȭ105.ȱ Lichtenberger,ȱHermann,ȱ“EineȱweisheitlicheȱMahnredeȱinȱdenȱQumranfundenȱ (4Q185)“,ȱinȱMatthiasȱDelcorȱ(ed.),ȱQumrân:ȱsaȱpiété,ȱsaȱthéologieȱetȱsonȱmilieuȱ (BETL,ȱ 46;ȱ Paris:ȱ Duculot;ȱ Louvain:ȱ Louvainȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1978),ȱ pp.ȱ 151Ȭ62.ȱ ȱ

194ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Lichtheim,ȱ Miriam,ȱ Ancientȱ Egyptianȱ Literatureȱ (3ȱ vols.;ȱ Berkeley,ȱ Losȱ Angeles:ȱ UniversityȱofȱCalifornia,ȱ1976Ȭ80).ȱ LipiÚski,ȱE.,ȱ“ʡʸʲ“,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱXI,ȱpp.ȱ329Ȭ30.ȱ Lisowsky,ȱ Gerhardus,ȱ Konkordanzȱ zumȱ Hebräischenȱ Altenȱ Testamentȱ (ConcorȬ dantiaeȱ Veterisȱ Testamentiȱ hebraicaeȱ atqueȱ aramaicae;ȱ Stuttgart:ȱ Privilegȱ WürtȱBibelanstalt,ȱ1958).ȱ Lombardo,ȱStanley,ȱHesiodȱWorksȱandȱDaysȱ(Indianopolis:ȱHackett,ȱ1993).ȱ ȱ Maier,ȱ Christl,ȱ Dieȱ ‘fremdeȱ Frau’ȱ inȱ Proverbienȱ 1Ȭ9:ȱ eineȱ exegetischeȱ undȱ socialgeschichtlicheȱ Studieȱ (OBO,ȱ 144;ȱ Freiburg:ȱ Universitätsverlagȱ Freiburgȱ Schweiz;ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1995).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Conflictingȱ Attractions:ȱ Parentalȱ Wisdomȱ andȱ theȱ ‘Strangeȱ Woman‘ȱ inȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9“,ȱinȱBrennerȱandȱFontaineȱ(eds.),ȱWisdomȱandȱPsalms,ȱpp.ȱ92Ȭ 108.ȱ Malamat,ȱA.,ȱ“MariȱandȱtheȱBible“,ȱJAOSȱ82ȱ(1962),ȱpp.ȱ144Ȭ46.ȱ Malowe,ȱJohn,ȱTheȱGoldenȱAgeȱofȱAlexandria:ȱFromȱitsȱFoundationȱbyȱAlexanderȱtheȱ Greatȱ inȱ 331ȱ BCȱ toȱ itsȱ Captureȱ byȱ theȱ Arabsȱ inȱ 642ȱ ADȱ (London:ȱ Victorȱ Gaollancz,ȱ1971).ȱ Mandelkern,ȱ S.,ȱ Veterisȱ Testamentiȱ Concordantiaeȱ hebraicaeȱ atqueȱ chaldaicaeȱ (Newȱ York:ȱShulsingerȱBrothers,ȱnewȱedn,ȱ1955).ȱ Marböck,ȱJohannes,ȱ“StructureȱandȱRedactionȱHistoryȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱBenȱSira:ȱ Reviewȱ andȱ Prospects“,ȱ inȱ Beentjesȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Benȱ Siraȱ inȱ Modernȱ Research,ȱpp.ȱ61Ȭ80.ȱ Marcus,ȱ Ralph,ȱ “Onȱ Biblicalȱ Hypostasesȱ ofȱWisdom“,ȱ HUCAȱ 23ȱ (1950Ȭ51),ȱ pp.ȱ 157Ȭ71.ȱ Marsman,ȱ Hennie,ȱ “Womenȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Israel“,ȱ inȱ Athalyaȱ Brennerȱ andȱ Janȱ Willemȱ Vanȱ Hentenȱ (eds.),ȱ Recyclingȱ Biblicalȱ Figures:ȱ Papersȱ Readȱ atȱ aȱ NOSTERȱ Colloquiumȱ inȱ Amsterdam,ȱ 12Ȭ13ȱ Mayȱ 1997ȱ (Studiesȱ inȱ Theologyȱ andȱReligionȱSeries,ȱ1;ȱLeiden:ȱDeo,ȱ1999),ȱpp.ȱ28Ȭ49.ȱ MartinȬAchard,ȱR.,ȱ“ʸʕ ʦȱz¬rȱfremd“,ȱTHATȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ520Ȭ22.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“ʸʕʫʒʰȱn¾k¬rȱFremde“,ȱTHATȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ739Ȭ41.ȱ Martínez,ȱ Florentinoȱ Garcíaȱ andȱ Eibertȱ J.C.ȱ Tigchelaar,ȱ Theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls:ȱ StudyȱEditionȱ(2ȱvols.;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1997).ȱ Mazar,ȱBenjamin,ȱ“GeshurȱandȱMaacah“,ȱJBLȱ80ȱ(1961),ȱpp.ȱ16Ȭ28.ȱ McCreesch,ȱT.P.,ȱ“WisdomȱasȱWife:ȱProverbsȱ31:10Ȭ31“,ȱRBȱ92ȱ(1985),ȱpp.ȱ25Ȭ46.ȱ McGlynn,ȱMoyna,ȱDivineȱJudgementȱandȱDivineȱBenevolenceȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱWisdomȱ (WUNT,ȱ2,ȱ139;ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2001).ȱ McKane,ȱ William,ȱ Proverbs:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Approachȱ (OTL;ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press;ȱPhilaȬ delphia:ȱWestminsterȱPress,ȱ1970).ȱ McKenzie,ȱStevenȱL.,ȱ“DeuteronomisticȱHistory“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ160Ȭ68.ȱ Meinhold,ȱArndt,ȱDieȱSprücheȱ(ZBAT,ȱ16;ȱ2ȱvols.;ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlag,ȱ 1991).ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

195ȱ

Mendels,ȱDoron,ȱTheȱLandȱofȱIsraelȱasȱaȱPoliticalȱConceptȱinȱHasmoneanȱLiterature:ȱ RecourseȱtoȱHistoryȱinȱSecondȱCenturyȱB.C.ȱClaimsȱtoȱtheȱHolyȱLandȱ(TSAJ,ȱ15;ȱ Tübingen:ȱMohr,ȱ1987).ȱ Mendenhall,ȱGeorgeȱE.,ȱ“Midian“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ815Ȭ18.ȱ Merrill,ȱEugeneȱH.,ȱ“ʺʧˇ“,ȱNIDOTEȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ92Ȭ93ȱ Meyers,ȱCarolȱL.,ȱToniȱCravenȱandȱRossȱS.ȱKraemerȱ(eds.),ȱWomenȱinȱScripture:ȱ Aȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ Namedȱ andȱ Unnamedȱ Womenȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Theȱ ApoȬ cryphalȱ /ȱ Deuterocanonicalȱ Booksȱ andȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ (Boston,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ HoughtonȱMifflinȱCompany,ȱ2000).ȱ Milgrom,ȱJacob,ȱStudiesȱinȱLeviticalȱTerminology,ȱI:ȱTheȱEncroacherȱandȱtheȱLevite.ȱ Theȱ Termȱ `Abodaȱ (Nearȱ Easternȱ Studies,ȱ 14;ȱ Berkeley,ȱ Losȱ Angeles:ȱ UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1970).ȱ –––––––,ȱNumbersȱ(JPSȱTorahȱCommentary;ȱPhiladelphia:ȱJPS,ȱ1990).ȱ –––––––,ȱLeviticus:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ3;ȱ3ȱ vols.;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1991;ȱ2000;ȱ2001).ȱ Miller,ȱJ.M.ȱandȱJ.H.ȱHayes,ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱAncientȱIsraelȱandȱJudahȱ(Philadelphia:ȱ WestminsterȱPress,ȱ1986).ȱ Molin,ȱG.,ȱ“DieȱStellungȱderȱGebiraȱimȱStaateȱJuda“,ȱTZȱ10ȱ(1954),ȱpp.ȱ161Ȭ75.ȱ Montagu,ȱ Ashley,ȱ Man’sȱ Mostȱ Dangerousȱ Myth:ȱ Theȱ Fallacyȱ ofȱ Raceȱ (Walnutȱ Creek,ȱLondon:ȱAltamiraȱPress,ȱ6thȱedn,ȱ1997).ȱ Moore,ȱ Rickȱ D.,ȱ “Personificationȱ ofȱ theȱ Seductionȱ ofȱ Evil:ȱ ’Theȱ Wilesȱ ofȱ theȱ WickedȱWoman’“,ȱRevQȱ10.40ȱ(1981),ȱpp.ȱ505Ȭ19.ȱ Morgenstern,ȱ Julian,ȱ “Theȱ Ark,ȱ theȱ Ephod,ȱandȱ theȱ ’Tentȱofȱ Meeting’“,ȱHUCAȱ 17ȱ(1942Ȭ43),ȱpp.ȱ153Ȭ265;ȱ18ȱ(1944),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ52.ȱ –––––––,ȱ “‘Theȱ Bloodyȱ Husband’(?)ȱ (Exod.ȱ 4:24Ȭ26)ȱ Onceȱ Again“,ȱ HUCAȱ 34ȱ (1963),ȱpp.ȱ35Ȭ70.ȱ Murphy,ȱRoland,ȱProverbsȱ(WBC,ȱ22;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1998).ȱ Myers,ȱ Jacobȱ M.,ȱ Ezra.ȱ Nehemiah:ȱ Introduction,ȱ Translationȱ andȱ Notesȱ (AB,ȱ 14;ȱ GardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1965).ȱ ȱ Na’aman,ȱ Nadav,ȱ “Theȱ Deuteronomistȱ andȱ Voluntaryȱ Servitudeȱ toȱ Foreignȱ Powers“,ȱJSOTȱ65ȱ(1995),ȱpp.ȱ48Ȭ50.ȱ Noth,ȱ Martin,ȱ Numbers:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (trans.ȱ Jamesȱ D.ȱ Martin;ȱ OTL;ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱPress,ȱ1968).ȱ ȱ Oded,ȱBustanay,ȱ“Tamar“,ȱEncJudȱvol.ȱXV,ȱpp.ȱ782Ȭ83.ȱ Oesterley,ȱ W.O.E.,ȱ Theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ theȱ Sonȱ ofȱ Sirachȱ orȱ Ecclesiasticusȱ (CB;ȱ Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1912).ȱ –––––––,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ (Westminsterȱ Commentaries;ȱ London:ȱ Metheun,ȱ 1929).ȱ Ogden,ȱ Graham,ȱ “Theȱ Useȱ ofȱ Figurativeȱ Languageȱ inȱ Malachiȱ 2:10Ȭ16“ȱ BTȱ 39ȱ (1988),ȱpp.ȱ223Ȭ30.ȱ

196ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Oppenheimer,ȱ Aharon,ȱ Theȱ ‘Amȱ HaȬaretz:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ inȱ theȱ Socialȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Peopleȱ inȱ theȱ HellenisticȬRomanȱ Periodȱ (trans.ȱ I.H.ȱ Levine;ȱ ALGHJ,ȱ 8;ȱ Leiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1977).ȱ ȱ Pan,ȱChouȬWee,ȱ“ʤʺʴ“,ȱNIDOTEȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ306Ȭ309.ȱ Parkinson,ȱR.B.,ȱTheȱTaleȱofȱSinuheȱandȱotherȱAncientȱEgyptianȱPoemsȱ1940Ȭ1640ȱBCȱ (Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1997).ȱ Pedersen,ȱ Johs,ȱ Israel:ȱ Itsȱ Lifeȱ andȱ Cultureȱ (trans.ȱ Mrs.ȱ Aslaugȱ Møller;ȱ 2ȱ vols.;ȱ London:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1926).ȱ Perdue,ȱ Leoȱ G.,ȱ Proverbsȱ (Interpretation,ȱ aȱ Bibleȱ commentaryȱ forȱ teachingȱ andȱ preaching;ȱLouisville,ȱKentucky:ȱJohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ2000).ȱ Petersen,ȱ Andersȱ Klostergaard,ȱ “Theȱ Notionȱ ofȱ Demon.ȱ Openȱ Questionsȱ toȱ aȱ DiffuseȱConcept“,ȱinȱLange,ȱArmin,ȱHermannȱLichtenberger,ȱK.F.ȱDiethardȱ Römheldȱ (eds.),ȱ Dieȱ Dämonenȱ /ȱ Demons:ȱ dieȱ Dämonologieȱ derȱ israelitischȬ jüdischenȱ undȱ frühchristlichenȱ Literaturȱ imȱ Kontextȱ ihrerȱ Umweltȱ /ȱ Theȱ DemonologyȱofȱIsraeliteȬJewishȱandȱEarlyȱChristianȱLiteratureȱinȱContextȱofȱtheirȱ Environmentȱ(Tübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2003),ȱpp.ȱ23Ȭ41.ȱ Petersen,ȱ Davidȱ L.,ȱ Haggaiȱ andȱ Zechariahȱ 1Ȭ8ȱ (OTL;ȱ Louisville,ȱ Kentucky:ȱ WestminsterȱPress,ȱ1984).ȱ Peterson,ȱJohnȱL.,ȱ“Libnahȱ(Place)ȱ“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIII,ȱpp.ȱ322Ȭ23.ȱ Pippin,ȱ Tina,ȱ “Jezebelȱ ReȬVamped“ȱ inȱ Brennerȱ (ed.),ȱ Aȱ Feministȱ Companionȱ toȱ SamuelȱandȱKings,ȱpp.ȱ196Ȭ206.ȱ Plöger,ȱOtto,ȱSprücheȱSalomosȱ(Proverbia)ȱ(BKAT,ȱ17;ȱNeukirchen:ȱNeukirchenerȱ Verlag,ȱ1984).ȱ Puech,ȱÉmile,ȱ“4Q525ȱetȱlesȱpéricopesȱdesȱBéatitudesȱenȱBenȱSiraȱetȱMatthieu“,ȱ RBȱ98ȱ(1991),ȱpp.ȱ80Ȭ106.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“TheȱcollectionȱofȱbeatitudesȱinȱHebrewȱandȱGreekȱ(4Q525ȱ1Ȭ4ȱandȱMtȱ 5,ȱ 3Ȭ12)“,ȱ inȱ F.ȱ Mannsȱ andȱ E.ȱ Alliataȱ (eds.),ȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ inȱ Context:ȱ MonumentsȱandȱDocumentsȱ(StudiumȱBiblicumȱFranciscanum,ȱ38;ȱJerusalem:ȱ FranciscanȱPrintingȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱpp.ȱ353Ȭ68.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Qumrânȱ Grotteȱ 4ȱ XVIII:ȱ Textesȱ Hébreuxȱ (4Q521Ȭ4Q528,ȱ 4Q576Ȭ4Q579),ȱ (DJD,ȱvol.ȱXXV;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1998).ȱ Purvis,ȱJamesȱD.,ȱ“BenȱSiraȱandȱtheȱFoolishȱPeopleȱofȱShechem“,ȱJNESȱ24ȱ(1965),ȱ pp.ȱ88Ȭ94.ȱ ȱ Quack,ȱJoachimȱF.,ȱDieȱLehrenȱdesȱAni:ȱEinȱneuägyptischerȱWeisheitstextȱinȱseinemȱ kulturellenȱ Umfeldȱ (OBO,ȱ 141;ȱ Freiburg:ȱ Universitätsverlag;ȱ Göttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1994).ȱ ȱ Rajak,ȱTessa,ȱ“HasmoneanȱDynasty“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIII,ȱpp.ȱ67Ȭ76.ȱ Ramsey,ȱGeorgeȱW.,ȱ“Zadokȱ(person)“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱVI,ȱpp.ȱ1034Ȭ36.ȱ Rappaport,ȱUriel,ȱ“MaccabeanȱRevolt“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ433Ȭ39.ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

197ȱ

Reif,ȱ Stefanȱ C.,ȱ “Prayerȱ inȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ Qumranȱ andȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Judaism:ȱ Aȱ ComparativeȱOverview“,ȱEggerȬWenzelȱ(ed.),ȱBenȱSira’sȱGod,ȱpp.ȱ321Ȭ41.ȱ Riley,ȱG.J.,ȱ“Demon“,ȱDDD,ȱpp.ȱ445Ȭ55.ȱ Ringgren,ȱ Helmer,ȱ Wordȱ andȱ Wisdom:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Hypostatizationȱ ofȱ Divineȱ QualitiesȱandȱFunctionsȱinȱtheȱAncientȱNearȱEastȱ(Lund:ȱH.ȱOhlsson,ȱ1947).ȱ Robbins,ȱGay,ȱWomenȱinȱAncientȱEgyptȱ(London:ȱBritishȱMuseumȱPress,ȱ1993).ȱ Robert,ȱ A.,ȱ “Lesȱ attachesȱ littérairesȱ bibliquesȱ desȱ Prov.ȱ iȬix“,ȱ RBȱ 43ȱ (1934),ȱ pp.ȱ 42Ȭ68,ȱ172Ȭ204,ȱ374Ȭ84;ȱ44ȱ(1935),ȱpp.ȱ344Ȭ65,ȱ502Ȭ25.ȱ Robins,ȱ R.,ȱ “Someȱ imagesȱ ofȱ womanȱ inȱ Newȱ Kingdomȱ artȱ andȱ literature“,ȱ inȱ BarbaraȱLeskoȱ(ed.),ȱWomen’sȱEarliestȱRecord:ȱFromȱAncientȱEgyptȱandȱWestȬ ernȱ Asia,ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ Conferenceȱ onȱ Womenȱ inȱ theȱ Ancientȱ Nearȱ East,ȱ 1987,ȱ BrownȱUniversityȱ(BJ,ȱ166;ȱAtlanta,ȱGa.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱpp.ȱ105Ȭ16.ȱ Robinson,ȱBernhard,ȱ“ZipporahȱtoȱtheȱRescue:ȱAȱContextualȱStudyȱofȱExodusȱivȱ 24Ȭ6“,ȱVTȱ36ȱ(1986),ȱpp.ȱ447Ȭ61.ȱ Rofé,ȱ Alexander,ȱ “Theȱ Vineyardȱ ofȱ Naboth:ȱ Theȱ Originȱ andȱ Messageȱ ofȱ theȱ Story“,ȱVTȱ38ȱ(1988),ȱpp.ȱ89Ȭ104.ȱ Rogerson,ȱ J.W.,ȱ Anthropologyȱ andȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ (Growingȱ Pointsȱ inȱ Theology;ȱOxford:ȱBasilȱBlackwell,ȱ1978).ȱ Rothkoff,ȱAaron,ȱ“Samson“,ȱEncJudȱvol.ȱXIV,ȱp.ȱ773.ȱ Rudolph,ȱW.,ȱ“ZuȱMalachiȱ2:10Ȭ16“,ȱZAWȱ93ȱ(1981),ȱpp.ȱ85Ȭ90.ȱ ȱ Sacchi,ȱ Paolo,ȱ Theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Periodȱ (JSOTSup,ȱ 285;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ SheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ2000).ȱ Sarna,ȱNahumȱM.,ȱGenesisȱ(JPSȱTorahȱCommentary;ȱPhiladelphia:ȱJPS,ȱ1989).ȱ –––––––,ȱExodusȱ(JPSȱTorahȱCommentary;ȱPhiladelphia:ȱJPS,ȱ1991).ȱ Sasson,ȱ J.M.,ȱ Ruth:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Translationȱ withȱ aȱ Philogicalȱ Commentaryȱ andȱ aȱ FormalistȬFolkloristȱInterpretationȱ(Baltimore:ȱJohnȱHopkinsȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ 1979).ȱ Schearing,ȱ Lindaȱ S.,ȱ “Aȱ Wealthȱ ofȱ Women:ȱ Lookingȱ Behind,ȱ Withinȱ andȱ Beyondȱ Solomon’sȱ Story“,ȱ inȱ Lowellȱ K.ȱ Handy,ȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Ageȱ ofȱ Solomon:ȱ ScholarshipȱatȱtheȱTurnȱofȱtheȱMilleniumȱ(StudiesȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱandȱCultureȱ ofȱtheȱAncientȱNearȱEast,ȱ11;ȱLeiden:ȱBrillȱAcademic,ȱ1997),ȱpp.ȱ428Ȭ56.ȱ Scherer,ȱ Andreas,ȱ “Isȱ theȱ Selfishȱ Manȱ Wise?ȱ Considerationsȱ ofȱ Contextȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 10.1Ȭ22.16ȱ withȱ Specialȱ Regardȱ toȱ Surety,ȱ Briberyȱ andȱ FriendȬ ship“,ȱJSOTȱ76ȱ(1997),ȱpp.ȱ59Ȭ70.ȱ Schniedewind,ȱWilliamȱM.,ȱ“HistoryȱandȱInterpretation:ȱTheȱReligionȱofȱAhabȱ andȱManassehȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱKings“,ȱCBQȱ55ȱ(1993),ȱpp.ȱ649Ȭ61.ȱ Scholem,ȱG.,ȱ“Lilith“,ȱEncJudȱvol.ȱXI,ȱpp.ȱ245Ȭ49.ȱ Schwartz,ȱDanielȱR.,ȱ“TheȱOtherȱinȱ1ȱandȱ2ȱMaccabees“,ȱinȱGrahamȱN.ȱStanton,ȱ andȱ Guyȱ S.ȱ Stroumsaȱ (eds.),ȱ Toleranceȱ andȱ Intoleranceȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Christianityȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱpp.ȱ30Ȭ37.ȱ ȱ

198ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Scott,ȱ R.B.Y.,ȱ Proverbs.ȱ Ecclesiastes:ȱ Introduction,ȱ Translationȱ andȱ Notesȱ (AB,ȱ 18;ȱ GardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1965).ȱ Seeley,ȱ David,ȱ “Narrative,ȱ theȱ Righteousȱ Manȱ andȱ theȱ Philosopher:ȱ Anȱ AnalysisȱofȱtheȱStoryȱofȱtheȱDikaiosȱinȱWisdomȱ1Ȭ5“,ȱJSPȱ7ȱ(1990),ȱpp.ȱ55Ȭ78.ȱ Seow,ȱC.L.,ȱEcclesiastes:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱ(AB,ȱ 18C;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1998).ȱ Sinclair,ȱT.A.,ȱHesiodȱWorksȱandȱDaysȱ(London:ȱMacmillan,ȱ1932).ȱ Skehan,ȱPatrickȱW.,ȱ“Proverbsȱ5:15Ȭ19ȱandȱ6:20Ȭ24“,ȱinȱStudiesȱinȱIsraeliteȱPoetryȱ andȱ Wisdomȱ (CBQMS;ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.:ȱ Catholicȱ Biblicalȱ Associationȱ ofȱ America,ȱ1971),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ8.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“StructuresȱinȱPoemsȱonȱWisdom:ȱProverbsȱ8ȱandȱSirachȱ24“,ȱCBQȱ41ȱ (1979),ȱpp.ȱ365Ȭ79.ȱ Skehan,ȱ Patrickȱ W.ȱ andȱ Alexanderȱ A.ȱ Diȱ Lella,ȱ Theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Benȱ Sira:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ TranslationȱwithȱNotesȱbyȱPatrickȱW.ȱSkehan;ȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentaryȱbyȱ AlexanderȱA.ȱDiȱLellaȱ(AB,ȱ39;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1987).ȱ Smend,ȱ Rudolf,ȱ GriechischȬSyrischȬHebräischerȱ Indexȱ zurȱ Weisheitȱ desȱ Jesusȱ Sirachȱ (Berlin:ȱGeorgȱReimer,ȱ1907).ȱ Smith,ȱRalphȱL.,ȱMicahȬMalachiȱ(WBC,ȱ32;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1984)ȱ Snaith,ȱJ.G.,ȱ“BiblicalȱQuotationsȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱofȱEcclesiasticus“,ȱJTSȱ18ȱ(1967),ȱ pp.ȱ1Ȭ12.ȱ Snijders,ȱL.A.,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱz¬rȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament:ȱAnȱexegeticalȱStudy“,ȱ OTSȱ10ȱ(1954),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ154.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“ʸ˒ʦ/ʸʕ ʦ“,ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱIV,ȱpp.ȱ53Ȭ57.ȱ Söggin,ȱJ.ȱAlberto,ȱJoshua:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress;ȱLouisville,ȱ Kentucky:ȱWestminsterȱPress,ȱ1972).ȱ –––––––,ȱ“Jezabel,ȱoderȱdieȱfremdeȱFrau“,ȱinȱA.ȱCaquotȱ(ed.),ȱMèlangesȱbibliquesȱ etȱorientauxȱenȱl’honneurȱdeȱM.ȱHenriȱCazellesȱ(AOAT,ȱ212;ȱKevelaer:ȱButzonȱ andȱBercker;ȱNeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱNeukirchenerȱVerlag,ȱ1981),ȱpp.ȱ453Ȭ59.ȱ –––––––,ȱJudges:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress;ȱLouisville,ȱKentucky:ȱ WestminsterȱPress,ȱ1981).ȱ Spanier,ȱ Ktziah,ȱ “Theȱ Queenȱ Motherȱ inȱ theȱ Judeanȱ Royalȱ Court:ȱ Maacahȱ –ȱ Aȱ Caseȱ Study“,ȱ inȱ Brennerȱ (ed.),ȱ Aȱ Feministȱ Companionȱ toȱ Samuelȱ andȱ Kings,ȱ pp.ȱ186Ȭ95.ȱ Sparks,ȱKentonȱL.,ȱEthnicityȱandȱIdentityȱinȱAncientȱIsrael:ȱProlegomenaȱtoȱtheȱstudyȱ ofȱ ethnicȱ sentimentsȱ andȱ theirȱ expressionȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ (Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Indiana:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1998).ȱ Steiert,ȱFranzȬJosef,ȱDieȱWeisheitȱIsraelsȱ–ȱeinȱFremdkörperȱimȱAltenȱTestament:ȱeineȱ Untersuchungȱ zumȱ Buchȱ derȱ Sprücheȱ aufȱ demȱ Hintergrundȱ derȱ ägyptischenȱ Weisheitslehrenȱ (Freiburgerȱ Theologischeȱ Studien,ȱ 143;ȱ Freiburg:ȱ Herder,ȱ 1990).ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

199ȱ

Sterling,ȱ Gregoryȱ E.,ȱ “Judaismȱ betweenȱ Jerusalemȱ andȱ Alexandria“ȱ inȱ Johnȱ J.ȱ CollinsȱandȱGregoryȱE.ȱSterlingȱ(eds.),ȱHellenismȱinȱtheȱLandȱofȱIsraelȱ(CJAS,ȱ 13;ȱNotreȱDame,ȱIndiana:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDame,ȱ2001),ȱpp.ȱ265Ȭ303.ȱ Strugnell,ȱJ.,ȱ“Notesȱsurȱleȱno.ȱ184“,ȱRevQȱ7.27ȱ(1971),ȱpp.ȱ262Ȭ66.ȱ Sweet,ȱJohn,ȱRevelationȱ(SCMȱPelicanȱCommentaries;ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1979).ȱ ȱ Tan,ȱNancyȱN.H.,ȱ“WhereȱisȱForeignnessȱtoȱbeȱFoundȱinȱSeptuagintȱProverbs?”ȱ CBQ,ȱforthȬcoming.ȱ Tate,ȱMarvineȱE.,ȱPsalmsȱ51Ȭ100ȱ(WBC,ȱ20;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1990).ȱ Thompson,ȱ T.ȱ andȱ D.,ȱ “Someȱ Legalȱ Problemsȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Ruth“,ȱ VTȱ 18ȱ (1968),ȱpp.ȱ79Ȭ99.ȱ Tobin,ȱThomas,ȱ“4Q185ȱandȱJewishȱWisdomȱLiterature“,ȱinȱHaroldȱW.ȱAttridge,ȱ Johnȱ Collins,ȱ andȱ Tobinȱ (eds.),ȱ Ofȱ Scribesȱ andȱ Scrolls:ȱ Studiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Intertestamentalȱ Judaismȱ andȱ theȱ Christianȱ Originsȱ presentedȱ toȱ Johnȱ Strugnellȱ (Collegeȱ Theologyȱ Societyȱ resourcesȱ inȱ religion,ȱ5;ȱ Lanham,ȱ MD:ȱ UniversityȱPressȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1990),ȱpp.ȱ145Ȭ52.ȱ Torrey,ȱC.C.,ȱ“TheȱProphecyȱofȱ’Malachi’”,ȱJBLȱ17ȱ(1898),ȱpp.ȱ1Ȭ17.ȱ Tov,ȱ Emmanuel,ȱ Theȱ TextȬCriticalȱ Useȱ ofȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Researchȱ (JerusalemȱBiblicalȱStudies,ȱ3;ȱJerusalem:ȱSimor,ȱ1981).ȱ –––––––,ȱ Theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ Bible:ȱ Collectedȱ Essaysȱ onȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ (VTSup,ȱ 72;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1999).ȱ –––––––,ȱ Theȱ Textsȱ fromȱ theȱ Judaeanȱ Desert:ȱ Indicesȱ andȱ anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ theȱ DiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱJudaeanȱDesertȱSeriesȱ(DJD,ȱvol.ȱXXXIX;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱ Press,ȱ2002)ȱ Toy,ȱ Crawfordȱ H.,ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ andȱ Exegeticalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbsȱ (ICC;ȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1899).ȱ Trenchard,ȱ Warrenȱ C.,ȱ Benȱ Sira’sȱ Viewȱ ofȱ Women:ȱ Aȱ Literaryȱ Analysisȱ (BJ,ȱ 38;ȱ Chico,ȱCalifornia:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1982).ȱ ȱ vanȱderȱToorn,ȱKarel,ȱFromȱherȱCradleȱtoȱHerȱGrave:ȱTheȱRoleȱofȱReligionȱinȱtheȱLifeȱ ofȱtheȱIsraeliteȱandȱtheȱBabylonianȱWomanȱ(BS,ȱ23;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ –––––––,ȱ“TheȱTheologyȱofȱDemonsȱinȱMesopotamiaȱandȱIsrael.ȱPopularȱBeliefȱ andȱ Scholarlyȱ Speculation“,ȱ inȱ Lange,ȱ Lichtenberger,ȱ Römheldȱ (eds.),ȱ Dieȱ Dämonenȱ/ȱDemons,ȱpp.ȱ61Ȭ83.ȱ Vanȱ Seters,ȱ John,ȱ Theȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ Moses:ȱ Theȱ Yahwistȱ asȱ Historianȱ inȱ Exodusȱ andȱ Numbersȱ(Louisville,ȱKentucky:ȱWestminster/JohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ vonȱRad,ȱGerhard,ȱGenesis:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(trans.ȱJohnȱH.ȱMarks;ȱOTL;ȱLondon:ȱ SCMȱPress,ȱ2ndȱrev.ȱedn,ȱ1963).ȱ ȱ Walsh,ȱJeromeȱT.,ȱ“Shilhiȱ(person)“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱV,ȱp.ȱ1213.ȱ ȱ ȱ

200ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Washington,ȱHaroldȱC.,ȱ“TheȱStrangeȱWomanȱ(ʤʩʸʫʰ/ ʤʸʦ ʤʹʠ)ȱofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱ andȱ PostȬExilicȱ Judeanȱ Society“,ȱ inȱ Eskenaziȱ andȱ Richardsȱ (eds.),ȱ Secondȱ TempleȱStudiesȱ2,ȱpp.ȱ217Ȭ42.ȱ Watson,ȱJoAnnȱF.,ȱ“Zechariahȱ(person)ȱ“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱVI,ȱpp.ȱ1057Ȭ61.ȱ Weeks,ȱStuartȱD.E.,ȱEarlyȱIsraeliteȱWisdomȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ –––––––,ȱ “Reviewȱ ofȱ Richardȱ Clifford,ȱ Proverbs:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (OTL;ȱ 1999)“,ȱ JSOTȱ89ȱ(2000),ȱp.ȱ71.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Instructionȱ andȱ Imageryȱ inȱ Proverbsȱ 1Ȭ9ȱ (Oxfordȱ Scholarshipȱ Online;ȱ Oxford/NewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniȬversityȱPress,ȱ2007).ȱȱ Weisengoff,ȱ J.P.,ȱ “Deathȱ andȱ Immortalityȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Wisdom“,ȱ CBQȱ 3ȱ (1941),ȱpp.ȱ104Ȭ33.ȱ –––––––,ȱ“TheȱImpiousȱofȱWisdomȱ2“,ȱCBQȱ11ȱ(1949),ȱpp.ȱ40Ȭ65.ȱ Wenham,ȱGordon,ȱGenesisȱ(WBC,ȱ2;ȱ2ȱvols.;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1987).ȱ West,ȱM.L.,ȱHesiodȱWorksȱandȱDaysȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1997).ȱ Westbrook,ȱRaymond,ȱOldȱBabylonianȱMarriageȱLawȱ(AfO,ȱ23;ȱHorn,ȱAustria:ȱF.ȱ Berger,ȱ1988).ȱ –––––––,ȱPropertyȱandȱtheȱFamilyȱinȱBiblicalȱLaw,ȱ(JSOTSup,ȱ113;ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱ Press,ȱ1991).ȱ Westermann,ȱClaus,ȱGenesis:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(trans.ȱJohnȱJ.ȱScullion;ȱ3ȱvols.;ȱMinȬ neapolis:ȱAugsburgȬFortress,ȱ1985Ȭ86).ȱ White,ȱSidnieȱAnn,ȱ“Rumahȱ(Place)ȱ“,ȱABDȱvol.ȱV,ȱp.ȱ842.ȱ Whybray,ȱR.ȱNorman,ȱProverbsȱ(NCB;ȱLondon:ȱMarshallȱPickering,ȱ1994).ȱ –––––––,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Proverbs:ȱ Aȱ Surveyȱ ofȱ Modernȱ Studyȱ (Historyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ InterpretationȱSeries,ȱ1;ȱLeiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1995).ȱ Williamson,ȱ H.G.M.,ȱ Israelȱ inȱ theȱ Booksȱ ofȱ Chroniclesȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1977).ȱ –––––––,ȱ 1ȱ andȱ 2ȱ Chroniclesȱ (NCB;ȱ London:ȱ Marshall,ȱ Morganȱ &ȱ Scott;ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱMichigan:ȱEerdmans,ȱ1982).ȱ –––––––,ȱEzra,ȱNehemiahȱ(WBC,ȱ16;ȱWaco,ȱTexas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ1985).ȱ Winston,ȱDavid,ȱTheȱWisdomȱofȱSolomon:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱ Commentaryȱ(AB,ȱ43;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1979).ȱ Winter,ȱ Urs,ȱ Frauȱ undȱ Göttin:ȱ Exegetischeȱ undȱ ikonographischeȱ Studienȱ zumȱ weiblichenȱGottesbildȱimȱaltenȱIsraelȱundȱinȱdessenȱUmweltȱ(OBO,ȱ53;ȱFreiburg,ȱ Schweiz:ȱUniversitätsverlag;ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1983).ȱ Wright,ȱ Benjaminȱ G.,ȱ Noȱ Smallȱ Difference:ȱ Sirach’sȱ Relationshipȱ toȱ itsȱ Hebrewȱ PaȬ rentȱ Textȱ (SBLȱ Septuagintȱ andȱ Cognateȱ Studiesȱ Series,ȱ 26;ȱ Atlanta,ȱ Ga.:ȱ ScholarsȱPress,ȱ1989).ȱ Wyatt,ȱN.,ȱ“Astarteȱ ʺʸʺʹʲ“,ȱDDD,ȱpp.ȱ109Ȭ14.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

201ȱ

Yadin,ȱYigael,ȱ”Theȱ’HouseȱofȱBaal’ȱofȱAhabȱandȱJezebelȱinȱSamaria,ȱandȱthatȱofȱ AthaliaȱinȱJudah”,ȱinȱRogerȱMooreyȱandȱPeterȱParrȱ(eds.),ȱArchaeologyȱinȱtheȱ Levant:ȱ Essaysȱ forȱ Kathleenȱ Kenyonȱ (Warminster:ȱ Arisȱ &ȱ Phillips,ȱ 1978),ȱ pp.ȱ 127Ȭ35.ȱ Yamauchi,ȱE.M.,ȱ”CulticȱProstitution”,ȱinȱHarryȱA.ȱHoffner,ȱJr.ȱ(ed.),ȱOrientȱandȱ Occident:ȱEssaysȱPresentedȱtoȱCyrusȱH.ȱGordonȱonȱtheȱOccasionȱofȱHisȱSixtyȬfifthȱ Birthdayȱ (AOAT,ȱ 22;ȱ Kevelaer:ȱ Butzonȱ &ȱ Bercker;ȱ NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱ NeukirchenerȱVerlag,ȱ1973),ȱpp.ȱ213Ȭ21.ȱ Yee,ȱGale,ȱ“‘IȱHaveȱPerfumedȱMyȱBedȱwithȱMyrrh‘:ȱTheȱForeignȱWomanȱ(`iššâȱ z¬râ)ȱinȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9”,ȱJSOTȱ43ȱ(1989),ȱpp.ȱ53Ȭ68.ȱ –––––––,ȱ Poorȱ Banishedȱ Childrenȱ ofȱ Eve:ȱ Womanȱ asȱ Evilȱ inȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ Textȱ (MinȬ neapolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ2003).ȱ Yeivin,ȱ S.,ȱ ”Abijam,ȱ Asa,ȱ andȱ Maacah,ȱ Daughterȱ ofȱ Abishalom”,ȱ BJPESȱ 10ȱ (1942Ȭ44),ȱpp.ȱ116Ȭ19.ȱ Yodder,ȱChristineȱRoy,ȱWisdomȱasȱaȱWomanȱofȱSubstance:ȱAȱSocioeconomicȱReadingȱ ofȱProverbsȱ1Ȭ9ȱandȱ31:10Ȭ31ȱ(BZAW,ȱ304;ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001).ȱ ȱ Zeitlin,ȱSolomon,ȱ”Theȱ’AmȱHaȬaretz’”,ȱJQRȱ23ȱ(1932),ȱpp.ȱ45Ȭ61.ȱ –––––––,ȱ”ShemonehȱEsreh”,ȱJQRȱ54ȱ(1964),ȱpp.ȱ208Ȭ49.ȱ –––––––,ȱ ”Offspringȱ ofȱ Intermarriage”,ȱ Solomonȱ Zeitlin’sȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Earlyȱ HistoryȱofȱJudaismȱ(NewȱYork:ȱKtav,ȱ1964),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱpp.ȱ418Ȭ24.ȱ Zobel,ȱHansȬJurgen,ȱ”ʣʢʡ”ȱTDOTȱvol.ȱI,ȱpp.ȱ471Ȭ73.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱž‹“ŽŒœȱȱ ȱ Š‹˜–’—Š’˜—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŚŚǰȱŚśǰȱŚŞǰȱśşǰȱȱ ȱ ŜřǰȱŝŖǰȱŝŘǰȱŝřǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜŗȱ Šž•Ž›ŽœœȱȱȱŗǰȱŘȱǰȱśǰȱŜǰȱŞǰȱŗŖȬŗŘǰȱŘŘǰȱřŗǰȱ řŝǰȱŜŘǰȱŞŗǰȱşŖǰȱşśǰȱŗŘŞǰȱŗřŖȬŗřřǰȱ ŗŚŗȬŚŘǰȱŗŜŘǰȱŗŜŚǰȱŗŜśǰȱŗŝŖȱȱ Šž•Ž›¢ǰȱȬ’ŽœȱǰȱȬ˜žœȱȱȱŘǰȱřǰȱŜǰȱŝȬŗŗǰȱŗşǰȱȱ ȱ ŘŘǰȱřŖǰȱřŚȬřŜǰȱřşǰȱŚŗǰȱŞŜǰȱşŖȬşŗǰȱȱ şŚȬşśǰȱşşǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗŘŞǰȱŗřŖǰȱŗřŘǰȱ ŗśŘǰȱŗŜŗǰȱŗŜŚǰȱŗŜşǰȱŗŝŖȱȱ ––˜—ǰȱȬ’ŽǰȱȬ’ŽœȱȱȱŚŞǰȱśŗȬśřǰȱśśȬśŜǰȱȱ śŞȬśşǰȱŝřǰȱŝŚǰȱŝśǰȱŝŝǰȱŗřŝǰȱŗŝşȱ Š™˜œŠœ¢ǰȱȬ’œŽȱȱȱŚǰȱŗŘǰȱśŞȬśşǰȱŜŗǰȱŜśǰȱŜŝǰȱ ŝřȬŝŚǰȱŝŝǰȱŞŗǰȱŞŝǰȱşŖǰȱşśǰȱşşǰȱŗŖřȬ ŗŖśǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŗŜȬŗŞǰȱŗřŝǰȱŗŚřǰȱŗŚŝǰȱ ŗśŚǰȱŗŜŘȬŜŚǰȱŗŜśȬŜŜǰȱŗŜşȬŝŗǰȱŗŝŞȬ ŝşǰȱŗŞŗȱ ȱ ‹Šȱ ˜–Š—ǰȱȬŽ—ȱȱȱřŖǰȱřśǰȱŗśŖȬśŚǰȱŗŜŞȬŝŗǰȱ ŗŝśȱ ȱ Š—ŠŠ—ǰȱȬ’ŽǰȱȬ’ŽœȱȱȱřşǰȱśŗǰȱśśȬśŜǰȱśŞȬśşǰȱ ŝŞǰȱŗŝŗǰȱŗŝśȬŝŞǰȱȱ Œ˜—Š–’—ŠŽǰȱȬŽǰȱȬ’˜—ȱȱȱŚŞǰȱŚşǰȱśŘǰȱśŚȱ Œ˜››ž™ǰȱȬœǰȱȬŽǰȱȬ’—ǰȱȬ’˜—ȱȱȱśşǰȱŜŞǰȱŝŘǰȱŝŚǰȱ ŝşǰȱŗŖřȬŗŖśǰȱŗŗřǰȱŗřŜȬřŝǰȱŗŜŗǰȱŗŜŚǰȱ ŗŜŜǰȱŗŜŞǰȱŗŝşȱ Œ˜ž›ŽœŠ—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱřŚǰȱŗŚśȬŚŝǰȱŗśŖǰȱŗŜŞȱ ȱ Š›”ǰȱȬ—ŽœœȱȱȱřŞǰȱŞŚǰȱŞśǰȱşŜǰȱşşǰȱŗŗřȬŗŚȱ Šž‘Ž›ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗŝǰȱŚŝǰȱśŘǰȱśśȬśŜǰȱśŞȬ śşǰȱŜřǰȱŜŜǰȱŝŘȬŝřǰȱŝśȬŝŜǰȱŞŜǰȱŗŖśǰȱ ŗřŗǰȱŗśŖǰȱŗŝŝȬŝŞȱ ŽŠ‘ȱȱȱşǰȱŗŖǰȱŗŝǰȱřřȬřśǰȱřşǰȱŜŞǰȱŞŘǰȱŞŚǰȱŞŝȬ şŖǰȱşśǰȱşŝǰȱŗŖŖȬŗŖŗǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŖǰȱ ŗŗŚǰȱŗŗŞȬŘŖǰȱŗŘśǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗŚşǰȱŗśŗȬśŘǰȱ ŗśśǰȱŗśŝȬŗŜŖǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜŝǰȱŗŝřǰȱŗŝŝȱ Ž–˜—ǰȱȬ—ŽœœǰȱȬ’ŒȱȱȱŚǰȱŗŜǰȱŗŞǰȱŗŗŝȬŗŞȱ Žœ›˜¢ǰȱȬŽȱȱȱřŞǰȱŚśǰȱśŜǰȱśŞǰȱŜŝǰȱŝŞǰȱşŚǰȱ ŗŖşǰȱŗřŞǰȱŗŚŗȱ

Žœ›žŒ’˜—ǰȱȬ’ŸŽȱȱȱŘŞǰȱřŗǰȱŜśǰȱŝşǰȱşŖǰȱŗŖŘǰȱ ŗŖŜǰȱŗŗŗǰȱŗřŚǰȱŗŚřǰȱŗśŞǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜŜȬ Ŝŝǰȱŗŝŗȱ ŽžŽ›˜—˜–’ŒȱȱȱśŞǰȱŜřǰȱŜśǰȱŝşǰȱȱ ȱ ŞŗǰȱŞŝǰȱşřǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŜŜȬŜŝǰȱȱ ȱ ŗŜşǰȱŗŞŖȱ ŽžŽ›˜—˜–’œ’ŒȱȱȱśśȬśŞǰȱśşǰȱŜŚǰȱŞŗǰȱŞŜǰȱ ŗŖśǰȱŗŜśȬŜŜǰȱŗŜşǰȱŗŝŗǰȱŗŝśȱ › ȱȱȱśŞǰȱŜśȬŝşǰȱŞŜǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŝŚȬŝśǰȱŗŝşȬŞŗȱȱ ȱ ˜–ǰȱȬ’ŽǰȱȬ’ŽœȱȱȱŗŜǰȱŚŞǰȱśśǰȱśŝȬśŞǰȱŝřǰȱ ŝŜǰȱŗŗŜǰȱŗŞŖȱ ¢™ǰȱȬ’Š—ȱȱȱŜǰȱŗŚǰȱŗŜǰȱřřǰȱřśȬřŝǰȱŚŚȬŚŜǰȱ ŚŞǰȱśŗǰȱśřǰȱśśȬśŞǰȱŜřǰȱŜşǰȱŝřǰȱŝŜǰȱşŜǰȱ şşǰȱŗŖŞǰȱŗśŜǰȱŗśşǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜŘǰȱŗŝśǰȱ ŗŝŝȬŝŞǰȱŗŞŖȱ Ž‘—’ŒǰȱȬŠ••¢ǰȱȬ’¢ȱȱȱśǰȱşǰȱŗŖǰȱŗŘǰȱŗŚȬŗŜǰȱŗŞȬ ŗşǰȱŘŗǰȱŘřǰȱŘŚǰȱŘŜȬŘşǰȱřŘǰȱřŜǰȱřşǰȱŚŗǰȱ ŚŞǰȱśŚǰȱŜřȬŜŚǰȱŜśǰȱŝřǰȱŝşǰȱŞŗǰȱŗŘřȬȱ ȱ ŘśǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗřřǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜśȬŜŜǰȱŗŜŞǰȱŗŝŖȬ ŝŗǰȱŗŝşǰȱŗŞŗȱȱ ŽŸ’•ǰȱȬ—ŽœœȱȱȱŞȬŗŖǰȱřśǰȱŚśǰȱśŘǰȱśŞǰȱŜŜǰȱŜŞǰȱ ŝŖǰȱŝŘȬŝřǰȱŝşǰȱŞřȬŞśǰȱŞŝǰȱşřȬşŚǰȱşŞǰȱ ŗŖřǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŘȬŗřǰȱŗŗŝȬŘŖǰȱŗŘŚȬȱ ȱ ŘŜǰȱŗŘŞȬŘşǰȱŗřŘǰȱŗŚŖǰȱŗśŗȬŜŗǰȱŗŜřǰȱ ŗŜŝǰȱŗŝşȬŞŖȱ Ž¡Œ•žŽǰȱȬ’—ǰȱȬœ’˜—ǰȱȬ’ŸŽȱȱȱŗǰȱŗŖǰȱŗřȬŗŚǰȱ ŗŜǰȱŘŝǰȱŘşǰȱřŘǰȱŚŗǰȱŚŚǰȱŝŜǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŘřǰȱ ŗřŗǰȱŗŜŞǰȱŗŝŞȱ Ž¡Œ˜––ž—’ŒŠŽǰȱȬǰȱȬ’˜—ȱȱȱŗǰȱşŞȱȱ Ž¡’•ŽǰȱȬ’ŒȱȱȱŝǰȱŞǰȱŗŖǰȱŗŜǰȱŘŗǰȱŘşǰȱŚşȬśŗǰȱśŚǰȱ ŝŘǰȱŝŜȬŝŝǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŝŗǰȱŗŞŖȱȱ £›ŠȬŽ‘Ž–’Š‘ȱȱȱŗŖǰȱŗŗǰȱŗřǰȱŗŜǰȱŘŞȬŘşǰȱ ŚŗǰȱŚŚȬŚśǰȱŚŝǰȱśŖǰȱśśǰȱśşȬŜŖǰȱŜřȬŜŚǰȱ ŜśǰȱŝŞȬŝşǰȱŗŖřȬŗŖśǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŜśȬŜŜǰȱ ŗŝŗǰȱŗŝŞǰȱŗŞŖȬŞŗȱȱ ȱ Ž–Š•ŽȱȱȱŚǰȱŞǰȱŗŗǰȱşŝǰȱŗŖŘǰȱŗŗŗǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗŚŖǰȱ ŗŚŚǰȱŗśŖȬśŗǰȱŗŜŘǰȱŗŜśǰȱŗŝŘǰȱŗŞŗȱ

ŘŖŚȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱž‹“ŽŒœȱ

˜••¢ȱȱȱşȬŗŗǰȱŞşǰȱşřǰȱŗŗŖȬŗŘǰȱŗŘŖǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗŚŞȬ ŚşǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜřȱ ˜˜•ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗŖǰȱŞśǰȱşŝǰȱŗŗśȱ ˜˜•’œ‘ǰȱȬ—ŽœœȱȱȱŚǰȱŗŖŖȬŗŖŗǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŖȬŗŗǰȱ ŗřŗǰȱŗŚŗǰȱŗŚŚǰȱŗśŞǰȱŗŜŗǰȱŗŜŝȱ ˜›Ž’—ȱ ’ŸŽœȱȱȱřǰȱŜȬŗŖǰȱŗŜǰȱŚŚȬŚśǰȱŚŝǰȱŚşǰȱ śŗȬśŘǰȱśśǰȱśŞȬśşǰȱŜřȬŜŚǰȱŜśȬŜŝǰȱŝŘȬ ŝŚǰȱŝşȬŞŖǰȱŞŗǰȱŗŖřȬŗŖśǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŜřǰȱ ŗŜśȬŜŜǰȱŗŜşǰȱŗŝśȬŝŝǰȱŗŞŗȱ ˜›Ž’—ȱ˜–Š—ȱȱȱŗȬŗřǰȱŗşȬŘřǰȱŘŜǰȱřŖȬřŗǰȱ řřȬŚŗǰȱŞŖǰȱŞŗǰȱŞřȬŞŚǰȱŞŜȬşŜǰȱşşǰȱŗŖŗȬ ŗŖŘǰȱŗŖřȬŗŖśǰȱŗŖŜȬŗŗŘǰȱŗŗŞȬŗřŖǰȱ ŗřŘȬřŚǰȱŗřśǰȱŗřŞȬřşǰȱŗŚŗȬŚśǰȱŗŚŝȬ śŘǰȱŗśŚǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜŘȬŜŚǰȱŗŜśȬŝŗȱ ˜›Ž’—ȱ ˜–Š—ǰȱȬŽ—ȱȱȱŗǰȱŚȬśǰȱŗŗǰȱŘŘǰȱȱ ȱ řŘȬřŚǰȱŚŚȬŚśǰȱŚŝǰȱśŘǰȱśśǰȱśŞǰȱŜŗǰȱŜŚǰȱ ŜŞǰȱŝřǰȱŝŞȬŝşǰȱŞŗǰȱŞŜȬŞŞǰȱşśȬşŝǰȱŗŖřǰȱ ŗŖŞǰȱŗŘŞǰȱŗřřǰȱŗřŞǰȱŗŚřǰȱŗŚşǰȱŗśŚǰȱ ŗŜŚǰȱŗŜśȬŜŜǰȱŗŜŞȬŜşǰȱŗŝŗȬŗŝŘǰȱŗŝřȬ ŝśǰȱŗŝŝȬŗŝŞǰȱŗŞŗȱ ˜›Ž’—Ž›ǰȱȬœȱȱȱśǰȱŜǰȱşȬŗŘǰȱŗŚȬŗşǰȱŘŚǰȱŘŞǰȱřŚȬ ŚŖǰȱŚŘǰȱŚśȬŚŜǰȱŚşǰȱśŗǰȱśřȬśŚǰȱśŞȬśşǰȱ ŜřǰȱŜŝǰȱŞŝǰȱŞŞǰȱşŖǰȱşŘȬşřǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗŚŘȬ ŚŚǰȱŗŚŝȬŗŚşǰȱŗśŘǰȱŗśŚǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜŘȬŗŜřǰȱ ŗŜŜǰȱŗŜşȬŝŗǰȱŗŝřǰȱŗŝŝȬŝŞǰȱŗŞŖȱȱ ˜›Ž’——ŽœœȱȱȱŗȬřǰȱśǰȱŝǰȱşȬŗŗǰȱŗřȬŗŞǰȱŘŗȬŘŘǰȱ ŘŚǰȱŘŝǰȱřŚǰȱřŝǰȱřŞǰȱŚŘǰȱŚŚǰȱśşǰȱŜśǰȱŝŞȬȱ ȱ ŝşǰȱŞŗǰȱŞŝǰȱşśǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŖśǰȱŗŘŗǰȱŗŘřȬ ŘŜǰȱŗŘşǰȱŗřřȬřŚǰȱŗřśǰȱŗŚŗǰȱŗŚŚȬŚśǰȱ ŗŚşǰȱŗśŚǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜŘȬŜŚǰȱŗŜśǰȱŗŜŝǰȱ ŗŜŞǰȱŗŝŖȬŝŘǰȱŗŝŚȬŝśȱȱ ˜›—’ŒŠ’˜—ȱȱȱřŚǰȱŗŘŝȱ ȱ ˜ŽœœǰȱȬŽœȱȱȱŚǰȱşǰȱřŘǰȱŚŖǰȱŝřǰȱŝŞȱ ˜˜ȱ ’ŽǰȱȬŸŽœȱȱȱŗśŘǰȱŗŜřȱ ȱ

Šœ–˜—ŽŠ—ȱȱȱŗŘŗǰȱŗřŝǰȱŗŚŞȬŚşǰȱŗŜřȱ

Ž••Ž—’œ–ǰȱȬ’ŒǰȱȬ’œŠ’˜—ȱȱȱŞǰȱŗŘŚǰȱŗřŝȬřŞǰȱȱ ȱ ŗŚŜȬŚŝǰȱŗśŖǰȱŗśśǰȱŗŜŞȱ ‘˜•¢ǰȱȬ’—ŽœœȱȱȱŝǰȱŞǰȱŗŝǰȱŚśȬŚŜǰȱŚşǰȱśŜǰȱŗŚřȱ ȱ ’Ž—’¢ǰȱȬ’ŽœȱȱȱŘǰȱŗśȬŗŜǰȱśŞǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŘǰȱŗŗŜǰȱ ŗŘŝǰȱŗřřǰȱŗřŝȬřŞǰȱŗŜşȱȱ ’–ŠŽ›¢ǰȱȬ’ŽœȱȱȱŘǰȱŗŘȬŗřǰȱŘŖǰȱşŗȬȱşřǰȱşśǰȱşŝǰȱ ŗŖŜǰȱŗŖŞȬŗŖǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗŘŗǰȱŗŚŚǰȱŗśŖǰȱśřȬȱ ȱ śŚǰȱŗŜŘǰȱŗŜśǰȱŗŜşȬŝŘȱȱ

’—œ›žŒ’˜—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱřřǰȱřśȬřŝǰȱŚŖǰȱŞŗȬŞřǰȱŞşȬ şŖǰȱşřȬşŚǰȱŗŖŝȬŗŖŞǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗŘśǰȱŗŝŗȱ ’—Ž›Œ˜ž›œŽȱȱȱŘŖǰȱşŖǰȱşŞȬşşǰȱŗŗŝǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗŘŗǰȱ ŗŚŜǰȱŗŚşȱ ’—Ž›–Š››¢ǰȱȬ’ŠŽǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗȬřǰȱŗŖǰȱŚŚȬŚŜǰȱśŗȬ śřǰȱśśǰȱȱśŞȬśşǰȱŜŗȬŜŘǰȱŜśȬŜŜǰȱŝřǰȱŝŞǰȱ ŞŗǰȱŗřŝǰȱŗŚşǰȱŗśŚǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜŚȬŜŜǰȱ ȱ ŗŝřǰȱŗŝśǰȱŗŝŝȬŝŞǰȱŗŞŖȬŞŗȱ œ›ŠŽ•’ŽǰȱȬœȱȱȱśǰȱŜǰȱŗŘǰȱŗŚȬŗŞǰȱŘŖǰȱŘŘȬŘřǰȱŘśȬ ŘŞǰȱřŗȬřŘǰȱŚŖǰȱŚŜȬŚşǰȱśřǰȱśśǰȱśŞȬśşǰȱȱ ȱ ŝŞȬŝşǰȱşŞȬşşǰȱŗŚŝȬŚŞǰȱŗśřǰȱŗśŜǰȱŗŜśǰȱ ŗŜşǰȱŗŝŗǰȱŗŝŚȬŝśǰȱŗŝŝȬŝşȱ ȱ Ž ǰȱȬ’œ‘ǰȱȬ’œ‘—ŽœœȱȱȱŜȬŞǰȱŗŜǰȱŚŞǰȱŜŖǰȱŜřǰȱ ŝşǰȱşśǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŗŜǰȱŗřŝȬřŞǰȱŗŚŚǰȱ ŗŚŞǰȱŗśŚǰȱŗŜŘǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜśȬŝŖǰȱŗŝśȱ Ž£Ž‹Ž•ȱȱȱŜśȬŝŘǰȱŝŚǰȱŝŜȬŝşǰȱŞŜǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŖŚǰȱ ŗŜŜǰȱŗŜşǰȱŗŝřǰȱŗŞŖȱȱ ȱ ”’—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗŚǰȱŘřǰȱśŘǰȱśśȬśŜǰȱŝŝǰȱŝşǰȱşŗǰȱ ŗŖřȬŗŖśǰȱŗŖŜȬŗŖŝǰȱŗśśȬŗśŜǰȱŗśşǰȱȱ ȱ ŗŜŜȬŜŝǰȱŗŝřǰȱŗŝşǰȱŗŞŖȱ •Š—ǰȬœȱȱȱŝǰȱŗřȬŗŜǰȱŗşǰȱŘŗǰȱȱŘřȬŘŚǰȱŘŞǰȱśŚǰȱ ŜŖǰȱŜřǰȱŜśǰȱŜŞǰȱŝŝǰȱŞŜǰȱşŖǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŖŜǰȱȱ ȱ ŗŚřȬŚŚǰȱŗśŘǰȱŗśŞȬŜŖǰȱŗŜŜȱ •’Žǰȱ•’ŸŽǰȱȬœȱȱȱŞǰȱŗşǰȱŘşǰȱřŞǰȱśřǰȱśŝǰȱŜŘǰȱŜŝǰȱ ŜşǰȱŝŚǰȱŞŘǰȱŞŚǰȱŞŝȬŞŞǰȱşŚǰȱşŜȬşŝǰȱŗŖŘǰȱ ŗŖŚǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŗǰȱŗŘŖǰȱŗŘśǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗřŗǰȱ ŗřşǰȱŗŚŗȬŚŘǰȱŗśŗȬśŘǰȱŗśŜȬŜŗǰȱŗŜŝǰȱ ŗŝŗǰȱŗŝŜȱ ’•’‘ȱȱȱŗŗŝȬŗŞȱ ȱ –Š››’ŠŽǰȱȬœȱȱȱŞǰȱŘşȬřŗǰȱřśǰȱŚşȬśŗǰȱśřǰȱśśǰȱ śŞȬŜřǰȱŜŜȬŜŝǰȱŝřǰȱŝşǰȱŞŜȬŞŝǰȱŗŖřȬ ŗŖśǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŜŗǰȱŗŜśȬŜŜǰȱŗŝŚȬŝŝȱȱ –Š››¢ǰȱȬ’ŽœǰȱȬ’ŽǰȱȬ’—ȱȱȱŝǰȱŗŝǰȱŘŖǰȱřŗǰȱřŚȬ řśǰȱřŝȬřşǰȱŚŝǰȱśŘǰȱŜŖȬŜŘǰȱŜŞǰȱŝřǰȱŞŗǰȱ ŗŖřǰȱŗřŝǰȱŗŚŖǰȱŗŚŚȬŚśǰȱŗśŘǰȱŗŝŜȬŝŞȱȱ –ŽŠ™‘˜›ǰȱȬœǰȱȬ’ŒŠ•ȱȱȱřŖǰȱŜŘǰȱşŗȬşřǰȱşśǰȱ ŗŖŗȬŗŖŘȱ ˜Š‹ǰȱȬ’ŽǰȱȬ’ŽœȱȱȱŚŚȬŚśǰȱŚŞǰȱśŗȬśřǰȱśśȬśşǰȱ ŝřȬŝŚǰȱŗŝŞȬŝşȱ –˜‘Ž›ǰȱȬœȱȱȱřŗǰȱŚŞǰȱśŗǰȱŜşȬŝŖǰȱŝŚȬŝşǰȱşŚȬ şśǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŗŝǰȱŗŜŜǰȱŗŝŜǰȱŗŝşȬŞŖȱ –˜’ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗȬřǰȱśǰȱŘŖǰȱřřǰȱśşǰȱŜśǰȱŝŘǰȱŝŚǰȱŝşǰȱ ŞŖǰȱŞŗǰȱŞŝǰȱşŗǰȱşřǰȱŗŖřȬŗŖśǰȱŗŖŜȬŗŖŞǰȱ ŗŗŖȬŗŘǰȱŗŘŗǰȱŗŘśǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗřŘȬřŚǰȱŗřśǰȱ

ȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱž‹“ŽŒœȱ ŗŚŗȬŚŘǰȱŗŚśǰȱŗŚŝǰȱŗŚşǰȱŗśŘǰȱŗśŚǰȱ ŗŜŘȬŜŚǰȱŗŜśȬŝŘǰȱŗŞŗȱ

ȱ —˜—Ȭœ›ŠŽ•’ŽǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗŚǰȱŗŜȬŗŞǰȱŘŘȬŘřǰȱŘśȬŘŜǰȱ ŗŖřǰȱŗŚřǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŝŝȱ ȱ ˜‘Ž›—ŽœœȱȱȱŘǰȱŗŞǰȱŘŚǰȱŘśǰȱŚŖǰȱŗŘřȬŘŚǰȱŗŜśǰȱ ŗŝŚȱ ˜žœ’Ž›ȱȱȱŜȬŞǰȱŗŘǰȱŘśǰȱŘŞȬȱřŘǰȱŚŗǰȱŗŝŜȱ ȱ ™Š‘ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŞŚȬşŖǰȱşŝǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŘǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŚȬŗśǰȱ ŗŗşǰȱŗŘśǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗśřǰȱŗśŞǰȱŗŜŝȱ ™Ž›œ˜—’¢ǰȱȬ’ŽœǰȱȬ’ŽǰȱȬ’ŒŠ’˜—ȱȱȱŗŗǰȱŞřǰȱŞśǰȱ şřǰȱşśǰȱşşǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŝǰȱŗŘŖǰȱŗŘśȬŘŜǰȱ ŗŘŞǰȱŗřŗǰȱŗřśǰȱŗśŚȬśśǰȱŗŜŝȬŜŞǰȱŗŝŖȱ ™’ǰȱȬœȱȱȱřŞǰȱŗŖŝȬŗŖşǰȱŗŗřȬŗśǰȱŗŚŘȱ ™˜Ž–ǰȱȬœǰȱȬ’ŒǰȱȬ’ŒŠ••¢ȱȱȱŚǰȱŞǰȱŘŝǰȱŘşǰȱřŘǰȱȱ ȱ ŞřȬŞŚǰȱŞşǰȱŗŖśǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŚŜǰȱŗŜŜȬŜŞȱ ™˜œȬŽ¡’•’ŒȱȱȱȱŝǰȱŞǰȱŗŖǰȱŘŗǰȱŚŚǰȱŚŝǰȱŚşǰȱśŗǰȱ śşǰȱŜŚǰȱŜśǰȱŜŞǰȱŝşȬŞŖǰȱŞŗȬŞŘǰȱŗŖŚȬ ŗŖśǰȱŗŜŚǰȱŗŜśȬŜŝǰȱŗŜşǰȱŗŝŗǰȱŗŝŞǰȱŗŞŖȱ ™›˜‘’‹’ǰȱȬœǰȱȬŽǰȱȬ’˜—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŚŞǰȱśśȬśŜǰȱśŞǰȱ ŜŘȬŜřǰȱŜśǰȱŜşǰȱŝřǰȱŝŝǰȱŝşǰȱŞŗǰȱŗŖřǰȱ ŗŜŜǰȱŗŞŖȱ ™›˜–’œŒž˜žœǰȱȬ—ŽœœǰȱȬ’¢ȱȱȱŗǰȱŜǰȱşǰȱřŖǰȱřśǰȱȱ ȱ řŝǰȱŚŗǰȱŗŖŘǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŘŝȬŘŞǰȱŗřŗȬ řřǰȱŗŚŜǰȱŗŚşȬśŖǰȱŗŜşȱ ™›˜™‘ŽǰȱȬœǯȱȮ’ŒȱȱȱřŖǰȱŚśȬŚŝǰȱśŖǰȱŜŘȬŜřǰȱŜŝǰȱ ŜşǰȱŝŞǰȱŞŜǰȱŗŚŚǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜşȬŝŖǰȱŗŝřȱ ™›˜œ’žŽǰȱȬœǰȱȬž’˜—ȱȱȱřŖǰȱřŗǰȱřŚȬřśǰȱřŝǰȱ śŜǰȱşŚǰȱşŜǰȱşŞǰȱŗŖŞȬȱŗŖşǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗřŖǰȱ ŗřŘǰȱŗřşȬȱŗŚŘǰȱŗŚŚȬŚŝǰȱŗśŘȱ ›˜ŸŽ›‹œȱȱȱřǰȱŗŝǰȱŘŗǰȱŘŞǰȱřřǰȱŚŖȬŚŗǰȱŜśǰȱŞŗȬ ŞŘǰȱŗŖřǰȱŗŖŜȬŗŖŞǰȱŗŗŞȬŗŘŘǰȱŗřśǰȱȱ ȱ ŗŚŗǰȱŗśŘȬśřǰȱŗśśǰȱŗśŝȬśŞǰȱŗŜŘȬŜřǰȱ ŗŜŞȬŜşȱ ™ž—’œ‘–Ž—ȱȱȱŗǰȱşǰȱŘŞǰȱřśǰȱŚşǰȱŝŘǰȱŝşǰȱŞśǰȱ şřȬşŚǰȱŗŖŞǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗřşǰȱŗŚřǰȱŗŚşǰȱŗśśǰȱȱ ȱ ŗŝŜȱ ȱ šžŽŽ—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŜśǰȱŜşǰȱŝŖǰȱŗśşǰȱŗŜŜǰȱŗŝřȬŝŚǰȱ ŗŝŜȱ ž–›Š—ȱȱȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŗŘȬŘŗǰȱŗřřǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜŞȱ ȱ ›’Œ‘ȱȱȱŗşǰȱŜŗǰȱŜŝǰȱŝŚǰȱşşǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŚŜȬŚŝȱȱ ȱ

ŘŖśȱ

œŽžŒŽǰȱȬœǰȱȬŽǰȱȬ’˜—ȱȱȱŗŗǰȱřŚǰȱśŞǰȱŜśǰȱȱ ȱ ŜŞǰȱŝŖǰȱŝşǰȱŞřǰȱŞśȬŞŝǰȱşŝǰȱşşȬŗŖŖǰȱ ŗŖŚǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŗśǰȱŗŗŝȬŗŞǰȱŗŘśǰȱŗŘŝǰȱ ŗŘşǰȱŗřŗǰȱŗřŚǰȱŗŚŗǰȱŗŚŚǰȱŗśŖȬȱ ȱ śŗǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜŘȬŜřǰȱŗŜŞȬŝŖǰȱŗŝśǰȱŗŝŞȱ Ž™žŠ’—ȱȱȱŘŘǰȱŞŞǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŘŗǰȱŗŘřȬ řřǰȱŗřśǰȱŗśŘǰȱŗśşǰȱŗŜŘȬŜŚǰȱŗŜŞȬŜşǰȱ ŗŝŜȱ œŽ¡ǰȱȬžŠ•ǰȱȬžŠ•’¢ȱȱȱřŖȬřŗǰȱřřȬřŚǰȱŞŗǰȱşŖȬşŗǰȱ şŞǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŝǰȱŗŚŜǰȱŗŚşǰȱŗśŚȬśśǰȱ ŗŜŗǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜśǰȱŗŜŝȬŜşǰȱŗŝŗȬŝŘǰȱŗŝśȱ ‘Ž˜•ȱȱȱŞŞǰȱşŝǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŗŚǰȱŗŗŞȱ œ’œŽ›ȱȱȱşŜȬşŝǰȱŗŝŝȱ œ–˜˜‘ǰȱȬŽ—œǰȱȬ—ŽœœȱȱȱȱřŞȬřşǰȱŞŚǰȱŞŜȬŞşǰȱ şŚȬşŝǰȱŗŗŝǰȱŗŘśȱ œ˜Œ’Š•ȱ˜žœ’Ž›ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗǰȱŜǰȱŘşȬřŗǰȱŚŗȱȱ œ™ŽŽŒ‘ǰȱȬŽœȱȱȱřŜǰȱřşǰȱŜśǰȱŞŘȬŞśǰȱŞŝȬŞŞǰȱşŗǰȱ şŚǰȱşŝǰȱŗŖŖȬŗŖŗǰȱŗŖřȬŗŖŚǰȱŗŖŝȬŗŖŞǰȱȱ ȱ ŗŗŜǰȱŗŘşǰȱŗŚŝǰȱŗśŗǰȱŗśŜȬśşǰȱŗŜŝǰȱ ŗŝŚȬŝśǰȱŗŝşȱ œ›Š—ŽȱȱȱřǰȱśǰȱŗŝǰȱŘŖȬŘřǰȱŘŜȬřŖǰȱřŜȬřşǰȱŝŝǰȱ ŞŚǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŗǰȱŗřŗǰȱŗŚŖǰȱŗŚŘȬȱ ȱ ŚřǰȱŗŜŗȱ ›Š—Žȱ˜–Š—ȱȱȱŝǰȱŞǰȱŗŘǰȱřŞȬřşǰȱŞŞȬŞşǰȱ şŜȱ œ›Š—Ž›ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŝǰȱŗŘȬŗŚǰȱŗşȬŘŖǰȱŘŘǰȱŘśȬŘşǰȱ řśȬřŝǰȱŞŞȬŞşǰȱŗŚŘǰȱŗŚŚǰȱŗśŘȱ œ¢–‹˜•ǰȱȬ’ŒǰȱȬ’œ–ǰȱ’£ŽȱȱȱŚȬŜǰȱŞǰȱŗŗǰȱŗśǰȱŚŞǰȱ ŝŞǰȱŞřǰȱşśǰȱşşǰȱŗŖŗȬȱŗŖŘǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŘǰȱ ŗŗśȬŗŜǰȱŗŗŞǰȱŗŘŜǰȱŗřŘǰȱŗŚŗȬŚŘǰȱŗŚŚǰȱ ŗŜŘȬŜŚǰȱŗŜśǰȱŗŜŝȬŜşǰȱŗŝŗȬŝŘȱ ȱ ŽŠŒ‘’—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱşȬŗŖǰȱśřǰȱşřǰȱşŜǰȱŗŚŖȱ ›Š—œ•Š’˜—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗŗȬŗŘǰȱŗŚǰȱŘŘȬŘřǰȱřřȬřŝǰȱ śřǰȱŜŜǰȱŞŚǰȱŞŞǰȱŗŖŜȬȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŗŘȬŗřǰȱŗŜǰȱ ŗŘŗȬŘŘǰȱŗŘŜȬŘŝǰȱŗřŘǰȱŗřŜǰȱŗŚśȬŚŝǰȱȱ ȱ ŗŚşǰȱŗŜřȬŜŚǰȱŗŜŞȱ ȱ  Š›—ǰȱȬŽǰȱȬ’—ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŘŞǰȱřřȬřŝǰȱŚŖǰȱŚŝǰȱŜŞǰȱ ŝŝǰȱŞřǰȱŞŜǰȱŞşǰȱşŘǰȱşŚȬşśǰȱşŝǰȱŗŖŖȬ ŗŖŗǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗŘśǰȱŗŘŝȬŘŞǰȱȱ ȱ ŗřŗȬřŘǰȱŗřşȬŚŘǰȱŗśŖǰȱŗśŘȱ  ŠŽ›ǰȱȬœȱȱȱŗŝǰȱŘŖǰȱřŜǰȱřŞǰȱśřǰȱśŜǰȱŞŞǰȱşŗǰȱ şŘǰȱŗŖŖȬŗŖŗǰȱŗřŗǰȱŗśŖǰȱŗśŞȬśşǰȱŗŝŖǰȱ ŗŝřȱ  ŽŠ•‘ǰȱȬ¢ȱȱȱŘŞǰȱŜŝǰȱŞśǰȱŞŞǰȱşŖǰȱşŚǰȱşşǰȱŗśşǰȱ ŗŝŚȱ

ŘŖŜȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱž‹“ŽŒœȱ

 ’Œ”ŽǰȱȬ—ŽœœȱȱȱŗŖǰȱŗŝǰȱŜśǰȱŞŝǰȱŞşǰȱŗŗŖȬŗŘǰȱ ŗŗşȬŘŖǰȱŗŚŖǰȱŗśŖȬśŗǰȱŗśśǰȱŗśŝȬśşǰȱ ŗŝşȱ  ’ŽǰȱȬŸŽœȱȱȱśȬŝǰȱşȬŗřǰȱŗŝǰȱŗşȬŘŘǰȱřŗȬřŘǰȱȱ ŚȬřŜǰȱŚŝǰȱśŖȬśŗǰȱśŜǰȱŜŖȬŜřǰȱŜśȬŜŜǰȱȱ ȱ ŜŞǰȱŝřȬŝŚǰȱŝŜȬŝŝǰȱŝşǰȱŗŘŖǰȱŗŘŝȬŘŞǰȱ ŗřŘǰȱŗřşȬŚŗǰȱŗŚŜȬŚŝǰȱŗśŖȬśŘǰȱŗśśȬ śŜǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜşǰȱŗŝśȬŝŞȱ  ’œ˜–ȱȱȱŚŖǰȱŞŚȬŞśǰȱŞŞǰȱşřǰȱşśȬşŝǰȱşşǰȱ ŗŗŖȬŗŗŗǰȱŗŘŖǰȱŗŘŚǰȱŗŘŜǰȱŗŚŚǰȱŗśřǰȱȱ ȱ ŗśśȬśŜǰȱŗśŞǰȱŗŜŖǰȱŗŜŘǰȱŗŝřȬŝŚȱ

 ’œ˜–ȱ•’Ž›Šž›ŽȱȱȱŘŗǰȱŘśǰȱřřȬřŚǰȱřŜǰȱ ŗŖŜǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗřśǰȱŗŜŚǰȱŗŜŞȱ  ’œŽȱȱȱŞřǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŞǰȱŗŝŜȱ ˜–Š—ȱ˜••¢ȱȱȱşǰȱŗŗǰȱŗŖŖȬŗŖŘǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŖşǰȱ ŗŗŘȱ ˜–Š—ȱ’œ˜–ȱȱȱŚǰȱŝȬşǰȱŘŖǰȱŞŚȬŞŜǰȱŗŖŖȬ ŗŖŘǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŖŜǰȱŗŖŞǰȱŗŘŖǰȱŗřŗǰȱŗřřǰȱ ŗřśǰȱŗśřȬȱśśǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜŝȬŜŞǰȱŗŝŖǰȱŗŝŘȱ ȱ Š‘ ’œǰȱȬ–ǰȱȬ’ŒȱȱȱřǰȱŗŚǰȱŗŞǰȱśŖǰȱŜřȬŜŚǰȱŜŞȬ ŝŖǰȱŝŝǰȱŝşǰȱŞŗǰȱşŞǰȱŗŘřǰȱŗŞŗȱ

ȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱž‘˜›œȱ ‘•œ›ã–ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ’”Ž—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ••Ž›˜ǰȱ ǯȱǯȱ ȱ ••Ž—ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ •Ž’ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ •Ž¡Š—Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ —›ŽŠœŽ—ǰȱǯǯȱ ž‹’—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ž—Žǰȱǯȱ ȱ ȱ Š’•Ž¢ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ Š›Œ•Š¢ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ Š›˜—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ Šž–Š——ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Šž–Š——ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ Šž–Š›Ž—ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ŽŠ›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŽŠ’Žǰȱǯǯ ǯȱȱ ŽŽ—“Žœǰȱǯȱǯȱ ȱ Ž—ȬŠ›Š”ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Ž—˜›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Ž›•’—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Ž›‘˜•Žǰȱǯȱ •Ž—”’—œ˜™™ǰȱ ǯȱ ˜œ›ã–ǰȱ ǯȱ ˜ Ž—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ›Ž——Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ›˜ —ǰȱǯȱ ȱ žŒ‘‹Ž›Ž›ǰȱ ȱȱ ž›–Š——ǰȱ ǯȱȱ ž›—œǰȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Š–™ǰȱǯȱǯȱ ȱ Š–™‹Ž••ǰȱǯǯȱȱ Š–™‹Ž••ǰȱ ǯǯȱ Š›–’—ŠŒǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ‘Š›•Žœǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ

Ŝşȱ ŗřŝǰȱŗŚŚǰȱŗŚŞȬŚşȱ ŗŗŘȬŗřǰȱŗŗśǰȱŗŗŝȬŗŞǰȱŗŘŖȱ Şŝȱ ŞřǰȱŞśǰȱşŞȱ ŗŗŞȱ Ŝşȱ ŗŝŘȱ ŗŝŖȱ ŝśȱ ŗřŝȱ ŗŗŗȱ ŗŗŜȱ ŗŝŘȱ ŗŗŝǰȱŗŗşȱ ŘŖǰȱřśȱ ŗŞŖȬŞŗȱ ŘŜǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗřŗǰȱŗřŜǰȱŗśřȱ ŜşǰȱŝŖȱ Řśȱ ŝśȱ Ŝȱ ŜǰȱŝǰȱŗŗǰȱŚŝȬŚŞǰȱśŖȬśŗǰȱ śřǰȱŜŖǰȱŞŗǰȱŗŜŝǰȱŗŜŞȱ řȬŚǰȱŝǰȱşǰȱŗŗǰȱŗřǰȱŗşȬŘŗǰȱ ŘşǰȱřŜǰȱŚŘǰȱŞŘǰȱşŞȬşşȱ ŝŖȱ ŚǰȱŞǰȱŜŜǰȱşşȱ ŗŝŖȱ řŝȱ ŗŗŜȱ ŜŜȬŜŝȱ ŝȬŞǰȱŗŗǰȱŞŘǰȱŗŝŘȱ ŗŞŖȱ ŗŝŚȱ ŗŗŘǰȱŗŗŜȱ ŗŚŘǰȱŗŝŖȱ

‘Š›•Žœ ˜›‘ǰȱ ǯ ǯȱ ŗŘŖȱ ‘Ž˜—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗśśȬśŜȱ ‘Žœ—žǰȱǯǯȱ ŗřŝȱ ‘’•œǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ Ŝŝȱ ‘›’œ’Š—œ˜—ǰȱǯǯȱ ŗŗŗȱ •Š›”Žǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŗśśȱ •’˜›ǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŚǰȱŗŗǰȱŚŗǰȱŞŘǰȱşŞǰȱŗśśȱ •’ŸŽǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŗśȱ ˜¢ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŝŚȱ ˜Š—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ śśǰȱŜŝȬŜŞǰȱŝśǰȱşŗǰȱȱ ȱ ȱ ŗŝřȬŝŚȱ ˜‘Ž—ǰȱǯ ǯǯȱ ȱ ŚŝȬŚŞǰȱśŝȬśŞǰȱŗřŝȬŝŞȱ ˜••’—œǰȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŗşȬŗŘŖǰȱŗřŝȬřŞǰȱŗśŞȱ ˜˜Š—ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ŜŜȱ ˜˜”ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŘŘǰȱŗŘŚǰȱŗŘŞǰȱŗřŘȱ ›Š ˜›ǰȱǯǯȱ ŗŝŘȱ ›Ž—œ‘Š ǰȱ ǯǯȱȱ ŗŗŗȱ ȱ ŠŸ’Žœǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ Ŝŗȱ Š¢ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŜŜǰȱŝŞȱ Žȱ˜˜›ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ şŞȱ Ž™•Šǰȱǯȱ ȱ řŝȬřŞȱ Žȱ˜˜ǰȱ ǯǯǯȱ ȱ ŗŘŖȱ ŽŸŽ›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗśȱ ’ȱŽ••Šǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ŗřŜǰȱŗřŞȬŗŚŗǰȱŗŚŚȬŚśǰȱ ȱ ȱ ŗśŖȬśřȱ ’ȱŠ—Žǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŚřȱ žŒ‘Ž›ȬŠ••œǰȱǯȱ ŝŞȱ ¢Œ”ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ŗŝŞȱ ¢›’ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŚŜȱ ȱ Ž›ȬŽ—£Ž•ǰȱǯȱ ŗŚřǰȱŗŚŝȱ ‘›•’Œ‘ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ŝŜȱ ’‹Ž›ȱ ǯǯǯȱ ȱ ŗŗŚȬŗśȱ –Ž›˜—ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ŗŗşȱ ›’”œŽ—ǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŜȱ ›•Š—œœ˜—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ řŗȱ ›–Š—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŖŞȱ œ”Ž—Š£’ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŝǰȱśŖȱ

ŘŖŞ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱž‘˜›œ

ŸŽ•¢—Ȭ‘’Žǰȱ ǯ ǯȱřŜȱ ¢›Žǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ řŝȱ ȱ Š‹›¢ǰȱ ǯȬ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŘŖȱ Š•”ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŚŞȬŚşȱ Š›–Ž›ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ Ŝȱ Ž•–Š—ǰȱǯ ǯȱȱ ŗřŝȱ ’Œ‘—Ž›ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ řŚȱ ˜›ǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŝŖȱ ˜¡ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ŚǰȱŜǰȱŗŗǰȱřśǰȱŞŘȬŞřǰȱȱ ȱ ȱ ŞŜǰȱŞŞȬşŖǰȱşŘǰȱşŚȬşśǰȱ şŝȬşŞǰȱŗŖŖȬŗŖŗǰȱŗŘŘǰȱ ŗŘŝǰȱŗřŖǰȱŗśŞȱ ›Š—”Ž•ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŝŜȱ ȱ Š—’ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗřŜȱ Š’—Žœǰȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ Ŝŝȱ ŠœŽ›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŗŜȬŗŞȱ Š£˜ŸȬ ’—£‹Ž›ǰȱǯǯȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŜȬŗŝȱ Ž–œŽ›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ śȬŜǰȱřŚǰȱřŝǰȱŚŗǰȱŞŘǰȱȱ ȱ ȱ şŖȬşŘǰȱŗŖŗȱ Ž›•Ž–Š—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŘŚȱ ’•‹Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗřŜǰȱŗŚŖǰȱŗśŖǰȱŗśśǰȱŗŜŗȱ •Š£’Ž›ȬŒ˜—Š•ǰȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŜŖȬŜŘȱ ˜•’—Š¢ǰȱ ǯǯȱ şŗǰȱŗŖŗȱ ›Š‹‹Žǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗřŜȬřŞȱ ˜˜›’Ž—ǰȱǯǯȱ řŘȱ ˜ž•Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŞŖȱ ›Š¢ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ śśǰȱŜŜǰȱŜŞǰȱŝŚȬŝŜȱ ȱ

Š‹Ž•ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ŚǰȱśǰȱŗŗǰȱŜŞȱ

Š•™Ž›—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŝŘǰȱŗŝŚȱ

Š–’•˜—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Řşȱ

Š–˜—Ÿ’••Žǰȱǯȱ ŗŘŚǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗřŖǰȱŗřŘȱ

Š •Ž¢ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŚŜȱ

Š¢Žœȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŝŞȱ

Š¢’–ȱǯȱ ȱ şŗȱ

Ž’—Ž–Š——ǰȱ ǯȱȱ ŗŚřȱ

Ž—Ž›œ˜—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŘŖǰȱřśȱ

Ž—Ž•ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗřŝȱ

’••ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŜŖǰȱŜřȱ

˜‹‹œǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ şŗȱ

˜••˜ Š¢ǰȱǯǯȱ śśȱ

žŽ—‹Ž›Ž›ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ŜŘȱ

ž–‹Ž›ǰȱǯȱ śǰȱŝǰȱŗŖȬŗŗǰȱŗřǰȱŘŗȬŘřǰȱ ŘśǰȱŘŝǰȱŘşǰȱřŞǰȱŚŗȬŚŘȱ

ž—Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŗŝȱ

•Š—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ œ‘’Šǰȱǯȱ ȱ ȱ Š—£Ž—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Š™‘Žǰȱǯȱ ȱ Ž••’Œ˜Žǰȱǯȱ ȱ žǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ȱ

Š£ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ

Š£Ž—œŽ’—ǰȱ ǯ ǯȱ

Šž–Š——ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ

Š¢Š£ǰȱǯȱ ȱ

Ž—ȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ

’–ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ

’Œ‘Ž—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ

˜œ–Š•Šǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ

›žŽ›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ

ž‘—ǰȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Š–‹Ž›ǰȱǯ ǯȱȱ Š—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Š›Œ‘Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Ž–Š’›Žǰȱǯȱ ȱ Ž–Œ‘Žǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ Žœ”˜ǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŽŸ’—Žǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ Ž ’œǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ’Œ‘Ž—‹Ž›Ž›ǰȱ ǯȱ ’Œ‘‘Ž’–ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ’™’Úœ”’ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ȱ Š’Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Š•Š–Šǰȱǯȱ ȱ Š•˜ Žǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ Š›‹ãŒ”ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ Š›Œžœǰȱǯȱ ȱ Š›œ–Š—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ Š›’—ȬŒ‘Š›ǰȱǯȱ Š›Ç—Ž£ǰȱǯ ǯȱȱ Œ›ŽŽœŒ‘ǰȱǯǯȱ Œ •¢——ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Œ Š—Žǰȱǯȱ ȱ

Œ Ž—£’Žǰȱǯǯȱȱ Ž’—‘˜•ǰȱǯȱ ȱ

ŗŚŜȱ ŝŖȱ Śşȱ ŚŝǰȱŗŝŞȬŞŖȱ ŗŘŘȱ śŖȱ ŗŚŜȱ ŜŝǰȱŜŞȱ ŗŚřȱ ŗŖŝȱ ŝȱ ŗŝśȱ ŗŝřȬŝŚȱ ŗŝśȱ şŘȱ ŗŗŜȱ řśȱ śǰȱŗŗǰȱřřȬřŚǰȱřŝȬřŞǰȱŚŘȱ ŗśśǰȱŗśşȱ śřȬśŚȱ ŗśǰȱŚŞǰȱśşȱ řŝȱ śŞȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŘŖȱ řŚǰȱřŝȬřŞȱ ŘŞȱ ŞȬŗŗǰȱŗŝŖȱ ŗŝŚȱ ŗŚŜȱ ŗřŜȱ Śȱ Śȱ ŘŜȱ ŗŗŚȬŗśȱ ŞŘȱ ŗśśȱ şȬŗŗǰȱŘŗǰȱřŖǰȱřřǰȱřŜȬ řŞǰȱŞřǰȱŞśǰȱŞŝȬŞşǰȱşŗȬ şŘǰȱşŞȬŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŖşȱ śŞȱ ŜǰȱŗŗǰȱŞŘǰȱŞŜǰȱşŖǰȱşŘǰȱ şŞȬşşǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŖşȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱž‘˜›œ Ž—Ž•œǰȱǯȱ ȱ Ž—Ž—‘Š••ǰȱ ǯǯȱ Ž››’••ǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ Ž¢Ž›œǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ’•›˜–ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ’••Ž›ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ˜•’—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ˜—Šžǰȱǯȱ ȱ ˜˜›Žǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ˜›Ž—œŽ›—ǰȱ ǯȱ ž›™‘¢ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ¢Ž›œǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ȱ ˜‘ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ȱ Žǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŽœŽ›•Ž¢ǰȱǯǯǯȱ Ž—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ™™Ž—‘Ž’–Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Š—ǰȱǯȬǯȱ ȱ Š›”’—œ˜—ǰȱǯǯȱ ŽŽ›œŽ—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ Ž›žŽǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŽŽ›œŽ—ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ’™™’—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ •ãŽ›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ žŽŒ‘ǰȱ1ǯȱ ȱ ȱ žŠŒ”ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ȱ Š“Š”ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Š–œŽ¢ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ Š™™Š™˜›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Ž’ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ’•Ž¢ǰȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ’—›Ž—ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ˜‹Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ˜‹’—œǰȱǯȱ ȱ ˜‹’—œ˜—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ˜·ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ˜Ž›œ˜—ǰȱ ǯǯȱȱ ˜‘”˜ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ž˜•™‘ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŠŒŒ‘’ǰȱǯȱ ȱ Š›—Šǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ

ŗřŝȱ ŗŝŚȱ ŗŖşȱ ŝśȱ ŘŜǰȱśŞȱ ŝŞȱ Ŝşȱ ŗŜȱ ŗŗŝȬŗŞȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŗŖȬŗŘǰȱŞŘǰȱŞŜǰȱŞşǰȱşŗȬ şŘǰȱşşǰȱŗŖşȱ ŚŞǰȱśřǰȱŜŖȱ śŞȱ ŗŝŝȱ ŞśǰȱŞŝǰȱŞşǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŚřȱ Ŝŗȱ Śŝȱ Şśȱ ŗŖŞȱ Ŝȱ ŗŖȬŗŗȱ Ŝŗȱ ŜŜȱ ŗŖȬŗŗǰȱŞşǰȱşŗȬşŘǰȱşŞȱ ŗŘŖȱ řŝȬŚŗȱ ŗřŝȱ ŝŜȱ ŗřŝȱ ŗřŜǰȱŗŚřȱ ŗŗŞȱ Śȱ Şŗȱ řŞȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŜŞȱ Řśȱ ŗŝśȱ ŜŘȱ ŗřŜȱ ŗŝŜȱ

ŘŖş

Šœœ˜—ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ŗŞŖȱ Œ‘Ž›Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŘŞȱ Œ‘—’ŽŽ ’—ǰȱǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱŝŗȱ Œ‘˜•Ž–ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŗŝȱ Œ‘ Š›£ǰȱǯǯȱȱ ŗřŝȱ Œ˜ǰȱǯǯǯȱ ȱ śǰȱŗŗȬŗŘǰȱŞŘǰȱşŗȬşŘǰȱ ŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŗȱ ŽŽ•Ž¢ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗśşȱ Ž˜ ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ ŘşǰȱŗŗŖȬŗŗȱ ”Ž‘Š—ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ şŗǰȱŗřŜǰȱŗřŞȬŗŚřǰȱ ŗśŖȬŗśřǰȱŗśśȱ –’‘ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ Ŝřȱ —’“Ž›œǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ śȬŜǰȱŞȬŗřǰȱŘřȬřřǰȱŚŗȬ ŚŘǰȱşŘǰȱŗŖşȱ 㐐’—ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ŗŝŚȬŝśȱ ™Š›”œǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ŗŜȱ Ž’Ž›ǰȱǯȬ ǯȱ ȱ Şŗȱ Ž›•’—ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ŗřŞȱ ›ž—Ž••ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŗřȬŗŜǰȱŗŗŞȱ  ŽŽǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŝŖȱ ȱ Š—ǰȱǯǯ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŘŘȱ ‘˜–™œ˜—ǰȱǯȱȱȱ ŗŞŖȱ ˜‹’—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŘŖȬŘŗȱ ˜››Ž¢ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ Ŝŗȱ ˜Ÿǰȱǯȱ ȱ ŗŗŘǰȱŗŘŘǰȱŗŘŚȱ ˜¢ǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ śǰȱŗŘǰȱŚŗǰȱŞřǰȱŞŜȬşŗǰȱ şśǰȱşŞȬŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŖşȱ ›Ž—Œ‘Š›ǰȱǯǯȱ ŗŚŖǰȱŗśŖȱ ȱ ŸŠ—ȱŽ›ȱ˜˜›—ǰȱ ǯȱ ŜǰȱşŞȱ Š—ȱŽŽ›œǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŗŝŜȱ Ÿ˜—ȱŠǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ ŝŝǰȱŗŝśȱ ȱ Š•œ‘ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ȱ ŝŜȱ Šœ‘’—˜—ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ŝǰȱşǰȱŗŗǰȱśŖǰȱŜŖȱ Šœ˜—ǰȱ ǯǯǰȱ ȱ ŝŜȱ ŽŽ”œǰȱǯǯǯȱ ȱ ŚǰȱřřǰȱŞřȱ Ž’œŽ—˜ǰȱ ǯǯȱ ŗśŝȬśŞȱ Ž—‘Š–ǰȱ ǯȱ ȱ Řşǰȱŗŝŝȱ Žœǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ řŜȱ Žœ‹›˜˜”ǰȱǯȱ ȱ śŖȬśŗȱ ŽœŽ›–Š——ǰȱǯȱ ŘşǰȱřŖǰȱŗŝŝȱ ‘¢‹›Š¢ǰȱǯǯȱ śǰȱŗŘǰȱŞŘȬŞřǰȱŞşȬşŘǰȱ şśǰȱşŝȬşŞǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŝȬŗŖŞȱ ’••’Š–œ˜—ǰȱ ǯ ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱŚŜȬŚşǰȱśřǰȱśśǰȱŜŖǰȱ ŗŝŝȬŝŞȱ

ŘŗŖ ’—œ˜—ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ’—Ž›ǰȱǯȱ ȱ ›’‘ǰȱǯ ǯȱ ȱ ¢Šǰȱǯȱ ȱ ȱ Š’—ǰȱǯȱ Š–ŠžŒ‘’ǰȱǯǯȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱž‘˜›œ ŗśŚȬśśǰȱŗŜŘȱ řǰȱŚǰȱŗŗȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŜŜȱ Ŝŝȱ řśȱ

ŽŽǰȱ ǯȱ Ž’Ÿ’—ǰȱǯȱ ˜Ž›ǰȱǯǯȱ ȱ Ž’•’—ǰȱǯȱ ˜‹Ž•ǰȱ ǯȬ ǯȱ

ŗŝŖȱ ŝśȱ ŞŘȱ ŚŜǰȱŚŞǰȱŗŚřȱ ŜŗǰȱŗŘŖȱ

ȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ ȱ

Ž‹›Ž ȱ’‹•Žȱ Ž—Žœ’œȱ Řȱ ŜŘȱ ŘDZŝȱ ŗśŝȱ ŘDZŗśȱ ŜŘȱ ŘDZŘŜȱ Ŝřȱ řȱ ŗŗşǰȱŗŘŖȱ şDZŘŜȬŘŝȱ ŗŝŝȱ ŗŖDZŜȬŞȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŗŖDZŗŞȱ śśȱ ŗŚDZśȱ ŗŘśȱ ŗśDZŗşȬŘŗȱ ŚŞȱ ŗŜDZŚȱ Ŝşȱ ŗŜDZŝȬŗŜȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŗŜDZŞȱ Ŝşȱ ŗŜDZşȱ Ŝşȱ ŗŝDZŗŘȱ ŗŚǰȱŘśȱ ŗŝDZŘŝȱ ŗŚǰȱŘśȱ ŘŗDZŗŗȬŗřȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŘŗDZŗśȬŘŗȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŘřDZŝȱ ŚŜȱȱ ŘřDZŗŘȱ ŚŜȱ ŘřDZŗřȱ ŚŜȱ ŘŚDZřȬŚȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŘŜDZřŚȬřśȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŘŝDZŚŜȬŘŞDZŘȱȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŘŞDZŜȬşȱ ŗŝŜȱ řŗDZŗśȱ ȱ ŗŚǰȱŘśǰȱŘŜǰȱŘŞǰȱŘşȱ řŚȱ ȱ ŗŝŝȱ řŚDZŘřȱ ŗŝŝȱ řśDZŘȱ ȱ ŗŚǰȱŘśȱ řśDZŚȱ ŗŚǰȱŘśȱ řŞȱ ŗŝŝǰȱŗŝŞȱ řŞDZŗśȱ řŗȱ řşȱ ŞŜǰȱŞŝǰȱŗŝśȱ ŚŘDZŜȱ ŚŜȱ ŚŘDZŝȱ ŗřǰȱŗŚȱ ŚŜDZŗŖȱ ŗŝŝȱ ŚşDZřȬŞȱ ŗŝŝȱ

¡˜žœȱ ŘDZŝȱ ŘDZŘŘȱ řDZŞȱ řDZŗŝȱ ŚDZŘŚȬŘŜȱ ŗŞDZřȱ ŘŗDZŞȱ ŘŘDZŗŜȱ ŘřDZŘřȬŚȱ řŖDZşȱ řŖDZřřȱ řřDZŘȱ řŚDZŗŗȱ řŚDZŗŗȬŗŜȱ ȱ ŽŸ’’Œžœȱ ŝDZŗŗȬŘŗȱ ŗŖDZŗȱ ŗŞDZŘŚȬśȱ ŘŖDZŘȱ ŘŖDZŚȱ ŘŗDZŚȱ ŘŗDZŝȱ ŘŘDZŗŘȱ ŘŘDZŗřȱ ŘŜDZŚŖȬŚŘȱ ȱ ž–‹Ž›œȱ ŗDZśŗȱ řDZŚȱ řDZŗŖȱ řDZřŞȱ ŗŗȱ ŗŚDZşȱ ŗśDZřŞȬřşȱ ŗŜDZŗȱ ŗŜDZŚŖȱ ŗŞDZŚȱ

ŗŝŞȱ ŗŚȱ ŚŞȱ ŚŞȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŗŚȱ ŗŚǰȱŜŗǰȱŜřȱ ŞŜȱ śŝȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŞȱ ŚŞȱ ŚŞǰȱśŝȱ śśǰȱśŜǰȱśŞȱ

şŞȬşşȱ ŗŝȱ ŚŞȬŚşȱ ŚŜȱ ŚŜȱ řŗȱ řŗǰȱŜŘȱ ŗŞȱ ŗŞȱ Śşȱ

ŗŞȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŞȱ ŗŞȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŚŜȱ ŗśřȱ ŘŜȱ ŗŞȱ ŗŞȱ

ŘŗŘȱ ŗŞDZŝȱ ŗŞȱ ŘřDZŘŘȱ ŗŗŝȱ ŘŚDZŞȱ ŗŗŝȱ Řśȱ śŞǰŗŝŝȱ ŘŜDZŜŗȱ ŗŝǰȱŗŞȱ řŗȱ śŞǰȱŗŝŝǰȱŗŝŞȱ řŗDZŗřȱ řŘȱ řŗDZŗşȱ řŘȱ řřDZřřȬŚȱ ŝŜȱ ȱ ŽžŽ›˜—˜–¢ȱ ŚDZřȱ ŗŝŝǰȱŗŝŞȱ ŚDZşȱ Şŝȱ ŚDZŘřȱ Şŝȱ ŜDZŗŘȱ Şŝȱ ŝDZŗȱ śŝȱ ŝDZŗȬŜȱ ŚŞǰȱśśǰȱśŜȱ ŞDZŗŗȱ Şŝȱ ŞDZŗŚȱ Şŝȱ ŞDZŗşȱ Şŝȱ ŞDZŗşȬŘŖȱ śşȱ ŗŖDZŝȱ ŝŜȱ ŗŗDZŗŜȱ ŞŜȱ ŗŗDZřŖȬŗŘDZřȱ śŝȱ ŗŘDZŘşȬŗřDZŗŞȱ śşȱ ŗřDZŜȱ ŜŞǰȱşřǰȱşŚȱ ŗřDZŘŝȱ ŗřȱ ŗŚDZŘŗȱ ŗŚȱ ŗśDZřȱ ŗŚȱ ŗśDZŗřȱ řřȱ ŗŜDZŗŚȱ ŗśŝȱ ŗŜDZŘŗȬŗŝDZŝȱ śşȱ ŗŝDZŗśȱ ŗŚǰȱŘŚȱ ŗŞDZşȬŗřȱ śşȱ ŗşDZŗŗȬŗřȱ ŗśŝȱ ŘŖDZŗŜȬŞȱ śŝȱ ŘŖDZŗŝȱ ŚŞȱ ŘŘȬŘśȱ ŗŞŖȱ Řřȱ ŗŞŖȱ ŘřDZřȬŝȱ ŗŞŗȱ ŘřDZřȬşȱ śŜȬśŝȱ ŘřDZŚȱ śřȱ ŘřDZŚȬŜȱ ŗŝŝȱ ŘřDZŚȬŝȱ śŞȱ ŘřDZŚȬşȱ ŚŞǰȱśŝȱ ŘřDZŝȱ ŗŝŝȱ ŘřDZŝȬŞȱ ŗŞŖȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ ŘřDZŞȱ ŘřDZŞȬşȱ ŘřDZŘŖȱ ŘŚDZŗŝȬŗşȱ ŘśDZśȱ ŘŝDZŗśȱ ŘŝDZŘŚȱ ŘŞDZŗŖȱ ŘŞDZřřȱ ŘŞDZřŜȬřŝȱ ŘŞDZȱśŖȱ ŘŞDZŜŚȬŜŞȱ ŘşDZŘŘȱ řŗDZŗŜȱ řŘDZŗŜȱ řŘDZŗŞȱ řŘDZŘŝȱ ȱ ˜œ‘žŠȱ Řȱ ŘDZŗȱ ŘDZŗśȱ ŘDZŞȬŗŚȱ ŚDZŘŚȱ Ŝȱ ŜDZŗŝȱ ŜDZŗŝȬŘśȱ ŜDZŘŘȬŘřȱ ŜDZŘřȱ ŜDZŘŚȱ ŜDZŘřȬŘśȱ ŜDZŘśȱ ŗŖDZŘşȬřřȱ ŗŘDZŚȱ ŗŘDZŗśȱ ŗřDZŗŘȱ ŗśDZŘŗȱ ŗśDZřŘȱ ŘŗDZŗřȱ ŘŘDZŗŝȬŗŞȱ ŘŚDZşȬŗŖȱ ŘŚDZŘřȱ ȱ žŽœȱ ŗDZŗŜȱ řDZśȱ ŚDZŗŝȬŘŘȱ

ŗŜȱ śŞȱ ŗŚǰȱŘŚȱ ŗśŝȱ ŗŝȱ şřǰȱşŚȱ şřȱ Śśȱ Řşȱ śşȱ ŗśŝȱ śşȱ ŘŚȱ ŗŚȱ ŗŝȱ Şŝȱ ŗřȱ

ŗŝŚȱ řŗȱ řŗȱ ŗŝŚȱ Śśȱ řŗȬřřȱ řŗȱ ŗŝŚȱ řŗȱ řŗȱ řŗȱ řŘȱ řŗȱ ŗśȱ ŗŘśȱ ŗśȱ ŗŘśȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŜȱ ŗśȱ ŗŝŝȱ ŗŝŝȱ ŗŚȱ

ŗŝŚȱ ŚŞȱ ŗŝŚȱ

ȱ

Řŗřȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ

śDZŘŚȬřŗȱ ŗŝŚȱ śDZŘŞȬŘşȱ ŗŝśȱ ŜDZŘśȱ ŝŞȱ ŜDZřŞȱ ŗŝȱ şDZŘřȱ Ŝřȱ ŗŗDZŗȱ řŗȱ ŗřȬŗŜȱ ŗŝśȱ ŗŚȱ ŞŜǰȱŞŝǰȱŗŝśȱ ŗŚDZřȱ ŗŝŜȱ ŗŚDZŗśȱ ŞŜǰȱŗŝśȱ ŗŜDZŗȱ řŗȱ ŗŜDZŗȬŘŘȱ ŞŜǰȱŞŝǰȱŗŝśȱ ŗŜDZśȱ ŞŜǰȱŗŝśȱ ŗşDZŗŘȱ ŗŚȱ ȱ ž‘ȱ ŗDZŗŜȱ ŗŞŗȱ ŘDZŗŖȱ ŗȱ ŚDZŗŞȬŘŘȱ ŗŞŖȱ ȱ ŗȱŠ–žŽ•ȱ ŘřDZŝȱ ŗřȱ ȱ ŘȱŠ–žŽ•ȱ řDZřȱ ŝśȱ řDZŘśȱ ŞŜȱ ŘřDZŘŚȱ ŝśȱ ȱ ŗȱ ’—œȱ ŘDZŗřȬŘśȱ Ŝşȱ ŘȬŗŖȱ ŝŚȱ řDZŗȱ ŝřǰȱŞŜȱ řDZŗŞȱ ŗŝǰȱŗŞǰȱřŗȱ ŚDZŗŗȱ ŝřȱ ŚDZŗśȱ ŝřȱ ŞDZŚŗȱ ŗŚǰȱŘŚȱ ŞDZŚŗȬŚřȱ ŗŝřȱ ŞDZŚřȱ ŗŚǰȱŚśȱ ŞDZŚŚȱ Śśȱ ŞDZŜŖȱ Śśȱ şDZŗŜȱ ŝřȱ şDZŘŚȱ ŝřȱ ŗŖDZŗȬŗřȱ ŗŝřȱ ŗŖDZŘřȬŗŗDZŚřȱ ŜŜȱ ŗŗȱ ȱ ŗŝǰȱŚŘǰȱśśǰȱśŜǰȱśşǰȱŝśȱ ŗŗDZŗȱ ȱ ŗǰȱŗŝǰȱśŜǰȱśŝǰȱŝřǰȱŗŗŗȱ ŗŗDZŘȱ ȱ ŝřȱ

ŗŗDZŗȬŘȱ ŗŗDZŗȬŚȱ ŗŗDZŗȬŗŗȱ ŗŗDZŘȱ ŗŗDZřȱ ŗŗDZŚȱ ŗŗDZŚȬŞȱ ŗŗDZśȱ ŗŗDZŜȱ ŗŗDZŞȱ ŗŗDZŗŚȬŚŖȱ ŗŗDZŗşȱ ŗŗDZŘŖȱ ŗŘDZŘŜȬřřȱ ŗŘDZřŗȱ ŗŚDZśȱ ŗŚDZŘŗȱ ŗŚDZŘŗȬřŗȱ ŗŚDZŘřȱ ŗŚDZŘŚȱ ŗŚDZřŗȱ ŗśDZŗȬŞȱ ŗśDZŘȱ ŗśDZşȬŘŚȱ ŗśDZŗŘȱ ŗśDZŗřȱ ŗŜDZřȱ ŗŜDZŝȱ ŗŜDZŘŜȱ ŗŜDZřŖȬřŗȱ ŗŜDZřŗȬřřȱ ŗŜDZřŘȱ ŗŜDZřŘȬřřȱ ŗŝDZŞȬŘŚȱ ŗŞDZŚȱ ŗŞDZŗřȱ ŗŞDZŗşȱ ŗŞDZŘŖȬŚŖȱ ŗşDZŗȬŘȱ Řŗȱ ŘŗDZŗȬŜȱ ŘŗDZŝȬŗŖȱ ŘŗDZŗŜȱ ŘŗDZŗşȱ ŘŗDZŘśȱ ŘŗDZŘśȬŘŜȱ ŘŗDZŘŜȱ

śśȱ śśǰȱŜřȱ ŝŘǰȱŝřȱ śśȱ ŝŚȱ ŝŚȱ ŝŚȱ ŝŚȱ ŝŚȱ ŗǰȱŗŝǰȱŝŚȱ ŝŚȱ Ŝşȱ ŗŝśȱ ŜŜȱ Śŝȱ ŗřȱ ŝřȱ ŝśȱ ŝŞȱ ŝŘȱ ŝřȱ ŝśȱ ŝśȱ ŝśȱ Ŝşȱ ŜşǰȱŝśǰȱŝŝǰȱŝŞȱ ŜŜȱ ŜŜȱ ŜŜȱ ŝŗȱ ŜŜǰȱŝŗȱ ŜŜȱ ŝŗȱ ŗŝřȱ Ŝŝȱ Ŝŝȱ Ŝŝȱ Ŝŝȱ Ŝŝȱ ŜŞȱ ŜŞȱ Ŝşȱ Ŝşȱ ŝŗȱ ŜŞǰȱŜşǰȱŝŘǰȱŞŜǰȱŗŖřȱ ŜŞȱ ŝŗȱ

ŘŗŚȱ ŘŗDZŘŝȬŘşȱ ŘŘDZŘŖȬŘŘȱ ŘŘDZŚŗȬśŖȱ ȱ Řȱ ’—œȱ śDZřȱ ŝDZŘŘȱ ŞDZŗŜȬŘřȱ ŞDZŗŞȱ ŞDZŘśȬşȱ ŞDZŘŜȱ ŞDZŘŝȱ şDZŝȱ şDZŗŖȱ şDZŘ؋ȱ ŗŖDZŗřȱ ŗŖDZŘşȱ ŗŖDZřŗȱ ŗŗDZŗȬŗŜȱ ŗŗDZŗŚȱ ŗŘDZŗȬŘŗȱ ŗŘDZŘŗȬŘŘȱ ŗŘDZŘŘȱ ŗŚDZŗȬŘŘȱ ŗśDZŗȬŝȱ ŗśDZřŘȬŞȱ ŗŜDZŗȬŘŖȱ ŗŜDZřȱ ŗŜDZŗśȱ ŗŝDZŞȱ ŗŝDZşȱ ŗŝDZŗŜȱ ŗŝDZŗŝȱ ŗŝDZŗŞȱ ŗŝDZŘŗȱ ŗŝDZŘŚȬŚŗȱ ŗŞDZŗȬŘŖDZŘŗȱ ŗŞDZŗřȱ ŗŞDZřŗȱ ŗşDZŘŚȱ ŘŗDZŗȬŗŞȱ ŘŗDZŘȱ ŘŗDZřȱ ŘŗDZŜȱ ŘŗDZŗŖȬŗśȱ ŘŗDZŗŗȱ ŘŗDZŗřȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ Ŝşȱ ŞŜȱ ŝśȱ

śřȱ ŗśȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŖȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŖȱ ŝŗȱ Ŝşȱ Ŝşȱ Ŝşȱ Ŝşȱ ŜŜȱ ŜŜȱ ŝŖȱ ŚŜȱ ŝŜȱ ŗŝşȱ ŗŝşȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŖȬŝŗǰȱŝŘȱ ŚŜȱ ŝŖȬŝŗǰȱŝŘȱ ŝŘǰȱşřȱ ŝŘȱ ŝŘȱ ŝŘȱ ŜŜȱ ŚŜȱ ŝŜȱ şŘȱ şŗȱ ŗŝȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŖȬŝŗǰȱŝŘȱ ŝŖȬŝŗǰȱŝŘȱ ŝŗǰȱŝŘȱ ŝŗǰȱŝŘȱ ŝŗȱ ŝŗȱ

ŘŗDZŗŜȱ ŘŗDZŗşȬŘśȱ ŘŘDZŗȬŘřDZřŖȱ ŘřDZŗȬŘśȱ ŘřDZŘŜȬŘŝȱ ŘřDZřŗȱ ŘřDZřŗȬřśȱ ŘřDZřŗȬŘŚDZŘȱ ŘřDZřŜȬŘŚDZŜȱ ŘŚDZřȬŚȱ ŘŚDZŚȱ ŘŚDZŞȱ ŘŚDZŞȬŗŜȱ ŘŚDZŗŖȬŗŜȱ ŘŚDZŗśȱ ŘŚDZŗŞȱ ŘŚDZŗŞȬŘśDZŝȱ ŘŚDZŗşȬŘŖȱ ŘśDZŘŝȬřŖȱ ȱ ŗȱ‘›˜—’Œ•Žœȱ ŗDZŞȬŗŖȱ ŘDZřȬŚȱ ŘDZśȬŚDZŘŖȱ ŘDZŗŝȱ ŘDZřŚȱ ŘDZśśȱ ŚDZŘŗȬŘřȱ śDZŘśȱ ŝDZŗŚȱ ȱ Řȱ‘›˜—’Œ•Žœȱ ŜDZřŘȱ ŜDZřřȱ ŗŗDZŘŖȱ ŗřDZŘȱ ŗřDZşȱ ŗřDZřşȱ ŗŚDZřȱ ŗśDZŗŜȱ ŗŞDZŗşȬŘŗȱ ŘŚDZŘśȬŘŜȱ řŖDZŘŘȱ řŘDZŗřȱ řŘDZŗşȱ řřDZŗŜȱ

ŝŗǰȱŗŜŖȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŘȱ ŝŘȱ Ŝşǰȱŝŝȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŝȱ ŝŜǰȱŝŝȱȱ ŝŘȱ ŗŜŖȱ Ŝşȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŝȱ Ŝşȱ Ŝşȱ ŝŜȱ ŝŝȱ ŝŝȱ

ŗŝŜȱ ŗŝŞȱ ŗŝŞȱ ŗŝŞȱ ŗŝŞȱ ŗŝŞȱ ŗŝŞȱ Śśȱ ŗŝŞȱ

ŗŚȱ ŗŚǰȱŚśȱ ŝśȱ ŝśȱ Śŝȱ Śŝȱ ŗŚȱ Ŝşȱ ŞŜȱ ŗŝşȱ şşȱ Śŝȱ Śśȱ şşȱ

ȱ £›Šȱ ŘDZŜŘȱ řDZřȱ ŚDZŗȬŚȱ ŚDZŗȱ ŚDZŘȱ ŚDZŚȱ ŝȬŞȱ ŞDZŗȱ şȬŗŖȱ şDZŗȱ şDZŗȬŘȱ şDZŘȱ şDZŗŗȱ şDZŗŗȬŗŚȱ şDZŗŘȱ şDZŗřȬŗŚȱ ŗŖDZŘȱ ŗŖDZŘȬřȱ ŗŖDZŝȬŞȱ ŗŖDZŞȱ ŗŖDZŗŖȱ ŗŖDZŗŗȱ ŗŖDZŗŚȱ ŗŖDZŗŝȱ ŗŖDZŗŞȱ ŗŖDZŗşȱ ŗŖDZŚŚȱ ȱ Ž‘Ž–’Š‘ȱ ŚDZŗŖȱ ŚDZŗśȱ ŝDZŜŚȱ şDZŘȱ şDZřŖȱ ŗŖDZŘŞȱ ŗŖDZřŗȬŘȱ ŗřȱ ŗřDZŗȱ ŗřDZŗȬřȱ ŗřDZŘȱ ŗřDZŘřȬřŖȱ ŗřDZŘŚȱ ŗřDZŘśȱȱ ŗřDZŘśȬŘŜȱ ŗřDZŘŜȱ ŗřDZŘŝȱ

Řŗśȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ

śŖȱ Śŝȱ ŚŜȱ ŚŜȱ ŚŜȱ ŚśǰȱŚŜȱ ŗȱ śŖȱ ŗŜǰȱŘŚǰȱŚŚǰȱśŗǰȱŜŞȱ ŚśǰȱŚŝǰȱŚŞǰȱśśǰȱśŝǰȱŜřȱ ŚŚȬŚśȱ ŚśǰȱŚŝǰȱŗŚşȱ ŚŝǰȱŜřȱ Śśȱ śŖȱ Śşȱ ŗŝǰȱŚŚǰȱŚśǰȱŗŚşȱ ŗȱ ŗȱ śŖȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝǰȱŚŚǰȱŚśȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝǰȱśŗȱ śŗȱ ŗŝȱ

śřȱ śřȱ śŖȱ ŗŚȱ Śŝȱ Śŝȱ ŚŜȱ śŘǰȱŜŞȱ śŝȱ śŘȬśřȱ ŗŝŝȱ śŘȱ śřȱ ŗǰȱŗŗŗȱ ŗŗŗȱ ŗŝǰȱŜřǰȱŗŗŗǰȱŗŜŜȱ ŗŝȱ

ŗřDZŘŞȱ ŗřDZŘşȬřŖȱ ŗřDZřŖȱ

ŗǰȱśŚǰȱŗŗŗȱ śŚȱ ŗŚǰȱŘŚȱ

ȱ

œ‘Ž›ȱ ŞDZŗŝȱ

Śśȱ

ȱ

˜‹ȱ śDZŘȱ ŗřDZŗŖȱ ŗśDZŗşȱ ŗşDZŗřȱ ŗşDZŗśȱ ŗşDZŗŝȱ ŘŘDZŘśȱ ŘŝDZřȱ řŗDZřȱ řŗDZŝȱ řŗDZŞȱ řŗDZşȱ řŗDZŘŝȱ řřDZŘŗȱ řşDZŗśȱ

ŞŜȱ şřȱ ŗŞȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŚǰȱŗŞǰȱŘŜǰȱŘŝǰȱŘşǰȱřŖȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŗŝȱ ŗśŝȱ ŗřȱ şřȱ Řşȱ ŞŜȱ ŞŜȱ şŖȱ ŗŝȱ

ȱ

œŠ•–œȱ ŗŖȱ ŗŖDZşȱ ŘŞDZŗȱ řŖDZŚȱ ŚŚDZŘŗȱ śśDZŘřȱ śŞDZŚȱ ŜŚDZśȱ ŜşDZŞȱ ŜşDZşȱ ŝŘDZŘȬřȱ ŝŞDZŝȱ ŝŞDZŗŗȱ ŝŞDZřŖȱ ŝŞDZřŜȱ ŞŗDZřȱ ŞŗDZŗŖȱ ŞŞDZśȱ şśDZŚȱ ŗŖŗDZśȱ ŗŖŜDZŘŞȱ ŗŖşDZŗŗȱ ŗŗŘDZŜȱ

ŗŜşȱ şřȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŝȱ ŗśŞȱ ŗŝȱ şřȱ ŗŚǰȱŗŞȱ ŗŝǰȱŘŜǰȱŘŝǰȱŘşȱ ŗśŝȱ Şŝȱ Şŝȱ ŗŝȱ ŞŜȱ şşȱ ŗŝǰȱŗŞǰȱŘŘȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŗŝȱ şřȱ ŗŝŝȱ ŗŝǰȱşŖȱ ŗśŝȱ

ŘŗŜȱ ŗŘřDZŘȱ ŗřŝDZŚȱ ŗŚřDZŝȱ ŗŚŚDZŝȱ ŗŚŚDZŗŗȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ Ŝşȱ ŗŚȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗśȱ ŗśȱ

ȱ

›˜ŸŽ›‹œȱ ŗȬşȱ

ŗȬşȱȱ ŗDZŗȱ ŗDZŗȬŘŖȱ ŗDZŗȬŜDZŗŗȱ ŗDZŗȬŜDZŘŗȱ ŗDZŗȬŝȱ ŗDZŘȬŜȱ ŗDZŜȱ ŗDZŝȱ ŗDZŞȬŗşȱ ŗDZŗŖȱ ŗDZŗŖȱȱȱ ŗDZŗŖȬŗşȱ ŗDZŗŗȱ ŗDZŗŗȱȱ ŗDZŗŗȬŗŚȱȱ ŗDZŗŘȱ ŗDZŗŘȱȱ ŗDZŗřȱ ŗDZŗřȱȱ ŗDZŗŚȱȱ ŗDZŘŖȬŘřȱ ŗDZŘŖȬřřȱ ŗDZŘŘȬŘřȱ ŗDZŘŘȬŘŚŠȱ ŗDZŘŜȬŘŝȱ ŗDZŘşȱ ŗDZřŗȬřŘȱ Řȱ

ŗǰȱŘǰȱřǰȱŚǰȱŝǰȱŞǰȱşǰȱŗŖǰȱŗŗǰȱ ŗřǰȱŗşǰȱŘŗǰȱŘŜǰȱřřǰȱřŚǰȱřśǰȱ řŜǰȱřŝǰȱřŞǰȱŚŖǰȱŚŗǰȱŚŘǰȱŚřǰȱ ŜŞǰȱŝşǰȱŞŖǰȱŞŗǰȱŞŘǰȱŞŚǰȱŞŝǰȱ şśǰȱşŝǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŖśǰȱŗŖŜǰȱ ŗŖŝǰȱŗŖŞǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŗǰȱŗŗŘǰȱ ŗŗŞǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗŘŗǰȱŗŘřǰȱŗŘŚǰȱ ŗřŘǰȱŗřřǰȱŗřŚǰȱŗřśǰȱŗřşǰȱ ŗŚŗǰȱŗŚŝǰȱŗśŖǰȱŗśŚǰȱŗśśǰȱ ŗŜŖǰȱŗŜřǰȱŗŜśǰȱŗŜŜǰȱŗŜŝǰȱ ŗŜŞǰȱŗŜşǰȱŗŝŖǰȱŗŝŗȱ ŗŘŚȬřŘǰȱŗśşȱ ŞŘǰȱŗśŜȱ ŗśŜȱ ŗśŜȱ ŗśśȱ ŞŘȱ ŞŘȱ Şřȱ ŞŘǰȱŗŘŖȱ ŞŘȱ ŞŜȱ ŗŘŜȱ Şśȱ ŞśǰȱşřǰȱŗŖşǰȱȱ ŗśŝȱ ŗśŜȬśŝȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗśŝȱ Şśȱ ŗśŝȱ ŗśŝȱ ŞŘȱ Şřȱ Şśȱ Şśȱȱ ŗśŞȱ Şřȱ ŗśŞȱ řǰȱŞŘǰȱŞŚǰȱŗŘŚǰȱŗřřȱ

Řȱȱ ŘDZŗȬŚȱ ŘDZŗȬśȱȱ ŘDZŗȬŗŘȱȱ ŘDZśȱ ŘDZśȬŞȱ ŘDZśȬŗŗȱ ŘDZŜȬŗŘȱȱ ŘDZşȬŗŗȱ ŘDZŗŘȱ ŘDZŗŘȱȱ ŘDZŗŘȬŗśȱ ŘDZŗŘȬŗşȱ ŘDZŗŘȬŘŘȱȱ ŘDZŗřȱ ŘDZŗřȱȱ ŘDZŗřȬŗŜȱȱ ŘDZŗřȬŘŖȱ ŘDZŗŚȱ ŘDZŗŚȬŗśȱ ŘDZŗśȱȱ ŘDZŗŜȱ ŘDZŗŜȱȱ ŘDZŗŜȬŗŞȱ ŘDZŗŜȬŗşȱ ŘDZŗŜȬŗşȱȱ ŘDZŗŜȬŘŘȱ ŘDZŗŝȱ ŘDZŗŝȬŘŖȱȱ ŘDZŗŞȱ ŘDZŗŞȬŗşȱ ŘDZŗŞȬŘŖȱ ŘDZŗşȱ ŘDZŘŖȱ ŘDZŘŖȱȱ ŘDZŘŖȬŘŘȱ ŘDZŘŗȱȱ ŘDZŘŗȬŘřȱ ŘDZŘŗ‹ȬŘŘȱ ŘDZŘŘȱȱ řȬŝȱ řDZŗȬŗŘȱ řDZŝȱ řDZŗřȬŘŖȱ řDZŘŗȬřśȱ ŚDZŗȬşȱ

ŗŘŜǰȱŗŘŝǰȱŗřřȱ ŞŚȱ ŗŘŚȱ ŗŘŚȱ Şřȱ Şřȱ ŞŚȱ ŗŘŚȱ Şřȱ ŞŚȱȱ ŗŘśȱ ŞřǰȱŞśȱ ŞŚȱ ŗŘŚȬŘŜȱ ŞŚǰȱŞŝǰȱȱ ŗŘŚǰȱŗŘśȱ ŗŘŚǰȱŗŘśȱ ŗŘŚȱ Şśȱ ŞŚȱ ŗŘśȱ ŗŘǰȱŗŞǰȱřŖǰȱřŞǰȱřşǰȱŞŜǰȱşśǰȱ ŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŞǰȱŗŘśǰȱŗŜŞȱ ŗŘŞǰȱŗŘşǰȱŗřřǰȱŗŜŞȱ ŗŗȱ ŝǰȱŗŖǰȱŞřǰȱŞŚǰȱŞŝȱȱ ŗŘŜȱ ŗŖȱ řŖǰȱŞŚǰȱŞŜǰȱŞŝǰȱşřǰȱŗŖŚȱ ŗŘŚȱ ŗŖŗǰȱŗŗŞȱ ŞŚȱǰȱŞŝǰȱŞşǰȱŗŖŗǰȱŗŝŖȱ şřȱ şřǰȱşśǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŖşȱ şřȱ ŗŘŜȱ ŞŚȱ ŗŘśȱ şřȱ ŗśŞȱ ŗŘśǰȱŗřřȱ Şřȱ Şřȱ Şřȱȱ Şřȱȱ Şřȱ Şřȱ

ȱ ŚDZśȬşȱ ŚDZŗŖȬŗşȱ ŚDZŗŗȱ ŚDZŗŚȱ ŚDZŗŞȱ ŚDZŘŖȬŘŝȱ śȱ śȱȱ śDZŗȬŗŚȱ śDZŗȬŘŖȱ śDZŗȬŘŖȱȱ śDZŗȬŘřȱ śDZŘȱ śDZřȱ śDZřȱȱ śDZřȬŜȱ śDZřȬŞȱ śDZřȬŘŖȱ śDZřȬŘŖȱȱȱ śDZŚȱ śDZśȱ śDZśȱȱ śDZśȬŜȱ śDZŜȱ śDZŞȱ śDZşȬŗŖȱ śDZşȬŗŚȱ śDZŗŖȱ śDZŗŖȬŗŘȱ śDZŗŖȬŘŖȱ śDZŗŗȱ śDZŗŗȬŗŚȱ śDZŗŚȬŘŖȱȱ śDZŗśȱ śDZŗśȬŗŜȱ śDZŗśȬŗŝȱ śDZŗśȬŗŝȱȱȱ śDZŗśȬŗŞȱ śDZŗśȬŗşȱ śDZŗśȬŘŖȱ śDZŗŜȱ śDZŗŝȱ śDZŗŞȱ śDZŗŞȬŗşȱ śDZŗŞȬŘŖȱ śDZŗşȱ śDZŗşȬŘŖȱȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ ŞŘȱ Şřȱȱ Şřȱȱ Şřȱ Şřȱ Şřȱ ŚǰȱşǰȱŗŖǰȱŗŗǰȱşŖǰȱŗřŘǰȱŗŚŘȱ ŗŘşȱ şŗǰȱşŚȱ ŗŖȱ ŗřřȱ ŝǰȱŞřǰȱŞŚǰȱŞŞȬŞşǰȱşřȱ Şşȱ ŗŘǰȱřşǰȱŞŜǰȱŞşǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŞǰȱŗŘŝȱ ŗŘŝȱ şśȱ şřȱ ŗŗǰȱŗŘŜȱ ŗŘŜȬŘŞǰȱŗřřȱ ŞşǰȱŗŗŗǰȱŗŘŝȱ ŞŝǰȱŗŖŗǰȱŗŗŞǰȱŗŘŝȱ ŗŘŝȱ ŞşȬşŖȱ Şşȱ ŗŖŗǰȱŗŚŘȱ şŖǰȱşśǰȱŗŚŘȱ şŘǰȱŗŖŚȱ ŗŚǰȱŗŞǰȱřŖǰȱřřǰȱşŖȱ ŗŜřȱ ŗśŘȱ ŞşǰȱŗŚŘȱȱ şŖȱ ŗŘŞȱ şŗǰȱşŘǰȱşřȱ şŘȱ şŘȱ ŗřŘȱ şŗȱ şŗȱ şŗǰȱŗŖŚȱ şŗǰȱşŘȱ şŘȱ řŖǰȱşŘǰȱşřȱ şřȱ şřȱ şŗǰȱşřȱ ŗŘŝȱ

śDZŘŖȱ śDZŘŖȱȱ śDZŘŖȬŘřȱ śDZŘŗȬŘřȱ Ŝȱ ŜDZŗȱ ŜDZŗȬŗşȱ ŜDZŗŘȬŞDZŗŞȱ ŜDZŗŞȬřŝȱ ŜDZŗşȬşDZŗŞȱ ŜDZŘŖȬŘřȱ ŜDZŘŖȬŘśȱ ŜDZŘŖȬřśȱ

Řŗŝȱ

ŗŘǰȱřŖǰȱřřǰȱřşǰȱşřȱȱ ŗŘŝȱ ŗŖŚȱ şřǰȱşśȱ řȱ ŗŝǰȱŘŞȱ Şřȱ ŗśśȱ ŗřśȱ ŗśŜȱ şśȱ şśǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŘşȱ şǰȱŗŖǰȱŗŗǰȱŞřǰȱŞŚǰȱşŚȬşśǰȱ ŗŘşǰȱŗřŖǰȱŗřřǰȱŗŝŖȱ ŜDZŘŖȬřśȱȱȱ ŗŘŞȬŘşǰȱŗřřȱ ŜDZŘŚȱ řǰȱŗŘǰȱřŖǰȱřşǰȱŞŜǰȱşŚǰȱŗŗŞǰȱ ŗŘşȱ ŜDZŘŚȱȱ ŗŘŞǰȱŗŘşȱ ŜDZŘŚȬřśȱ ŝǰȱşǰȱşŚȱ ŜDZŘśȱ řşǰȱŗŗŞǰȱŗŗşǰȱŗŚŘȱ ŜDZŘŜȱ řŗȱ ŜDZŘŜȬřśȱ şśǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŘşȱ ŜDZŘŝȬřśȱ şśȱ ŜDZŗŝȱ ŗŚŘȱ ŜDZŘşȱȱ ŗŘŞȱ ŜDZřŖȬřŘȱ ŚŖȱ ŜDZřŘȬřśȱ şŖǰȱşśȱ ŝȱ ŞǰȱşǰȱŗŖǰȱŗşǰȱŘŖǰȱŚŘȱ ŝDZŗȬśȱ şŝȱ ŝDZŗȬŘŜȱ ŞŚȱ ŝDZŗȬŘŝȱ ŞřǰȱşŜȬŗŖŖȱ ŝDZŚȱ ŘŖǰȱŞŘǰȱŗŖŚȱ ŝDZŚȬŘřȱȱ ȱ ŗŘşȬřŖǰȱŗřřȱ ŝDZśȱ ȱŝǰȱŗŘǰȱŘŖǰȱřŖǰȱřŞǰȱřşǰȱŞŜǰȱ şśǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŞȱ ŝDZśȱȱ ŗŘŞǰȱŗřŖȱ ŝDZśȬŘŝȱȱ ŗřřȱ ŝDZŜȬŝȱ ŗřŖȱ ŝDZŜȬŘŝȱ ŝǰȱŗŖǰȱŗŗȱ ŝDZŞȱ şśȱǰȱŗŖŗǰȱŗŗŞȱ ŝDZşȱ řşǰȱŚŖȱȱ ŝDZşȱȱ ŗřŖȱ ŝDZŗŖȱ ŚǰȱřŜǰȱŗŖşȱȱ ŝDZŗŖȱȱ ŗřŖȱ ŝDZŗŖȬŗŗȱ ŗŖŖȱ ŝDZŗŗȱ ŗŖŗȱ ŝDZŗŗȬŗŘȱȱ ŗřŖȱ

ŘŗŞȱ ŝDZŗŘȱ ŝDZŗřȱȱ ŝDZŗŚȱ ŝDZŗŚȬŘŖȱ ŝDZŗŚȬŘŗȱ ŝDZŗŜȱ ŝDZŗŜȬŗŝȱ ŝDZŗŝȱ ŝDZŗşȱ ŝDZŗşȬŘŖȱȱ ŝDZŘŖȱ ŝDZŘŖȱȱ ŝDZŘŗȱ ŝDZŘŘȬŘřȱ ŝDZŘŘȬŘŝȱ ŝDZŘřȱ ŝDZŘŚȱ ŝDZŘśȱ ŝDZŘśȬŘŝȱ ŝDZŘŜȬŘŝȱ ŝDZŘŝȱ Şȱ ŞDZŗȬŚȱ ŞDZŜȬşȱ ŞDZŗřȱ ŞDZŗśȬŘŗȱ ŞDZŘŖȱ ŞDZŘŗȱ ŞDZŘŘȱ ŞDZřŘȬřśȱ şȱ şDZŗȱ şDZŗȬŜȱ şDZŘȱ şDZřȱ şDZŜȱ şDZŝȬşȱ şDZŝȬŗŘȱ şDZŗŖȱ şDZŗŗȱ şDZŗŘȱȱ şDZŗřȱ şDZŗřȱȱ şDZŗřȬŗŞȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ

ŗŖŗǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŞȱ ŗřŖȱ şŞǰȱşşȱ ŗŖŚȱ ŗŖŗȱ şşȱ ŗŗŞȱ şşȱ řşǰȱşŞȱ ŗřŖȱ şşǰȱŗŖŚȱȱ ŗřŖȱ řşǰȱŞŜǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŞȱ ŗŖŖǰȱŗŗŞȱ řŖǰȱŞŝǰȱŗŖŚȱ řşǰȱŚŖǰȱşŖȱ ŗŖŖȱȱ ŗŖŖǰȱŗŗşȱ şśȱȱ ŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŗȱ ŗŗŞȱ ŗŖŘȱ ŞŘȱ ŗŖŚȱ Şřȱ ŗŖŚȱ ŞśǰȱŞŜȱ Şśȱ ŗŘŖȱ ŗŖŚȱ ŗŖŖǰȱŗřŗȱȱ ŗŖŗȱȱ ŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŗǰȱŗřŗȱ ŗŖŗȱ ŗŖŗǰȱŗřśǰȱŗřŞǰȱŗřşȱ ŗŖŘȱ ŗŖŖȱ ŞřǰȱŗŖŖȱ ŗŘŖȱȱ ŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŚȱȱ ŗśŞȱ şŖǰȱŗŖŗǰȱŗřŗȱ ŗřŗȱ şǰȱŗŗǰȱŞŚǰȱŗŖŖǰȱŗŖŗǰȱŗŖŘǰȱ ŗŖŚǰȱŗřŘȱ şDZŗřȬŗލȱȱ ŗřŗȬřŘǰȱŗřřȱ şDZŗŚȱ ŗŖŗǰȱŗŗŞȱ

şDZŗśȱ şDZŗŝȱ şDZŗŝȱȱ şDZŗŞȱ şDZŗŞȱȱ ŗŖDZŗȬŗşDZŘŘȱ ŗŖDZŗȬŘŘDZŗŜȱ ŗŖDZŗśȱ ŗŗDZŗśȱ ŗŗDZŗśȬŗŘDZŘŝȱ ŗŗDZŗşȱ ŗřDZŗȬŗśDZŗşȱ ŗŚDZŗŖȱ ŗŚDZŗŘȱ ŗŚDZŘŖȬŗśDZŗŖȱ ŗśDZŘŚȱ ŗŜDZŗŖȬŗśȱ ŗŜDZŘśȱ ŗŜDZŘşȱ ŗŝDZŗȬŜȱ ŗŝDZŗŞȱ ŗŞDZŗȬŘŖȱ ŘŖDZŗŜȱ ŘŖDZŗşȱ ŘŗDZşȱ ŘŗDZŗşȱ ŘŘDZŗŚȱ

şśǰȱŗŖŗǰȱŗŖŘȱ ŗŖŗȱȱ ŗřŘȱ ŗŖŗǰȱŗŖŚǰȱŗŗŞȱ ŗřŗǰȱŗřŘȱ ŗśśǰȱŗŜŖȱ ŗŖŝȱ ŗśŜȱ ŗŝȱ ŗśśȱ ŗśŞȱ ŗśśȱ ŗŞȱ ŗřŘȱ ŗřśȱ ŗřśȱ ŗŖŝȱ ŗřŘȱ ŞŜȱ ŗŝŖȱ ŘŜȱ ŗŝŖȱ ŗŝǰȱŗŞǰȱŘŜǰȱŘŞǰȱřŖȱ ŞŜȱ ŗśŗȱ ŗśŗȱ ŗŘǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŗŖǰȱŗřŘǰȱ ŗřřǰȱŗŚŘȱ ŘŘDZŗŚȱȱ ŗřŘǰȱŗřřȱ ŘŘDZŗŝȬŘŚDZŘŘȱ ŗŖŞȱ ŘŘDZŘŜȱ ŘŜȱ ŘřDZŘŜȬŘŞȱ ŗŖŝǰȱŗŖŞǰȱŗŗŖǰȱŗřřȱ ŘřDZŘŝȱ ŗŘǰȱřŖǰȱřŗǰȱřŘǰȱřřǰȱřşǰȱŚŖǰȱ ŚŗǰȱŗŖşǰȱŗŚŘȱ ŘřDZŘŝȬŘŞȱȱ ŗřŘȬřřȱ ŘřDZŘŞȱ ŗŖşȱ ŘřDZŘŞȱȱ ŗřŘȬřřȱ ŘřDZřřȱ ŗŝȱ ŘŚDZŘŞȱ ŞŜȱ ŘśDZŗśȱ ŞŜȱ ŘśDZŘŚȱ ŗśŗȱ ŘŜDZŘŚȱ ŗřȱ ŘŝDZŘȱ ŗŚǰȱŗŞǰȱŘŜǰȱŘŝǰȱřŖǰȱřřȱ ŘŝDZŗřȱ ŗŝǰȱŗŞǰȱŘŜǰȱŘŞǰȱřŖȱ ŘŝDZŗśȱ ŗśŗȱ řŖDZŘřȱ Ŝşȱ řŗDZŗŖȬřŗȱ ŞŘȱ

ȱ ŒŒ•Žœ’ŠœŽœȱ ŜDZŘȱ ŝDZŘřȬŘśȱ ŝDZŘřȬŘşȱ ŝDZŘśȱ ŝDZŘŜȱ

Řŗşȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ

ŗŚǰȱŘŜǰȱŘşǰȱřřȱ ŗŗŗȱ ŗŗŖȱȱ ŗŗŗȱȱ ŜŚǰȱŗŖŝǰȱŗŗŖȬŗŘǰȱŗřŚǰȱŗŚŗǰȱ ŗŜŚǰȱŗŜŞȱ ŗŗŗȱ ŗŗŗȱ ŗŗŗȱ

ŝDZŘŞȱ ŝDZŘşȱ şDZşȱ ȱ ˜—ȱ˜ȱ˜—œȱ řDZŘȱ şŜȱ ŚDZŗŘȱ şŗȱ ŚDZŗśȱ şŗȱ ȱ œŠ’Š‘ȱ ŗDZŚȱ ŗŝȱ ŗDZŜȱ ŗŝȱ ŗDZŝȱ ŗŝǰȱŘşȱ ŗDZŗŝȱ ŗśŝȱ ŝDZŗŚȱȱ ŗŘŘȱ ŗŖDZŘȱ ŗśŝȱ ŗŝDZŗŖȱ ŗŝǰȱŞŝȱ ŘŗDZŗŗȱ ŗŗŜȱ ŘŚDZŘȱ Ŝşȱ ŘŝDZŘȱ řŖȱ ŘŞDZŘŗȱ ŗŚǰȱŗŝǰȱŗŞȱ ŘşDZśȱ ŗŝȱ řřDZŗȱ Ŝřȱ řŜDZŗŜȱ şŗȱ řŞDZŗŞȱ ŗŖşȱ ŚřDZŗŘȱ ŗŝȱ ŚŚDZŗȬŜȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŚŚDZŞȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŚŚDZşȬŘŖȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŚŚDZŘŗȬŘŞȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŚŝDZśȱ Ŝşȱ ŚŝDZŜȱ ŗśŝȱ ŚŝDZŝȱ Ŝşȱ śŗDZŗřȱ Şŝȱ śŜȬŜŜȱ ŗŝŗȱ śŜDZřȱ ŗŚȱ śřDZŜȱ ŗŚȱ śŝDZřȬŗřȱ Ŝȱ śşDZśȱ ŗŝȱ ŜŗDZśȱ ŗŞǰȱřŖǰȱşŖȱ

ŜŗDZŗśȱ ŜśDZŗŗȱ ȱ Ž›Ž–’Š‘ȱ ŘȬřȱ ŘDZŘŗȱ řDZŚȱ řDZŗřȱ řDZŘŖȱ śDZŗŗȱ śDZŗşȱ ŝDZŜȱ ŞDZŗşȱ ŗŘDZŜȱ ŗřDZŗŞȱ ŗřDZŘśȱ ŗŞDZŗŚȱ ŗŞDZŗśȱ ŗşDZŚȱ ŘŖDZŗŖȱ ŘŖDZŝȱ ŘŗDZŗŗȬŗŘȱ ŘŘDZŗřȬŗşȱ ŘŘDZŗŞȬŘřȱ ŘŘDZŘŚȬřŖȱ Řřȱ ŘŜDZŗȬŘŚȱ ŘŝDZŗŘȬŗśȱ ŘşDZŘȱ řŚDZŞȬŗŜȱ řŜDZŗȬřŘȱ řŞDZŗŚȬŘřȱ ŚŗDZśȱ śŗDZŘȱ śŗDZśŗȱ ȱ Š–Ž—Š’˜—œȱ ŗDZŘȱ śDZŘȱ ȱ £Ž”’Ž•ȱ ŝDZŘŗȱ ŝDZŘŚȱ ŗŗDZşȱ ŗŗDZŗŚȬŘŗȱ ŗřDZşȱ ŗŚDZśȱ

şŖȱ Şŝȱ

ŜŘȱ ŗŚǰȱŗśȱ ŞŜȱ ŗŝȱ ŜŗǰȱŜřȱ Ŝřȱ ŗŚǰȱŗŞǰȱŘŘȱ ŗŜŖȱ ŗŚȱ Ŝřȱ Ŝşȱ Şŝȱ ŗŝȱ Şŝȱ ŗřȱ ŞŜȱ ŞŜȱ ŝŝȱ ŝŝȱ ŝŝȱ ŝŝȱ śŖȱ ŝŝȱ ŝŝȱ Ŝşȱ ŝŝȱ ŝŝȱ ŝŝȱ ŚŜȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝȱ

Ŝřȱ ŗŚǰȱŗŞǰȱŘşǰȱşŖȱ

ŗŝȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝȱ śŖȱ śŖȱ ŗŝȱ

ŘŘŖȱ ŗŚDZşȱ ŗŜȱ ŗŜDZřŘȱ ŗşȱ ŘŘȱ ŘŘDZŗŜȱ ŘřDZŘŗȱ ŘŜDZŘŖȱ ŘŞDZŝȱ ŘŞDZŗŖȱ řŖDZŗŘȱ řŗDZŗŘȱ řŗDZŗŚȱ řŗDZŗŜȱ řŘDZŗŞȱ řŘDZŘŚȱ řŘDZŘśȱ řŘDZŘşȱ ŚŚDZŝȱ ŚŚDZşȱ ŚŜDZŗŘȱ ȱ

˜œŽŠȱ ŘDZŗŚȱ śDZŝȱ Ŝǯŝȱ ŝDZŗŗȱ ŞDZŝȱ ŞDZŗŘȱ şDZŗŖȱ ȱ ˜Ž•ȱ ŚDZŗŘȱ ŚDZŗŝȱ ȱ ‹Š’Š‘ȱ ŗŗȱ ŗŘȱ ȱ ’ŒŠ‘ȱ ŜDZřȬśȱ ȱ Ž™‘Š—’Š‘ȱ ŗDZŞȱ řDZŘŖȱ ȱ ȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ ŞŜȱ ŜŘȱ ŘŘȱ Ŝşȱ ŜŘȱ ŗŜŖȱ şřȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝǰȱŚśȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŖşȱ ŗŚȱ ŗŚȱ şşȱ

ŞŜȱ ŗŝǰȱŘŘǰȱŜŗǰȱŜřȱ ŜŗǰȱŜřȱ ŞŜȱ Řşȱ ŗŝȱ ŗŝŝȱ

ŗŝȱ ŗŝȱ

ŗŚǰȱŗŝǰȱŗŞǰȱŘşǰȱřŖǰȱşŖǰȱşŗȱ ŗřȱ

ŗŝŝȱ

ŗŚȱ Śśȱ

ŽŒ‘Š›’Š‘ȱ ŗŚDZŞȱ Śśȱ ȱ Š•ŠŒ‘’ȱ ŘDZŚȬśȱ ŜŘȱ ŘDZŗŖȱ ŜŗǰȱŜřȱ ŘDZŗŖȬŗŜȱ śşȬŜŖǰȱŜřȱ ŘDZŗŗȱ ŗŖśȱ ŘDZŗŗȬŗŘȱ ŜŗǰȱŜřȱ ŘDZŗřȬŗŜȱ ŜŘȱ ŘDZŗřȱ ŜŖȱ ŘDZŗŚȱ ŜŘǰȱŜřȱ ŘDZŗŚȬŗśȱ ŞŜȱ ŘDZŗśȱ ŜŘȱ ŘDZŗŜȱ Ŝřȱ ȱ ™˜Œ›¢™‘Š•ȱ’Ž›Šž›Žȱ ˜‹’ȱ ŚDZŗŘȱ ŗřŜȱ ȱ ’œ˜–ȱ˜ȱ˜•˜–˜—ȱ ŗDZŗȱ ŗśŜȱ ŗDZŗȬŜDZŘŗȱ ŗśŜȱ ŘDZŗȬřȱ ŗśŝȱ ŘDZŘȱ ŗśŝȱ ŘDZŚȬśȱ ŗśŞȱ ŘDZŝȬŗŘȱ ŗśŜȬśŝȱ ŘDZŝȱ ŗśŝȱ ŘDZşȱ ŗśŝȱ ŘDZŗŖȱ ŗśŝȱ ŘDZŗŘȱ ŗśŝȱ ŘDZŗşȬŘŖȱ ŗśŞȱ ŘDZŘŖȱ ŗśŝȱ řȱ ŗśŞȱ ŚDZŗȱ ŗśŝȱ śȱ ŗśŞȱ śDZŜȬŗŚȱ ŗśŞȬśşȱ ŜDZŗŘȬşDZŗŞȱ ŗśśȱ ŜDZŗşȬşDZŗŞȱ ŗśŜȱ ŝȬş ŗśśȱ ŞDZŗřȱ ŗśŝȱ ŞDZŗŚȱ ŗśŝȱ ŗŖDZŗȬŗşDZŘŘȱ ŗśśȬŜŖȱ ŗŖDZŗśȱ ŗśŜȱ ŗŗȬŗśȱ ŗŜŖȱ

ȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ

ŗŗDZşȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŗŗDZŗŚȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŗŗDZŗśȬŗŘDZŘŝȱ ŗśśȱ ŗŗDZŗśȬŗşȱ ŗŜŖȱ ŗŗDZŘŖȬŗŘDZŘŝȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŗŘDZřȬŚȱ ŗŜŖȱ ŗŘDZŘřȱ ŗŜŖȱ ŗřȬŗśȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŗřDZŗȬŗśDZŗşȱ ŗśśȱ ŗŚDZŗŗȱ ŗŜŖȬŜŗȱ ŗŚDZŘŘȬŘŝȱ ŗŜŗȱ ŗŜȬŗşȱ ŗśşǰȱŗŜŖȱ ŗŞDZŘŖȬŘřȱ ŗŜŖȱ ȱ ’œ˜–ȱ˜ȱŽ—ȱ’›ŠȱȦȱ’›ŠŒ‘ȱȱ ǻŒŒ•Žœ’Šœ’ŒžœǼȱ ŜDZŗŞȬřŝȱ ŗřśȱ ŜDZŘřȬřŗȱ ŗśřȱ ŜDZŘŚȬŘśȱ ŗśřȱ ŜDZŘŜȬŘŞȱ ŗśřȱ ŜDZŘşȬřŗȱ ŗśřȱ ŞDZŗŞȱ ŘŜȱ şDZŗȱ ŗřşȱ şDZŗȬşȱ ȱ ŗřşȬŚŖǰȱŗŜřȱ şDZŗȬŗŗȱ ŗŜřȱ şDZŘȱ ŗŚŖȱ şDZřȱ ȱŗřśǰȱŗřşȬŚŘǰȱŗŚśǰȱŗŚŜȬŚşǰȱ ŗśŚǰȱŗŜřȱ şDZřȬŗŗȱ ŗśŖȱ şDZŜȱ ŗŚŖǰŗŚŘȱ şDZŜȬŝȱ ŗŚŗǰȱŗŚŘȱ şDZŜȬşȱ ŗŚŗȱ şDZŝȱ ŗŚŘȱ şDZŞȱ ŗŚŖǰȱŗŚŘȱ şDZşȱ ŗŚŘȱ şDZŗȬŗŗȱ ŗŚŘȱ ŗŖDZŗşȬŘŚȱ ŗŚřȱ ŗŖDZŘŘȱ ŗŚŘȬŚŝǰȱŗŜřȱ ŗŖDZŘřȬřŗȱ ŗŚŝȱ ŗŗDZřŘȱ ŘŜȱ ŗŚDZŚȱ ŘŜȱ ŗŚDZŘŖȬŘŝȱ ŗśśȱ ŗŚDZŘŖȬŗśDZŗŖȱ ŗřśȱ ŗśDZŘȬřȱ şřȱ ŗśDZŗŗȬŘŖȱȱ ŗŗşȱ ŘŖDZşȱ ŘŜȱ ŘŗDZŗŖȱ ŗśŞȱ

ŘŘDZŚȱ ŗřŗȱ ŘŘDZśȱ ŗřŗȱ ŘŚȱ ŗřśǰȱŗśśȱ ŘśDZŗřȬŘŜDZŘŝȱ ŗśŖǰȱŗŜřȱ ŘśDZŗŜȬŘŖȱ ŗśŖȬśŗȱ ŘśDZŗŞȱ ŗśŗȱ ŘśDZŘŖȱ ŗśŖǰȱŗśŗȱ ŘśDZŘŚȱ ŗŗşȱ ŘŜDZśȬŜȱ ŗśŗȱ ŘŜDZşȱ ŗśŖȱ ŘŜDZşȬŗŘȱ ŗśŖȱ ŘŜDZŗŖȬŗŘȱ ŗśŖȱ ŘŜDZŗşȱ ŗřŜǰȱŗśŘȱ ŘŜDZŗşȬŘŗȱ ŗśŘǰȱŗŜřȱ ŘŜDZŘŖȬŘŘȱ ŗśŘȱ ŘŜDZŘŘȱ ŗśŘȱ ŘŜDZŘŝȱ ŗśŗȱ ŘŞDZŘŗȱ ŗśŞȱ řřDZŗŖȬŗřȱ ŗŗşȱ řřDZŗŚȱ ŗśŞȱ řŜDZŗȬŘŘȱ ŗŚřȱ řŜDZřȱ ŗŚŘǰȱŗŜřȱ řŜDZřȬśȱ ŗŚřȬŚŚȱ řŜDZśȱ ŗŚřȱ řşDZşȱ ŗśŞȱ řşDZŗŘȬřśȱ ŗřśȱ řşDZŘŚȱ ŘŜȱ ŚŗDZŗŘȱ ŗŜřȱ ŚŗDZŗŚȬŚŘDZŞȱ ŗřşȱ ŚŗDZŗŜȬŚŘDZŗȱ ŗřşȱ ŚŗDZŘŖȱ ŗřŗǰŗřśǰȱŗřŞǰȱŗŚśȱ ŚŗDZŘŖȬŘŗȱ ŗřŞǰȱŗŜřȱ ŚŗDZŘŗȱ ŗŚŗǰȱŗŚŚǰȱŗŚśȱ ŚŘDZŘȬŞȱ ŗřşȱ ŚŘDZŗśȬŚřDZřřȱ ŗřśȱ ŚśDZŗřȱ ŘŜȱ ŚśDZŗŞȱ ŘŜȱ ŚśDZŘřȬŘŚȱ ŗŚřǰȱŗŜřȱ ŚŝDZŗşȱ ŗŚşȱ ŚŝDZŗşȬŘŖȱ ȱ ŗŚřǰȱŗŚŝȬŚşǰȱŗŜřȱ ŚŝDZŘŖȱ ŗŚşȱ ŚŝDZŘŗȱ ŗŚşȱ ŚŝDZŘřȱ ŗŚşȱ ŚşDZśȱ ŗŚŘȬŚřǰȱŗŜřȱ ŚşDZşȱ ŘŜȱ śŗDZŗřȬřŖȱ ŗřśǰȱŗśśȱ ȱ

ŘŘŗȱ

ŘŘŘȱ ŗȱŠŒŒŠ‹ŽŽœȱ ŗŚȱ ȱ ŘȱŠŒŒŠ‹ŽŽœȱ ŜDZŚȱ ȱ ŗȱœ›Šœȱ ŞDZŜşȱ ȱ ŗȱ—˜Œ‘ȱ ŗŖDZŜȱ ŗŖDZŗřȱ ŗŞDZŗśȱ ȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœȱ

ŗřŝȱ

ŗŚŜȱ

ŚŞȱ

ŗŗşȱ ŗŗşȱȱ ŗŗşȱ

Ž ȱŽœŠ–Ž—ȱ ˜‘—ȱ ŚDZŗȬŘŜȱ ŗŝŖȱ ȱ ŽŸŽ•Š’˜—ȱ ŘDZŗŞȬŗşȱ ŗŝŖȱ ŗŝDZŗȬŜȱ ŗŝŖȱ ŗŞDZŗȬŘŖȱ ŗŝŖȱ

—Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ˜—Ȭ‹’‹•’ŒŠ•ȱŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœ ȱ ’œ˜–ȱ˜ȱŽ—ȱ’›ŠȱŠ—žœŒ›’™œȱ ȱȱ ȱ ŗśřȱ ȱşDZřȱ ȱ ŗřşȬŚŗȱ ȱşDZŗȬşȱ ȱ ŗřşȬŚŘȱ ȱşDZŜȬşȱ ȱ ŗŚŗȱ ȱşDZŜȬŝȱ ȱ ŗŚŗȬŚŘȱ ȱşDZŝȱ ȱ ŗŚśȱ ȱŗŖDZŘŘȱȱ ȱ ŗŚŘǰȱŗŜřȱ ȱŗŖDZŘŘȱȱ ȱ ŗŚŘȱ ȱřŜDZřȱȱ ȱ ŗŚŘȱ ȱŚŗDZŘŖȬŘŗȱȱ ȱ ŗřŞȱ ȱŚŝDZŗşȬŘŖȱ ȱ ŗŚŞȬŚşǰȱŗŜřȱ ȱŚşDZśȱȱ ȱ ŗŚŘȬŚřȱ ȱ ȱ ŗśřȱ ȱŜDZŘŞȱȱ ȱ ŗśřȱ ȱŘśDZŗřȱ ȱ ŗśŖȱ ȱŘśDZŗŝȬŘŚȱ ȱ ŗśŖȱ ȱŘśDZŘŚȱ ȱ ŗŗşȱ ȱŘŜDZŗȬřȱ ȱ ŗśŖȱ ȱŘŜDZŗřȬŗŝȱ ȱ ŗśŖȱ ȱŚŗDZŘŖȬŘŗȱȱ ȱ ŗřŞȬřşȱ ȱ

ž–›Š—ȱ ŗȱřDZŘŖȬŘŚȱ ŗȱŚDZŗřȱ ŘŗŞȱȱ ŚŗŜŝȱ Śŗŝŗȱ ŚŗŝŚȱ ŚŗŞŚȱ ȱ ŚŗŞśȱ ŚśŗŖȱ ŚśŘśȱ ŗŗœŠȱ’›ȱśŗȱȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ŗŗŞȱ ŗŗşȱ ŗśřȱ ŗŗŘȱ ŗŗŘȱ ŗŗŞȱ ŗŗŘȬŘŗǰȱŗřŚǰȱŗŜŞǰȱȱ ŗŝŘȱ ŗŘŖȱ ŗŗŞȱ ŗŘŖȱ ŗśśȱ

ȱ

Š‹‹’—’Œȱ˜ž›ŒŽœȱ ’œ‘—Šȱ Š—‘Ž›’—ȱǰȱŜȱȱ ŗŚşȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ˜œŽŠȱ ŽŠȁ’–ȱȱŘȱȱ ȱ ŗŚŞȱ ȱ Š‹¢•˜—’Š—ȱŠ•–žȱȱ ‹˜ŠȱŠ›ŠȱřŜ‹ȱ ŗŚşȱ ȱ ›ŽŽ”ȱŽ¡œȱ Ž–˜œ‘Ž—Žœȱ Š’—œȱŽŠ’›Šȱ ȱ ŗŚŜȱ ȱ

Ž›˜˜žœȱ

’œ˜›’Žœȱ ȱ ŗşǰȱŘŖǰȱŗŘřȱ ȱ

Žœ’˜ȱ ˜›”œȱ ȱ řřǰȱřŜȱ ȱ ˜œŽ™‘žœȱ ˜—›Šȱ™’˜—ȱ ȱ ŜŞȱ —’šž’’Žœȱ ȱ ŝśȱ ȱ ¢œ’Šœȱ ™ŽŽŒ‘Žœȱ ȱ ŗŘřȱ ȱ ‘’•˜ȱȱ Žȱ’Šȱ˜œ’œȱȱ ȱ ŗŘŘȱ ȱ •Š˜ȱ ž‘¢™‘›˜ȱ ȱ ŗŘřȱ ȱ —Œ’Ž—ȱ¢™’Š—ȱŽ¡œȱ —œ›žŒ’˜—ȱ˜ȱŠ‘‘˜Ž™ȱ ȱ ȱ řřȬřŚȱ —œ›žŒ’˜—ȱ˜ȱ–Ž—Ž–˜™Žȱ ȱ ȱ ŗŖŞȱ —œ›žŒ’˜—ȱ˜ȱ—’ȱ řřǰȱřŜȬŚŘȱ ȱ Žœ˜™˜Š–’Š—ȱŽ¡ȱ ˜ž—œŽ•œȱ˜ȱ’œ˜–ȱ řřǰȱřśȬřŜȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ