Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts 9781617190292, 1617190292

Citation preview

Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 18

This series contains volumes dealing with the study of the Hebrew Bible, ancient Israelite society and related ancient societies, biblical Hebrew and cognate languages, the reception of biblical texts through the centuries, and the history of the discipline. The series includes monographs, edited collections, and the printed version of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, which is also available online.

Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts

Proceedings of the Metaphor Research Group of the European Association of Biblical Studies in Lincoln 2009

Edited by

Antje Labahn

9

34 2013

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2013 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2013

‫ܐ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-61719-029-2

ISSN 1935-6897

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface and Introduction ............................................................ vii Antje Labahn 1. HISTORICAL BOOKS .................................................................. 1 Heart as a Conceptual Metaphor in Chronicles. Metaphors as Representations of Concepts of Reality: Conceptual Metaphors — a New Paradigm in Metaphor Research................................................................ 3 Antje Labahn What did Jotham talk about? Metaphorical Rhetoric in Judg 9:7–20 ...................................... 31 Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher 2. PSALMS AND SAPIENTIAL TEXTS ........................................... 47 Creation, Creator and Conceptual Metaphor in Psalm 19:2–7 and Genesis 1–3...................................... 49 Elizabeth R. Hayes Job 3: Metaphors Turned Into Their Contrary ....................... 63 Stefan Wälchli “I Melt Away and Will No Longer Live.” The Use of Metaphor in Job’s Self-Descriptions .................... 69 Pierre Van Hecke The Tree of Metaphors. ‫ עץ חיים‬in the Book of Proverbs ............................................... 91 Karolien Vermeulen 3. PROPHETS ...............................................................................113 A Tale of Heaven and Earth. Metaphor as Dialogue with the Inner and Outer Biblical World of Second Isaiah ....................................................115 Karolien Vermeulen v

vi

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN POETIC TEXTS

The Wilderness in Hosea ..........................................................133 Gert Kwakkel Contributors ...............................................................................159 Index ............................................................................................163

PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION Antje Labahn

The current collection of articles on metaphors includes papers that were read at the Meeting of the European Association of Biblical Studies in Lincoln, July 26th – 30th, 2009. While most of the papers gathered in this collection of proceedings were presented at the meeting, one was presented at a previous meeting (Wälchli), and one was written for the current collection (Labahn). The papers were reworked due to aspects raised in the lively discussion which usually takes place in the seminar (see below). The metaphor research group which is organized as a platform within the European Association of Biblical Studies takes part in a process of interpreting metaphors. The endeavor of the research program has enriched the ongoing discussion of the use of Biblical metaphor for a decade.1

See the previous collections edited with most of the presented papers: Pierre Van Hecke (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL 187; Leuven: Peeters, 2005); Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn (eds.), Metaphors in Psalms (BETL 231; Leuven: Peeters, 2010); see also Antje Labahn, Metaphor and Intertextuality: “Daughter of Zion” as a Test Case, SJOT 17 (2003): 49–67 (and further studies in the SJOT volume): Labahn discusses the basic approach by Kirsten Nielsen, There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup 65; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic 1

vii

viii

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN POETIC TEXTS

During this period various methodological approaches have been explored. Of course, that is true for research in general as well as for research undertaken by members of this group. Various analyzes have employed multiple approaches giving respect to the fact that metaphors present themselves as polyvalent phenomena that provide multiple ways of understanding them and their literary entities. Beside this rather general description there have been developments in methodological approaches that demonstrate a tendency in metaphor interpretation. Initially, the research group focused on the interaction model, then a further step was taken unto cognitive metaphors, alongside other methodological approaches such as iconographic insights. This volume takes another step forward and presents articles on conceptual metaphors. Such an approach points to a shift in methodology in a more general way as well. The preliminary glimpse into the history of research provided in the first article (Labahn) gives some insight into that discussion and prepares the floor for the following articles on conceptual metaphors present in this collection of proceedings. All metaphors analyzed in this collection attempt to read them against the background of a particular world view. This becomes clear by the way that the metaphors are used in their specific context. Although not every article is that sharp in terms of cognitive science they agree in the intention to shed light on a value concept provided by the metaphor, the literary context and surrounding ideas belonging to a world view of a writer and his or her social, cultural, or historical environment. It has been a tradition of the research group to work on various biblical writings which are full of metaphors one way or another. This collection proceeds in that tradition and introduces the reader to various metaphors in divergent biblical contexts, such as historical books (Labahn, GillmayrBucher), Psalms (Hayes), sapiential poetic texts (van Hecke, Press, 1989), which gave some kind of starting impulse for the metaphor research group within the EABS.

PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

ix

Vermeulen), and prophetic scriptures (Kwakkel, Vermeulen, Wälchli). While some metaphors within psalms, prophetic writings and sapiential scriptures have already been treated more or less extensively elsewhere there appear now new texts and new metaphors within exegetical discussion. We are happy that the collection of articles has been published. I would like to give thanks to all contributors of our seminar, especially to those ones who agreed to publish their paper within this collection of proceedings. All contributors benefited from a lively and extensive discussion for which the metaphor research group has been famous from its very beginnings. When I experience the discussions sometimes I feel as if participants in the discussion of the group map the multiple ways of reading metaphors and, yet, biblical texts. An extremely open-minded exchange within the group seems to shadow the polyvalent meanings of metaphors. The entire group enjoys this way of sharing ideas and discussing theses, and I would like to express my gratitude to all members of the group who have helped to come together over the past ten years. I am grateful to Mark Leuchter, Katie Stott, and Melonie Schmierer-Lee and to all staff of Gorgias Press who encouraged us and gave support to the current volume. It has been a pleasure to work with them, and to share their flexible and open-minded way in supporting our ideas.

1. HISTORICAL BOOKS

1

HEART AS A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR IN CHRONICLES Metaphors as Representations of Concepts of Reality: Conceptual Metaphors — a New Paradigm in Metaphor Research Antje Labahn

Recent research on metaphors has produced various models which help to interpret metaphors. Different approaches read and interpret metaphors and what they communicate to the reader in various ways. Metaphors provide a multifold range of meanings and challenge the reader or hearer to understand their meaning due to various individual presuppositions. In the last two decades, various models have been established and have generated lively discussions. Every approach enriches understanding metaphors since each one enlarges the polyvalence in dialogue when interpreting it. Most of the models of metaphor interpretation take their cue from linguistic, literary theories or social analyses and stepped into a dialogue with exegetical discussions. This article, first, attempts to draw some general lines on the history of metaphor research. Second, it will take the “heart” as a conceptual metaphor in Chronicles. The metaphor “heart” will work as a test case providing an example for a conceptual metaphor. 3

4

ANTJE LABAHN

1. A GLIMPSE INTO THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH ON METAPHORS Some rather short sketches will follow to clarify the current discussion.1 Of course, this is not the place for an extensive look into the history of research, rather I will draw some general lines focusing on methodological presuppositions and their influences on exegetical approaches regarding the interpretation of metaphors. In the past, terms such as “metaphorical expressions” were used, but these were often abbreviated simply as “metaphors”. Such terms were used in an Aristotelian way describing a kind of unreal world, reading metaphors as expressions for something which means something other than it says, bringing its meaning to another issue.2 Speaking about metaphor, hence, meant to seek for a kind of hidden meaning behind words. Identifying something as a metaphor or a metaphorical statement, thus, anticipated categorizing it as an expression for an imaginative phenomenon. For more detailed history of interpretation see, e.g., Jean-Pierre van Noppen and Edith Hols, Metaphor II: A Classified Bibliography of Publication 1985 to 1990 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1990). 2 Cf. Arist Poetic 1457b, 6–9. The main differentiation between literary resp. real and transferred resp. unreal meaning of a word was once established by Aristotle; see Mary Hesse, Die kognitiven Ansprüche der Metapher, in: Jean-Pierre van Noppen (ed.), Erinnern um Neues zu sagen: Die Bedeutung der Metapher für die religiöse Sprache (Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Verlag, 1988), 128–148, esp. 129.131; cf. further, e.g., the use in the classical monograph by Klaus Koch, Was ist Formgeschichte? Methoden der Bibelexegese (4.ed.; Neukirchen-Vlyun: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 301f, who differentiates between „eigentlichem Gebrauch“ and „uneigentlichem Gebrauch“, i.e. a metaphorical meaning of a particular term. A critical evaluation is provided by Gerhard Sellin, Metapher — Symbol — Mythos: Anmerkungen zur Sprache der Bilder in Religion und Bibel, in: Sellin, Allegorie — Metapher — Mythos — Schrift: Beiträge zur religiösen Sprache im Neuen Testament und in seiner Umwelt (ed. D. Sänger; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 209–234, esp. 209–212. 1

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 5

IN

CHRONICLES

Later on, metaphors were seen as ideas about a particular way of expressing an artificial incident. Once metaphors were reckoned as literary expressions it was necessary to determine their precise connotations. At an initial stage, the idea was to read metaphors as literary expressions linking various elements with one another. The prominent example was the expression: “Peter is a wolf” (or the like). Since, of course, the statement is no real record that a person is in fact equal to an existing animal, rather, he or she shares attributes with the animal. In this case, the person and the animal exchange attributes with one another. This model was known as the “interaction model”, pointing to the effect that the meaning of both elements of the metaphor give and take something from the other part, i.e. they interact in one way or another. The French philosopher Paul Ricœur was famous for establishing the idea of interaction. Ricœur worked on hermeneutics and analyzed phenomenology as well. He developed the idea there that the elements of a metaphor interact with one another. Interaction happens in a twofold way. First, the elements of a metaphor interact with each other; and second, metaphors “live” in such a way that they produce an impression of meaning to each individual recipient, who interacts with aspects of meaning that the metaphors generate and, thus, multiply the divergent potential meanings inherent in a metaphor.3 The model was established more explicitly by Max Black, who worked on the philosophy of linguistics and art, showing that a metaphor as a sentence builds up a tension between its two elements working as frame and focus while interacting with each other and creating similarities.4 As well, John Waggenor focused on Paul Ricœur, Metapher: Zur Hermeneutik religiöser Sprache (Evangelische Theologie Sonderheft; München: Kaiser, 1974); Ricœur, Die lebendige Metapher (transl. Rainer Rochlitz; 3rd. ed.; Übergänge 12; München: Fink, 2004; first French edition: 1975, first German edition: 1986). 4 Cf. Max Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962). 3

6

ANTJE LABAHN

the mutual interaction of the metaphorical elements.5 This aspect was carried forward, e.g., by Andrea Weiss, who focused her figurative approach on the interaction of metaphors with their surrounding narrative context as well as provoking a multi-dimensional interaction with their readers as active participants in trying to interpret them.6 A further step was taken by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, who linked metaphors with a meaning they obtain when read in the light of a realm of living.7 Metaphors point to multifold ways of interaction within a human environmental world, such as interactions of human knowledge, political behavior and acting in society. Metaphors take up these various experiences of life and present aspects of them therein. Furthermore, metaphors influence people by the way they shape their thinking and actions. This may happen when people have knowledge of a metaphor or if they do not, without reflection when metaphors are no more reckoned as such and lose their novelty. Metaphors belong to a certain cultural context and metaphors are understood only if their readers or hearers share the same context. Once the cultural context is varied, Cf. John E. Waggoner, Interaction Theories of Metaphor: Psychological Perspectives, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 5 (1990): 91–108. See also the challenging argumentation of G. Sellin, Metapher — Symbol — Mythos, 212–214, who points to a semantic interference or tension lifting the issue a metaphor intends to refer to a higher level; he regards a metaphor as a model of creative poetic language which reveals new dimensions of reality. See also his essay Sellin, Die Metapher im Reich der Tropen, in: Sellin, Allegorie — Metapher — Mythos — Schrift: Beiträge zur religiösen Sprache im Neuen Testament und in seiner Umwelt (ed. D. Sänger; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 235–249, in which he treats metaphors as interpretations of reality. 6 Andrea L. Weiss, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphors in the Book of Samuel (VTSup 107; Brill: Leiden and Boston, 2006), 17.34 etc. 7 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 5

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 7

IN

CHRONICLES

metaphors also vary their meaning. Lakoff and Johnson, hence, are on a path to viewing metaphors as expressions of a particular reality dominated by specific temporal, cultural, political and religious values. Such conceptions presented within metaphors favor various world views and dominate people’s ideas of what their world is like. The metaphor theory of Lakoff and Johnson has influenced most of the world of interpreting metaphors and appears to provide something like a “cognitive turn” in metaphor research8 which initiated cognitive linguistic metaphor approaches.9 The next step was to elaborate the theories of metaphors in more detail. Metaphors were not only read as sharing world views, rather as constructions of reality which metaphors construe by themselves. Metaphor research since then is on its way to developing a model nowadays called “conceptual metaphor”. Metaphors are regarded as representations of conceptions of life as they are generated by metaphors. Such conceptual metaphors present themselves to their recipients whose world views are intended to be molded according to the ideas of the metaphors themselves. An initial step was to read metaphors as expressions of social values that work as a kind of manifestations of organizing social values, as has been proposed by Mary The term “cognitive turn” was taken from Gerard Steen, Understanding Metaphor in Literature (London: Longman Group Limited, 1994), 3. 9 See, e.g., Michael Pielenz, Argumentation und Metapher (Tübingen: Narr Verlag, 1993); Olaf Jäckel, Metaphern in abstrakten Diskurs-Domänen (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997); Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Zoltàn Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); see also Johannes Hartl, Metaphorische Theologie: Grammatik, Pragmatik und Wahrheitsgehalt religiöser Sprache (Studien zur systematischen Theologie und Ethik 51; Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2008), 40–84. 8

8

ANTJE LABAHN

Hesse.10 She takes metaphors as reflections and interpretations of environment.11 Yet, she does not focus so much on cognitive constructions of social knowledge and of world view, a theory which ought to follow in research later on. Similar to Mary Hesse, Earl R. MacCormac presents an approach of metaphors that regard them as living ones in a way that they create a new meaning developed by a cognitive process.12 He assumes that such a process is happening as an interaction between the “brain” of a recipient (or better to say, the memory of a recipient, which can, of course, been treated as a part of the brain, and brain researchers or alternative human scientists may ask which part of the brain contains memorizing abilities) and cultural influences including religious phenomena as well as political and scientific ones. Thus, generating an evolutionary process starts from emotional experiences as the motivation for such a creative cognitive process. Julia M. O’Brien introduced the idea of adopting a reading that focuses on the ideology of creating a group

Mary Hesse, Die kognitiven Ansprüche der Metapher, 136–139, referring to Nelson Goodman, Sprachen der Kunst: Entwurf einer Symboltheorie (Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft; Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1976; recent edition: 1995) English original: Languages of Art (Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968). 11 See Mary Hesse, Die kognitiven Ansprüche der Metapher, 137: “Metaphern vermitteln in der Tat eine Art sozialen Wissens — … stellen … Bewertungen zur Verfügung, die soziale Interessen und Urteile über Bedeutsamkeit widerspiegeln”. 12 Earl R. MacCormac, Religiöse Metaphern: Linguistischer Ausdruck kognitiver Prozesse, in: Jean-Pierre van Noppen (ed.), Erinnern um Neues zu sagen: Die Bedeutung der Metapher für die religiöse Sprache (Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Verlag, 1988), 149–175. “Interaktion zwischen Hirn und Kultur” (p. 149); later on in the article, he uses the expression memory (“Gedächtnis”) while talking about processes of recollection in brain (p. 154 and so on). 10

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 9

IN

CHRONICLES

identity.13 O’Brien presents a cultural analysis and asks for the meaning of metaphors in their particular social and cultural context. She takes metaphors as expressions of group ideology. Metaphors may represent ideas of a nation or they may reflect ideological statements of biblical authors who reflect their own experiences in life and social culture.14 Further research intensified the reading of metaphors as constructions of reality. Analyzing conceptual metaphors means to focus on a new paradigm which recently found its way into metaphor research and has been elaborated in current studies.15 The main idea is to read metaphors as expressions of social interactions with their environment and context as they are reflected in particular ideas. In any case, these ideas are regarded not so much as true captures of reality, but rather as conceptions of reality shaped according to the world views of the author (or users or recipients) of the metaphors. Metaphors represent a certain view of Julia M. O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor: Theology and Ideology in the Prophets (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2008). 14 See O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor, xvi–xix. However, O’Brien uses the model to develop a feminist approach combined with an experimental educational impetus for teachers and preachers for ministry in the church. 15 See Christa Baldauf, Sprachliche Evidenz metaphorischer Konzeptualisierung: Probleme und Perspektiven der kogitivistischen Metapherntheorie im Anschluss an George Lakoff und Mark Johnson, in: Ruben Zimmermann (ed.), Bildersprache verstehen: Zur Hermeneutik der Metapher und anderer bildlicher Sprachformen (mit einem Geleitwort von H.-G. Gadamer; Übergänge 38; München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2000), 117–132, here: 120–125, demonstrating metaphor research on its way from the model of Lakoff and Johnson up to integrating ideas of cognitive sociology. See also her monograph Christa Baldauf, Metapher und Kognition: Grundlagen einer neuen Theorie der Alltagsmetapher (Sprache in der Gesellschaft. Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 24; Frankfurt etc.: Peter Lang Verlag, 1997); and furthermore, Gudrun Frieling, Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Metapher: Das Metaphern-Verstehen als sprachlich-kognitiver Verarbeitungsprozess (Bramsche: Rasch, 1996). 13

10

ANTJE LABAHN

circumstances and they offer their interpretation alongside a particular reception of social interaction. Such a model takes up ideas developed by cognitive sociology.16 The approach of cognitive sociology treats the portrait of the world as a construction of reality based on various elements offering a specific interpretation of the world and proving a particular meaning with its world view. The generated portrait of circumstances in life finds itself as a construction built on various elements and guided by certain presumptions. The elements focus on social interaction built upon various components, such as the interpretation of social circumstances, reception of meaning, cognitive construction of reality, and experimental emotional acknowledgement. A cognitive process creates interaction between these elements and, thus, builds up categories and models for the interpretation of the world and the circumstances of living therein. Cognitive sociologists and cognitive linguistics applied these ideas to metaphors and integrated the understanding of metaphors into a cognitive system.17 Thus, metaphors help to create a mental map or a mental model of social reality. See, e.g., the model of Horst Stenger and Hans Geisslinger, Die Transformation sozialer Realität: Ein Beitrag zur empirischen Wissenssoziologie, in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 43 (1991): 247–270; Alfred Schütz, Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie (ed. Martin Endress, Joachim Renn; Alfred-Schütz-Werkausgabe 2; Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2004); Gerd Häfner, Konstruktion und Referenz: Impulse aus der neueren geschichtstheoretischen Diskussion, in: Knut Backhaus and Gerd Häfner (eds.), Historiographie und fiktionales Erzählen: Zur Konstruktion in Geschichtstheorie und Exegese (BTSt 86; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 67–96. 17 As early predecessor in the 1970ies, Hans Blumenberg was first to link theories of metaphor(s) with conceptions of “life-world” (in German: Lebenswelt), i.e. environment; see the depiction of Philipp Stoellger, Metapher und Lebenswelt: Hans Blumenbergs Metaphorologie als Lebenswelthermeneutik und ihr religionsphänomenologischer Horizont (HUT 39; 16

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 11

IN

CHRONICLES

Such a mental model comes to recipients as an offer to share their particular world view in its interpretation of social interaction. Metaphors are integrated into this concept and apply for acceptance as well for positive reactions by recipients, as long as they share the metaphor’s interpretation of reality. While a single metaphor cannot include an entire map of a world view due to its limited character, it rather presents a component of its inherent map. It belongs to a conception of reality as it is performed and understood through the metaphor.18 A metaphor is thus a part of an overall interpretation of social, cultural, political, historical and even religious interaction. A metaphor functions as a single segment within a larger map of interpreting reality. Cognitive metaphors, hence, can only provide a part of their entire portrait of reality.19 Of course, a metaphor presents the world view of a particular writer, author, or creator, or may reflect a longknown and transmitted communal saying. Nevertheless, there are multiple offers to a recipient to understand a metaphor in a way in which he or she individually does so. The perception of a metaphor multiplies its potential meanings since it opens a dialogue to interpretations of reality of a recipient. Hence, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 253–281, esp. 263. The main research on conceptualism came almost 20 years later, cf., e.g., Earl R. MacCormac, A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mit Press, 1985); Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., Why Cognitive Linguists should care more about Empirical Methods, in: Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seanna Coulson and Michael J. Spivey (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing 18; Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins, 2007), 2–18. 18 Cf. Baldauf, Sprachliche Evidenz, 117 (see also 121f), who regards a metaphor as showing reality „auf sprachlicher Ebene … als sichtbarer Niederschlag metaphorischer Konzeptbildung“. 19 Cf. Davis W. Allbritton, When Metaphors Function as Schemas: Some Cognitive Effects of Conceptual Metaphors, in: Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (1995): 33–46.

12

ANTJE LABAHN

due to its multiple models of interaction a metaphor invites recipients to step into a dialogue about various phenomena of understanding its meaning(s). Nevertheless, a metaphor will probably only be put into a dialogue with a recipient as long as he or she accepts the basic interpretation of reality provided by the cognitive conceptual map of the metaphor. A metaphor cannot speak to anyone if the crucial ideas of a recipient disregard the metaphor’s own inherent fundamental model of world view. In such a process of interaction with a recipient, a metaphor becomes vital and offers its interpretation to others. If such an offer is accepted, a metaphor spreads its interpretation of reality to recipients in multiple ways. As seen, a metaphor offers a reception of its conception to recipients. Therein a metaphor presents meaning of its inherent map of world and values to the recipients. If the world view of a metaphor is accepted it provides an offer for orientation in life. Once recipients take up the orientation as their own world view they come to share the ideas of a metaphor and, even more, probably its entire concept of reality. The dialogue turns to provide accepted orientation in social interactions. Such processes open ways of communication about phenomena and their interpretations; they open channels of communication between various elements, recipients, their mental maps and meanings of reality. A cognitive process has started a lively exchange which again enlarges the polyvalent meaning of a metaphor once the multifold interaction begins to happen. Thus, the new paradigm of “conceptual metaphor” attempts to link metaphors to overall social constructions of interpreting reality. The basic question, then, is: do metaphors reflect particular social models and are interpreters able to come to know about them? What kind of portrait of social reality do particular metaphors offer to readers or hearers and what kind of cognitive process of interaction do they initiate? And in which way are we today able to discover such a portrait behind a written, and even long-passed, metaphor in a biblical statement and context?

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 13

IN

CHRONICLES

2. THE HEART AS A CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR IN CHRONICLES To provide an example for the methodological thesis, I will take the term “heart” as a conceptual metaphor and show its particular use in Chronicles. In general, the heart is used in various ways but all instances work as a metaphor and favor the concept of history which Chronicles provides as interpretation for past time. Looking on the term heart as a characterization of narrated figures, there appear certain evaluations of such characters that go alongside the honorable or dishonorable presentation of these characters in Chronicles’ conception of history. The subsequent task is to read the metaphor “heart” in an overall approach inspired by constructions of cognitive sociology. My basic approach reading Chronicles through cognitive sociology is shown in my larger monograph.20 In any case, it is a challenging task to apply that approach to reading the heart in Chronicles as a conceptual metaphor. 2.1 Heart as an Anthropological Metaphor in Chronicles There are, of course, several examples for the ordinary use of the term “heart” as it appears in other biblical scriptures as well. In its biblical use, the heart usually represents the center of a human being where all emotions, thoughts, opinions, and ideas are located according to Semitic anthropology.21 Chronicles takes up this model and See Antje Labahn, Levitischer Herrschaftsanspruch zwischen Ausübung und Konstruktion: Studien zum multi-funktionalen Levitenbild der Chronik und seiner Identitätsbildung in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (WMANT 131; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012), esp. 47–67 for the methodological approach. 21 Cf. Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; München: Kaiser 1984), 105f; Silvia Schroer and Thomas Staubli, Körpersymbolik der Bibel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998), 46–56.75–79; Bernd Janowski, Konfliktgespräche mit Gott: Eine Anthropologie der Psalmen (3rd. ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 20

14

ANTJE LABAHN

integrates the presentation of its characters therein, qualifying their human center either as positive or negative. It comes as no surprise that the qualification of the characters goes alongside their positive or negative evaluation in Chronicles’ conception of history and, hence, goes alongside the overall qualification of a particular period ruled by that monarch, as will be shown subsequently. - In Chronicles, the heart is the place where the intention of someone becomes clear. o A positive figure is characterized by a righteous heart: Asa (2Chr 15:17), Levites (2Chr 29:34). o Such a figure can additionally be characterized as someone with a righteous heart full of wisdom: Solomon (1Chr 29:17.19; 2Chr 1:11; 9:23). o The people of Israel ought to maintain good purposes and thoughts in their hearts (1Chr 29:18). o People are characterized with a whole, perfect heart (1Chr 12:39; 2Chr 30:12) sharing the same intention and, hence, willing to give offerings to Yahweh (1Chr 29:9.31). o People have joy in their hearts (2Chr 7:10). o A negative figure is characterized by a heart that is proud resp. demonstrates pride in himself: Amaziah (2Chr 25:19), Uzziah (2Chr 26:16), Hezekiah (2Chr 32:25.26), Zedekiah (2Chr 36:13); see also the irresolute mood of Rehoboam (2Chr 13:7) and the despising of Michal (1Chr 15:29).

Verlag, 2009), 170–173; in general see also the contributions in the collection Bernd Janowski und Kathrin Liss (eds.), Der Mensch im alten Israel: Neue Forschungen zur alttestamentlichen Anthropologie (HBS 59; Freiburg i.Br. etc.: Herder Verlag, 2009).

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 15

IN

CHRONICLES

- Such anthropological use can also be found in references when it is said that a figure intends to do something in his heart; the heart works as a center for plans someone makes. o If these plans concur with Yahweh’s intentions, ideas or will, Chronicles depicts the figure in a positive way: David (1Chr 17:2; 22:7; 28:2; 2Chr 6:7.8), Solomon (2Chr 7:11), Jehoshaphat (2Chr 17:6), Joash (2Chr 24:4), Hezekiah (2Chr 29:10); see also the queen of Sheba (2Chr 9:1). o Yahweh appears as the one who searches hearts (1Chr 28:9; 29:17) and knows hearts (2Chr 6:30), meaning that he knows the secret motivation of people acting in one way or another. Yahweh, thus, has inside knowledge about an individual, perhaps even more than the character knows himself (see the revealing of motivation 2Chr 32:31). o Furthermore, Yahweh is depicted as a god who makes plans in his heart: supporting David (1Chr 17:19). - In Chronicles, the heart is the place where the motivation for the veneration of Yahweh is located. Seeking God therefore happens in the heart of someone. o If a figure seeks Yahweh he is characterized as a positive character whose devices will turn out right: Solomon (1Chr 22:19; 28:9), Jehoshaphat (2Chr 19:3; 22:9), Hezekiah (2Chr 31:21); see also believers in Yahweh in general (1Chr 16:10; 2Chr 11:16; 15:12.15; 16:9; 19:9; 30:19). o A similar notion is seen in the statement to walk before Yahweh with all one’s heart: people (2Chr 6:14), Josiah (2Chr 34:31), typically Levites, priests and heads of the families (2Chr 19:9).

16

ANTJE LABAHN o Repentance is also located in the heart, initiating a turn towards Yahweh: Josiah (2Chr 34:27), someone repenting (2Chr 6:37.38). o If a figure fails to seek Yahweh he is characterized as a negative character. The wrath of Yahweh will consequently follow: the people of Israel (2Chr 20:33), Rehoboam (2Chr 24:14); see also the ambivalent motivation of Amaziah (2Chr 25:2).

God appears as the secret moving spirit, directing the course of history through people he either encourages or discourages. Positive characters act in favor of turning the course of history in the right direction, whereas negative characters are not helpful in turning history into success. Some characters are characterized ambivalently because they change their heart, i.e. their mood and attitude, either from bad to good or from good to bad. Although such a use of the metaphor heart maintains the dominant Semitic anthropological idea of the metaphor, it also provides a particular characterization of figures that goes alongside the main ideas in the presentation of history. The positive or negative characterization of figures establishes an interpretation of history as a period of success or failure. In such a characterization of leading individuals, Chronicles presents its own evaluation of history. Chronicles integrates the characters in its overall construction of the worldview and the presentation of past events and people. In these references, the heart on one hand is used in a self-reflective way for figures motivating themselves. On the other hand, the heart is used as a metaphor to link figures to Yahweh, who has insight into their deepest emotions and purposes. Alongside these thoughts, the veneration of Yahweh is also located in the heart. Seeking Yahweh is a stereotypical characterization of people’s attitude towards

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 17

IN

CHRONICLES

Yahweh in Chronicles22 and, unsurprisingly, such an attitude is fixed in the heart as such a place where a character interacts with God. 2.2 The Metaphor Heart as a Link to Chronicle’s Construction of History Next to these above mentioned notions of heart, which share the term’s usual anthropological image, there are some occurrences where the term is used in Chronicles in a different way. There are some references where the expression does not intend to point at the heart as a central engine of human thoughts and emotions. In these instances, which will be analyzed subsequently, the metaphor heart links two figures to one another. Interestingly, translations of Chronicles do not usually reveal these occurrences of heart since they paraphrase the meaning to an adverbial expression which lacks the term heart. Even this rather broad observation points to the fact that something special can be found behind this metaphor. When the heart links two characters with one another, it seems that the intention of such a use of a metaphor is to intensify the way two individuals are linked. If a character has access to the heart of another figure it means that there is a deep and intense connection to the most inward intentions. Thus, such a use of the metaphor heart provides an intensification of interaction. Since an anthropological motivation expressed by the metaphor heart in Chronicles favors the main ideas of the construction of history, it seems adequate to take the use of the metaphor heart as a link to the overall conception, thereby condensing the conception into a single metaphor. The number of such instances is not large. If they occur, the metaphor heart links two characters with one another, See, e.g., Paul K. Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, Kentucky, etc.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 174.207f etc. 22

18

ANTJE LABAHN

and both are treated in a positive way and share a positive evaluation according to the overall interpretation of the construction of history. Such positive characters belong to these groups who help history develop into a brighter present. They do what Yahweh intends to put forward in the course of history. The conceptual metaphor heart seems to be the link to the overall conception of Chronicles. The construction of history builds on these positive characters who interact in order to encourage one another and to advance history. According to the way Chronicles interprets these characters they help Yahweh to realize his intentions, which, of course, are the intentions of the interpretation of history given by the world view of the construction. Such a conceptual metaphor heart can be found in the accounts about the reign of David and of Hezekiah. Although the metaphor is used differently, all instances where it occurs favor the main ideas of the construction of history. I will present the references according to their significance for the overall conception. 2.2.1. Hezekiah In 2Chr 30:22 the metaphor heart is used in a special way. V.22 reads: “Hezekiah spoke to the heart of all Levites, who were experienced because they had good knowledge concerning their duties for Yahweh.” There can be no doubt that the term heart works here as a metaphor.23 The question remains, however, what exactly the meaning of the metaphor is here. Without the metaphor, the sentence would quite See the translations in commentaries which even lack the term heart instead using an adverbial expression for an intensifying attitude: “Hezekiah spoke encouragingly to all the Levites who showed good skill in the service of the Lord” (Paul K. Hooker, First and Second Chronicles, 252; Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville, Kentucky, 1993], 934; NRS reads the same); “Hezekiah spoke encouragingly to all the Levites who had shown true understanding in the service of the Lord” (R.J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles [NCBC, Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1976], 273). 23

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 19

IN

CHRONICLES

clearly mention Hezekiah as the subject of speaking and the Levites as the grammatical object, listening to the king’s speech. Therefore, there is no need to include the heart in that process of speaking and hearing. Even more, the metaphor is disturbing since the heart is not the organ of hearing, rather a muscle through which blood runs. If a human organ of hearing was meant one would better expect the ear. If the ear was used to indicate the organ of close listening such a term might express an intense perception of Hezekiah’s words. If the heart is introduced instead this indicates another meaning behind the metaphor. Obviously, the process does not point to a biological order, rather to a true sensitivity. Such a sensitivity, in 2Chr 30:22 a sensitivity of the Levites, intends to touch the exact meaning of the words as well as their extraordinarily accurate fulfillment. The metaphor puts Hezekiah in close relation to the Levites. The king does not merely give an order to the group as he would to any other subordinate. Rather, he motivates the Levites in a particular mood. The metaphor, thus, provides the impression of a specific trustworthiness dominating the relationship between the monarch and the Levites. Regarding the characterization of figures, the proximity of the two characters, Hezekiah and the Levites, recall the overall evaluation which the conception of history also reads elsewhere in Chronicles. According to the document, Hezekiah belongs to the group of positively evaluated monarchs. The account of Chronicles presents some features that characterize royal figures in a particular way. The most obvious reason for the positive appraisal of Hezekiah is the reevaluation of his festival activities. Chronicles gives a positive estimation of the acceleration of the Passover feast and the previous reorganization of the temple cult, which according to the Deuteronomistic History was done not before the time of Josiah, but according to Chronicles already

20

ANTJE LABAHN

realized in the days of Hezekiah.24 He is also named as the monarch who realized building projects.25 Chronicles uses such ideas of realized building projects to establish a positive character26 whose deeds elicit favor for the people. Buildings which have been erected in a certain period visualize Yahweh’s grace over his people during that time. The conception of history interprets such structures as realizations of Yahweh’s intentions for the course of history. The conceptual perception of Hezekiah puts him alongside this interpretation adopting him as a positive character who favors the main targets of the construction.27 The second positive character of 2Chr 30:22 is the group of the Levites. Acting as a multi-functional group, the Levites play a major role in Chronicles: they are active at all relevant turns in history, they act according to Yahweh’s will and they bring joy and Yahweh’s blessing to the people. The Levites working in different duties amalgamate horizons between cultural office and administrative office and take part in any relevant social movement. Furthermore, the Levites appear as true interpreters of scripture and writers of important Cf. Isaak Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarhistoriographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuelund Königsbüchern (BZAW 226; Berlin — New York: de Gruyter, 1995), 23. 25 Cf., e.g., Andrew G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4; Atlanta GA: Scholars Press, 1999), who puts great emphasis on these reports. 26 For Hezekiah cf. 2Chr 32:5. 27 Hezekiah is even favored as much as David and Solomon; cf., e.g., Kim Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie (BZAW 201; Berlin — New York: de Gruyter, 1991), see also the evaluation by Steven L. McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles (Abington Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2004), 351, who regards Hezekiah as “a model in his own right, a paradigm for the restoration of religious institutions and life”, and Japhet, Chronicles, 985: “In Chronicles, Hezekiah is a man of faith and resolution, and he is fully capable of leading and inspiring his people.” 24

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 21

IN

CHRONICLES

documents. In short, they obtain indirect power in society and establish themselves as the most influential group in society.28 It therefore comes as no surprise that the conception of Chronicles puts such an influential group in an intimate proximity of Hezekiah. The metaphor heart links both subjects, Hezekiah and the Levites. It builds up a close relationship between them. The metaphor, in itself open to various identifications, leaves a gap to understand it either in terms of reliability or in terms of intimate or confidential relationship. Either way, it expresses a quite particular relationship between both groups. Even more, Hezekiah is characterized as a monarch who speaks to all Levites, not merely to those who are active in the scene, i.e. such Levites who act alongside the priests in cultic affairs (30:15–17.21.25.27). Furthermore, the Levites are characterized as a special group with extraordinary acquaintance in all affairs.29 The metaphor shadows the meaning of the conception in it, condensed as if read through a lens. The construction links both characters via the metaphor heart and gives them On the thesis on the portrait of the Levites as a multi-functional group acting in profane as well as in cultic duties, cf. my elaboration elsewhere: Antje Labahn, Antitheocratic Tendencies in Chronicles, in: Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking (eds.), Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era (Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum Publishers, 2003), 115–135; and in more detail A. Labahn, Levitischer Herrschaftsanspruch zwischen Ausübung und Konstruktion. 29 The ethymological figure reading “skillful competence” and “knowledge” ought to be understood in a broad sense recalling all duties in which Chronicles lets the Levites partake. Other than the context in v.21 which refers to singing and playing instruments, the context in v.15– 17 which is about offering, and the context in v.27 which talks about blessing, v.22 does not speak about any particular office, but rather presents the Levites as a skillful and quite competent group in general, at least referring to the duties mentioned in chapter 30. In any case, to refer to a particular aspect in v.22 would narrow the impact of the reading here too much. 28

22

ANTJE LABAHN

additional impetus. Not only does the conception of Chronicles attribute to both groups a share in Yahweh’s intentions for history and a desire help them come to pass. Even more, such a combination in the metaphor makes each character stronger. The design of the construction of history amplifies Yahweh’s will and makes the story reported in 2Chr 30 even brighter. The joy of the giant feast exceeds (cf. the expression of joy in 30:22b–23.26) since all characters support the celebration and interact therein. The characters realize Yahweh’s intentions and let the voice of joy even reach heaven (v.27). Interaction is complete and enhances the main ideas of the conception of history.30 The same heart metaphor occurs again in 2Chr 32:6 where it links Hezekiah and combat commanders. In any case, the verbal construction here is less straightforward because the sentence containing the metaphor mentions the object only by a suffix whereas Hezekiah’s appointment of the military leaders has been done before. The addressed group does not stand out to the same extent as the Levites did in chapter 30. In any case, the process is still similar due to the fact that Hezekiah gives a speech addressing the hearts of the group. Chronicles establishes Hezekiah as a prospective monarch who takes action to prevent the capital from being taken. He assigns military leaders who act in favor of the people protecting them. The link between the monarch and the chiefs is once again the heart. The heart is the address which takes up the words of comfort and encouragement spreading from Hezekiah. As far as the heart takes motivation and as far as (the other way round) the heart motivates its owner to act, the metaphor works as a condensing lens here as in 30:22. The military group fulfills the monarch’s plans. Both groups together, the monarch and the military leaders, prevent Jerusalem from being conquered. R.J. Coggins, Chronicles, 274, regards this verse as “a summary of an important aspect of the Chronicler’s theology”. 30

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 23

IN

CHRONICLES

The presentation of the characters supports a central idea of the conception of history as far as Chronicles takes peace as a sign for a period of blessing.31 All characters that help realize peace are judged positively since they act to protect Israel as Yahweh’s people. As long as God is on their side and as long as they perform the will of Yahweh, he will help them withstand the dangers lurking in the events of history. The construction of history models the outcome in the metaphor since it plays a reasonable role in the way that history runs when Yahweh finally acts on Hezekiah’s prayer and sends an angel to effect a happy summation for history (32:20f). The great chant forms the final praise of Hezekiah in 32:22f.32 A royal ruler who is able to manage history in such a brilliant way, of course, is able to integrate all sectors of society to work with him once he interacts with their center of motivation. Achieving peace and a pleasant outcome for history means to realize Yahweh’s rescuing. 2.2.2. David In the account of David, the heart occurs again as a metaphor. There are two verses in an adjacent context in 1Chr 12 where the metaphor plays an important role and works to promote the main characters, 12:34 and 12:39. Here, the metaphor links David and the soldiers who assist him. In the list of soldiers of each Israelite tribe there are people who support33 David in gaining the kingdom. When they do so, Peace belongs to one of the most relevant attitudes insinuated by the conception of history in Chronicles, cf., e.g., 1Chr 22:9; 2Chr 20:30; see also the illuminating monograph of Ingeborg Gabriel, Friede über Israel: Eine Untersuchung zur Friedenstheologie in Chronik I 10 – II 36 (ÖBS 10; Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990). 32 See R.J. Coggins, Chronicles, 283, who stresses that “the deliverance had been due to the Lord’s own intervention, but that it had been occasioned by Hezekiah’s loyalty, and that Hezekiah was duly rewarded by the honour in which all now held him.” 33 Cf. the evaluation of Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary (Hermeneia — A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; 31

24

ANTJE LABAHN

they fulfill the will of Yahweh (cf. 12:24), who wants to establish David as king instead of Saul. The episode, according to its presentation in Chronicles, writes history in the sense of the conception of history.34 To interpret military actions as Yahweh’s will means to legitimate these actions and to explore them as necessary events due to the progress of history. The account 1Chr 12 collects people with power and influence from all the tribes of Israel to support David. Those figures are regarded as acting characters whose hearts give them motivation to help David in becoming king. The conceptual metaphor heart condenses the idea of the conception of history in that particular aspect. Figures who promote the upcoming monarch are characterized as having intense feelings whose support comes from their inner conviction. Only if someone is motivated from his or her inner impetus can he or she fully assist the main character. Among the military leaders and soldiers of the tribes of Israel, the group of Zebulon is the largest, given the number of 50,000. This immense group is characterized as important not only due to its number but also due to its intention to give support to David, hence, doing it “with an undivided heart” (12:34).35 The example of Zebulon demonstrates that even people coming from the far north support the Minneapolis Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2006), 325: “’Helping’ David is one of the themes of this chapter”. Coggins, Chronicles, 73, takes “bold and single-minded”. 34 See the outline of Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB 12A; New York City, New York, etc.: Doubleday, 2004), 566: “The statement echoes a recurrent theme in 1 Chr 11–12 — the active allegiance shown by Israelite military officials to David accords with divine will and results in a smooth transfer of power (10:14; 11:3, 10;12:24, 32, 39 [bis]).” 35 The Hebrew Bible has a strange reading which is hard to translate: the most adequate would be a phrase like “without a heart and a heart”. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 557, pointing at the textual difficulties (p. 561), translates “with single-mindedness”; Japhet, Chronicles, 254, and Klein, 1 Chronicles, 325, propose instead “with singleness of purpose”.

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 25

IN

CHRONICLES

establishment of a new king. Since the group does not play any important role in Chronicles elsewhere, it takes office here in putting great emphasis on promoting this construction of history. If such a numerous group of powerful and influential people come from afar specifically to support David becoming king he must be the right leader to fulfill Yahweh’s plan. The interpretation of history uses the supportive groups to prove that Yahweh’s choice is the right one.36 The more important these groups are and the more distant their way is then it follows that they increasingly underscore the importance of the new monarch. It is not only the men of Zebulon who support David but all other soldiers who come to David do so and give him complete support. The final verse 12:39 uses the metaphor heart twice to characterize their motivation. The men of war are characterized as soldiers “with whole (or perfect) heart” (‫לבב שׁלם‬, v.39a).37 The metaphor ascribes the people the same intention, here to support David in becoming king ruling all of them. The conception presents the people as a group of supporters with a particular relationship toward David. In sharing that attitude they not only follow the reigning intention but also help realize Yahweh’s will. Even more, the term “whole heart” takes up the central motif which appears with general intention in 2Chr 19:9, next to keeping the fear of Yahweh and staying trustworthy to him. The heart turns to work as the core of human motivation where religious eagerness and social purposes meet. This is relevant for each individual supportive military man and, The negative stance of accounts about remaining conflicts between David and his predecessor Saul and between David and the northern tribes, both reported in the Deuteronomistic history, are lacking in Chronicles; see Hooker, Chronicles, 130, who estimates, that “the three main ideological themes of 1Chronicles — David, the temple, and all Israel — come together in a unique and forceful way in chapters 11–12”. 37 There are different translations of the metaphor in research, cf. Hooker, Chronicles, 61, and Klein, 1 Chronicles, 325: “with full intent”; see also Coggins, Chronicles, 74: “loyally determined”. 36

26

ANTJE LABAHN

additionally, for the entire group of soldiers and military leaders active in 1Chr 12. Additionally, “all Israel”38 promote David’s kingship sharing the same attitude in its heart (12:39b). The term “all Israel” is a stereotype characterization in Chronicles portraying the people of Israel acting with one single intention (‫לב אחד‬, v.39b).39 In chapter 12, the term “all Israel” points back to 11:1; both occurrences build an inclusion.40 More than that, the construction of history lets “all Israel” act as a unity when realizing Yahweh’s will for the people and, hence, for the course of history. 41 The unity of the people is an ideological claim demonstrating the main idea of the construction of history. It is all of them who make

In Chronicles, the term “all Israel” denotes the true Israel in past, present time and future; cf. Manfred Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die “genealogische Vorhalle” 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128; Stuttgart etc.: Kohlhammer, 1990), 155; Jonathan E. Dyck, The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler (Biblical Interpretation Series 33; Leiden etc.: Brill, 1998), 118– 120.215; Thomas Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 191f; Willi, Late Persian Judaism and Its Conception of an Integral Israel according to Chronicles: Some Observations on Form and Function of the Genealogy of Judah in 1 Chronicles 2.3–4.23, in: Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies. 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period (JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 146–162, who takes “all Israel” as a “concept of an integral Israel” (p. 148). See also the depiction of Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles (Cambridge · London etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 96.107–110.140, that the term is the “representative centre to which all the children of Israel may be welcomed if they will return” (p. 140). 39 See divergent translations, e.g. Coggins, Chronicles, 74: “one thought”; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 325: “were of one mind”. 40 Cf. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 572. 41 Cf. Japhet, Chronicles, 267: “The Chronicler wished to display here the unified might of Israel at its zenith”. 38

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 27

IN

CHRONICLES

Yahweh’s will happen,42 led by the upcoming king whom the one people address with full support. The more influential the supportive group is in the initial phase of David becoming powerful, the more compelling David is characterized. The strong appearance of David establishes him as a mighty figure. The recipients of the conception of history must hear that no one will be successful if not allied with David. Chronicles, thus, presents the first and true monarch of both Israel and Judah as a character whom no one can resist. Even in an initial phase of David’s reigning he has already become strong and powerful. The subsequent events build upon that characteristic of David and extend his powerful rulership. The main events for which David has become famous according to the conception of history in Chronicles will follow, i.e., uniting the kingdom, transferring the ark to Jerusalem, organizing the cult and creating the blueprint of the Jerusalem temple. Chronicles presents David as the most influential monarch in history, whose organizational means were so effective that they lasted for many hundreds of years, some of which even survived the destructive period and were dominant in the new era in the Persian period, particularly David’s intentions for the organization of the cult. The conception’s current time with its actual requirements for social institutions models the presentation of past. David plays a major role in the outline of history and, even more, in the shaping of powerful influence. The construction of history enshrines its own issues in the reign of David, who is regarded and presented as the most powerful of monarchs, and one who effected major achievements in history due to Yahweh’s blessings. The conceptual metaphor heart has a particular function in the construction of history in laying weight on the main characters and highlighting David’s power, which is not only his own power, but rather shadows Yahweh’s will for his Cf. the characterization by Hooker, Chronicles, 61, who interprets the presentation of “the unanimous choice of the people” as “confluence of divine and human will”. See also Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 574–578. 42

28

ANTJE LABAHN

people and for its history. Yahweh established David, and Yahweh equipped him with all competence he needed to fulfill that task. If David was successful it is not him to praise, but instead Yahweh who acted through David and made things happen the way he intended to. The metaphor heart therefore expresses that all individuals who advance the plan work together with David and with God. It is their heart which drives them. In their heart the motivation to support David and, ultimately Yahweh, is linked with their own ideas. The metaphor, thus, shows the melting locus where the main ideas of the conception of history meet with the individual’s own image. The conceptual metaphor heart is a twofold place of interaction, on one side interaction of the active characters and Yahweh, and on the other side a place of interaction where the overall construction of history interprets the dynamics of how the world is run. People who share these assumptions with their heart give full support to the world view of the conception with their actions and the way they act. Such figures deserve to be interpreted as positive characters who maintain the values of the construction of history. These characters maintain Yahweh’s guidance and they help to bring peace on earth (1Chr 12:18f). Such a peaceful attitude is one of the major aspects on which the construction of history focuses. As soon as such a strategy works and peace appears, the conception presents the characters in a positive way, even though this means to delete conflicts which had been known from other sources (such as the Deuteronomistic history). This maintains peace as one of the main targets presented in the construction of history. The heroes in Chronicles work on that target successfully, and in 1Chr 12 it is David, the military men and “all Israel” who are thus realizing Yahweh’s plans which they share with their heart.

3. CONCLUSION The metaphor heart is used in 1Chr 12:34.39 and 2Chr 30:22 in an unusual way and works to link characters with each other and also with Yahweh, whose will they fulfill in mutual cooperation. By presenting the figures in such a way,

HEART

AS A

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR 29

IN

CHRONICLES

Chronicles as a construction of history establishes positive characters that make history proceed according to Yahweh’s guidance. In the use of the metaphor some of the main ideas of the conception meet. Hence, the metaphor heart works in these references as a conceptual metaphor realizing a certain target alongside the leading ideas of Chronicles’ world view in its interpretation of history. The metaphor puts a special emphasis on the characters and underscores their role as it is presented in a particular account and is yet meant in favor for the overall interpretation of history. The above examples show how a conceptual metaphor works. The theory of metaphors as reflections of conceptions of world view enriches the understanding of metaphors and sheds light on the specific individual interpretation of history given by the conception. The entire reception of reality is thus present in the metaphor once it is read in its conceptual use. The metaphor widens its understanding as soon as it is read in the context of the construction of reality shaped in its literary surrounding and its main interpretative insights.43

43 I am grateful to Elizabeth Hayes, who read a draft of this article and helped to alleviate some of its hardships.

WHAT DID JOTHAM TALK ABOUT? Metaphorical Rhetoric in Judg 9:7–20 Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher

Set within the book of Judges, Jotham’s speech is part of the “prophetic tradition”.1 Like God’s messenger in Judg 2:1–3 and the prophet in Judg 6:7–10, Jotham critically reflects the people’s decisions, their actions and predicts the consequence. Yet even more than the other prophetic announcements in the book of Judges Jotham makes use of a metaphorical rhetoric typical for many texts in the books of prophets. In quick succession, he introduces various metaphorical images as he addresses his audience with a story about trees looking for a king. The main focus of Jotham’s story is one of the most prominent motives in the book of Judges, the motive of leadership. The demand for a king first arises at the end of the Gideon story when the “men of Israel” ask the successful Gideon to rule over them and to start a dynasty, however, Gideon emphatically turns down this offer (Judg 8:22–23). Abimelech, one of Gideon’s sons, on the other hand, wants Cf. Karin Schöpflin, “Jotham’s Speech and Fable as Prophetic Comment on Abimelech’s Story. The Genesis of Judges 9,” SJOT 18,1 (2004): 3–22, here 11–13; Trent Butler, Judges (WBC 8; Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 2009), 239. 1

31

32

SUSANNE GILLMAYR-BUCHER

to reign and persuades the inhabitants of Shechem to appoint him as their king. His rise to power is accompanied by a bloodbath, eliminating his 70 rival brothers. As a reflection on Abimelech’s coming into power, Jotham, the only son of Gideon surviving the slaughter, gives a speech before he flees from Abimelech. Jotham vigorously opens his speech with a demand to listen, he even claims the role of a mediator between the people of Shechem and God. Addressing the inhabitants of Shechem, he starts with a metaphorical tale (Judg 9:8–15) that he subsequently turns into an accusation and even a predictive curse (Judg 9:16–20) in order to stir his audience’s sense of righteousness and responsibility. It is fairly obvious and undenied that Jotham’s speech offers a critical view on the events told in Judg 9. Nevertheless, there is no agreement on the focus of this critique: is the idea of kingdom itself challenged,2 are those not willing to take over the burden of leadership criticised,3 or This is the most popular interpretation. Martin Buber, Königtum Gottes (3rd. ed.; Schneider: Heidelberg, 1956, 24, called this narrative “the strongest anti-monarchical narrative within world literature”. Although the story assumes the reality of a kingdom, it criticizes this concept as useless, even harmful. Cf. Wolfgang Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (2nd. ed.; BBB 18; Athenäum-Verlag: Bonn 1966), 286; Frank Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum: Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat (WMANT 49; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 1978), 27–30; Rüdiger Bartelmus, “Die sogenannte Jothamfabel — eine politisch-religiöse Parabeldichtung. Anmerkungen zu einem Teilaspekt der vordeuteronomistischen israelitischen Literaturgeschichte,” TZ 41 (1985): 97–120, esp. 100; Uwe Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch (BZAW 192; Berlin etc.: de Gruyter, 1990), 192–193.195; Jan A. Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1987), 177; Susan Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 116. 3 Cf. Eugene H. Maly, “The Jotham Fable - Anti-Monarchical?,” CBQ 22 (1960): 299–305, esp. 303; Barnabas Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable – A New 2

WHAT DID JOTHAM TALK ABOUT?

33

does the critique focus on the people who irresponsibly appoint an unsuitable candidate as king?4 Looking at the different interpretations, it becomes clear that all the protagonists of the story can be critically evaluated with good reason and in turn everyone is blamed.

1. LOOKING FOR A KING At the beginning of the story, a group of trees head out urgently looking for a king.5 When the trees are introduced as the only protagonists the readers have to enter a fictive world where trees speak and act like humans.6 In this way, a Form-Critical Analysis”, JTS 24 (1973): 355–366, esp. 365–366; Jan de Waard, “Jotham‘s Fable: An Exercise in Clearing Away the Unclear,” in: Kurt Aland (ed.), Wissenschaft und Kirche (Texte und Arbeiten zur Bibel 4; Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 1989), 362–370, esp. 368. 4 Cf. Robert O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges (VTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 164–166; Hanna Liss, “Die Fabel des Yotam in Ri 9,8–15 — Versuch einer strukturellen Deutung,” BN 89 (1997): 12–18, esp. 18; Volkmar Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem in Jdc. IX,” VT 32 (1982): 129–144, esp. 140. See also the overview on the various interpretations in Walter Groß, Richter (HTKAT; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2009), 508. 5 In the world of the trees, it appears to be appropriate to anoint a king without a deity being involved. This is a major difference to the world of the audience. The decision to anoint somebody as king is usually made by YHWH, while the people (especially prophets) carry out his choice. The occasion that the people go out to find a king themselves is a rare event (cf. 2 Sam 5) that usually is criticised (cf. 1 Kings 12:20; 16:21, 2 Kings 10:1–11). 6 Even though the story starts out like a fable, it does not fulfil this expectation. The plot of the story does not support the assumption that this story is based on a fable telling about a competition in order to find the “king of trees”. Neither is there any competition the trees engage in, nor are there criteria to compare the trees. Furthermore, what is evaluated in this story is only the value these trees might have for humans, thus the purpose of the main protagonists refers to their appreciation outside the tree-world of the story. Yet another central aspect of a fable is missing, as

34

SUSANNE GILLMAYR-BUCHER

distance between the world of the audience and the story is established. In the following verses, the story depicts the four attempts to find a king as dialogues between the trees, while the narrating voice fades to the background. When the trees start to act, the dialogues between them unfold as a series of well-known metaphors and metonymies. The sequence of questions and answers puts different metaphorical images and metaphorical concepts side by side, without explicitly interlinking them with one another. Hence the dispute between the trees unfolds as a struggle of whether these images can be combined. 1.1 The Fruit-Trees The three candidates the trees approach first share one feature: they are the most important fruit-trees, the olive tree, the fig tree and the vine.7 Furthermore, all three of them are proud of their fertility: the oil, the sweet fruit and the wine, which they emphasise in their responses. The olive tree and the vine additionally mention the respect their fruit earn from God(s) (‫ )אלהים‬and human beings (‫ )אנׁשים‬alike.

a fable is a coherent story aiming at a maxim. Thus a fable does not necessarily need a further context, it already is a complete story. (cf. Bartelmus, “Jothamfabel,” 116) In a similar way, Coenen points out that the insight a fable offers is not based on individual evidence but on pointing out criteria allowing formation of a decision. These criteria are based on features that are indisputable but have so far not been used to solve the problem; see Hans Georg Coenen, Die Gattung Fabel. Infrastrukturen einer Kommunikationsform (UTB Literaturwissenschaft 2159; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, 2000), 67. Jotham’s story, however, is closely interwoven with its context. 7 These three fruit-trees play an absolutely fundamental part in the agriculture of the Palestinian region as they are the most important cultivated plants. Cf. Kirsten Nielsen, There is Hope for a Tree. The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup 65; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 79; Groß, Richter, 505.

WHAT DID JOTHAM TALK ABOUT?

35

Two images are closely connected to the fertile fruittrees, the metonymy “fertile tree — fertility of the land” and the metaphor “a successful life is a fertile fruit-tree”. The fertility of the land is frequently expressed with the image of its trees.8 Even more so, “if the trees bear fruit, the country is under YHWH’s blessing.”9 On the other hand, this image can also be used with a negative connotation: should the harvest fail, it represents YHWH’s curse (e.g. Jer 8:13; Am 4:9; Hab 3:17; Hag 2:19) or punishment (e.g. Ps 78:47; 105:33). Thus fertile fruit-trees form a pars pro toto for the fertile land. The trees mentioned can also be used as a metaphor for the Israelites, as individuals, as well as a people. Those whose life is a success are shown as an olive tree or a vine God allows to prosper (e.g. Ps 52:8; 128:3). In a similar way Israel is depicted as a vine (e.g. Ps 80:9.15; Jer 2:21; Ez 17; 19; Hos 10) or vineyard (e.g. Isa 5; 27:1–5) or as a vine and fig-tree (e.g. Joel 1:7). 1.2 The King as a Fertile Fruit-Tree Regarding the king, metaphorical comparisons to fertility are also well known: the king is like rain guaranteeing fertility for the land (cf. Ps 72:6–7; Prov 16:15). Thus in the request of the trees, the associative link between the fruit-trees and a king is their fertility. When the trees begin their search for a king with these proud and fertile fruit-trees, they choose those who already proved successful.10 Implicitly, this points to the idea that the trees expect the fruit-trees to continue — maybe even expand — their fertility and thus their success as a king. The underlying metaphor “the king is a fertile fruittree” structures their concept of a king. E.g. Dtn 8:7–8; in 2 Kings 18:31–32 Rabshakeh promises a land of fertile trees; Gen 2 or Ez 47 provoke images of the hoped for future as a tree garden. 9 Nielsen, Hope for a Tree, 79. 10 Cf. Judg 8:22 — the people want Gideon to become their king because he has already proven to be successful. 8

36

SUSANNE GILLMAYR-BUCHER

1.3 The king as a swaying tree Three times the fruit-trees give a similar response: “Did I refrain from (‫ )החדלתי‬my fruit [...] and will I go and sway (‫)נוע‬ above the trees?” They consider their fertility not being compatible with the task of being king. Instead of continuing the metaphorical concept of fertility, the fruit-trees introduce the image of a swaying tree. Hence they offer another metaphor: “The king is a swaying tree”. The verb ‫ נוע‬refers to an uncontrolled or aimless movement11 that is in no way acceptable or even desirable for a king.12 On the contrary, the concept of a leader requires someone who is able to provide orientation and guidance.13 Furthermore, this negative image of a swaying tree alludes to its positive counterpart, the image of a cosmic tree that provides stability and security for all but simultaneously rejects it. Even a huge tree will sway helplessly. 1.4 The Thorn Tree After three similar futile efforts to solve the request for a king, the trees change their approach and turn to a thorn

It is used to express: trembling or shaking with fear; straying or roaming without a destination (Jer 14:10; Ps 59:16; Gen 4:14); like a drunk or blind person (Isa 24:20; [29:9]; Ps 107:27); swaying like trees in the wind (Isa 7:2). Thus it is not a planned, controlled action but a reaction to some (uncontrollable) force. 12 Peter Riede tries to read the verb ‫ נוע‬with a positive connotation and argues that the image of the swaying tree alludes to the cedar standing on the mountains, swaying majestically above the other trees. In the hierarchy of trees, the cedar is predestined for kingdom and thus the fruittrees accept this claim (Peter Riede, “Von der Zeder bis zum Ysop. Zur Bedeutung der Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel — Eine Einführung”, in Ute Neumann-Gorsolke and Peter Riede [eds.], Das Kleid der Erde. Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel [Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 2002], 1–22, esp.13). 13 E.g. 2 Sam 19:1–8. C.f. also the image of the king “going out (‫)יצא‬ and coming in (‫( ”)בוא‬e.g. 1 Sam 18:13.16; 2 Sam 5:2; 1 Kings 3:7). 11

WHAT DID JOTHAM TALK ABOUT?

37

tree.14 Brambles, thorns and thistles are used as a metonymy for a deserted land, opposite to the image of the fertile and cultivated land evoked by the fruit-trees. A land where only thorns grow is uninhabitable, infertile and even hostile (cf. Isa 5:6; 7:23–24, Hos 9:6; 10:8). Nevertheless, the choice of the trees is not without ambiguities. The ‫אטד‬, the trees offer the role of a king,15 is not necessarily a small thorn bush. It may be identified with either Lycium europaeum L. (the “boxthorn”), an impenetrable thorn bush that can offer no shade, or Zizyphus spina Christi, an evergreen tree of considerable height that may offer shade and protection.16 If the ‫ אטד‬is identified with a bramble, the story becomes a highly ironical, even sarcastic, tone.17 The Christ Thorn, on the other hand, is a respectable tree providing shelter and shadow.18 The metaphoric concept of this choice only becomes apparent in the answer of the thorn-tree. Offering protection and security, the thorn tree alludes to the metaphor of a cosmic tree.

The changing of the approach can also be noticed in small variations in the introduction to the speech as well as the trees’ direct speech itself (v. 14). Cf. Groß, Richter, 506. 15 The ‫ אטד‬is only mentioned here and in Ps 58:9. 16 Tatu shows rather convincingly that the ‫ אטד‬can be identified with the Zizyphus spina Christi. Silviu Tatu, “Jotham’s Fable and the Crux Interpretum in Judges IX”, VT 56 (2006): 105–124. 17 If the ‫ אטד‬is identified with the thorn bush then “the intention of Schechem’s citizens to elect a king immediately and despite all reasons, contradicting even common sense, pushed them to the unexpected position of enthroning the most unwelcome and unworthy candidate”. Tatu, Jotham’s Fable, 111. 18 Tatu, Jotham’s Fable, 117f. Tatu further points out that even its fruits are an alternative food resource, especially in times of need. Tatu, Jotham’s Fable, 121. 14

38

SUSANNE GILLMAYR-BUCHER

1.5 The King as a Cosmic-Tree The image of the protective shadow, the thorn tree introduces in v. 15, is frequently used to describe deities or kings.19 An allusion to the ideology of monarchy is thus quite obvious. In association with trees the image of the shadow forms a necessary part of the image of the “cosmic-tree” (Ez 17:23; 31:6; Dan 4:7–9).20 This cosmic-tree stands out due to its height and its beauty as well as its function to provide a basis of life for all animals: It really is unique in every aspect. The image of a cosmic-tree is well known as a metaphor for a great king.21 When the image of a king is mapped to this metaphorical concept the aspect of protection, stability and security is emphasised while the aspect of fertility fades into the background. Nevertheless, the tree is usually associated with the image of a cosmic-tree is a cedar (‫)ארז‬. In contrast to the thorn-tree the cedar enjoys a good reputation.22 Hence the claim of the thorn-tree to act as a cosmic tree is ambiguous. On the one hand it is not impossible that the thorn tree lives

Cf. Crüsemann, Widerstand, 21. In these texts the cosmic-tree also is an image of arrogance that in the end leads to its fall and destruction. 21 E.g. Dan 4:7–13.31 (cf. Martin Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum”, in: Dwight R. Daniels [ed.], Ernten, was man sät (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991) 198–229, esp. 217. In Ez 17:22–23 and Ps 80:9–12 the extraordinary size of the tree is due to YHWH’s intervention. Nevertheless, the metaphor of a cosmic tree is not restricted to a king, even Israel is depicted as a such a tree (cf. Ps 80:9–11); Hos 14:6–8 shows Israel as a plant, beautiful as an olive tree, and those dwelling in its shadow will return and blossom like the vine. Thus, in Hos 14:6–8 images that are quite similar to those in the parable of Jotham are used and combined into an image of hope. However, there is no king, only Israel. 22 Cf. the short parable in 2 Kings 14:9 on the thistle (‫ )חוח‬and the cedar (‫)ארז‬. 19 20

WHAT DID JOTHAM TALK ABOUT?

39

up to its claim,23 on the other hand, the motive of arrogance leading to the fall and destruction of the cosmic tree as in Ez 31:10–11 might already be alluded to in the thorn-tree’s answer. 1.6 The Image of the Destructive Fire The reply of the thorn tree also picks up negative images and refers to the king as a force of destruction. Thorn bushes, as well as thorn-trees, are dangerous when a fire starts as they provide excellent tinder and aggravate the flames.24 Thus a fire might become so forceful to even destroy cedars.25 While the image of the thorn-tree as a cosmic tree is quite unusual, the idea that a thorn-tree plays a dangerous part in a fire is quite realistic. Hence from the imagery used, the second part of the answer seems much more likely to occur. The thorntree will rather destroy the cedar than take on its role as a cosmic-tree.

2. THE RHETORIC OF THE METAPHORS Set within a simple story of trees looking for a king, common knowledge about trees and familiar metaphorical concepts are applied and formed into a dispute. Each metaphor helps to focus on one aspect of this concept while hiding others. Developing the argument of the trees, the different metaphors are put side by side, every one offering another metaphorical concept for a king.26 Thus the dialogue unfolds Although there are common hierarchical patterns putting the olive, the vine, the fig tree and the cedar above a thorn-tree, the hierarchy of the trees can be altered by YHWH. A sign of God’s power and a sign of confidence and hope, the fertility of the trees is turned upside down and contradicts all expectations (cf. Ez 17:24). 24 For hints that thorn trees and bushes make excellent tinder, cf. e.g. Isa 9:17; 33:12; they burn very quickly and vanish (Ps 118:12). 25 Mentioning the cedars helps to depict the huge dimension of the destruction and might also refer to the image of the cosmic tree. 26 Lakoff and Johnson point out that metaphorical concepts “provide us with a partial understanding [...] and that, in doing this, they hide other 23

40

SUSANNE GILLMAYR-BUCHER

as a rivalry of different metaphorical concepts. These concepts show an ambivalent image of a king: he might offer security, stability and fertility as well as disorientation and destruction. That is why hopes as well as fears are equally connected to this image. While the single metaphors emphasise different aspects of a king, the significance of the whole story only develops with the dynamic of the dialogue. As the metaphorical discourse unfolds, it does not necessarily challenge the idea of kingdom per se, nor does it solely focus on the suitability of the candidates, it rather casts a critical eye on the process of appointing a candidate. Already the beginning of the story, the figura etymologica puts a special emphasis on the trees’ action: “Absolutely determined (‫ )הלוך הלכו‬the trees went out to anoint a king over them.” In this way, a special focus lies on the attitude of the trees who go out to select a king. Each time the trees follow the same procedure, three times they even choose quite a similar kind of tree. When the trees approach a possible candidate they do not ask whether this tree is willing to become king, rather they demand it (v. 8.10.12.14). The replies of the fruit-trees, however, are lacking a clear answer. They neither accept nor explicitly reject the offer of becoming king instead they polemically challenge the proposal of the other trees by revealing their request to be futile and counterproductive. The attempt of the trees to combine the metaphorical concept of “a successful individual is a fertile fruit-tree” with the metaphor “a successful king is a fertile fruit-tree” is repudiated by the fruit-trees. They emphatically reject the idea to map their personal success with the image of a successful king. Quite on the contrary, the fruit-trees take the question as an insult and implicitly accuse the questioners of already treating them as infertile trees.27 The fruit-trees, however, do not explain their rejection aspects of these concepts.” George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors we Live by (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2003), 12. 27 Bartelmus emphasises the perfect form (‫ )החדלתי‬at the beginning of the fruit-trees’ answers. The fruit-trees emphatically turn down the offer.

WHAT DID JOTHAM TALK ABOUT?

41

but add another negative image, the aimlessly swaying tree in order to emphasise their point of view. The fruit-trees present their reply as a rhetoric question, thus the answer has to be given by the questioners themselves. Although the answer “no” is not mentioned explicitly that is what the trees seem to assume when they move on to the next candidate. Nevertheless, the trees do not give up easily and try to find someone who will agree to their metaphorical concept. Repeating the first dialogue three times emphasises the futility of the attempt. The dialogue unfolds as a struggle about structuring the concept of a king. Both, the trees who set out, as well as the fruit-trees, claim the right to structure the concept of a king according to their point of view. The metaphors offer them a power of reason, as it allows them to use the concept structure of a “fertile fruit-tree” respectively “a swaying tree” to argue in favour or against the demand of becoming a king.28 In their fourth attempt the trees abandon their metaphorical concept based on fertility and turn to a thorn tree, a totally different kind of tree.29 This happens without any explanation and is a surprising turn. While the most obvious metaphorical images connected to a thorn tree do not predestine it to be a suitable candidate for becoming king, the thorn tree itself offers the metaphorical concept of a cosmic tree. Its answer thus opposes the answers of the fruittrees: they were offered a perfectly suitable metaphorical concept, but they rejected it and countered the concept with an unsuitable image. The thorn tree, however, does not have the advantage of a concept, already fitting but is able to suggest one. Now it is part of the role of the candidate to The question therefore is not who is allowed to become king, but who is run-down enough to be worthy of becoming a king? Bartelmus, “Jothamfabel,” 100. 28 Cf. George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 65. 29 Soggin calls it “the most obvious antithesis”. Soggin, Judges, 175.

42

SUSANNE GILLMAYR-BUCHER

offer a metaphorical concept that can be mapped to the metaphorical image of the selection. Nevertheless, the story breaks off before it becomes apparent, whether these metaphors are successfully mapped.30 Just like the fruit-trees, the thorn-tree does not give an explicit reply but let the questioners give an answer. The dialogue is, nevertheless, structured differently. First, the immediate reaction on the request of the trees is not told. When the thorn-tree begins to speak, the hearers must assume that the trees already are anointing (‫ )מׁשחים‬the thorntree. Second, the thorn-trees’ answer does not reflect unfavourably on the role of a king: it points to the metaphorical image of the king as a cosmic tree in a positive way. However, the thorn tree does not limit its answer to this aspect. Instead it interlinks this image with the attitude of those who anoint the king. This changing of the focus is the most striking aspect of its answer.31 In this way, the thorntree refers to the determined way the trees adopt to approach their goal. It challenges their approach by pointing out that it takes more than just determination and a candidate that meets the demands in an almost stereotyped way. The answer of the thorn tree includes the attitude of those looking for king: “If in good faith...” (‫( )באמת‬v. 15). Although a point of reference is not established, it becomes obvious that the appointing of a

The decision has to be made by the audience of this story. The fact that this answer is different has long been noted. However, it is not only the second part of the thorn-tree’s answer that stands out, as many interpretations point out, the first part already does. “If in good faith you are anointing me king over you ...”. The ending of the metaphorical dialogue is also not too obvious. 15b speaks of the thorntree as 3 m.sg. while the “I” of 15a has vanished. Although it is not obligatory to use only 1 sg. within direct speech, the change could indicate that 15b is already part of the transition from the narrative to its following interpretation (vv. 16–20). 30 31

WHAT DID JOTHAM TALK ABOUT?

43

king has to rise from a certain attitude.32 If those who choose a king have honourable intentions and act in good faith (v. 16),33 even a thorn tree will become a cosmic-tree, offering security and protection. If not, however, the king will be the starting point for the destruction of the people. With this threat, the common image of the thorn-tree as a symbol for the devastated land is again alluded to. Hence, the thorn-tree’s answer combines two metaphorical images by offering them as an alternative to the trees. It depends on them which metaphor will come true. Nevertheless, even though metaphorically an alternative is provided the context of the story already points to one answer. If the thorn tree’s answer is read as a comment on the situation, it rather resembles a prediction of doom than of prosperity.34 Thus it is more likely that the thorn-tree will prove its devastating force than taking on the role of a cosmic-tree.

3. SUMMARY The elements of the dialogue do not build up a successful communication. From the first attempts onwards, the attitude of the trees who try to appoint a king are challenged and the trees never receive the reaction they had hoped for. Three times their concept of a king is ridiculed, while in their last, seemingly senseless (or even self-destructive) approach, the candidate himself has to offer an appropriate concept. It is not mentioned who will evaluate the action of the trees as “good”. The formulation ‫ טובה עׂשיתם‬only occurs here but it refers to its negative counterpart ‫ויעׂשו את־הרע בעיני יהוה‬. With this allusion, the possibility Jotham offers: “if you had done good...” turns into an accusing statement. 33 The expression ‫ תמם‬usually refers to an action that corresponds to YHWH’s laws (Gen 15:6; Ex 14:31; Isa 7:9; 28:16; 43:10; Hab 2:4). The only other occurrence of ‫ באמת ובתמים‬is in Jos 24:14, a warning to be faithful to YHWH. Cf. Schöpflin, “Jotham’s Speech,” 9. 34 This threat is referred to in v 57 as a curse (‫)קללה‬. 32

44

SUSANNE GILLMAYR-BUCHER

So instead of accepting or simply rejecting the request, the four trees offer different, challenging metaphorical concepts of kingship. The way the dialogue unfolds, the metaphorical concepts do not provide an answer, but instead offer incompatible possibilities.35 Thus at the end of the story, several concepts of kingship are placed side by side The story does not only focus on the concept of a king, rather the attitude of those who offer the position of a king to other trees is the decisive element.36 In their answers, the candidates make it apparent that they are not willing to accept the metaphorical concepts offered by the trees. Instead, they build up contrasting images deconstructing not only the expectations of the trees and audience alike but also the intention of the whole action. The answers offer unusual and ambivalent metaphorical concepts for a king and with that, they accuse the trees of not to acting in good faith. With this focus, the metaphorical story transgresses the world of the trees and addresses its audience. Similar to other stories, like the song of the vineyard (Isa 5) or Nathan’s parable (2 Sam 12:1–4), Jotham uses the elements of a metaphorical tale for rhetoric purposes.37 In this way, the audience first adopts a neutral posture as they follow the trees’ dialogue. With the answer of the thorn tree, however, they are implicitly called on to act as judges and to decide This might be the most obvious difference to a fable, as this metaphorical narration only functions within its context. Although there might be allusions to a fable telling about a contest between trees, Jotham’s story does not pick up these elements but rather shows an unfinished dialogue that requires the narrated context in order to unfold its critique. 36 Cf. Butler, Judges, 234. 37 Bartelmus already points out that the basis of Jotham’s speech is not necessarily an original independent fable, as many interpretations suggest, but rather a story which is a genuine rhetorical construction for this context (Bartelmus, “Jothamfabel,” 105–106, 117). Soggin understands the narrative as a wisdom-type apologue which has been inserted into Jotham’s speech (Judges, 177). 35

WHAT DID JOTHAM TALK ABOUT?

45

whether the trees have acted ‫ באמת‬or not. While this position still allows maintaining some distance, the audience is drawn into the story immediately after the thorn tree’s speech (vv. 16–19). With ‫ ועתה‬Jotham sets a signal that his speech returns to the actual situation at hand. It is only now the audience has to realise that the story is told in hindsight (v. 16).38 In retrospective, Jotham’s metaphoric narration hence appears like a prophetic oracle, sketching a gloomy future.39 Jotham’s speech thus criticises and foretells the consequences of the (wrong-) doing of the inhabitants of Shechem.40 The concept of a king, however, is not rejected as a whole yet the dialogue of the trees utters a severe warning: if it should (ever) succeed, it has to be approached very carefully: ‫באמת ובתמים‬.

V 16 repeats the answer of the thorn-tree as a rhetorical question and makes it clear that there is no doubt about the guilt of the inhabitants of Shechem. 39 Cf. 2 Sam 12:9; 1 Sam 13:13; 28:16, 18; 2 Kings 1:3; Am 4:1. 40 Schöpflin, “Jotham’s Speech,” 11. 38

2. PSALMS AND SAPIENTIAL TEXTS

47

CREATION, CREATOR AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR IN PSALM 19:2–7 AND GENESIS 1–3 Elizabeth R. Hayes

This essay will examine the role of conceptual metaphor in Psalm 19:2–7, exploring the ways in which conceptual metaphor informs both literary features and prosaic poetry, highlighting and illuminating the interrelationship between the human and the divine, divine justice, and creation themes. The close connections between Ps 19:2–7 as the metaphoric target domain and Genesis 1 as the metaphoric source domain will be noted.

1. PSALM 19 AS A WHOLE Psalm 19 comprises three sections. Psalm 19A (19:2–7) is a hymn containing literary features that are based on the great chain of being conceptual metaphor. Psalm 19B1 (19:8–11) prosaically enumerates benefits that accrue to the one who engages with the teachings, decrees, precepts, and instructions of Yahweh. This is followed by two ‘more than’ comparisons addressing the desirability and sweetness of Yahweh’s judgments. Finally, Psalm19B2 (19:12–15) contains a petition to be saved from sins, introducing issues of sin and guilt.1 While this author adheres to a three-fold division, it is worth noting that a two-fold division is recognised by many scholars and 1

49

50

ELIZABETH R. HAYES

2. PSALM 19 AND GENESIS 1–3 There are several correlations between Psalm 19A and B and the two creation narratives in Genesis 1 (hereafter Genesis A) and Genesis 2–3 (hereafter Genesis B). In his article ‘The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of YAHWEH’, David Clines makes a persuasive case for connections between Psalm 19B and the tree of Knowledge in Genesis 2–3, noting the prevalence of similar wisdom terminology in each of these sections. Without elaborating upon Genesis 1, Clines concludes by noting ‘…the background of Ps. xixA is the creation narrative of Gen 1, that of xixB the fall narrative of Gen ii-iii’.2 The present study builds upon Clines’ observation by examining the strong set of linguistic links that occur commentators, who handle the nature of the interrelationship of the parts in very different ways. There is general consensus that there is a division between verses 2–7 (English: 1–6) and 8–15 (English: 7–14) based upon content and language. However, differing viewpoints are expressed regarding the nature of literary influence upon vss. 2–7: Oesterly proposes that the section has been influenced by Babylonian myth elements, while Dahood sees the references to the sun as an adaptation of a Canaanite hymn to the sun. Kraus acknowledges the influence of sun myths in a broader sense. In this case, the views expressed by Goldingay are particularly attractive: while the two parts have seemingly separate concerns, the psalm is presented as a whole and the two parts are linked by verbal similarities. Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983); Mitchell Dahood, S. J., Psalms 1 (The Anchor Bible; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966); Rabbi Avraham Chaim Feuer, Tehillim (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1977); John Goldingay, Psalms (ed. Tremper Longman, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament 1: Psalms 1–41; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2006); HansJoachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1993); W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms (London: SPCK, 1959); Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (eds. Peter Ackroyd et al.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962). 2 David J. A. Clines, ‘The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of YHWH: Psalm 19,’ in: VT 24 (1974): 13–14.

CREATION, CREATOR AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR51 between Psalm19A and Genesis A. The way that the Psalmist uses these terms in conceptual metaphor is of particular interest, both for the section and for the psalm as a whole. This essay will concentrate upon Psalm 19A as part of the larger whole. One reason for this is that the canonical presentation of Psalm 19A and B has much in common with the contours of the two Genesis accounts: Genesis A is a straight forward hierarchical description of an orderly creation and the Psalmist uses many of the same terms in Psalm 19A. The narrative utilizes conceptual metaphor by including instances in which God speaks. Genesis B also utilizes conceptual metaphor to explore the interrelationships between creator and creation, which is of concern in Psalm 19B. It is noteworthy that neither Genesis A nor Genesis B utilizes literary metaphor, but rather each presents the relationship between humanity and the divine at ‘human scale’ via conceptual metaphor: In Genesis A, God speaks and creation occurs. In Genesis B, Adam and God walk and talk together in the garden. In both sections the ontologically ‘other’, God, becomes more understandable to the human reader because he is portrayed as communicating in a human manner. Likewise, although Psalm 19A does not contain literary metaphor, the psalmist uses communication terms to evoke conceptual metaphor. The effect is much the same: here the psalmist scopes the majesty of creation to human scale. Such construal is at the heart of the way we think, to borrow a phrase from the title of Fauconnier and Turner’s recent volume on human conceptualization.3

3. THE EXTENDED GREAT CHAIN OF BEING AS A SOURCE FOR CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR Conceptual metaphor functions with The Extended Great Chain of Being metaphor system which is based upon, in Kövecses words, ‘a certain folk theory of how things are Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 3

52

ELIZABETH R. HAYES

related to each other in the world’4. He notes that this understanding goes back to the Bible. One likely biblical source for this ontological hierarchy is the story of creation in Genesis A. Before moving to Psalm 19A, let us first examine the Extended Great Chain of Being metaphor system, looking at Genesis A as a possible source for this understanding within the Hebrew Bible. (See figure 1)5 The Extended Great Chain hierarchy reflects the animacy of given entities and in this way is similar to the animacy hierarchy used by linguists to categorise relative degrees of animacy for various entities present in sentences (see Figure 2). For example, in Genesis 1, God is portrayed as SAP 1 ~ the first and only speaker, thus, he is portrayed at the top of the scale with regard to animacy. In this way, the animacy of entities in a particular stretch of text gives information regarding their attributes and behaviour within the Extended Great Chain and contributes toward establishing instances of conceptual metaphor within the biblical text. It is important to note that the extended great chain as represented in the HB is significantly different from that of other ANE cultures who would assign divinity to entities such as the sun and moon. This is pivotal for understanding the role of the psalm for its earliest audiences, for whom the alternative understanding of deity was part of the greater culture of the day. Clines, ‘Tree of Knowledge,’ 126; Zoltan Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (Oxford: OUP, 2002), 126. 5 Susan Gillingham notes that Ps 8:6 exhibits a similar hierarchical structure when it states — ‫ ותחסרהו מעט מאלהים‬yet thou hast made him a little less than God (RSV). However, Gillingham rightly observes that the story of creation in Genesis 2, a story that uses the terms ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ יהוה אלהים‬to refer to the divine, provides an important counter-voice to this hierarchy by highlighting the dependence of humankind upon the created order. Thus, while the extended great chain of being is prevalent in various places in the Hebrew Bible, it is not the only view of the created order represented. S. E. Gillingham, One Bible, Many Voices: Different Approaches to Biblical Studies (London: SPCK, 1998), 233. 4

CREATION, CREATOR AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR53 God (Jewish-Christian tradition) Cosmos/Universe Society

(Creator) (Days 1–4)

ABSTRACT COMPLEX SYSTEMS ↑

Humans: higher order attributes, behaviour Animals: instinctual attributes, behaviour

(Day 6) (Day 6 — land) (Day 5 — sea/sky) Plants: biological attributes, behaviour (Day 3) Complex objects: structural attributes — functional behaviour Natural physical things: natural physical attributes and behaviour

Figure 1: Extended Great Chain of Being Metaphor System Speech act participant 1 Speech act participant 2 Speech act participant 3 Proper Noun Animate Inanimate Mass

Figure 2. Animacy Hierarchy

Significantly, the Extended Great Chain is not a metaphorical system in and of itself. Rather, it becomes a metaphorical system when a one level of the chain is used to understand another level6. Such cognitive construal is evident in both Genesis A and Genesis B, for in these accounts God exhibits attributes and behaviour credited to humans in the Extended Great Chain — He speaks and creation occurs, He walks and talks with Adam in the garden. On the one hand, Genesis A presents a hierarchical, ontologically correct view of creation that provides the basis for conceptual metaphor, while the 6

Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 126.

54

ELIZABETH R. HAYES

use of conceptual metaphor in the Genesis B account results in a relational view of creation. In theological terms, the story in Genesis A provokes a transcendent view of God, while the relational story in Genesis B produces a sense of God’s immanence7. Similar cognitive construal is present in Psalm 19A. In this case, selected aspects of the cosmos, including the heavens, the firmament, day and night are portrayed with a human-like ability to communicate, as indicated by the verbs telling, proclaiming, pouring forth, and declaring. In Psalm 19A, it is the cosmos rather that the deity that is scoped to human scale. A quest for the significance of this construal for establishing conceptual metaphor will begin with an examination of the linguistic evidence.

4. PSALM 19A AND GENESIS A: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE 4.1. Word Pairs in Ps 19:2 Psalm 19A 1 To the leader. A Psalm of David.

The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

Genesis A ‫ ַל ְמנַ צ ַח ִמזְ מור‬1 ‫ְל ָדִ ִֽוד׃‬

‫ ַה ָש ַמיִם ְ ִֽמ ַס ְפ ִרים‬2 ‫ְכ ִֽבוד־אל‬ ‫וִֽ ַמ ֲעשה יָ ָדיו ַמ ִגיד‬ ‫ָה ָר ִ ִָֽק ַיע ׃‬

‫אשׁית ָב ָרא‬ ִ ‫ ְבר‬1 ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ֱא‬ ‫את ַה ָש ַמיִם וְ את‬ ‫ָה ָ ִֽא ֶרץ׃‬ ‫ֹלהים יְ ִהי‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ וַ י‬6 ‫ָר ִָק ַיע ְבתוְך ַה ָמיִם‬ ‫וִ ִיהי ַמ ְב ִדיל בין ַמיִם‬ ‫ָל ָ ִֽמיִם׃‬

Gillingham uses the relationship between Psalm 8 and Genesis 1 to assign a post-exilic date to the psalm. Gillingham, One Bible, Many Voices: Different Approaches to Biblical Studies, 23–24. 7

CREATION, CREATOR AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR55 ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ וַ ַי ַעש ֱא‬7 ‫ֶאת־ ָה ָר ִק ַיע וַ ְיַבדל בין‬ ‫ַה ַמיִם ֲא ֶשׁר ִמ ַת ַחת‬ ‫ָל ָר ִק ַיע ובין ַה ַמיִם‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר מ ַעל ָל ָר ִָק ַיע‬ ‫י־כן׃‬ ִֽ ‫ַוִַֽֽיְ ִה‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ וַ יִ ְק ָרא ֱא‬8 ‫ָ ִֽל ָר ִָק ַיע ָשׁ ָמיִם‬ ‫י־ע ֶרב ַוִַֽֽיְ ִהי־ב ֶקר‬ ֶ ‫ַוִַֽֽיְ ִה‬ ‫יום שׁ ִנִֽי׃‬

The first verse, Psalm 19.2, is a tightly constructed chiastic parallelism: ‫ַה ָש ַמיִם ְ ִֽמ ַס ְפ ִרים ְכ ִֽבוד־אל וִֽ ַמ ֲעשה יָ ָדיו ַמ ִגיד ָה ָר ִ ִָֽק ַיע ׃‬

The word order in sentence one is subject-verb-object while the word order in sentence two is object-verb-subject. The subject in sentence one, ‫ ַה ָש ַמיִם‬is important for two reasons. First, the initial element in sentence or paragraph exhibits the privilege of primacy: it is the most remembered element in the sentence or paragraph. Secondly, the term ‫ ַה ָש ַמיִם‬is frequently used as part of the word pair ‫ַה ָש ַמיִם‬ and ‫ ָה ָ ִֽא ֶרץ‬, thus creating an expectation that the term ‫ ָה ָ ִֽא ֶרץ‬will appear as part of the next sentence. However, the Psalmist has chosen the term ‫ ָה ָר ִ ִָֽק ַיע‬as the corresponding subject in sentence two.8 Sentence two is in the unusual object-verbsubject order, which puts the term in the second highest position of primacy — the end of the sentence. Thus, both subjects are in memorable positions in the chiastic parallelism. This tight association between ‫ ַה ָש ַמיִם‬and ‫ָה ָר ִ ִָֽק ַיע‬ Feuer notes that the term ‫ ָה ָר ִ ִָֽק ַיע‬represents ‘something flattened out or spread over a wide area.’ Kraus adds that in this case the term ‘…as a cosmological concept denotes the plate…by which the blue sea of the ocean of the heavens is held up and confined.’ Feuer, Tehillim, 240; Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary, 270. 8

56

ELIZABETH R. HAYES

is significant for creating the connection between Psalm 19A and Genesis A in the following ways. The use of the term ‫ ָר ִ ִָֽקיע‬in the tight parallelism in 19:2 creates the possibility that the Psalmist had in mind not Gen 1:1, ‘In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth’, but rather Gen 1:6–8, ‘And God said, “Let there be a dome (‫ ) ָר ִ ִָֽקיע‬in the midst of, the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome (‫ ) ָר ִָקיע‬/ Sky (‫) ָשׁ ָמיִם‬. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.’ Thus, the use of the terms ‫ ָר ִ ִָֽקיע‬and ‫ ַה ָש ַמיִם‬in Ps 19:2 may be seen as a compression of the second day of creation in Genesis A creating the first link between Genesis A and Psalm 19A. This line of thinking is supported by the limited distribution of the nominal term ‫ ָר ִ ִָֽקיע‬elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to its appearance in Ps 19:2, the nominal term ‫ ָר ִ ִָֽקיע‬appears a total of 15 more times in the Hebrew Bible: five in the absolute form in Gen 1–8, three in the construct form in Gen 1:14; 1:15 and 1:20, one in the construct form in Ps 150:1, five in the construct form in Ezekiel and one in the absolute form in Daniel. That eight of the 16 occurrences are found in Genesis gives weight to Genesis A as the source of the Psalmist’s terminology. The verbs in each sentence of the chiastic parallelism are taken from the semantic domain of Communication (LN 33), from the categories of Speak/Talk and Inform/Announce.9 It is the use of these terms that invokes conceptual metaphor. Here, the human higher order attribute of verbal communication is assigned to elements of the created order: The heavens recount (‫ ) ְ ִֽמ ַס ְפ ִרים‬and the firmament declares (‫) ַמ ִגיד‬. Ontologically, as represented in the Extended Great Chain, the heavens and the firmament fall into the category J. P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989). 9

CREATION, CREATOR AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR57 of natural physical things with natural physical attributes. By assigning the higher order attribute of communication to natural physical things, the psalmist has used an element higher in the chain to understand an element lower in the chain, thus invoking conceptual metaphor. This is even more vividly represented by the move up the animacy hierarchy ~ the inanimate heavens and firmament become purported speech act participants. Finally, the contents of the communication are tucked firmly into the center of the chiasm: what is being communicates is the glory of God and the works of his hands. The communication carries on in verse 3, where there is also a compression of the first day of creation in Genesis A. 4.2. Word Pairs in Ps 19:3 2 Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.

‫יע א ֶמר‬ ִֽ ַ ‫ יום ְל יום ִיַב‬3 ‫ֹלהים יְ ִהי אור‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ וַ י‬3 ‫וְ ַליְ ָלה ְל ַליְ ָלה‬ ‫י־אור׃‬ ִֽ ‫ַוִַֽֽיְ ִה‬ ‫ה־ד ַעת׃‬ ִֽ ָ ֶ‫ת־האור יְ ַחו‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫ וַ ַיַֽ ְרא ֱא‬4 ‫ֹלהים בין‬ ִ ‫ִכי־טוב וַ ְיַבדל ֱא‬ ‫ָהאור ובין ַה ִֽח ֶשְׁך׃‬ ‫ֹלהים׀ ָלאור‬ ִ ‫ וַ יִ ְק ָרא ֱא‬5 ‫יום וְ ַלח ֶשְׁך‬ ‫י־ע ֶרב‬ ֶ ‫ָק ָרא ָליְ ָלה ַוִַֽֽיְ ִה‬ ‫ַוִַֽֽיְ ִהי־ב ֶקר‬ ‫יום ֶא ָ ִֽחד׃‬

Verse three consists of two tightly composed parallel lines: ‫ה־ד ַעת׃‬ ִֽ ָ ֶ‫יע א ֶמר וְ ַליְ ָלה ְל ַליְ ָלה יְ ַחו‬ ִֽ ַ ‫יום ְל יום ִיַב‬

In this case, the word pair day and night is more predictable, as is the grammatical form of the parallelism. Each of the sentences is presented as subject — verb — object. However, once again the abstractions of day and night are represented as communicating in an audible fashion, as the verbs again come from the semantic domain of

58

ELIZABETH R. HAYES

communication. Of interest here is the apparent compression of Gen 1:3–5, the first day of creation, which creates a second link between Genesis A and Psalm 19A. In Gen 1:3–5, God creates and names day and night, even as he creates and names the ‘dome’ in Gen 1:6–8. Importantly, Genesis A is structured by God’s reported speech. The reiteration of the introductory formula X ‫ֹלהים יְ ִהי‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ וַ י‬occurs at regular intervals.10 This is an indication of the significant role of conceptual metaphor in Genesis 1. However, the Psalmist seems to catch himself, and shifts the emphasis away from audible speech with a short set of parallel cola in verse 4. 4.3 Negation and Affirmation in 4–5 3 There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; 4 yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

‫ ִֽאין־א ֶמר וְ אין ְד ָב ִרים‬4 ‫קול ם׃‬ ִֽ ָ ‫ְב ִלי נִ ְשׁ ָמע‬

‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ׀ יָ ָצא‬ ָ ‫ ְב ָכ‬5 ‫ַקוָ ם‬ ‫וב ְקצה תבל ִמל ֶיהם‬ ִ

‫ֹלהים יִ ָקוו‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ וַ י‬9 ‫ַה ַמיִם ִמ ַת ַחת ַה ָש ַמיִם‬ ‫ל־מקום ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫וְ ת ָר ֶאה ַה ָיַב ָשׁה‬ ‫י־כן׃‬ ִֽ ‫ַוִַֽֽיְ ִה‬ ‫ֹלהים׀‬ ִ ‫ וַ יִ ְק ָרא ֱא‬10 ‫ַל ָיַב ָשׁה ֶא ֶרץ‬

‫ַל ֶש ֶמשׁ ָ ִֽשם־א ֶהל‬ Cynthia Miller notes that Gen 1:3–30 is structured by eleven instances of this phrase. Additionally, this speech occurs in a ‘noninteractional’ context, in which God’s speech is followed by a creative act rather than by a verbal response from another speech participant. Cynthia L. Miller, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 286–289. 10

CREATION, CREATOR AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR59 ‫ָב ֶ ִֽהם ׃‬ In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun,

‫ֹלהים יְ ִהי‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ‫וַ י‬14 ‫ְמארת‬ ‫ִב ְר ִָק ַיע ַה ָש ַמיִם‬ ‫ וְ ָהיו ִל ְמאורת‬15 ‫ִב ְר ִָק ַיע ַה ָש ַמיִם‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ וַ יִ תן א ָתם ֱא‬17 ‫ִב ְר ִָק ַיע ַה ָש ָמיִם‬ ‫י־ע ֶרב‬ ֶ ‫ ַוִַֽֽיְ ִה‬19 ‫ַוִַֽֽיְ ִהי־ב ֶקר‬ ‫יעי׃‬ ִֽ ִ ‫יום ְר ִב‬ ‫ וְ עוף יְ עופף‬20 ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ַע‬ ‫ל־פני ְר ִָק ַיע ַה ָש ָ ִֽמיִם‬ ְ ‫ַע‬

Verse 4 reads: ‫קול ם׃‬ ִֽ ָ ‫ִֽאין־א ֶמר וְ אין ְד ָב ִרים ְב ִלי נִ ְשׁ ָמע‬

Here the psalmist undermines the idea that the heavens and firmament speak with audible voices with a series of negations: There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Then in another twist in verse 5a, the psalmist notes that their voice goes out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. Here at last there is a mention of ‫ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬, the word one might expect to find paired with the heavens in 19:2. This term combines with the term ‘the heavens’ in 19:2 to form a distant parallelism, which although more faint than the parallelism in 19:4, does act as a section delimiter and another link to the Genesis A creation account, in this case a compression of Gen 1:9–10. The psalmist brings the reader ‘down to earth’ in order to expresses a paradox: the heavens and firmament speak throughout the earth in an understandable voice, yet they do not speak in an audible voice.

60

ELIZABETH R. HAYES Verse 5 continues: ‫ַל ֶש ֶמשׁ ָ ִֽשם־א ֶהל ָב ֶ ִֽהם׃‬

Immediately, the psalmist returns the reader’s attention to the heavens and firmament by the use of the anaphoric suffix, hem in the word ‫ ָב ֶ ִֽהם‬. The antecedent to the suffix is found in the terms hashmayim and rakia in v.2. The phrase le shemesh is evocative of Gen 1:14–20, where God calls for the creation of the greater and lesser lights. In this section of Genesis, the construct phrase rakia hashamayim is repeated four times. It is possible to see this phrase as the linguistic basis for the word pair in Ps 19:2, where the psalmist uses the two words separately in the unusually tight parallelism mentioned above. It has been suggested that this section is actually a Yahwistic reuse of an ANE hymn to the sun.11 It is important to note the elsewhere in the ANE the sun was considered to be divine. For example Shamash was the common Akkadian name of the sun god and god of justice in Babylon and Assyria. Thus, these entities would take their place at the higher levels of an alternative extended great chain of being that is indicated by Babylonian or Assyrian cosmology. However, since the emphasis in beginning of the Psalm is the heavens and firmament, the following admiration for the sun seems to build upon a figure ground configuration in which an object in the heavens adds to the picture of the majesty of creation as praising god. The movement of the sun across the firmament is further evidence of creations praise, rather than the praise of the sun as divine. Further reasons for this are found in a close reading of the linguistic evidence in this verse and in the Psalm 10A as a whole. The subject in this verse is the implicit anaphoric ms represented by the verbal form, the subject of which refers back to El in v. 2. The object of the sentence is the tent that God has placed in the heavens. Finally, the tent is meant for 11

See Dahood, Psalms, 121.

CREATION, CREATOR AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR61 the indirect object, the sun. Verses six and seven elaborate upon the sun, but do so in two poetic similes that are meant to describe its motion across the sky. The hashamayim and rakia are subjects of v. 2, thus according to the privilege of primacy, the entire section is about them. The sun is a subordinate entity, even though it stands out as figure against the ground of the dome of the heavens in verse five. 4.4 Admiration in 6–7 5 which comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy,

‫ וְ הוא ְכ ָח ָתן יצא מ ֻח ָפתו‬6 ‫יָ ִשיש ְכגִ בור לָ רוץ ִֽא ַרח׃‬

and like a strong man runs its course with joy. 6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and nothing is hid from its heat.

‫וצאו‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ְקצה ַה ָש ַמיִם ׀ ִֽמ‬7 ‫צות ם‬ ָ ‫קופתו ַעל־ ְק‬ ָ ‫ות‬ ְ ‫וְ אין נִ ְס ָתר ִֽמ ַח ָמתו׃‬

After a close examination of the linguistic evidence in Genesis A and Psalm 19A, it becomes quite clear that the two passages share common vocabulary and interests. Ps 19:2 links to Gen 1:6–8, which describes the creation of the firmament and the separation of the waters above from the waters below on Day 2. Ps 19:3 links to Gen 1:3–5, which describes the creation of light and the separation of light from darkness on Day 1. Ps 19:5 links to Gen 1:9–10, which describes the gathering together of the waters below into one place and the appearance of the dry land on Day 3. Finally, Ps 19:6 links with Gen 1:14–19, which describes the creation of the greater and lesser lights and the separation of day from night on Day 4. Each of the Genesis sections shares the

62

ELIZABETH R. HAYES

conceptual metaphor of the audible divine. The Psalmist goes further yet in creating conceptual metaphor. The Psalmist utilizes these images to create conceptual metaphor by assigning the ability to speak from the human level of the extended great chain to various elements of creation in order to scope the elements to human scale. Once this shift occurs it becomes apparent that not all of the elements are at the same level of importance according to the linguists’ animacy hierarchy. In the Genesis passage, the divine takes on the role of SAP I — the only SAP in the passage. In Ps 19:2, the Heavens and Firmament take on the role of SAP I. In 19:3, Day and Night appear to be in conversation…each with itself? All of these are fairly high on the animacy hierarchy. Vs. 19:4–5 show a wavering ~ do these inanimate objects actually speak? Yes… and no. Each speaks powerfully, but they have their own sort of voices, rather than human voices. Finally, the Sun is mentioned at the lower level of proper noun. Speech of any kind is not assigned to the Sun or its correlates found in the similes that follow. The bride groom and strong man are lower yet. Yes, they are animate, but they do not speak and are more general terms than the proper noun, ‘the Sun’. The Psalmist’s skillful manipulation of conceptual metaphor becomes definitive for the poetic contours of Ps 19:2–7. Even the largest visible elements of creation join in praise to God. The focus of praise in other ANE cultures, the Sun, is relegated to a nonspeaking role in the praise, thus surrendering the role of the one who is praised to God. More could be said regarding the similarities of scoping as the focus of both Genesis A and B and Psalm 19 A and B move from the furthest reaches of the naked eye down into the innermost reaches of the human spirit, but that is a subject for another day.

JOB 3: METAPHORS TURNED INTO THEIR CONTRARY ... Stefan Wälchli

The third chapter of the book of Job marks the beginning of the poetical discourses in the entire book of Job. In this position chapter 3 is often discussed,1 insofar as it opens a different theological discourse from the first two chapters of the Job narrative. We do not need to discuss all exegetical problems of the third chapter of Job in detail here, for our purpose it is sufficient to have a look at the structure of the chapter: o vv. 2–10: first part, Job curses the night of his conception and the day of his birth. o vv. 11–19: second part, the question of “Why” is raised, the grave, on the contrary stands for a life in suffering, presented as a location of rest. o vv. 20–23: third part, Job’s individual lament is generalized into suffering men o vv. 24–26: fourth part, closure of the chapter and renewed description of Job’s situation.

Cf. for a recent overview, Raik Heckl, Hiob — vom Gottesfürchtigen zum Repräsentanten Israels (FAT 70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 38ff. 1

63

64

STEFAN WÄLCHLI

Already a quick look at the chapter shows some expressions like the darkness, which seems to serve as a keyword in the chapter2 and also in the entire book. In the meantime, the argumentation in this chapter is rare in the Old Testament, so that a closer look is quite interesting. Comparable to Jer 20:14ff, the suffering of Job is expressed by the reversal of metaphors, especially the metaphors of darkness as well as the expressions for life and death. Before we study the reversal of these metaphors some general observations on their ordinary use ought to be included. In the Psalms, we find a set of metaphors as expressions for suffering of men showing different situations;3 for instance darkness (‫)חשך‬. In Ps 44:20; 88:7.13; 107 we find the darkness as metaphor for suffering or danger of life. In contrast to darkness, the light is used as a metaphor for life or hope, like it can be seen, e.g., in Ps 4:7; 18:29; 27:1; 44:4. Due to the logic of appearance, when a man cannot see the light anymore he is dead (cf. Ps 49:20). Thus, as darkness is a metaphor for suffering and danger, light is a metaphor for salvation or hope. As noted above, in Job 3 darkness and light are in some way keywords for the flow of argumentation. The chapter begins with the curse of the night of Job’s conception and the day of his birth. This day should be turned into darkness (cf. ‫ חשך‬in v.4; ‫ חשך‬and ‫ צלמות‬in v.5) and the stars should be covered by the darkness as well (see ‫ חשך‬in v.9). In the conventional language of the psalms, darkness (‫ )חשך‬and the shadow of death (‫ )צלמות‬occur as expressions of suffering. In Ps 44:20 ‫ צלמות‬functions as a Cf. the occurrences of ‫ חשך‬in vv.4.9 and in the following chapters (5:14; 10:21; 12:22.25; 15:22.30; 17:12; 18:6.18; 19:8; 20:26; 22:11; 23:17; 24:16; 26:10; 28:3; 29:3; 34:22; 37:19; 38:2.19); also ‫ צלמות‬in 3:5, a noun which is found 18 times in the whole OT, 10 occurrences alone in the book of Job (3:5; 10:21f; 12:,22; 16:16; 24:17; 28:3; 34,22; 38:17). 3 Cf. Christiane de Vos, Klage als Gotteslob aus der Tiefe (FAT 2.11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), especially the summarizing pages 85ff. 2

JOB 3: METAPHORS TURNED INTO THEIR CONTRARY65 depiction of the suffering of the praying community, in Ps 88:7 the expressions ‫ חשך‬and ‫ צלמות‬symbolize the actual danger of death. We do not need to provide more evidence to show that in conventional poetical language, darkness serves as metaphor for danger and suffering. However, the use of these terms in Job 3 turns this metaphor into its opposite: Where the usual laments of the psalms call for light and life, Job 3 calls for darkness and death which would work for him as a salvation. Such a concept is further elaborated from v.11 onwards: Why had Job to be born, while in the death he would have had his rest? The question is further accentuated by the reversal of light. Thus, it means: Whereas “light” (‫ )אור‬in the Old Testament usually serves as metaphor for life and justice,4 in Job 3 it is transformed into injustice. In vv.20f Job argues even that light is given to the suffering people, so that their suffering becomes even harder. In the entire chapter 3, we also find other allusions to conventional metaphors, which in a comparable way are turned in to their opposite. For instance, even the grave, which is known in the laments of the psalms as a symbol of danger and suffering far away from YHWH,5 is turned into a location of rest, even expressing salvation in Job 3. We do not need to trace all the alluded metaphors of Job 3 in detail, the examples have already shown the technique of Job 3, i.e. to allude to known metaphors and to reverse their signification. Metaphors are turned into their opposite in a consequence, which is comparable only to Jer 29.6 Cf Ps 37:6: “And he will make thy righteousness to go forth as the light, And thy justice as the noon-day.” (ASV) 5 Cf. Ps 16:10; 30:10; 88:5. The occurrences are not completely identical, but we may sum up in the way that the grave (or at least a prepared grave) serves as metaphors for a danger of life or, at least, for extremely heavy suffering. 6 This observation may point to some relationship between Job and Jer in this point, a topic which cannot be elaborated in our context. And, I 4

66

STEFAN WÄLCHLI

Looking at this reversion, we come to the question what the poetry of the book of Job intends to express with such a technique. First, we may point out the prominent position of Job 3 in the whole of the book. Before the Friends of Job begin to speak, the lament of Job in Job 3 is presented in a way using very sharp and accentuated language. The reversal of conventional metaphors underlines such a strategy. Job does not use the usual and conventional language of lament, which we know from the psalms; he exceeds these by a reversal of the convention and their metaphors. The poetry of Job 3 presents the suffering of Job in such a way describing a suffering which exceeds the “normal” experiences of suffering. Hence, the conventional interpretations of suffering, which are presented in the speeches of the friends in the subsequent chapters, are posed into question even before they begin to speak. And, in the last consequence, by this reversal of conventions, God himself is challenged in his function of a just judge, who should guarantee justice and give light to the just ones. As we have seen, the chapter of Job 3 formulates this by the reversal of metaphors. This implicates, that there are known metaphors which can be reversed. For the metaphors of light and darkness we can assume their existence by the use in other laments, as we have shown in the lamentations of some psalms. But in Job 3, we find also expressions which are outstanding and unclear. So most commentators of the book of Job are guessing what the expression ‫“ ברכים קדמוני‬receive my knees” in v.12 might signify.7 The interpretations are different, and so we cannot formulate further conclusions. may add, a relationship which probably is not a common source or redaction. 7 Cf. as classical example Friedrich Horst, Hiob 1–19 (BK.AT 16.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 49f, who discusses forms of adoption or acceptance by the clan.

JOB 3: METAPHORS TURNED INTO THEIR CONTRARY67 In the same way, the significance of the female breast in the same verse remains unclear. Other occurrences of the breasts in Canticum do not really help because they work in a context of attraction and sexuality, whereas in Job we rather may reckon with a context of care. Anyhow, there is hard proof within the texts of the Old Testament for one reading or another. So these two expressions may in the time of the book of Job have been metaphors, but we are unable to identify them as such and we could only guess about their particular significance. With this remark, we reach the borders of the study of metaphors in the Old Testament texts. Methodologically formulated: We can from the texts of the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East, and sometimes also from images which archaeology has unveiled, identify metaphors. We can trace their use, we can sometime study their reversal like we have seen it in Job 3, and we can recognize how such metaphors serve the texts to formulate and accentuate things, even for situations and subjects beyond all words. But, on the other side, we have also to accept that we cannot identify expressions as metaphors without comparable material, even when we suspect their existence.

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” The Use of Metaphor in Job’s Self-Descriptions1 Pierre Van Hecke

1. INTRODUCTION Many studies on the book of Job focus on the last chapters (38–42) in which God finally addresses the questions that have been at hand throughout the book. The readers’ attention for the end of the book has downplayed the importance of the other chapters, however, especially of the protracted debate between Job and his friends (3–31).2 Readers of the Bible — including professional exegetes — are inclined to pass over the long dialogues, in order to move quickly from the initial setting of the story to its dénouement. The dialogues at the heart of the story are often seen as contributing little to the development of thought in the book.

1

107.

This article was previously published in ET-Studies 2/1 (2011): 91–

Scholarly opinion has rightfully and recurrently considered chapters 32–37, the long monologue held by a fourth friend that suddenly turns up, to be a secondary addition to the story. 2

69

70

PIERRE VAN HECKE

They are merely the verbose repetition of essentially analogous or like ideas.3 Nevertheless, the dialogues deserve a better treatment. On the one hand, a development can actually be discerned in these chapters by the attentive reader4 and, on the other hand, the dialogues seem to be purposefully laboured in order to do justice to the painful and arduous struggle with the book’s questions. The struggle in the dialogues is interesting in several respects. First, Job and his friends present diametrically opposed views on the question of suffering and especially on God’s involvement with human suffering.5 Second, Job clearly and sharply expresses how he experiences his distress, in many cases making use of metaphors. This article will deal with the metaphors Job uses in the dialogues in his selfdescription. In so doing, I aim to define how Job has conceptualized his situation. This not only allows for a better understanding of the book and its internal development, but likewise it can increase our insight into the ways in which Old Testament writers thought about emotions.

2. EMOTIONS AND METAPHORS It should come as no surprise that Job speaks of his pain mainly in metaphorical terms. People expressing their emotions often do so in non-literal phrases, even though the latter often become conventionalized over time. Expressions such as “I am right down in the dumps” or “I see no way G. von Rad, Weisheit in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 271; R.N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (BZAW 135; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1974), 65; G. Fohrer, Dialog und Kommunikation im Buche Hiob, in: Fohrer, Studien zum Buche Hiob (1956–1979) (2nd. ed., BZAW 159; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1983), 135–146: 135. 4 P. Van Hecke, From Linguistics to Hermeneutics: A Functional and Cognitive Approach to Job 12–14 (SSN; Leiden: Brill, 2011). 5 P. Van Hecke, ‘But I, I Would Converse with the Almighty’ (Job 13.3): Job and His Friends on God, in: Concilium 40 (2005): 19–26. 3

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 71 out” may not strike us as particularly metaphorical at first, yet they structure our experiences in a non-literal way. In both cases a feeling of distress is conceptualized as a state of confinement, of being enclosed — the first expression adds the aspect of “being low”. Cognitive linguistics, a relatively recent and by now highly influential school in linguistics, has proved that much of our thinking operates metaphorically, viz. by using one specific area of knowledge — the source domain — to gain understanding of another, non-related area of experiences and concepts that are harder to describe — the target domain.6 Returning to our examples given above, it seems — for one reason or another — easier to describe our physical position than our emotional state, even though our emotions are surely not less real than our place in physical space. Because it is easier to describe that physical orientation, we use specific aspects of our knowledge of this source domain to describe our emotions analogically. Essential to cognitive linguistics is the fact that metaphors are thus not primarily figures of speech that serve to embellish our speaking or writing, but that they profoundly reflect our way of thinking. Metaphors conceptualize our experiences by showing us one thing in terms of another, thus making concepts available for what would otherwise go unexpressed. In the course of the last ten to fifteen years, cognitive science and its view of metaphors has been introduced into biblical studies but also, outside this cognitive paradigm, the attention given to metaphors in biblical texts has increased.7 Likewise the metaphorical description of emotions in the Bible has had

G. Lakoff and M. Turner, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 59. 7 See e.g. the contributions in P. Van Hecke (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL 187; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), and P. Van Hecke and A. Labahn (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (BETL 231; Leuven: Peeters, 2010). 6

72

PIERRE VAN HECKE

its share of attention,8 though a systematic treatment of the Hebrew Bible or the book of Job in this respect has not yet been carried out. When, therefore, in this contribution, we search for the metaphors that Job uses in the description of his own fate, we do not in fact focus on the literary style of the book, but on the ways in which the book conceptualizes Job’s situation in a way that makes it intelligible for the reader.

3. CONSISTENT AND COHERENT METAPHORS When reading the book of Job with an eye on its metaphors, the first thing that draws our attention is the large diversity of metaphors in Job’s own speeches. This comes as no surprise considering the fact that Job has the floor in no fewer than nineteen chapters. Nonetheless, the different metaphors are not an arbitrarily compiled whole. To be sure, there are a number of isolated metaphors in the book, but generally speaking the book’s metaphors tend to form mutually interdependent and correlated clusters that are consistent, or at least coherent. The distinction between consistency and coherency was introduced in Lakoff and Johnson’s seminal

P. Krüger, A Cognitive Interpretation of the Emotion of Anger in the Hebrew Bible, in: JNSL 26 (2000): 181–193; Krüger, Emotions and the Expression of Emotions in the Old Testament: A Few Introductory Remarks, in: BZ 48 (2004): 213–228; Krüger, The Face and Emotions in the Hebrew Bible, in: OTE 18 (2005): 651–663; Z. Kotzé, The Conceptualisation of Anger in the Hebrew Bible (Doctoral Dissertation University of Stellenbosch; Stellenbosch 2004; to be published in VTSup, Leiden: Brill, forthcoming); Kotzé, Conceptual Metaphors for Anger in the Biblical Hebrew Story of the Flood, in: JSem 14 (2004): 149–164; Kotzé, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things in the Hebrew Bible: Insights from the Cognitive Linguistic Theory of Metaphor, in: OTE 17 (2004): 242–251; E.J. van Wolde, Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions: Anger and Love in the Hebrew Bible, in: BibInt 16 (2008): 1–24. 8

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 73 and highly accessible study of metaphors.9 Metaphors are designated as mutually consistent if they logically cohere in the source domain, that is on the level of the image itself. When Job conceptualizes his suffering, for instance, as “darkness” or “night” (23:17), such a description is unequivocally consistent with later descriptions of his earlier, happy life as walking in the light (29:12). Metaphors are also coherent when they share a number of characteristics on a more abstract level even though they are not connected to the same image. One example will suffice. In 19:8, Job complains that God has blocked his road so that he cannot longer continue. This metaphor is consistent with other metaphorical speech in which life is conceptualized as a path (cf. infra). It is not consistent , however, with an expression such as “my days are extinct” (17:1, RSV). Fencing off roads and extinguishing fire are not consistent images. They do share, nonetheless, the same abstract essence: both consist in the purposeful ceasing of a process (be it either a journey or a fire). Because of this more abstract similarity, these metaphors can be called coherent in line with the terminology of Lakoff and Johnson: whether my road is blocked or my days are extinguished, in both cases my life is ended. All this serves to illustrate that metaphors are no arbitrary, stylistic phenomena. They form a web of related conceptualizations of reality. It would lead us too far to disentangle the entire web of metaphors in its full complexity as present in Job’s speeches.10 In this article, we will limit ourselves to the most frequent and most conspicuous metaphors.

G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 97–105. 10 This is the subject of my current research project Depicting Suffering, Imagining God: The Use of Metaphor in the Conceptualisation of Suffering and of the Divine in the Book of Job funded by the K.U. Leuven Research Council. The project is executed by two pre-doctoral researchers, Mr. Johan de Joode and Mrs. Hanneke van Loon. 9

74

PIERRE VAN HECKE

4.1 The Journey of Life The most frequent cluster of metaphors in Job’s speeches describes life in one way or another as a journey or a road. Job for example describes his behaviour in terms of “his way” (13:15), repeatedly stresses that he has kept God’s ways (23:11) and claims not to have turned aside from the way (31:7). In these verses, life is seen as a road, and an ethically and religiously inspired life is conceptualized as following the right way without straying. This conceptualization is so common in most languages that it only coincidently strikes us as metaphorical. At the same time, it is highly intelligible; as such it has been properly understood in translations and commentaries and needs little elaboration here. It is remarkable, however, that Job also describes his present negative situation in terms of this road imagery. As briefly remarked above, Job describes God both as the one who fences off his road (19:8; 3:2311) and as the one who has set darkness on his paths (19:8). Though the two images are not consistent, they have a similar result: Job sees no way out of his situation, his road comes to an end. In a number of other metaphors, Job’s current suffering and distress are conceptualized not so much as an interrupted journey, but as an unfavorable turn in his journey. He — and by extension all of humanity — unwillingly has to descend into the dust or go down to Sheol (7:9; 17:16). Though life is still perceived as a journey, it is a journey with an undesired destination. In these cases, the travel metaphor is also mixed with another metaphorical conceptualization, namely, the idea that good is “up”, and bad is “down”.12 Suffering and death are not only visualized as a downwards journey, but also as a one-way journey from which no return is possible. In 16:22, Job’s dense expression “Why is light given to a man whose way is hid, whom God has hedged in?” (RSV). 12 This metaphor is used in many different languages. For explicable reasons, we associate down with suffering and death and up with happiness and life (Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 14–21). 11

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 75 leaves no room for speculation: “I shall go the way from which I shall not return” (NRSV). Though this conceptualization is not consistent with that of the blocking off of life’s path, both metaphors are coherent. In both cases, Job is not capable of continuing his planned route, either because he is denied access to the road he saw before himself, or because he cannot backtrack from a direction he did not want to take. The different travel metaphors thus constitute a metaphorically coherent network that allows the conceptualization of life in all its stages. While a prosperous and faithful life is conceptualized in terms of the successful pursuit of a path, suffering and death are seen as either an interruption of the intended journey, an unwanted turn in the journey, or a necessarily one-way journey. 4.2 Light and Darkness A second group of metaphors typical of the book of Job (and, more specifically, of the dialogues contained in it) describes life and suffering in terms of “light” and “darkness”. A limited statistical survey of the keywords of Job13 teaches us that the words ‫“ אור‬light” and ‫חשך‬ “darkness” occur strikingly often in the course of the book. Though these words are frequent in the totality of the Hebrew Bible, their distribution in the book of Job is around

When all the terms in the book of Job are analyzed using a simple Chi-square test, a few interesting observations can be made. On the one hand, the most typical terms include several that are specific to the language of the book of Job such as, for instance, the name of God ‫שדי‬ ‘Shaddai’ and the Aramaism ‫‘ מלה‬word’ instead of the usually much more frequent ‫דבר‬. On the other hand, among the markedly frequent words in Job, there is the verb ‫‘ ענה‬answer.’ This comes as no surprise in view of the book’s dialogical character. More striking is the extremely high frequency of interrogatives in the book. More than any other book in the Hebrew Bible, the book of Job is the book of questions. As will be discussed in the main text, the list of typical ‘Job words’ holds an important place for the concepts of ‫‘ אור‬light’ and ‫‘ חשך‬darkness’. 13

76

PIERRE VAN HECKE

ten times higher than what one would expect.14 These figures already suggest that the concepts of light and darkness play an important part in the dialogues of the book of Job and in the description of human fate and life, and this is affirmed in the book’s contents. A closer reading of the light and darkness metaphors allows us to discern two distinct groups. In a first group, light and darkness are seen as the external circumstances within which life takes place; light, of course, generally represents happiness and prosperity, darkness stands for suffering and distress. This is most clearly seen in Job 30:26: “But when I looked for good, evil came; and when I waited for light, darkness came” (RSV). Thus Job reflects on his past, happy life as a time in which God’s lamp shone on his head, as a time in which he could walk through darkness by the light of God (29:3). So when suffering comes in, Job conceptualizes life as though walking along a path that is obfuscated by God (19:8). Death is therefore a land of darkness and shadows: “a land of gloom and chaos, where light is like darkness” (10:22, RSV). Conceptualizing happiness as a state or period full of (external) light, and suffering and distress as finding oneself in a total darkness, is so natural that it hardly strikes us as ‫‘ אור‬light’ occurs 32 times in the book of Job (3:9.16.20; 12:22.25; 17:12; 18:5v.18; 22:18; 24:13v.16; 24:3; 26:10; 28:11; 29:3.24; 30:26; 31:26; 33:28.30; 36:30.32; 37:3.11.15.21; 38:15.19.24; 41:10) compared with 101 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (whilst Job is only 2.5 percent of the entire Hebrew Bible). ‫‘ חשך‬darkness’ can be found 23 times in Job (3:4v; 5:14; 10:21; 12:22.25; 15:22v.30; 17:12v; 18:18; 19:8; 20:26; 22:11; 23:17; 24:16; 26:10; 28:3; 29:3; 34:22; 37:19; 38:19) and 57 in the other books of the Hebrew Bible. Evidently, the book holds other terms that are interconnected with the semantic domains of light and darkness: the verbs ‫( אור‬33:30?; 41:32) and ‫( חשך‬3:9; 18:6; 38:2): but also terms as ‫אפל‬ ‘darkness’ (3:6; 10:22 [bis]; 23:17; 28:3; 30:26) and ‫‘ צלמות‬darkness’ (3:5; 10:21v.; 12:22; 16:16; 24:17 [bis]; 28:3; 34:22; 38:17), ‫‘ נר‬lamp’ (18:6; 21:17; 29:3) of ‫דעך‬/‫‘ זעך‬extinguish’ (6:17; 18:5v.; 21:17), and other related terms as ‫‘ יום‬day’ and ‫‘ לילה‬night’. 14

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 77 metaphorical. Nevertheless, it is a metaphor. At the same time one can feel miserable in broad daylight, and darkness does not ipso facto entail feelings of discomfort and distress. As with all metaphors, however, there is a natural empirical basis for the strong connection between light and happiness, and darkness and suffering. As darkness impedes our capacity to see and act, and makes us more vulnerable to external danger, it is natural to describe a state of emotional despair or a lack of mental defence against threat in terms of a darkness that surrounds the speaker. This use of the light and darkness metaphor is strongly consistent with the conceptualizations of human understanding and control in terms of our visual faculty. In many languages, terms from the semantic domain of sight are being used to speak about cognitive and emotional activities and control. We speak e.g. about ‘seeing a solution’, ‘shutting one’s eyes to problems’, ‘insight in the matter’, ‘having a clear vision for the future’, and examples from other languages can be multiplied.15 As light is the condition of seeing in a literal way, it also becomes metaphorically the precondition for the cognitive and emotional faculties of mankind.16 In the book of Job, light and darkness are also used in another way to describe joy and distress. In this second group of metaphors, light and darkness are not regarded as external conditions in which life takes place, but as an internal quality of

M. Fortescue, Thoughts about Thoughts, in: Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2001): 15–45; P. Van Hecke, The Verbs ‫ ראה‬and ‫ שמע‬in the Book of Qohelet, in: A. Berlejung and P. Van Hecke (eds.), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context (OLA 164; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 203–220. 16 For the very same reason, the terms for light and darkness in the Hebrew Bible (as in English) are used in ethical metaphors. What is considered to be immoral, should remain unknown and should thus not see the daylight; it takes place in the gloom, it remains a dark affair of shady practices. In Job 24:13–17, e.g., the godless (figuratively) shun the light of day and seek out the shade. 15

78

PIERRE VAN HECKE

mankind and, indeed, of life itself.17 So Job states in 17:1 that his days are extinguished.18 Job thus conceptualizes his life itself as something luminous and burning. A few verses further on, Job uses a similar metaphor when he states “My eye has grown dim from grief” (17:7, RSV), using a verb which in Isa 42:3 designates the growing dim of a wick.19 Analogously, Job asks in 21:17 whether “the lamp of the wicked is put out” so that they might meet the distress they deserve. In a previous speech, Bildad had exactly confirmed this: “Surely the light of the wicked is put out, and the flame of their fire does not shine” (18:5, RSV, compare with Prov 13:9; 20:20 and 24:20). One could argue that Job conceptualizes light — or its lack — as something external to man in the aforementioned cases.20 In this interpretation, the days that should have given light, brought forth darkness (17:1), the lamp that lightens the abode of the wicked, is extinguished (18:5, 21:17). In my opinion, however, it is preferable to read these metaphors as Job 30:28 possibly expresses a similar conceptualization. Translated literally, the verse reads “being dark I go without the sun’s heat”. The last word ‫‘ חמה‬sun’ should, according to some, be emended (see the discussion in D.A. Clines, Job 21–37 (WBC 18A; Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 959. Even at face value this interpretation of the text does not fully explain the meaning of “being dark”, however. Some argue that the expression refers to the putting on of mourning attire (Clines, Job, 1010) whereas others contend that it should be read as “blackened by the sun” (E. Dhorme, Le livre de Job: Introduction, traduction et commentaire [Etudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda 1926], 407). Still others read the expression — in line with the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the Peshitta — metaphorically in the sense of “a black mood”. The latter reading uses the concept of darkness to comment on the emotional disposition of mankind. In that case, one’s inner self is seen as something that can be filled with either light or darkness. 18 The Hebrew ‫ זעך‬is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. Because of its morphological relation with the more frequent ‫דעך‬, it can, however, easily be understood as “to extinguish”. 19 Dhorme, Le livre de Job, 225. 20 Clines, Job 21–37, 413, and other commentaries. 17

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 79 a reference to an internal light that people carry with them in good times and that is extinguished in cases of suffering, distress and, notably, sin. Though this reading cannot be corroborated on the basis of the verses presented here alone, it is, nonetheless, supported by a number of other biblical verses. In Isa 43:17, the same verb for ‘extinguishing’ is used, as in the examples from the book of Job: defeated armies are said to be “extinguished, quenched like a wick” (RSV). Here the fire and the light that is being extinguished is clearly an internal property of the people that perish. In Prov 4:18, the road (i.e. walk of life) of the righteous is itself conceptualized as a shining light, again pointing to the concept that a (righteous) individual may carry an internal light. Moreover, the idea of the eye that carries light in itself can be found in numerous Biblical texts (Ps 38:11; Prov 15:30; but also Matt 6:22; Luke 11:34). Just as the extinguishing of that light is a sign of misery in Job, so inversely the ‘lighting of the eye’ is equivalent to the renewal of someone’s joy and strength of life (1 Sam 14:27.29; Ps 13:4; 19:9; Prov 29:13; Ez 9:821). While light represents life and happiness, Job utters his desire for darkness at the beginning of the book: in his opening speech in chapter 3, Job expresses his wish that the day and night of his birth would only have remained dark (3:3–7). Though Job vehemently resists his near downfall in the course of the book, the initial numbness makes him wish he had never been born. Such non-existence is conceptualized metaphorically as an endless darkness that has never seen light. This desire for a situation in which he never had existed, is in line with another of Job’s desires, namely, his yearning for rest, to which I now turn. 4.3 Rest and Restlessness Job repeatedly expresses the feeling that he is being continuously harassed and bothered. He does this in two F.J. Stendebach, Art. ‫עין‬, in: TWAT 6 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989), 31–48, here: 35f. 21

80

PIERRE VAN HECKE

ways: on the one hand, he feels as though he is being physically hunted, while on the other hand he feels as though God is watching him uninterruptedly. In 13:25, Job compares himself to a driven leaf or dry chaff that is being chased by the wind (Isa 40:24; 41:2; 64:5; Jer 13:24; Ps 83:14). The wicked, on the other hand, are not being carried off. They are allowed to tell God that he should leave them alone because his ways do not interest them (21:16.18). Job not only feels chased by God, but also by his friends: “Why do you, like God, pursue me? Why are you not satisfied with my flesh?” (19:22, RSV) It is no surprise, then, that in his opening speech Job dreams of a period in which people are no longer being driven by taskmasters (3:18). Besides feeling hunted by men, he also seems to be under the close and incessant watch of God. In his first response to the friends (chapters 6–7), Job dwells on this feeling: 17 What are human beings, that you should make so much of them, that you set your mind on them, 18 visit them every morning, test them every moment? 19 Will you not look away from me for a while, let me alone until I swallow my spittle? 20 If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of humanity? Why have you made me your target? Why have I become a burden to you? (7:17–20, NRSV) Job feels God’s piercing look upon him incessantly. He has the impression of being observed unremittingly and of never even receiving the chance to be on his own. Elsewhere, God’s incessant gaze is mentioned also (Job 10:6.14; 13:27; 14:3; 16:9; 30:20; 31:4). This regularly results in complex figurative speech intertwining more than one metaphor. In 31:4, Job argues that God sees his ways and counts all his steps. Job’s life is seen here as a road at which God directs his judging gaze even to the extent that every step Job takes is counted. A comparable and even more

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 81 expressive metaphor is — according to some — to be found in 13:27 and 33:11. In his commentary, Fohrer suggests that the Hebrew word ‫סד‬, ‘fetter’, is read with a different vocalisation as sid, meaning ‘chalk.’ The meaning of both verses would thus be that God dunks the feet of mankind in chalk so as he can trace all their steps (as found in the Dutch Willibrordvertaling). Though this translation is not accepted by all commentators and translators,22 it is far from improbable. More than the translation favored by the majority, this interpretation is in line with the second part of the verse that elaborates the idea that God watches over mankind. The rendering of the Hebrew word ‫ סד‬as ‘chalk’ — the critical point in this translation — is supported by the Aramaic Targum23, and though it is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible, there are parallels with a related word with the same meaning in the Semitic languages.24 Job thus expresses in marked metaphorical language, the extent to which he feels spied upon by God: by putting his feet in the chalk, God can perfectly follow his traces wherever he turns. Just as in the English metaphorical expression piercing eyes, the book of Job sometimes conceptualizes God’s gaze as piercing. In 16:9 Job complains that God has sharpened his eyes against him, using the term ‫ לטש‬which in other instances

For instance, “You put my feet in the stocks (NRSV)”; “pour que tu mettes mes pieds dans les fers (TOB)”; “In den Block legst du meine Füße (EÜ)”. 23 Though Dhorme takes note of this Aramaic translation, he interprets the Aramaic metaphor again in line with the Greek and Latin renderings of the text. Dhorme translates the Aramaic as “comme dans le ciment”. This implies the immobilizing of the feet, whilst the Aramaic word in fact refers more to something like plaster, that is, a material that can hardly be used to block somebody’s feet (Cf. Dhorme, Le livre de Job, 174). 24 Pirqe Abot 2:9; L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1983), 709. 22

82

PIERRE VAN HECKE

is employed for the sharpening of weapons and other metal objects (Gen 4:22; 1Sam 13:20; Ps 7:13; 52:4).25 In a number of translations and commentaries, the image of God’s incessant control is at times misinterpreted or completely neglected. In Job 30:20 Job protests: “I cry to you and you do not answer me; I stand, and you gaze at me.” Many commentators and translations assume that the parallelism in this verse is incorrect and therefore opt for the introduction of a negative particle in the second half line of the verse: “I stand, and thou dost not heed me” (RSV, emphasis mine).26 Other translations do not add the negation, but interpret God’s gazing as a sign of lack of interest: “I stand, and you merely look at me” (NRSV)27. In my opinion, it is nevertheless better to read the verse in line with the idea that Job feels supervised by God: “I stand and you keep a watch on me.” Thus the contrast is highlighted between God’s silence and his piercing eyes. What deeply offends Job is that God never answers, even though he watches Job’s every move, even as soon as he gets up. The metaphor of God’s incessant look, which is unique to the book of Job, fits into the book’s larger theme of suffering. Suffering is unpleasant in itself, and is something one wishes to flee from. If it continues, it feels as though one is being pursued: everywhere one goes, suffering seems to follow. In Biblical writings generally, God is seen as the one who controls both blessing and suffering, which implies that God keeps on tracking mankind with his own eyes. The fact that God’s eyes follow mankind incessantly is at odds with mankind’s desire to pursue its road at its own pace, without The NAS completely cancels the metaphor by translating “My adversary glares at me”, rather than the more common “My adversary sharpens his eyes against me” (RSV 16:9). 26 Similarly in BJ: “sans que tu me remarques” or the EÜ: “doch du achtest nicht auf mich”. 27 The NAB goes so far as to change the preceding verb from the first to the second person: “you stand off and look at me”, further strengthening the image of a detached, uninterested God. 25

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 83 being monitored incessantly. As stated at the end of the previous paragraph, Job repeatedly gives voice to this desire. One example is the already cited 7:19: “Will you not look away from me for a while, let me alone until I swallow my spittle?” (NRSV), while 14:6 expresses the same idea: “look away from him [= mankind, a person], and desist, that he may enjoy, like a hireling, his day” (RSV)28. Job’s desire for rest is such that he would prefer (temporary) residence in Sheol, the underworld, to being monitored any longer: “Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath is past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!” (14:13, NRSV). 4.4 Solid and Fluid A final and particularly interesting group of metaphors conceptualizes suffering and health in terms of the so-called states of aggregation (solid, fluid, and gaseous) and of the transition of one state to another.29 Thus Job complains in 23:16 that God has made his heart “soft”30, while in 10:10 he describes his growth in his mother’s womb as the curdling of cheese. What connects these metaphors is that they both conceptualize the loss of control or the loss of life as a transition from a solid to a fluid state of aggregation (e.g. melting), while coming to life is understood as the transition from a fluid to a solid state of aggregation (e.g. solidifying, hardening). The underlying motivation for the use of this consistent group of metaphors is not hard to comprehend: natural substances in the solid state withstand external A similar conceptualization can be found in Ps 39:14, Isa 2:22 and Amos 7:5. 29 P. Van Hecke, ‘Is my Flesh Bronze?’ (Job 6:12): Metaphors of Fluidity and Solidity in the Description of the Body in the Book of Job, in: Classical Bulletin (forthcoming). 30 Several translations have eliminated the metaphor, see, e.g., NRSV: “God has made my heart faint”, NAB: “Indeed, God has made my courage fail”; BJ: “Dieu a brisé mon courage”; Luther: “Gott ist’s, der mein Herz mutlos gemacht [hat]”. 28

84

PIERRE VAN HECKE

impacts and keep their form even under pressure. Moreover, solid substances can independently stand up straight and do not require a recipient to hold to hold them together (as is the case for liquids and gases). As such, solid substance is an excellent source domain for the metaphorical description of a balanced state of mind and a healthy body. However, liquids and, a fortiori, gasses keep their form to a lesser degree and easily intermingle with their respective environments, even to the extent that they become completely absorbed by it and can no longer be recognized as separate substances. Thus, they make up the ideal source domain for the metaphorical description of physical or mental weakness or loss of control. A first group of metaphors that makes use of the states of aggregation in order to comment on health and happiness as well as suffering can be found in Job 10. This chapter holds some of the most impressive descriptions of God as the creator of the individual person. In these descriptions, the body is first and foremost depicted as made of clay, formed by God’s hand: “Remember that you fashioned me like clay; and will you turn me to dust again?” (10:9, NRSV). This metaphor is relatively frequent in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 2:7; Isa 45:9; 64:7; Jer 18:6) and bears three important implications. First, the plasticity of the clay and the freedom of the potter to make whatever he chooses, play an important role: mankind is as clay in God’s hands and he can do with it what he pleases. Second, the clay is not only shaped throughout this ‘manufacture’ but it also acquires an increased solidity: from soft clay, mankind becomes an entity that stands by itself, in all meanings of the term. A third aspect, related to the production of earthenware, comes into play when it is used to describe the creation of mankind: before the piece of clay was moulded, it was part of an unrecognizable, amorphous mass of clay. Just as the piece of clay becomes an individualised object, a person is taken from the mass of life in order to become recognizable and individualized. This meaning seems to be entailed in the difficult verse 33:6 in which Job’s friend Elihu states: “Behold I, like yourself, have been taken from the same clay by God” (NAB).

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 85 In Job 10:10, a second, related metaphor for Job’s birth and growth is found, though its exact meaning is debated: “Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?” (NRSV). The verb, ‫ נתך‬translated as “pouring out”, is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the casting of metal in a mould or even to the melting down of metal. Analogously, the verb in 10:10 does not mean the pouring out of milk as such, but the pouring out of milk in the process of making cheese. The growth of a person in the womb is thus described in similar terms as in the previous verse, namely, as the transition from a liquid, amorphous mass to a solid, identifiable entity. Most commentaries have proposed an expansion of the metaphor by reading ‫‘ חלב‬milk’ as a metaphorical reference to human semen: after being poured into the womb, it curdles and thus forms the foetus. 31 However, this seems a farfetched explanation. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or in its cognate literature, to my knowledge, is semen ever conceptualized as milk, even though gestation is commonly understood as coagulation.32 After Job 10:10 with its metaphors about states of aggregation, the author proceeds to other metaphors in the S.R. Driver and G.B. Gray, The Book of Job (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958), 248. 32 For Classical references, see F. Horst, Hiob (BKAT 16.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 156. Following the same line of thought, one could argue that that milk does not curdle into cheese by itself, but does so only after the addition of a coagulant. If the foetus is conceptualized as curdled cheese, should the seed then not be referred to as the coagulant? Let it be clear that I do not want to carry this line of thought so far, though this specific conceptualization can be found, for instance, in Midrashic literature (Wayyiqra Rabba 14,9): “A woman’s womb is full of blood [...], a drop of white matter goes and falls into it and immediately the foetus begins to form. It may be compared to milk in a basin; if one puts rennet (mesō) into it, it congeals and becomes consistent [...]”. (Quoted in M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting [Cuneiform Monographs 14; Groningen: Styx Publications, 2000], 12). 31

86

PIERRE VAN HECKE

domain of the production of fabrics. At least, that is how all recent translations render the second part of 10:11: “[You] knit me together with bones and sinews” (RSV, emphasis mine). Nonetheless, the meaning of the rather rare verb ‫סכך‬ —traditionally translated as ‘to knit’ — is unresolved. In a forthcoming contribution, I argue on the basis of semantic research that this Hebrew term would be better translated as the ‘casting’ of metal, and 11b should be translated as “you have cast me with bones and sinews”. Read this way, 10:11b fits in neatly with what precedes in verse ten: “Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?”, in which a verb which also denotes the casting (of metal) is used. As bones and sinews are the hardest parts of the body, it seems reasonable to consider them to be ‘cast’ like metal. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that verse eleven speaks first of the external clothing of the body with flesh and skin and only subsequently of the casting of the more solid, internal parts. 33 When the growth of the foetus is seen as a transition from fluid to solid, it makes good sense to name the hardest parts last as they need the longest time to be formed. The description of health and strength as solid matter also appears in 6:12 where Job complains that he is nearing the end of his vital forces and asks whether his strength is as that of stones and his flesh is as bronze. Since stone and bronze were two of the hardest substances known at that time, Job is explaining that, unlike those two materials, he does not go unchanged under God’s incessant blows. So, physical and mental health is again conceptualized as material solidity. As the transition from liquid to solid substance is used to conceptualize physical and mental existence, it is obvious that the reverse process (from solid to liquid) is used metaphorically to indicate the loss of existence. In Job 23:16, This remark, of course, holds just as well if one translates the second part of the verse with ‘weaving’, also in that case the order is reversed: ‘weaving’ someone with sinews and bones is logically prior to clothing this person with skin and flesh. 33

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 87 the protagonist complains that God has “softened his heart”,34 thus giving expression to his loss of strength and stability. This process is described more specifically in 30:19 where Job reproaches God for having cast him into the mire. Usually this is read as an expression of humiliation.35 However, the term ‫ חמר‬is rarely used for mud36; it is rather a designation for the clay used to make bricks or mould pots. So Job does not reproach God for having hurled him to the ground, but for having made him return to a state of soft, amorphous clay. The same image can be found in the already mentioned context of 10:9: after Job has reminded God of the fact that he once modelled him from clay, he now asks whether God wants to return him to clay37, that is, to strip him of his form and stability and make him become a formless lump of clay all over again.

Paraphrased in NAB as: “Indeed God has made my courage fail”; NLT in idiomatic English, while nonetheless retaining the reference to ‘heart’: “God has made me sick at heart”. A different metaphor is found in BJ: “Dieu a brisé mon courage”. 35 F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951), 330. 36 This is possibly the case in Isa 10:6, though this instance could also refer to the potter’s clay that is softened with the feet. Compare Isa 41:25 and Nah 3:14. 37 The term used here (‫ )עפר‬is generally translated as ‘dust’, but this is not the only — and in many cases not the most appropriate — denotation. The word, rather, designates the substance of soil in general, be it in a dry (‘dust’) or a wet state (‘mud’). For the latter meaning, cf. Lev 14:41v.45; 2 Sam 22:43//Ps 18:43. In his monograph on Accadian metaphors, Streck provides an interesting parallel for this process of “becoming clay” as a metaphorical expression for non-existence: “Mindestens einmal ist der Ausdruck [‘zu Lehm werden’, PVH] aber eine Metapher für Nicht-Existenz: ‘Wäre doch jener Tag zu Lehm geworden, weil ich (damals) in der Versammlung der Götter Böses befahl!’” (M.P. Streck, Die Bildersprache der akkadischen Epik [AOAT 264; Münster: UgaritVerlag, 1999], 184). 34

88

PIERRE VAN HECKE

Another aspect of the same metaphor can be found in 30:22. Difficult though the last words of the verse might be, they are, as has been argued elsewhere,38 best translated as “you have softened me in a storm.” The precise meaning of this expression becomes clear when considering the only other identical form of this verb (polel of ‫ )מוג‬in Ps 65:10, which describes how God has softened the land with his rain so as to make the crops grow. In this psalm, the process of softening is regarded as positive, but there is no reason why the same verb could not be read here with a negative metaphorical meaning: Job complains that God has softened him and made him lose his solidity and form. A last conceptualization of weakness, illness and death as ‘becoming soft’ is probably found in 7:16 and even in Job’s notoriously difficult last words in 42:6. Several commentaries, translations and dictionaries have pointed out that the verb forms in these verses should be ascribed to a verb ‫מאס‬ meaning “melting” or “flowing” (related to ‫)מסס‬, and not to the more common homonymous verb meaning “rejecting, refusing”39. If this is correct, both 7:16 and 42:6 conceptualize the loss of control and life as fluid. In 7:16 this leads to the translation: “I melt away and shall no longer live, [...],” and similarly in 42:6, as has been convincingly argued by Thomas Krüger.40 Job concludes his long speeches with the accepting words: “I shall thus melt away, but I am comforted about dust and ashes [= about my being dust (or soil as discussed above) and ashes]”.41 Even in his very last words Job thus Van Hecke, ‘Is my Flesh Bronze?’ (forthcoming; see n. 29). Gesenius (W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005]), sub voce. Compare also with 7:5 where the skin is said to liquify, see also Ps 58:8. 40 T. Krüger, Did Job Repent?, in: Krüger, M. Oeming, K. Schmidt and C. Uehlinger (eds.), Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen (ATANT 88; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 217–229, here 225. 41 I have already stated that the word for ‘dust’ can also be translated as its wetter variant ‘mire, mud’. Even if that were the case here, the presence of the word ‫‘ אפר‬ash’ clearly indicates that two metaphors are 38 39

“I MELT AWAY AND WILL NO LONGER LIVE” 89 describes his fate as metaphorically becoming soft or liquid. Only this time, he has come to terms with the idea.

5. CONCLUSION Throughout the book of Job, a large variety of metaphors is used to conceptualize Job’s fate and God’s part in it. Understanding these metaphors is central to a proper understanding of the book. A better understanding of particular metaphors allows a better interpretation of particular verses, as the discussions on, e.g., Job 30:20 and 10:9 have demonstrated but, more importantly, the study of the metaphors Job uses in his self-description gives us an insight into the way in which the book fundamentally conceptualizes human existence and God’s involvement in it. Also at the hermeneutical level, insight into Job’s metaphors is essential for understanding Biblical metaphors generally. Biblical metaphors also supply models and a language that can render contemporary experiences of suffering intelligible and communicable. Obviously, some metaphors will be considered more appropriate than others, but confrontation with different metaphors as potential conceptualizations of our own experience offers at least a substratum for our own reflection and conversation. The multiplicity of different metaphors shows, moreover, that the experience of suffering is not univocal. It is in fact the mosaic of different consistent and coherent metaphors that reveals something of Job’s experience of suffering. This, in and of itself, is an invitation to listen attentively to the variety of metaphors and images that are being used — be it in a professional or a personal context — in the stories of suffering and life that surround us. Though, being intermingled (and this is not unusual in the Hebrew Bible): Job not only melts away, he is also levigated, i.e. falls apart to dust and ash. The two metaphors, of course, are not consistent on the level of the image, but they are coherent on a more abstract level: in both cases Job loses his original form and state.

90

PIERRE VAN HECKE

as often argued, the book of Job does not attempt to resolve the inflicted suffering, its multiplicity of metaphors can help to deal with the matter.

THE TREE OF METAPHORS ‫ עץ חיים‬in the Book of Proverbs Karolien Vermeulen Cain

Were I quiet earth, That were no evil: would I ne’er had been Aught else but dust!

Lucifer

That is a grov’ling wish, Less than thy father’s, for he wish’d to know.

Cain

But not to live, or wherefore pluck’d he not the life-tree?1 Previous research on the book of Proverbs has led to the following conclusions: the tree of life in Proverbs is not mythical, it stands for a long — not an eternal — life and it is related to wisdom. Taking into account the main themes of the book as well as its position in a larger set of proverbial and instructional literature, these observations should not surprise us. Nevertheless, one question remains: how and why does a strong metaphor, such as the tree of life, lose all mythical connotations and thus its link with immortality? Harding Grant (ed.), Lord Byron’s Cain, a Mystery, with Notes (London: William Crofts, 1830), 128, 133. 1

91

92

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

In this article, I will examine the tree of life metaphor in the book of Proverbs by using thematic and verbal parallels in both biblical and non-biblical stories. I will argue that the connection with mythical model trees is not lost. First, I will discuss some general observations of the tree of life in Proverbs to move on to the model trees inside and outside the Hebrew Bible. Then, I will focus on the implications of the findings and formulate an answer to my initial question: what does the tree of life stand for in Proverbs?

1. THE TREE OF LIFE IN PROVERBS: OBSERVATIONS The tree of life is mentioned four times in the book of Proverbs: in Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12, and 15:4. It is described as “wisdom,” “fruit of the righteous,” “a fulfilled desire,” and “a healing tongue.”2 In all cases the tree occurs without definite article and in a parallelism. This parallelism is synonymous in Proverbs 3 and 11, antonymous in the other verses. The tree is always connected to good things, such as long life, honor, wealth, and there is a strong urge to the audience to reach for the tree.3 While the text indeed equals the tree with wisdom in Prov 3:18,4 the major claims in respect of myth and longevity do not have explicit textual support. 1.1 A (De)Mythologized Tree Scholars, such as Ralph Marcus and Roland Murphy, argue that the tree is not mythical.5 Instead, Proverbs’ tree is a Prov 3:18: ‫ ;עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה‬11:30: ‫ ;פרי צדיק עץ חיים‬13:12: ‫ ;ועץ חיים תאוה באה‬15:4: ‫מרפא לשון עץ חיים‬. 3 See the examples quoted on page 91. 4 Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 461. 5 Ralph Marcus, “Tree of Life in Essene (?) Tradition,” in: JBL 74, (1955): 274; Roland Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 29; Ronald Murphy, Proverbs (WBC 22; Nashville, Tennessee: 2

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

93

human tree and does not have any connections whatsoever with mythical times and likewise aspirations, which Jutta Krispenz formulates as follows: “Den vier Stellen fehlt weitgehend der mythologische Beiklang, die Verbindung von Baum und Leben scheint in ihnen als ein konventionelles Bild ohne starke Hintergründigkeit verwendet.” 6 Claus Westermann finds support in the general motive of a tree of life in the ancient Near East, and concludes that there is no reason to assume a connection between Proverbs and Genesis when it comes to the ‫עץ חיים‬.7 However, the examples he quotes, among others the Gilgamesh epic, show striking resemblances with the Genesis Eden narrative. Furthermore, he admits that the mythological link with Genesis 2–3 is extant in early Judaism and New Testament writings, such as 4 Esdras 8:52 and 1 Enoch 24–25.8 Marcus Thomas Nelson, 1998), 22; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 373; Jutta Krispenz, “Wie viele Bäume braucht das Paradies? Erwägungen zu Gen II 4B-III 24,” in: VT 54 (2004): 301–318 (309); Ralph Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” in: JBL 62 (1943): 117–180 (119); Claus Westermann, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, Genesis Kapitel 1–3 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 291. 6 Krispenz, “Wie viele Bäume,” 309. 7 Westermann, Genesis Kapitel 1–3, 291; Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” 119–20. 8 4 Esdras 8:52: “vobis enim apertus est paradisus, plantata est arbor vitae, praeparatum est futurum tempus, praeparata est abundantia, aedificata est civitas, probata est requies, perfecta est bonitas ante perfecta sapientia,” “for to you paradise is opened, planted is the tree of life, prepared is the time to come, prepared is abundance, build is a city, allowed is rest, completed is goodness before wisdom is completed.” 1 Enoch 24–25, e.g. 25:4–5: “And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgment … It shall then be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect (Robert Charles, The Apocryphy and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963], 204–205).” On the tree of life in Enoch see Eibert Tigchelaar, “Eden and Paradise: The Garden Motif in Some Early Jewish Texts (1 Enoch and Other Texts Found at Qumran),” in:

94

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

finds additional support in the fact that ‫ עץ חיים‬has a medical rather than a mythological meaning as it is used in the later Hebrew ‫סם חיים‬, “health giving drug.”9 Moreover, the Hebrew word ‫ חיים‬covers a whole range of meanings including health and not just the field of life itself. 10 Marcus’ arguments open up the discussion as it allows for reading ‫חיים‬ in its broader semantic field as a long life, even a very long or eternal life. And does the remedy, the health inducing medicine, not lead to a long life and perhaps eternity as well? Marcus himself states in a later article that in the medieval Midrash, the book of Noah, a combination of “the mythological and medical meanings of ‫ ”עץ חיים‬occurs which “reminds one of the passage in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, chapter 25, where the fruit of the tree of life is said to assure the elect of long life.”11 One wonders why he excludes this combination in case of the Proverbial tree. The main argument for holding to a demythologized tree of life, although not expressed explicitly, seems to be based on the setting of Proverbs as didactic wisdom literature for and by people in the tradition of the Egyptian Instructions for Amenemope.12 The maxims show the righteous versus the fool and are down to earth practical guidelines to live one’s life. In this view, the mythical tree would be at odds with the overall tone of the book. Gerard Luttikhuizen [ed.], Paradise Interpreted: Representation of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 37–62. 9 Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” 119 10 Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” 119. Marcus’ view is supported by the use of the word ‫ שלום‬in parallelism with ‫ עץ חיים‬in Prov 3:17–18. But the parallelism, he is referring to, does not occur in the same verse, and strictly speaking the tree is parallel with happiness. Content wise, both health and longevity will give humanity happiness, and the question is how far apart the two concepts are in fact. 11 Marcus, “Tree of Life in Essene (?) Tradition,” 274. 12 Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2006), 146– 164.

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

95

Few scholars reject the general assumption of a nonmythological tree. Veronika Bachmann warns in a footnote for hasty generalizations when it comes to abandoning all mythic readings.13 With her Howard Wallace remarks that some mythical aspects could have been left other than the notion of immortality.14 Terje Stordalen sees similar features between the proverbial and Genesis tree and relies on Sirach: “Sirach contains a few passages sustaining the view of Wisdom as a Tree of Life, and probably just that tree known from the Eden story.”15 Mitchell Dahood’s statement is less conditional. According to him, the tree is not demythologized after all.16 It is “not a secularized term or a faded metaphor that has survived from older mythological terminology but rather a full-bodied expression of eternal life.”17 By doing so, he replaces the common view by its total opposite. I would like to add two more elements to the discussion in favor of a mythological reading of the tree. First, the terms ‘myth’ and ‘mythical’ are not defined properly by any of the scholars. Does mythical stand for those things occurring in myth only? Or does it also involve that which is derived from the realm of myth and reused in a possibly non mythical context? Along with that, previous research underestimates the power of myth as well as the role of connotation in language. The tree of life is not a trivial symbol. It is a well-known metaphor, one that belongs to the

Veronika Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise? The Meaning of the ‘Tree of Life’ in 1 Enoch 24–25 Reconsidered,” in: JSP 19 (2009): 83–107 (102). 14 Howard Wallace, The Eden Narrative (HSM 32; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1985), 108. 15 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 372. 16 Mitchell Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1963), 25; Mitchell Dahood, “Immortality in Proverbs 12,28,” in: Bib 41 (1960): 176–181. 17 Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, 25. 13

96

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

collective memory, one that lives in people’s minds.18 By using the image, one inevitably evokes the existing images even if one wants to introduce a new metaphor. Besides the cognitive background, the text itself offers a second, even stronger counterargument. In the book of Proverbs, one talks about a tree of life, not the tree of life.19 The undefined tree implies that there is a model somewhere, the tree, to which one is referring. It is like saying: ‘your painting resembles a Monet.’ You have not made a Monet yourself, but Monet is your model, the one it resembles. There is no point in speaking of a Monet if there is not a the Monet. Likewise, talking about a tree of life signals to the audience that one should think in terms of the tree of life in order to understand the statement.20

Veronica Bachmann notices the same for the use of the tree of life in Enoch, although there an explicit reference to the tree of Genesis 2–3 is lacking. She concludes that “scholars, by supporting the common interpretation, must assume a very strong presence of the Genesis story in the minds of the historical readers. Only such a strong presence would evoke the intended association (Bachmann, “Rooted in paradise?,” p. 91).” For collective memory see the work of Jan Assmann, e.g. Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1992); Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” in: New German Critique 65, Cultural History/Cultural Studies (1995): 125–133. 19 On the use of the article in Hebrew see GKC §126, 404–410. 20 References to the Genesis tree in relation to the Proverbial tree can be found in Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise?” p. 91. Stordalen points to Genesis as the source domain for the metaphor (Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 376–377). According to Westermann, not Genesis but a general ancient Near Eastern image forms the model tree (Westermann, Genesis Kapitel 1– 3, 291). See also Paul Morris, “Exiled from Eden: Jewish Interpretations of Genesis,” in: Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden (Sheffield: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1992), 117–166 (117); Kelley Bautch, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I 18

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

97

1.2 A(n) (Im)Mortal Tree The discussion on the mythical status of the Proverbial tree is often intertwined with the aspect of immortality. According to Stordalen and others, the tree of life in Proverbs stands for a long and pleasant life, not for eternity.21 Indeed, many verses in the book promise a long life and good things for those walking the path of God.

Prov 2:20–21 ‫למען תלך בדרך טובים‬ ‫וארחות צדיקים תשמר‬ ‫כי ישרים ישכנו ארץ‬ ‫ותמימים יותרו בה‬

“So you will walk in the way of the good and the paths of the righteous you will keep. For the upright will inhabit the land the innocent will remain in it.”

Prov 3:1–2 ‫בני תורתי אל תשכח‬ ‫ומצותי יצר לבך‬ ‫כי ארך ימים ושנות חיים‬ ‫ושלום יוספו לך‬

“My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments; for length of days, years of life and peace they will add to you.”

Prov 3:16–17 ‫ארך ימים בימינה‬ ‫בשמאולה עשר וכבוד‬ ‫דרכיה דרכי נעם‬ ‫וכל נתיבותיה שלום‬ Have Seen” (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 123; and Robert Scott, Proverbs — Ecclesiastes (AB; Yale University Press, 1995), 47, n. 18. 21 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 460; Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 108–109; Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” 119–120; Scott, Proverbs — Ecclesiastes, 47, n. 18; Milton Horne, Proverbs — Ecclesiastes (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2003), 63.

98

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN “Length of days is in her right hand, in her left wealth and honor. Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths peace.” Prov 9:11 ‫כי בי ירבו ימיך‬ ‫ויוסיפו לך שנות חיים‬

“For through me your days will increase, and years of life will be added for you.”

When it comes to the tree of life, however, a long life is only mentioned in connection with the tree in Proverbs 3 and even here the concepts are not presented as identical. It actually suggests that, since the tree of life is wisdom, it stands for more than length of days. The tree surpasses as the biblical text says it ‫כל חפציך‬, “all your goods.”22 The text continues in verse 19 with references to the moment of creation.23 This evokes Genesis 1–2 and the Garden of Eden with a tree of life metaphor for immortality.24 Thus, equaling the tree of life to length of days in this passage overlooks the other references in the same lines that bring in the tree as image of eternal life. Furthermore, there are no verses stating that immortality is not on the wish list. On the contrary, as Dahood has pointed out, one actually speaks about it in Prov 12:28: ‫בארח‬ ‫צדקה חיים ודרך נתיבה אל מות‬, “in the way of the righteous is life; and in the pathway thereof there is no death.” His reading is based on an earlier one developed by Franz Delitzsch, who translates as follows: “und das Wandeln ihres

Prov 3:15. Prov 3:19: ‫יהוה בחכמה יסד ארץ כונן שמים בתבונה‬, “The LORD established the earth by wisdom; he founded the heavens by understanding.” 24 Gen 1:1: ‫בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ‬, “Initially, God created the heavens and the earth.” 22 23

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

99

Steiges ist Unsterblichkeit.”25The words ‫ אל מות‬are read as a compound noun, which is used parallel with ‫חיים‬, “life.”26 Dahood relies on this verse to explain verse 11:30, where the tree of life parallels ‫נפשות‬. In analogy, ‫ נפשות‬would then be “a plurale excellentiae signifying ‘life par excellence.’”27 His solution immediately undoes the problem of the wise man taking lives or people as in the traditional reading, in which ‫ לקח נפשות‬is considered a variant of ‫לקח נפש‬. Dahood’s interpretation is supported by the Ugaritic myth of Anath and Aqhat, in which ‫ לקח‬and eternal life are coined: mt!.uḫryt.mh.yqḥ/ mh.yqḥ.mt.aṯryt — “Further life — how can mortal attain it? How can mortal attain life enduring?”28 Waltke, although not convinced by Dahood’s interpretation of the ‫ נפשות‬in Prov 12:28 as an abstract ‘eternal life,’ subscribes the general idea nevertheless. He favors Bonora’s and Irwin’s reading connecting the fruit of the tree in Prov 11 to eternal life.29 The fruit becomes the aspiration of the righteous to obtain immortality.30 It forms the ultimate reward for the ultimate wise one. The relation between fruit and immortality is of particular interest for another reason as well. This link, just as the use of a tree of life instead of the tree of life, refers to one of its possible models, the tree in Genesis.

Franz Delitzsch, Das Salomonische Spruchbuch (Leipzig: Dörffling, 1873), 207ff. 26 Dahood, “Immortality in Proverbs 12,28,” 176–177; Delitsch, Das Salomonische Spruchbuch, 207ff. 27 Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, 25. 28 2 Aqht VI: 35–36; Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, 24–25, Dahood, “Immortality in Proverbs 12,28,” 176–181. 29 Bruce Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 510. 30 Antonio Bonora, “Accogliere la vita’ in Pr 11,30,” in: RivB 37 (1989): 313–316; William Irwin, “The Metaphor in Proverbs 11,30,” in: Bib 65 (1984), 97–100. 25

100

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

2. THE MODEL TREE Several models from the book of Genesis and from ancient Near Eastern parallel sources can underlie the tree of Proverbs. 2.1 Genesis 2–3 The one that comes first to mind is the tree of life in the book of Genesis. In chapter two the Garden of Eden is described having two trees: the tree of life in the middle and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9). In Genesis 3, the snake draws woman’s attention to the tree — no specifications at first — to eat from it (Gen 3:2–6). The tree is called ‫עץ דעת טוב ורע‬, “the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” which causes the eater to know (Gen 3:5). Notice the play between the ‫ דעת‬of the tree and the verb ‫ידע‬, both ‘know’ and ‘carnally know.’31 The tree, however, is also identified as the one in the middle of the garden, a qualification of the tree of life before (Gen 2:9). To confuse things even more, the woman is named the mother of all living in Gen 3:20 as to affirm the presence of the tree of life.32 At the end of chapter 3, there are two separate trees again: one that humanity has taken from, the ‫עץ דעת טוב ורע‬ and one of which they have not, ‫עץ החיים‬. In order to protect the latter, man and woman are banished from the garden (Gen 3:22–23).33 Scholars have explained the inconsistency in the use of the trees by its origin. Two traditions are combined in the HALOT, 3570, s.v. ‫ ;ידע‬Ellen van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 8–9. 32 Westermann, Genesis Kapitel 1–3, 364–366; Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh, 1930), 85–87; Ellen Van Wolde, Verhalen over het begin, Genesis 1–11 en andere scheppingsverhalen (Baarn, 1995), 62; Bruce K. Waltke and Cathy J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), 95; Karel Deurloo, Genesis (Kampen, 1998), 54; Jagersma, Genesis 1:1–25:11 (Nijkerk, 1995), 56. 33 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 460. 31

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

101

text.34 In the overarching story before and after the snake episode, there are therefore two clearly distinctive trees. In the middle story, the tree is one. Specifications are not necessary as there is no other tree to oppose to.35 Yet, they do come into play to highlight the centrality and importance of the commandment that humanity transgresses. While the source critical analysis explains the tree paradox, it does not show us how to read the story as we have it, i.e., how the two traditions work as one on a narratological level.36 The answer lies in the metaphorical nature of both trees. One tree stands for wisdom/knowledge, the other for immortality.37 The Eden story is a metaphorical tale, in which the trees are part of a larger garden metaphor. The garden is life, God is the gardener, and the trees represent wisdom and immortality. Their fruit is a piece of this wisdom and immortality. God is protecting the trees against thieves, such as man and woman. Both tree images share the vegetal source domain and even their target domain overlaps largely.38 As Juan Alzuguren, Eden y paraiso: fondo cultural mesopotamico en el relato biblico de la creacion (Madrid: Marova, 1966), 297ff; Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 101–102; Krispenz, “Wie viele Bäume?” 301–318, esp. 302–302; Westermann, Genesis Kapitel 1–3, 289–291, 317; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 46; Leo Perdue, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 82. 35 Krispenz, “Wie viele Bäume,” 302; James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1993), 58–59. 36 See also James Barr, The Garden of Eden, 60: “There is certainly a meaning and a message in the fact of this mixture, ill-coordinated as the mixture at some points may be. In the story as we have it, the tree of life is nearby at the beginning, and in the end it forms not perhaps the only but certainly the most vividly expressed motivation for the expulsion.” 37 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 103; Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise?” 88. See also Gen 3:22–23. 38 Joseph Grady, Todd Oakley and Seana Coulson, “Blending and Metaphor,” in: Raymond Gibbs and Gerard Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, Selected Papers From the Fifth International Cognitive 34

102

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

the main difference is made up by the concept they embody, it is possible to refer with one image to one tree and its concept or to the other tree and what it stands for or to a blend of both. Merging metaphors and domains is far less problematic than mixing two real trees. If the trees are metaphors, then their inconsistent use in the story is no longer a question mark. Secondly, the intertwining of the trees illustrates the close connection between wisdom/knowledge and immortality.39 The story of Eden illustrates this well. By eating from the tree, humanity gains knowledge — ‫ויעדו כי‬ ‫עירמם הם‬, “and they knew that they were naked”40 — the secret of procreation is revealed. From that point on, they also obtain a kind of immortality as they realize they will live on through their offspring.41 Knowledge is a conditio sine qua non for immortality. One can even add that at the very moment that humanity understands the implications of procreation, they have found their tree of life as well. It is the Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam July 1997 (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998), 101–125; Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, “Conceptual Integration Networks,” in: Cognitive Science 22 (1998): 138–187; George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980). 39 Barr, The Garden of Eden, 60; Stordalen rather sees a “fundamental conflict” “between life and knowledge” (Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 462). See also Joel Rosenberg, “The Garden Story Forward and Backward: The Non-Narrative Dimension of Gen 2–3,” in: Prooftexts 1 (1981): 1–27, 18. 40 Gen 3:7: ‫וידע כי עירמם הם‬. 41 Alzuguren, Eden y paraiso, 300; Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 103ff; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 459. See also the range of the word ‫חיים‬ which goes from ‘life’ over ‘health’ to ‘immortality’ (Bruce Vawter, “Intimations of Immortality and the Old Testament,” in: JBL 91 (1972): 158–171, 163; Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” 119). For the cosmic order see Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 459. Notice that the revelation consists of knowledge, not of the sexual act as such. The text emphasizes that humanity understands from this point on the full implications of procreation.

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

103

knowledge of the former that brings closer the latter. God’s tree of life, however, is out of reach. But nowhere in the story has it said that they could have taken from it anyway.42 As the end of Genesis 3 implies, humanity was not supposed to eat from the tree of life either.43 That would make the tree more of a tantalization than of a real benefit. Another story that shows the bound of concepts is 1 Kings 3:4–28, in which wisdom opens up a range of good things for Solomon. He can pick whatever he wants and God will make it happen. He does not choose to be immortal, while he could, but to be wise. His preference brings him a good life, offspring, health, and wealth.44 A similar choice is made in Genesis and Proverbs.45 It implies that the one, who has wisdom, does no longer need immortality whether that is because he realizes it is unattainable, whether the human variant of immortality through procreation is considered enough of a solution or

It also affirms the observation that “in mythical material the view is that no human lives for ever.” (Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 459) There is an exception in the form of royal ideology, as rulers can become immortal or deified. Rosenberg interprets the role of the tree otherwise in terms of individual versus family life. It is the family that lives on, not the individual human being. As a result, “immortality becomes a qualified immortality of generational succession, a cooperative venture, and access to the ‘Tree of Life’ is made equivalent to the collective (and, as such, accursedly difficult and hazardous) self-realization of humanity through time” (Rosenberg, “The Garden Story Forward and Backward,” 19–20). 43 Gen 3:22–24. 44 1 Kgs 3:9: ‫ונתת לעבדך לב שמע לשפט את אמך להבין בין טוב לרע‬, “Give your servant a heart that understands to judge your people, to distinguish between good and bad;” 1 Kgs 3:12: ‫נתתי לך לב חכם ונבון‬, “I give you a wise and discerning heart;” 1 Kgs 3:13: ‫וגם אשר לא שאלת נתתי‬ ‫לך גם עשר וגם כבוד‬, “And also what you did not ask, I will give you, both wealth and honor;” 1 Kgs 3:14: ‫והארכתי את ימיך‬, “And I will lengthen your days.” 45 Connection wisdom-life in Prov 3:22, 8:35, 3:2, 9:11. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 461–462. 42

104

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

whether his wisdom and good deeds will lead to remembrance.46 2.2 Ancient Near East: Gilgamesh, Adapa, Sacred Trees The Genesis tree of life itself stands in a broader ancient Near Eastern culture, in which a theme of lasting life occurs.47 An identical equivalent lacks, but many plants of life and healing are mentioned that fulfill similar roles.48 The most famous example is found in the Gilgamesh epic, where the protagonist is intrigued by death after he has lost his beloved.49 Utnapishtim tells him of a plant that would heal him and make him young again.

It is a plant, its [appearance] is like box-thorn, its thorn is like the dog-rose’s, it will [prick your hands.] If you can gain possession of that plant, [ …]50 Gilgamesh finds the plant, saying: ‘Ur-šanabi, this plant is the “plant of heartbeat”, An example of the role of remembrance can be found in Prov 10:7: ‫זכר צדיק לברכה ושם רשעים ירקב‬, “The remembrance of the righteous leads to blessing, but the name of the wicked rots.” See also Vawter, “Intimations of Immortality,” 161. 47 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 259; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 459. 48 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 103–4, 114: “references of plants, food and water which bestow immortality or at least eternal youth.” 49 Alzuguren, Eden y paraiso, 300; Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 103–104; Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” 117; Scott, Proverbs–Ecclesiastes, 47; Barr, The Garden of Eden, 61: “eternal life and symbol for wise ways of conduct;” Westermann, Genesis Kapitel 1–3, 290–291. 50 Gilgamesh epic, Tablet XI, lines 283–286: “(283) šam-mu šu-ú ki-ma ed-de-et-t[i ši-kin-šú ? š]á-k[i]n (284) si-ḫi-il-šú kīma(gim) a-mur-din-nim-ma úsa[ḫ-ḫal qātīmin –k]a (285) šum-ma šam-ma šá-a-šú i-kaš-šá-da qa-ta-a-k[a:] (286) […]” (A. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Volume I [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003], 720–721. 46

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

105

By which means a man can recapture his vitality. I will take it to Uruk the Sheepfold, I will feed some to an old man and put the plant to the test. Its (or his) name will be “The Old Man Has Grown Young”, I will eat some myself and go back to how I was in my youth!’51 Shortly after, a snake takes the plant away. Notice the resemblance with the Eden narrative, where the serpent draws attention to the tree of knowledge and not the tree of life, as such making the former the object of desire and the latter in the end out of reach. Another plant occurs in the myth of Adapa.52 This hero had to come before Anu after breaking the South Wind’s wing. His lord Ea warns him not to eat or drink as the water and bread offered to him might be lethal. Anu, the sky god, indeed has water and bread ready for Adapa: Bring him the food of life, that he may eat.” He was brought the [fo]od of life; he did not e[a]t. [H]e was brought the water of life; he did not dr[ink].53 Therefore, Anu asks him “Come, Adapa, why did you not eat or drink? Hence you shall not live! Alas for inferior Gilgamesh epic, Tablet XI, lines 295–300: “(295) mur-šánabi šammu an-nu-ú šam-mu ni-kit-ti (296) šá amēlu (lú) ina lìb-bi-šú i-kaš-šá-du nap-šat! (BI)-su (297) ˹lu-bil-šu˺ ana lìb-bi urukki su-pu-ri (298) lu-šá-kil šiba-am-ma šam-ma lul-tuk (299) ˹šum-šu?˺ ši-i-bu iṣ-ṣa-ḫir amēlu (lú) (300) a-na-ku lu-kul-ma lu-tur a-na šá ṣu-uḫ-ri-ia-a-ma” (George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 722–723). 52 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 104–105; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 462. 53 Adapa, Fragment B, 60´–63´: “a-ka-al ba-la-ṭi • (61) le-qá-ni-šu-umma • li-kul • [a-k]a-al ba-la-ṭi (62) [i]l-qù-ni-šu-um-ma • ú-ul i-k[u]ul • me-e ba-laṭi (63) [i]l-qù-ni-šu-um-ma ◦ ú-ul il[-ti].” (Shlomo Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind. Language Has the Power of Life and Death [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001], 20–21) 51

106

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

humanity!”54 revealing to him the unique opportunity he has missed out on by refusing the meal offered to him. Adapa answers: “Ea my lord told me: ‘Do not eat, do not dr[i]nk!”55 As a result the hero gains wisdom, but no immortality.56 Again, the two concepts are mentioned in one breath and once more knowledge is all humanity can obtain. In addition, the theme of fertility is present in the story as well. The gods Dumuzi and Gizzida, who soften Anu’s judgment, are fertility deities and the South Wind itself is a wind bringing rain in the area.57 2.3 Trees in Iconographic Representations A third group of model trees is formed by the sacred and magic trees that occur in various iconographic and few literary materials.58 The portrayed trees are often accompanied by Gods or animals and can both represent the divine order and a royal order (with the king as intermediary between earthly and divine realm).59 One of the few extant texts is a bilingual text in which a giš-kin (Sumerian) or a kiškanu tree (Akkadian) is mentioned. It is used to cure some sort K of illness.60 The healing aspect has been recognized in Adapa, fragment B, 67´–68´: “al-ka ◦ Ia-da-pa • am-mi-ni • la ta-kuul • la ta-al-ti-ma • (68) la ba-al-ṭa-ta ˹a˺-a ni-ši da-a-l[a ?-t]i. ” (Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 20–21) 55 Adapa, fragment B, 68´–69´: “dé-a • be-lí • (69) iq-ba-a • la ta-˹ka˺-al • la ◦ ta-š[a-a]t-ti•.” (Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 20–21) 56 Adapa, fragment A, 4´: “ana šú-a-tú né-me-qa iddiššu (SUM-šú) napišta (ZI-tam) da-rí-tam ul iddišu (SUM-šú), To him he gave wisdom, but did not give eternal life.” (Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 9–10) 57 Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 67–68, 118. 58 Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” in: JNES 52 (1993): 161– 208; on divine order see 167–172. 59 Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life,” 167 (divine order), 168 (royal order). Also the Eden tree of life fits in here, “imaging cosmic order and individual well-being.” (Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 459) 60 CT, VI, 46, 200–204. 54

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

107

the tree of life in Proverbs as well. Especially Prov 15:4 supports this: ‫מרפא לשון עץ חיים וסלף בה שבר ברוח‬, healing versus breaking.61 Furthermore, the setting of the tree in the incantation “between the river of two mouths” reminds of the garden of Eden , as well as its place in the apšu and its lapis lazuli look.62 Sacred trees also stand for fertility and fecundity with the goddess Asherah as a prominent representative.63 She occurs at several places in the Hebrew Bible as well, such as 2 Kgs 23:4.64 Notice that the Greek translation of the Hebrew ‫אשרה‬ Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 105, 259, 609; Scott, Proverbs — Ecclesiastes, 47, n. 18; Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs”; Marcus, “Tree of Life in Essene Tradition,” 25. 62 CT, VI, 46, 183: “Uruduag giš-kín-gê-e ki-el-ta mú-a múš-me-bi nàza-gín-a abzu-ta (ni)-lá-a (var. e), in Eridu in a pure place the dark kiškanû grows; its aspect is like lapis lazuli branching out from the apšû.” Transcription and translation as in William Albright, “The Mouth of the Rivers,” AJSL 35 (1919): 163–164. For a discussion see also Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 105–6. 63 Horne, Proverbs - Ecclesiastes, 63; Perdue, Wisdom and Creation, 82; Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life,” 165, n. 26. This is conjectural according to Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 108; Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 111–112. On Asherah see also Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 147–148; John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 42–67; Judith Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 4–37, 54–83. 64 2 Kgs 23:4: ‫ויציו המלך את הלקיהו הכהן הגדול ואת כהני המשני ואת‬ ‫שמרי הסף להוציא מהיכל יהוה את כל הכלים העשוים לבעל ולאשרה ולכל צבא‬ ‫השמים‬, And the king ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priest of the second rank, and the guards of the threshold to bring out of the Temple of the LORD all the objects made for Baal and Asherah and all the host of heaven. In Isa 34:4, gods are depicted as trees in a garden: ‫ונמקו כל צבא‬ ‫השמים ונגלו כספר השמים וכל צבאם יבול כנבל עלה מגפן וכנבלת מתאנה‬, “All the host of heaven shall wither, and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll and all their host shall fall, like a leaf falling from the vine, and like a dropping fruit of the fig tree. 61

108

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

is αλσει, “sacred tree or grove.”65 The goddess herself is linked with fertility in her cult. A similar aspect of nourishing has been attested in Egyptian tree material.66 Some of the trees also have oracular powers. They give the visitor insight and knowledge.67 This evokes the image of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden. It is highly probable that all three models come together in the Proverbial tree of life. They are so to say branches of one and the same tree. When Proverbs introduces in 3:18 a tree of life, it brings in these three concepts.

3. THE PROVERBIAL TREE Besides the thematic connections between the Proverbial tree and other trees of life, there are also verbal connections with the Eden narrative. The shared vocabulary follows after the first mentioning of the tree of life. Prov 3:18 could be read as a guideline.68 While Stordalen argues that this verse is the only tree of life reference in Proverbs that has an “elaborated context” and can therefore be connected to the tree in Genesis in contrary to the other examples, I argue that this verse is the mere beginning of further references.69 Prov 3:18 leads the reader to the model tree that is further clarified in the other examples. In Prov 11:30, we read: ‫פרי צדיק עץ חיים‬, “fruit of the righteous is a tree of life.”70 The fruit of the righteous immediately brings the reader to the garden. It reminds of the fruit that came forth from all the trees (Gen 1:11–12), the commandment to be fruitful (Gen 1:28) and it especially brings into mind the forbidden fruit that looked delicious (Gen 2:17, 3:6). It makes the fruit Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 111–112; LSJ, 1974, s.v. αλσος. Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise?” 94. 67 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 462–463. 68 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 259–260. 69 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 374–375. 70 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 510; Vawter, “Intimations of Immortality,” 161 65 66

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

109

of the righteous of Proverbs, the fruit of knowledge and thus knowledge itself. At the same time, as the tree in Genesis also stands for immortality, the fruit refers to a piece of immortality be it human or divine.71 Furthermore, the fruit is a metaphor in itself, standing for offspring as in Hos 9:16: ‫פרי בלי יעשון‬, “they do not produce fruit.”72 Thus, the children of the righteous are a tree of life. This hardly needs explanation. Humanity becomes a growing family like a tree with many branches. Each child is a new branch. The words in Proverbs 11 evoke the central themes twice: once by referring to the fruit of the garden, once by using the fruit as a metaphor in itself. In Proverbs 13 we read: ‫עץ חיים תאוה באה‬, “a fulfilled desire is a tree of life.” The word ‫ תאוה‬occurs in the Eden narrative as well. When the woman looks at the fruit of the tree, she feels a desire (Gen 3:6). Moreover, the desire leads to action: she eats and fulfills her desire. The result is known by now: knowledge. Once more human reproduction is understood as the key to make humanity immortal through its descendants. The offspring makes up for the loss of the tree in Eden. According to Waltke, that is exactly what happens: In sum, Proverbs functions symbolically (and provisionally) as the ‘tree of life’ that was lost in Gen 2:22–24. By including this metaphor with some prominence, the author makes it clear that until we reach the ‘tree of life, which is in the paradise of God (Rev 2:7)’, we hold fast to the life-giving wisdom of the Book of Proverbs and more importantly to Jesus Christ, who supersedes Solomon’s wisdom.73

Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 459. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 90. See also Isa 14:29: ‫ופריו שרף מעוכף‬, “and its fruit will be a flying fiery serpent.” 73 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 260. 71 72

110

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

Proverbs formulates an answer to what has not worked out in Genesis. As the immortality connected to the tree is out of reach, what remains is a kind of immortality represented by a tree of life obtained through knowledge and wisdom. The verse in Proverbs 15 is the last mentioning of the tree of life.74 Here, the previous and following verse create more of a context as in Prov 3:18. ‫בכל מקום עיני יהוה‬ ‫צפות רעים וטובים‬ ‫מרפא לשון עץ חיים‬ ‫וסלף בה שבר ברוח‬ ‫אויל ינאץ מוסר אביו‬ ‫ושמר תוכחת יערם‬

“Everywhere are the eyes of the LORD Observing the bad and good ones A healing tongue is a tree of life But deceit in it is a breach in the spirit A fool contemns the discipline of his father But the keeper of reproof becomes wise.” While none of the words in Prov 15:4 literally occurs in Gen 2–3, the verses 3 and 5 share vocabulary. ‫ טוב ורע‬reminds of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and its connection with opening the eyes and insight (Gen 3:7). The word ‘eyes’ is also mentioned in verse 3 here. In verse 5, the root ‫ערם‬ occurs which evokes the cunningness of the snake (Gen 3:1). Notice that ‫ ערם‬has a positive connotation here — being synonymous to wisdom, contrary to what most commentators see in the same root in Genesis 3.75 The eyes Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 609. On the ambiguity of ‫ ערם‬see Gerda De Villiers, “Why on Earth? Genesis 2–3 and the Snake,” in: OTE 20 (2007): 632–640, 638; Walter Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” in: JTS 39 (1988): 1–27, 24–25; 74 75

THE TREE OF METAPHORS

111

and cleverness draw on the theme of knowledge, whereas the ‫ טוב ורע‬also brings in the procreative immortality. As for verse 4 in between these references, we can make the following comments. The word ‫ — לשון‬tongue, language is crucial in the snake episode in Genesis. It is the talking serpent that serves as a catalyst in the story. One of the animal’s characteristics is its bifurcated tongue. Figuratively speaking this means he can tell truth and lie or as Proverbs puts it a “healing tongue” and a “devious tongue.”76 Both aspects are connected to the snake in a broader cultural setting as well. There are iconographic and literary attestations of healing snakes and of treacherous ones.77 In Ecc1. 10:11, the expression ‫ בעל לשון‬occurs, “the serpent charmer,” connecting the tongue to the snake.78 While indeed ‫ לשון‬refers to the charmer, it is remarkable that the way to control the animal is by words. Otherwise put, there is a strong connection between the serpent and the word, be it his own or his opponent’s one. In Job 20:16, ‫ לשון‬is coined with an adder.79 A last element, which supports the Genesis connection, is the hapax ‫סלף‬.80 Through its sound, it reminds Ellen Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 6–9; John Sawyer, “The Image of God, the Wisdom of the Serpents and the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” in Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer (eds), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1992), 64–73, 68–69; Paul Kübel, “Ein Wortspiel in Genesis 3 und sein Hintergrund: Die “kluge” Schlange und die “nackten” Menschen,” in: BN 93 (1998): 11–22, 17; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 72. 76 Prov 15:4. 77 James Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2010), 58–124, 196–268. 78 Eccl 10:11: ‫אם ישך הנחש בלוא לחש ואין יתרון לבעל הלשון‬, “If the snake bites because of no charming, there is no advantage for the serpent charmer.” 79 Job 20:16: ‫ראש פתנים יינק תהרגהו לשון אפעה‬, “The poison of asps he sucks, the tongue of the adder kills him.” Horne, Proverbs - Ecclesiastes, 192. 80 HALOT, 6588, s.v. ‫סלף‬

112

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

of the hissing snake. Its meaning fits one of the characteristics of the snake, having a devious, crooked nature.

4. CONCLUSION Thus, the tree of life introduced in Prov 3:18 as a metaphor explicitly connects itself with the model tree of life as represented in Genesis 2–3 and in general with an ancient, mainly Mesopotamian concept of sacred trees and life giving plants. The new tree and its predecessors are bound by thematic and verbal parallels. The stories merge wisdom/knowledge and immortality. Humanity gains ‫ דעת‬and ‫חכמה‬, but eternal life remains the unreachable and not obtained divine attribute. Shared vocabulary consists of keywords as ‫ — פרי‬fruit and offspring, — ‫ תאוה‬desire and more implicitly ‫ — לשון‬healing and devious speech.81 The tree metaphor in Proverbs stands for a blend of things covering longevity, health, immortality and wisdom. It subscribes the broader garden metaphor as it occurs in Genesis and many of the later New Testament and Jewish writings. Whereas previous research favored a unidirectional, demythologized reading of the metaphor, the present analysis shows that the Proverbial tree of life is a complex and inclusive image. It draws on a strong mythological symbol and incorporates its connotations in the final message. It deals with more than a tree of life; it deals with the tree of life.

As for the last example, ‫ לשון‬is a shared underlying concept, rather than communal vocabulary. 81

3. PROPHETS

113

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH Metaphor as Dialogue with the Inner and Outer Biblical World of Second Isaiah Karolien Vermeulen We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the AuthorGod) but a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.1 In this article I will argue for an intertextual reading of the creation of heaven and earth in Second Isaiah, which has changed form, though kept the original message of the creation as described in Gen 1–2:4b. My starting point will be previous research of scholars, such as Benjamin Sommer, Yair Hoffman, and Meira Polliack, who have drawn attention

Roland Barthes and Stephen Heath, Image — Music — Text (New York: Hill and Wang, 1978), 146. 1

115

116

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

to the creation theme in Second Isaiah.2 Whereas they focus on creation in general, I will concentrate on the cosmological part, more in particular the creation of heaven and earth. First, I will briefly introduce heaven and earth in ancient Near Eastern traditions with special attention for the role of their creation in the book of Genesis. Secondly, I will turn to Second Isaiah and its metaphoric language use regarding cosmological creation. I will show how language, thought, and reality all contribute to the allusive heaven and earth passages in Isaiah 40–55. To conclude, I will summarize the main arguments and propose some semantic consequences of the particular language use.

1. HEAVEN AND EARTH TRADITION The word pair heaven and earth is older than Israelite culture.3 The pair is attested in at least five Semitic languages as well as in Sumerian.4 It is considered to be “universally Benjamin Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998); Yair Hoffman, “The First Creation Story: Canonical and Diachronic Aspects,” in: Henning Reventlow and Yair Hoffman(eds.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 32–53; Meira Polliack, “Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob in the Portrayal of Israel’s National Renewal,” in: Reventlow and Hoffman, Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, 72–110. 3 Edward Wright brings together the views of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Israel, Persia, Greece and Rome and the later Jewish and Christian traditions in his book The Early History of Heaven. He points to the many similarities, which support a common background, and the differences, which lay mainly in the purpose of the stories. He notes that “there was not one cosmography but several” (89) and thus various descriptions of the cosmos. The latter will be of importance to understand the different images of the creation of heaven and earth in Genesis and Second Isaiah (Edward Wright, The Early History of Heaven [New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000]). 4 Besides from the Hebrew ‫ארץ–שמים‬, Ugaritic has šmm — arṣ, Akkadian šamû — erṣetu, Phoenician šmm — ’rṣ, Aramaic šmy’ and ’rq’/ ’r‘’. 2

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

117

acknowledged antonymous”5 and “mutually exclusive in the framework of bipartite cosmology.”6 It stands for order and unity and as word pairs tend to do, “the separateness of the parts is suppressed and homogenized” and becomes “oneness out of twoness.”7 In Genesis 1–2:4b heaven and earth are introduced as a duality. As Robert Alter notices: “Creation advances through a series of balanced pairings, which in most instances are binary oppositions.”8 Through the use of these pairs the emphasis is not on the parts, but on the whole. The word pair functions as a merism. Thus, God created the entire universe. The idea of unity is further highlighted on the structural level by inclusio and chiasm. Gen 2:4’s ‫אלה תולדות השמים והארץ‬ ‫ בהבראם עשות יהוה אלהים ארץ ושמים‬mirrors Gen 1:1’s ‫בראשית‬ ‫ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ‬.9 The reversed order of the

Also in non-Semitic languages, such as Sumerian, the word pair exists: AN-KI (David Tsumura, Creation and Destruction. A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament [Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005], 60; Yitzhak Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984], 603–604). 5 Tsumura, Creation and Destruction, 60. It is remarkable that in none of these languages a word for cosmos exists. It is exactly through the double notion of heaven and earth that the notion of ‘world’ is expressed (Francesca Rochberg, “Mesopotamian Cosmology,” in: Daniel Snell (ed.), Companion to the Ancient Near East [Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2005], 316–329, esp. 316–317). 6 Tsumura, Creation and Destruction, 68. 7 Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 16. 8 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 142. 9 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 143. The inclusio has also been recognized by Bernhard Anderson (Bernhard Anderson, From Creation to New Creation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994], 52–53), and Howard Wallace (Howard Wallace, “Rest for the Earth? Another Look at Genesis

118

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

word pair in 2:4b marks the end through both an inner verse chiasm and a chiasm on the broader narrative level. It emphasizes the merismic nature of the word pair, as the parts are interchangeable and still represent the same whole.

2. SECOND ISAIAH In Isaiah 40–55 God appears thirteen times as creator of heaven and earth.10 This fairly high number has drawn scholarly attention and has led to previous research on the creation theme in Second Isaiah. Polliack summarizes this as follows: The process of creation, whether experienced by the individual or the collective, as a manifestation of God’s involvement in life and history was a major concern to the towering exilic prophet whose oracles have been preserved in Isaiah 40–55. Much attention has been given to Deutero-Isaiah’s conception of the cosmological event as a prototype for Israel’s historical redemption, and to his reinterpretation of the biblical creation accounts (particularly Gen 1.1–2.4), Exodus and Wilderness traditions in depicting the return from Babylon to Zion in terms of a ‘new creation’ and ‘second exodus’.11 While a conceptual connection through recycling of traditions has been recognized, it is less clear what the ‘new creation’ stands for on the level of the text and its wording. How did the author mold the existing material into its final shape and what inspiration can one see behind it?

2.1–3,” in: Norman Habel and Shirley Wurst [eds.], The Earth Story in Genesis [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000], 49–59, esp. 50). 10 Isa 40:12, 22, 42:5; 44:24; 45:8, 12, 18; 48:13; 49:13; 51: 6*2, 13, 16. 11 Polliack, “Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob,” 72.

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

119

2.1 Prolegomena Before turning to the textual evidence, a side note has to be made about relative chronology with regards to allusion. Not all scholars agree upon the primordiality of the Genesis account12 — a prerequisite to speak in terms of Isaianic allusion. The first creation story, attributed to the priestly source, has been dated in a wide range from as early as the end of the first millennium until the fourth century BCE.13 In one of the more recent works, Michael Coogan argues for a mid-sixth century BCE date, i.e., in exilic times. Baruch Halpern comes to a similar conclusion based on textual evidence. References to P in Jeremiah, the use of certain foreign names and the astronomy as appearing in the first creation story limit the possible time span to the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century BCE. His argument ensures a big enough chronological gap to justify Isaianic allusion on Genesis 1–2:4b, since the text of Second Isaiah is thought to be written around 540 BCE.14

Thomas Brodie, Genesis as a Dialogue. A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); Lyle Eslinger, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: the Question of Category,” in: VT 42 (1992): 42–58. 13 Gary Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1986); Michael Coogan, A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in Its Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009); John Rogerson, Genesis 1–11 (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 76. 14 Coogan, A Brief Introduction; Baruch Halpern, “Late Israelite Astronomies and the Early Greeks,” in: William Dever and Seymour Gitin (eds.), Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age Through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W.F. Albright (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 323–352; Peter Machinist, “Mesopotamian Imperialism and Israelite Religion: A Case Study from the Second Isaiah,” in: Dever and Gitin, Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past, 237–264 (in particular 254–258). 12

120

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

Moreover, the narrative as preserved and presented in both books supports an intertextual reading in which the Genesis story antedates — narratologically — Second Isaiah’s creation. The former projects itself back in mythic times in a dialogue with the older Babylonian Enuma Elish, whereas the latter plays in its own time with clear references to the late exilic period. Rather than describing primeval times it updates the story by using the old elements in a new setting.15 2.2 Isaianic Metaphors One tool applied in the Isaianic retellings is metaphor. Two main groups can be distinguished: cultural metaphors and procreative metaphors. They can, but do not have to be combined. In her work Mixing Metaphors. God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah Sarah Dille discusses the mixture of a metaphor that depicts God as “a divine artisan” with the metaphor of father and mother. While the former is a possible representation of the cultural imagery with God as a skillful creator who relies on empirics; the latter fits the metaphor of procreation, which I discuss here.16 2.2.1 Cultural Metaphor The metaphor of culture occurs in all verses discussing the creation of heaven and earth in Second Isaiah and should be understood as an image based on human forms of creation different from natural procreation. One can find this in Isa 40:12 with the weighing and measuring actions ‫מי־מדד בשעלו מים‬ ‫ושמים בזרת תכן‬ Peter Machinist, “Mesopotamian Imperialism,” 237–264. Sarah Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in DeuteroIsaiah (London/New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 102–127. See also Silvia Schroer and Thomas Staubli, Body Symbolism in the Bible (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2001), 150–181 (in particular 164–174). 15 16

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

121

‫וכל בשלש עפר הארץ‬ ‫ושקל בפלס הרים‬ 17

‫וגבעות במאזנים׃‬

In Isa 51:6 the earth is compared to clothes – ‫והארץ כבגד תבלה‬ , a product of human hands. Isa 45:18 speaks of the formation of the earth in terms of kneading and crafting: ‫הוא‬ ‫האלהים יצר הארץ‬. In Isa 48:13 Pierre Bonnard reads the verb ‫ יסד‬as a metaphor of edifice construction.18 In all examples, God takes the characteristics of a human creator. The many appearances of the word ‫ יד‬support this view as well, understood as “a body part of ‘power’ and of ‘physical labor’” by Mary Beth Szlos.19 She concludes regarding body parts that we could see how their use metaphorically imbues them with cultural values: e.g. hands represent power of varied kind and lips are semi-autonomous organs of speech.20

Isa 40:12: “Who measured with his hollow hand water, and heaven with a span, who did determine the measure, and seized with a third of a measure the dust of the earth and weighed with a balance mountains and heights with scales?” 18 Pierre Bonnard, Le Second Isaïe, son Disciple et leurs Editeurs: Isaïe 40–66 (Paris: Gabalda, 1972), 206. Luis Stadelmann states that “God is represented as the architect of the universe”. It is man’s environment that brings him to use such a metaphor. One can see the edifice idea also reflected in many other passages in the Hebrew Bible, such as Ps 104:3, and Amos 9:6 (Luis Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World. A Philological and Literary Study [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970], 44–45). 19 Mary Beth Szlos, “Body Parts as Metaphor and the Value of a Cognitive Approach: A Study of the Female Figures in Proverbs via Metaphor,” in: Pierre Van Hecke (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL 87; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 185–195, esp. 186–187. 20 Szlos, “Body Parts as Metaphor,” 195. 17

122

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

Although less frequently, natural metaphors occur in Second Isaiah. In Isa 45:8 the heaven drips and flows and the earth opens and bears fruit. In Isa 40:22 the earthlings are as grasshoppers.21 At the same time these verses carry cultural images as well. The grasshoppers may be nature’s creatures, but the curtain and the tent mentioned in the second half of the parallelism are not. The same obtains for the object of flowing and sprouting: righteousness which is a concept made up by the human mind to describe an abstract idea. Moreover, every instance of ‫ברא‬, another non-human creation, is countered by a culture based action. As such, the latter dominates the scene of creation of heaven and earth in Second Isaiah. 2.2.2 Procreative Metaphor Another metaphor is based on human procreation. David Lindberg remarks that people tend to describe the creation of the cosmos through its more anthropological counterpart since

it is natural that in the search for meaning they should proceed within the framework of their own experience, projecting human or biological trait onto objects and events that seem to us devoid not only of humanity but also of life. Thus the beginning of the universe is typically described in terms of birth.22

Isa 45:8 ‫הרעיפו שמים ממעל ושחקים יזלו־ צדק תפתח ארץ ויפרו־ישע‬ ‫( וצדקה תצמיח יחד אני יהוה בראתיו׃‬Pour down, heaven, from above, and let the heavens rain down righteousness; let the earth open and triumph sprout and right, let it sprout together; I the LORD have created it) and Isa 40:22 ‫הישב על־חוג הארץ וישביה כחגבים הנוטה כדק שמים וימתחם כאהל‬ ‫( לשבת׃‬It is he who sits on the circle of the earth and its inhabitants are as grasshoppers; he who stretches as a curtain heaven, and spreads it as a tent to dwell in). 22 David Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context. 21

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

123

The word ‫ יד‬is used five times as the tool, by which God creates. In addition, it is evoked by the verb ‫יסד‬, which occurs three times. ‫ יד‬can be read in the light of the previously mentioned cultural metaphor.23 It can also be a sexual metaphor, as attested elsewhere in the Bible and in other ancient Near Eastern texts.24 Biblical examples occur in Isa 57:8 and 57:10. ‫ואחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך‬ ‫כי מאתי גלית ותעלי הרחבת משכבך‬ 25

‫ותכרת־לך מהם אהבת משכבם יד חזית׃‬

More body parts with the same connotation appear in the creation references of Second Isaiah. As Scott Noegel has noticed, such clustering of body parts can “provide a subtext that reinforces key themes.”26 ‫ בטן‬and ‫ פה‬form the female counterparts of ‫( יד‬Isa 44:24 and 51:16).27 The face (‫ פנים‬in 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450 (Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 7. 23 For ‫ יד‬see Isa 45:12; 48:13; 51:16. For ‫ יסד‬see 48:13; 51:13, 16. 24 Use of yd in Ugaritic: Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook; Grammar; Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glosses, Indices (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 403–404. § 19.1072. Biblical references: Isa 57:8 and 57:10. 25 Isa 57:8: “And behind the door and the mezuzah you have set up your remembrance, for away from me, you have uncovered, you have gone up, and you have made wide your bed, and you have made a covenant for yourself with them, you have loved their bed, a male organ you have seen.” Translations often use euphemisms as “it” (KJV), “nakedness” (ESV), “manhood” (NAS), or even “hand” (JPS). 26 Scott Noegel, “Bodily Features as Literary Devices in the Hebrew Bible,” in: Moshe Garsiel et al (eds.), Studies in Bible and Exegesis Presented to Samuel Vargon (Studies in Bible and Exegesis 10; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press: 2011; in Hebrew), 509–531 (509). 27 See the example of the adulterous woman in Prov 30:20: ‫כן דרך אשה‬ ‫( מנאפת אכלה ומחתה פיה ואמרה לא־פעלתי און׃‬Such is the way of an adulterous woman, she ate and wiped her mouth and said, I have done no

124

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

Isa 51:13) and the eyes (‫ עינים‬in Isa 51:6) are used in sexual discourse elsewhere, as one can see in Song of Songs.28 The word ‫חגב‬, traditionally read as ‘grasshopper’ can metaphorically refer to hip or male organ.29 2.2.3 Conceptual Blending and Beyond Both metaphors can be analyzed through the basic cognitive model, in which God is the physicist and heaven and earth the entities to be measured and weighed (figure 1), or God is the father and heaven and earth are his offspring (figure 2).30 However, in the text God is not called the scientist or the father. He is mentioned through self-reference — ‫ אנכי‬or ‫אני‬, I; the denominative —‫ אלהים‬or any variant, God; or through a rhetorical ‫מי‬, who.31 The model of conceptual blending helps to understand the Isaianic use of metaphor.32 Instead of two separate domains, source and target are recombined. As such it leaves no doubt who this artisan is who hammers the earth, or what the curtain represents that is spread.

wrong). In the Babylonian Talmud this verse is quoted exactly for its sexual euphemism in a discussion on another verse that could be rendered literally or figuratively (BT Tractate Yoma 75A). 28 Song of Songs 1:15, 4:1, 4:9, 5:12, 6:5, 7:5, 8:10. 29 BDB, p. 290, s.v. ‫חגב‬. See Ec 12:5. 30 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 31 I — Isa 44:24; 45:8, 12; 48:13. God — Isa 42:5; 44:24; 45:8, 18; 49:13; 51:13. Who — Isa 40:12. 32 Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, “Conceptual Integration Networks,” in: Cognitive Science 22 (1998): 133–187, esp. 143; Joseph Grady, Todd Oakley and Seana Coulson: “Blending and Metaphor,” in: Raymond Gibbs and Gerard Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999), 101–124.

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

Figure 1: Conceptual Blending — Cultural Metaphor

Agent Maker-Made Patient

Physicist MEASURES Curtain Clothes

God CREATES Heaven Earth

God MEASURES Heaven God HAMMERS Earth

125

126

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

Figure 2: Conceptual Blending — Procreative Metaphor

Agent Maker-Made Patient

God CREATES Heaven Earth

Father YAD Children

God’s YAD CREATES Heaven Earth

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

127

This model explains how the imagery in Second Isaiah evolved and what its cognitive background may be. It also shows the poetic hand of the author, both in its literal sense of creating something — as in the Greek ποιέω — and in its figurative sense of using the Genesis creation account.33 The metaphors are not only a way of thinking and ordering experiences, they are the experiences. In the case of Second Isaiah’s metaphors, which are empirical and scientific in nature, a world in which that was the dominant paradigm, has given rise to these images.34 In order to understand this, it suffices to compare message and form of Second Isaiah’s creation of heaven and earth with the one in Genesis.

Brian Doyle, “God as a Dog. Metaphoric Allusions in Psalm 59,” in: Pierre Van Hecke (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL 87; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), esp. 41–53, esp. 44–45. On the rhetorical aspects of metaphor see Ronald Landheer, “Le Rôle de la Métaphorisation dans le Métalangage Linguistique,” Verbum 24 (2002): 283–294, esp. 284. Notice that the Greek verb ποιέω is used for both divine and human creation, whereas Hebrew can distinguish between them by using the verb ‫ברא‬, uniquely used for creation by God and other verbs that can be used for both types of creation (BDB 135, s.v. ‫)ברא‬. 34 Antje Labahn has made a similar statement with regards to Lamentations. “We have to take into account that metaphors speak within a clearly determined sociological (and historical) framework, i.e., in the case of Lamentations, the experience of loss and destruction caused by the exilic catastrophe.” (Antje Labahn, “Wild Animals and Chasing Shadows. Animal Metaphors in Lamentations as Indicatiors for Individual Threat,” in: Van Hecke, Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, 67–97, esp. 70). Outside biblical scholarship Joseph Grady et al. have noticed that elements in a metaphoric blend can be derived from non-metaphoric fields. They illustrate this with the example of “death as a skeleton carrying a sickle” by arguing that “the relationship between skeletons and death is not metaphorical but metonymic; skeletons figure literally in scenarios involving death” (Grady, Oakley and Coulson, “Blending and Metaphor,” 113). 33

128

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

2.2.4 The Metaphoric Message and Motivation As discussed before, the first creation in the book of Genesis is merismic. To emphasize the unity only few literary devices are applied and all of them underline the same message. Inclusio ties the story structurally together; chiasm stresses the interchangeable parts of the more important whole. No metaphors are used. God ‫ — ברא‬a divine creation and God ‫ — עשה‬a very general and neutral lexeme of making. If one considers the message transmitted through the metaphoric form of Second Isaiah’s tale, it has not been changed compared to Genesis. Despite the radically different wording, God is still the creator of the universe. This implies that, while the content was timeless, the form was not. As mentioned before, the form can be the author’s contribution, so to say his poetic signature. This, however, does explain the effort to change the format only to a certain extent.35 More important is the question whether the source domain of the metaphor was arbitrary or not. In the case of the cosmological creation an extra-lingual motivation, different from language and thought structures, can be identified that leads to a different form. The new world in which ‘science’36 developed and knowledge about the world

Many other reversals and interventions have been undertaken with the Genesis material, that point in the direction of inner-biblical allusion. They can be divided into categories such as shared vocabulary, split pattern and parallelism, reversed word order, recombination of phrases, wordplay, ambiguity, and sound play. For preliminary work on these categories especially for the allusive relationship between Second Isaiah and Jeremiah see Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture. 36 Science should be understood as defined by Liba Taub as “the attempt to understand and explain natural phenomena”. Moreover in the ancient world science and myth were not mutually exclusive, nor were history and fiction (Liba Taub, Aetna and the Moon: Explaining Nature in Ancient Greece and Rome. [Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2008], 6). 35

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

129

and cosmology increased brings the author to adjust the Genesis story in order to retain its important message.37 Already in the first occurrence of the pair in Second Isaiah this scientific atmosphere becomes clear. God is a kind of physicist weighing the main elements of the universe: water, heaven (air), and earth.38 Although it is still God who is the ultimate creator, the language and imagery used to tell the tale reflect a technical background. This specific background is one of Babylonian and Egyptian astronomy and the first Greek natural philosophers (early sixth century BCE).39 Their theories are very natural in content and sometimes even intertwined with myth, but their methods are human constructions.40 According to Wright, the transformations caused by new ideas meant a creating of new ways to imagine their God, to conceive of their place in the world, to understand the flow and direction of history, and to interact with neighboring peoples. Their reconceptualAnderson, From Creation to New Creation, 19. Klaus Baltzer argues that Second Isaiah corrects Genesis based on new knowledge. Therefore the earth is the one trodden out and no longer the sky (Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001], 40). Although Baltzer’s relatively late date for Second Isaiah might be an issue, it is remarkable that in this verse three of the four elements are mentioned as described in Empedocles’ theory (fifth century BCE). 39 Ionia, the region in which these Greek philosophers worked, had contact with the Near East (Lindberg, The Beginning of Western Science, 27; Wright, The Early History of Heaven, 98). They were particularly interested in origin and prime elements. The Babylonian and Egyptian astronomy formed the other scientific approach in the ancient Near East. The astronomical tablets found show new developments in late Babylonian astronomy with systematic recording of their celestial observations and mathematical formulas to calculate astronomical phenomena. (John Steele, Brief Introduction to Astronomy in the Middle East [London: Saqi, 2008], 39–65). See also Halpern, “Late Israelite Astronomies,” 323–364. 40 Lindberg, The Beginning of Western Science, 25. 37 38

130

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN izations of the heavenly realm fit within this process of evolving self-understanding. In this new, increasingly cosmopolitan world, their image of heaven transformed to fit this new world order, and they — most likely only the literati at first — sought to bridge the chasm between this world and the totally other, transcendent realm of the divine.41

The frequent use of body parts in the Isaianic creation is another indicator of more human based language. With five times ‫יד‬, and an additional three evoked by the form ‫יסד‬, one right hand, one hand palm, one mouth, one womb, one face and one pair of eyes,42 we have a very anthropomorphic setting of the creation of heaven and earth.43 A creation by the hand of God instead of through words as in Genesis brings the whole story back to the empirical less mystical level.44 The new world is largely flavored if not colored by the Babylonian culture. This foreign setting of Second Isaiah, and in extension the Israelite people, has given rise to the imagery Wright, The Early History of Heaven, 98. For ‫ יד‬see Isa 45:12; 48:13; 51:16. For ‫ יסד‬see 48:13; 51:13, 16. For the other body references in order of appearance see Isa 48:13; 40:12; 51:16; 44:24; 51:13, 51:6. 43 Moshe Weinfeld argues the opposite and calls Genesis the more anthropomorphic of the two stories since God uses plural cohortatives, as if he creates together with somebody (Gen 1:26), man was made in God’s image (Gen 1:26), and God needed rest on the seventh day (Gen 2:2) (Moshe Weinfeld, “God the Creator in Genesis 1 and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah,” Tarbiz 37 [1968], 105–132, esp. 124–126, [Hebrew: ‫האל‬ ‫)]”הבורא בבראשית א במבואת ישעיהו השני‬. 44 A creation through words fits the ancient Near Eastern belief in the power of the word. The change of emphasis from mere magic and supernatural to the realm of reality and humanity can be a way to counter the Near Eastern, in particular Babylonian, world. It allows distinguishing the Israelite god from any other god around. Rather than reading it as a denial of the power of the word, this was another answer to a changing cultural and political environment. 41 42

A TALE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

131

used in the text. The reason to do so can also be motivated by religious concerns as Peter Machinist has argued. According to him “the impotence, indeed non-existence, of other gods, especially those of Babylonia, and the corresponding sovereign, indeed unique, power and omniscience of Yahweh, the God of Israel” form main themes in Second Isaiah. 45 Thus, the reassurance of the message of the Genesis account and the recycling of its material in a ‘modern’ form fits the polemic against the nations, and especially against their gods. It justifies the claim that the Israelite God is the one and only valid divinity. The prophet puts a pox on all these Babylonian houses, those of the “Sin-ers” and those of the “Marduk-ers”; for their squabbles serve only to reveal that it is Yahweh, the God of Israel, who alone predicts and interprets, determines, creates, and controls events — who alone is God.46

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The account of the creation of heaven and earth, introduced in the book of Genesis, is retold in Isaiah 40–55. Cultural and procreative metaphors change the form of the original text from mythic-mystical into more anthropomorphic and empirical. Despite the significantly different literary form, Second Isaiah still conveys the same overall message — God created the world — nicely obtained in the merism ‘heaven and earth’. A plausible explanation for the transformation of the text — besides the author’s poetic signature — is a changed outer textual world, which forced the author to adapt the language in order to align it with new views that were more empirical and human centered. As such the source domain of the metaphoric field is more than a cognitive model; it reveals 45 46

Machinist, “Mesopotamian Imperialism,” 241. Machinist, “Mesopotamian Imperialism,” 258.

132

KAROLIEN VERMEULEN

the developments and transformations in the historical reality itself. Considering the importance of the semantics of the creation story — used to engage in a polemic with the surrounding culture, its specific form in Second Isaiah was most likely a deliberate choice. By adapting the imagery to the knowledge sphere of the audience, the author does what many authors will do after him: convince people by wrapping the message in a familiar format.

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

Gert Kwakkel

1. INTRODUCTION How can a place associated with death at the same time be a place of new love? This question forces itself upon the careful reader of Hos 2. In 2:5 a male person, who turns out to be YHWH,1 threatens to make his wife “like a wilderness,” to “turn her into a parched land, and kill her with thirst” (NRSV). In 2:16, however, he announces that he will bring the woman “into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her”. Next, v. 17 reveals that as a result of this action of YHWH, the wilderness will become the starting point of a new relationship characterised by love, hope and prosperity. A similar ambiguity can be observed in other texts in Hosea. Whereas the wilderness evidently has negative connotations in 13:15, it apparently has positive connotations in 9:10 and 13:5. In Hos 13:15 the wilderness (rbf@d:mi) denotes a geographical entity in Israel’s environment, namely the SyroArabian desert.2 Elsewhere it may refer to other areas with similar characteristics. Hosea, then, uses the wilderness as a concept, which can materialise in various concrete forms. 1 Cf. 2 See

below, § 3. below, § 7.

133

134

GERT KWAKKEL

Furthermore, the concept can function as a metaphor or as part of a metaphor (as in Hos 2:4–25), while a literal interpretation could make more sense in other texts (13:5 may be a case in point). This study focuses on all texts in Hosea in which the concept of the wilderness occurs, that is, Hos 2:5.16–17; 9:10; 13:5.15. In all these texts the wilderness is referred to by means of the Hebrew noun rbdm; in two cases (viz. 2:5; 13:5) this is complemented by a synonymous parallel.3 In the analysis of these texts, two specific questions will be addressed. First, it will be established whether or not the wilderness is used as a metaphor. In this connection, it is assumed, with several authors, that the principle of incongruity can guide the interpreter in distinguishing metaphorical from literal meaning.4 This implies that a Hos 2:14 says that YHWH will turn Israel’s vines and fig trees into a forest (r(ayA). Just like the wilderness, the forest is an inhospitable place (cf. Ezek 34:25; Mic 3:12) and occasionally the borderline between them may be fuzzy; cf. Denis Baly, The Geography of the Bible (2nd ed.; Guildford: Lutterworth, 1974), 105–108. Yet it seems improbable that Hos 2:14 evokes the concept of the wilderness; it only says that orchards will be changed into maquis, with shrubs and thickets. Similar things apply to Hos 9:6 and 10:8. Some, if not all, of the thorns, nettles and thistles mentioned in these texts may be found in the wilderness (see CwOq in 10:8 and Judg 8:7.16). More often, however, they are associated with deteriorated farmland (see Gen 3:18; Exod 22:5; Isa 32:13; Job 31:40; Prov 24:31). For these reasons, Hos 2:14; 9:6; 10:8 are left out of consideration in this study. 4 See, e.g., Paul Ricoeur, La métaphore vive (L’ordre philosophique; Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1975), 289; ET: The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language (trans. Robert Czerny; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978), 230; David H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics, and Divine Imagery (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2002), 111– 114. For some comments on “literal,” see George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 52–55; Gary A. Long, “Dead or Alive? Literality and GodMetaphors in the Hebrew Bible,” JAAR 62 (1994): 511–514. 3

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

135

metaphorical interpretation must be preferred, if a convincing interpretation cannot be found by exclusively connecting the concept with the geographical entity of the wilderness as part of Israel’s environment. Second, in those cases in which the concept is used as a metaphor, the interpretation will be extended by an investigation of the aspects of the source domain (the wilderness as a concrete entity belonging to the daily life experience of the Israelites) that are mapped to the target domain (the purport of the metaphor).5 The investigation subscribes to the view propagated in cognitive semantics that not only the semantic or lexical aspects of the meaning of a word such as rbdm should be taken into consideration, but also its encyclopaedic aspects.6 Therefore, the analysis of the texts will be preceded by an inquiry into the characteristics of the wilderness as perceived by Israelites living in Palestine in the first millennium BCE (§ 2). It is expected that this approach will yield new insights into the function of the wilderness in Hosea, which can account for the ambiguity that surrounds the concept.

2. SEMANTIC AND ENCYCLOPAEDIC ASPECTS OF THE WILDERNESS As has just been pointed out, the most common designator of the wilderness in Hosea is rbdm. In the Hebrew Bible, this noun refers to arid or semi-arid areas, such as those found on the Sinai peninsula, in the Negev, the Judaean desert, the Rift For the technical terms used, see George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1989), 57–65; Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 3–9; Job Y. Jindo, “Toward a Poetics of the Biblical Mind: Language, Culture, and Cognition,” VT 59 (2009): 226–227. 6 Cf. Pierre Van Hecke, “To Shepherd, Have Dealings and Desire: On the Lexical Structure of the Hebrew Root r‘h,” in: Kurt Feyaerts (ed.), The Bible through Metaphor and Translation: A Cognitive Semantic Perspective (Religions and Discourse 15; Oxford: Lang, 2003), 42 and n. 16. 5

136

GERT KWAKKEL

Valley and the Syro-Arabian desert. Accordingly, the wilderness contrasts with the cultivated land in that it cannot be used for arable farming or can be so used only on a very irregular basis (cf., e.g., Jer 2:2, where rbdm is paraphrased by h(fw%rz: )lo CrE) “a land not sown”). However, it can be used for tending flocks.7 Even towns (MyrI() can be found in the rbdm.8 Consequently, it cannot always be equated with parched lands and sands, an idea that might be evoked by “desert,” the equivalent of rbdm in NIV.9 Nevertheless, the rbdm is described as a place where people get thirsty and hungry.10 It is qualified as “terrible,” “terrifying” or “dreadful” ()rFAwOn)11 or as a place where nobody lives or passes through.12 Evidently, such qualifications relate to the perspective of people living in the towns and villages of the cultivated land. For the Israelites, the wilderness was, more particularly, the territory that they had to pass when they travelled to the promised land of Canaan, after they had left Egypt. Deuteronomy 8 describes the years in which Israel wandered through the wilderness as a period of hardship. YHWH humbled and tested the Israelites, but he also provided them with food, drinks and clothes.13 All this continued for forty years, because Israel could only enter the promised land when all people who had rebelled against YHWH by refusing to go

Cf. 1 Sam 17:28 and the expression rb@f'dmi twO)n “the pastures of the wilderness” in, e.g., Jer 9:9; 23:10; Joel 1:19–20; cf. also Isa 27:10. 8 See Josh 15:61–62; Isa 42:11; 2 Chr 8:4. 9 For more details on the landscape meant by rbdm, see Baly, Geography, 101–111; S. Talmon, “rbf@d:mi, hbfrF(,” ThWAT 4:660–695, esp. 664, 669–679. 10 See, e.g., Gen 21:14–16; Exod 16:3; 2 Sam 17:29; cf. also Isa 50:2; Ezek 19:13. 11 Deut 1:19; 8:15; Isa 21:1. 12 Jer 2:6; 9:11; Job 38:26; cf. also Jer 17:6; Ps 107:4. 13 Deut 8:2–4.15–16; cf. also 2:7; 29:4. 7

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

137

to Canaan, because of the negative report of the ten spies, had died.14

3. HOSEA 2:5 h@d3Fl;w%Fhi MwOyk@; hfyt@ig:c=ahiw: hm@frU(j hn%F+ey#$ip;)a-Np@e .)mf\c=fb@a hfyt@imihjwA hy%Fci CrE)ek@; hft@i#$aw: rb@fd:m@ika hfyt@im;#&aw:

Hosea 2:5 is part of a long speech, which opens in 2:4 and continues until the end of the chapter. In it a man sets forth how he will treat his adulterous wife. The reader who has just read Hos 1 and 2:1–3 may have the impression that the speaker is the prophet, Hosea, and that the woman is his wife, Gomer (cf. 1:3). However, vv. 10–11 and especially v. 15 show that although the text may be related with what the prophet had experienced in his own marriage, in the present text the speaker is YHWH. In v. 5 he announces the measures that he will take against his wife if she fails to show that she has decided to stop her adulterous behaviour (cf. v. 4b and Np at the beginning of v. 5). According to v. 5a, he will strip her naked and expose her as in the day she was born. Obviously, this is an act intended to humiliate, which deprives her of her honour. Furthermore, v. 5ab in particular suggests that she will be without protection and as helpless as a new born baby.15 Num 14:21–35; 32:8–13; Deut 1:34–40; Josh 5:6. Note that the extent to which these traditions can be taken into account in the interpretation of the wilderness in Hosea is controversial. Many scholars are of the opinion that they are later than the 8 th century BCE, in which Hosea lived according to the biblical record. See, e.g., Thomas B. Dozeman, “Hosea and the Wilderness Tradition,” in: Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible (BZAW 294; Berlin: De Gruyter: 2000), 55– 70. 15 Wolff states that by stripping his wife naked a husband made it clear that he no longer felt obliged to fulfill his marital duty of providing his wife with clothes; see Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton (vol. 1; 3rd ed.; 14

138

GERT KWAKKEL

The wilderness appears on the scene in v. 5b, where YHWH threatens to make his wife like a rbdm and a parched land (hyc Cr)) and to kill her with thirst. Should the wilderness be taken in a metaphorical sense or does it allow for a more literal interpretation? The answer to this question is related to the identity of the woman. Most interpreters are of the opinion that in Hos 2:4–25 YHWH’s wife is a metaphor referring to the people of Israel.16 However, in the last few years some scholars have claimed that the woman is not the people but the land or, more precisely, the land per se.17 If that is correct, there is no incongruity in the idea that YHWH will make “her” like a wilderness. YHWH threatens to turn the territory of Israel into a parched and barren land, where arable farming, fruit growing and maybe even sheep farming are impossible. The reality to which the metaphor of marriage and adultery in Hosea 2 refers thus intrudes in 2:5bab and the wilderness is used in its literal sense. An argument in favour of the view that the woman is the land can be taken from Hos 1:2. There YHWH orders Hosea to marry “a wife of whoredom,” because the land (Cr)h) commits whoredom by forsaking YHWH. Apparently, Hosea’s wife must stand for the land. If so, the same might be assumed for the woman figuring in Hos 2. Another argument may be provided by the fact that several of the BKAT 14/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976), 40. Macintosh concludes from Ezek 16:39–40 that “the stripping and humiliation of an adulteress was the prelude to her execution”; see Andrew Alexander Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 43. Wilhelm Rudolph, Hosea (KAT 13/1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1966), 66, rejects both views. In his view, v. 5aa refers to the removal of all means of existence. 16 Cf., e.g., Rudolph, Hosea, 64, 75; Macintosh, Hosea, 114. 17 Cf. Alice A. Keefe, Woman’s Body and the Social Body in Hosea (JSOT.Sup 338; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 214–216; Laurie J. Braaten, “God Sows: Hosea’s Land Theme in the Book of Twelve,” in: Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart (eds.), Thematic Threads in the Book of Twelve (BZAW 325; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), 108.

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

139

penalties with which the woman is threatened in 2:4–15 relate to agricultural production (see esp. vv. 11 and 14). However, the idea that the woman stands for the land per se, as distinguished from the people, fails to do justice to the text. In 2:15 YHWH charges “his wife” with offering incense to the Baals. The land per se cannot commit such behaviour, only the people living in the land can. Similar observations can be made with respect to verses 16–25: evidently the woman mentioned in these verses refers to the people of Israel.18 In view of all this, it seems best to state that the woman in Hos 2:4–25 stands for the people living in the land. This formula can account not only for vv. 15 and 16–25, where the woman evidently stands for the people, but also for 1:2 and the agricultural elements in 2:11.14, which show that the people figure in close relationship with the land.19 If the woman thus refers primarily to people, one must consider the possibility that both rbdmk hytm#&w and hyc Cr)k ht#$w are elliptical phrases, in which the preposition

Admittedly, this argument loses some of its strength if 2:16–25 or parts of it are secondary additions; cf., e.g., Jörg Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea (ATD 24/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 38, with respect to 18–25. Even so, however, one must take into account that the editors felt free to read 2:4–15 in accordance with the idea that the woman represents the people. Maybe, the fact that in Hos 2:5 Y HWH says that he will make (My#) “her” like (k) a wilderness also pleads against the idea that the woman stands for the land per se. If the land per se were meant, it seems more likely that the preposition l had been used, which would yield: “I will turn her into a wilderness.” However, Isa 14:17, where lb't “the world” is the object of an act expressed by My# + rb@fd:m@ik, cautions against pressing this point. 19 Cf. Gert Kwakkel, “The Land in the Book of Hosea,” in: Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort (VT.Sup 124; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 168–169, 181. 18

140

GERT KWAKKEL

has been left out.20 In that case, the translation will be “I will make her like (someone who is) in a wilderness and like (someone who is) in a parched land.” Obviously, this interpretation agrees well with v. 5bg: “and I will kill her with thirst.” If the passage is read in this way, the reference to the wilderness does not present any incongruity and as a result, the concept is not used as a metaphor. A similar interpretation can certainly be defended, but would be more solid if an exact parallel to the idiom used (i.e. My# + personal object + rbdmk = “to make someone like in the wilderness”) could be found. Since this is not the case, it makes sense also to examine the option that the woman stands for the people living in the land and that v. 5bab should be translated in the most straightforward way, that is, “I will make her like a wilderness and I will make her like a parched land.” It is not clear from the outset what can be meant by making the people of Israel, who are human beings, like a wilderness, which is a geographical entity. There is evidently some incongruity in the expression, which might indicate that it is a metaphor. If it is a metaphor, it is not hard to answer the question as to which aspects of the source domain “wilderness” are mapped to the target domain “people.” hyc Cr) “parched land” in v. 5bb explicitly places the dryness of the wilderness in the forefront21 and so does hmc “thirst” in v. 5bg. Accordingly, the wilderness is evoked as a place where hardly anything can grow, because of lack of water. It follows that the aspects mapped to the target domain are barrenness and infertility. The purport of v. 5bab is that YHWH threatens to make “his wife” (= the people living in the land of Israel) as infertile as a desert. In view of the other parts of v. 5 this interpretation surely makes sense, provided that one is willing to accept the possibility that the last words b

Thus, e.g., Rudolph, Hosea, 63. Cf. also hdlwh Mwyk in v. 5ab and in v. 17. 21 Cf. also Isa 41:18; Ezek 19:13; Ps 63:2; 107:35. 20

MyIrFc;mi-CrE)em' h@ftlo(j MwOyk;w% hfyrEw%(n: ym'yk

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

141

of the verse (viz. “and I will kill her with thirst”) owe their presence to association. To sum up: while the concept of the wilderness in Hos 2:5 is open to several interpretations, all of them articulate its negative connotations.

4. HOSEA 2:16–17 rb@F3d:m@iha hfyt@ik;lahow: hfyt@epam; ykinO)f hn%"hi Nk;lf .h@b@f\li-l(a yt@ir:b@adIw: hwF3q;t@I xtapel; rwOk(f qme('-t)ew: M#$@fmi hfymerFk@;-t)e h@lf yt@itanFw: .MyIrF|c;mi-CrE)em' h@tflo(j MwOyk;w% hfyrEw%(n: ym'yk@I hm@f#@$f htfn:(fw:

In Hos 2:16ab YHWH says that he will bring “her” (i.e. his wife) into the wilderness. At first sight, this phrase does not present any incongruity, for the verb Klh Hiphil “to bring” and rbdmh “the wilderness” as the destination of the movement expressed by the verb fit each other very well. Consequently, the phrase itself does not make it necessary to take the wilderness as a metaphor, but only calls for an investigation into its connotations in this specific context. However, the phrase is part of a text (2:4–25) that is highly metaphorical, as it describes YHWH’s relationship with the people of Israel living in the land of Canaan as a relationship between a husband and his wife. Moreover, in v. 17aa the wilderness recurs in M#$m “from there” as the place from where YHWH will give “her vineyards” (hymrk) to his wife.22 Although it is not inconceivable that such an act is done in the wilderness, there is some incongruity or fuzziness, because it is far from clear why it will be done there and not elsewhere. Furthermore, the question arises as to what could be meant by “from there” instead of “there.” Does this indicate that the wilderness referred to by M#$m in v. 17aa differs somewhat from a visible geographical entity? If so, one has to consider the possibility that “I will bring her into the wilderness” in v. 16ab also has a metaphorical sense.

22 hm#

in v. 17ba will be discussed below.

142

GERT KWAKKEL

As for the connotations evoked by Hos 2:16ab, after 2:4–15 the reader will have the intuition that “bringing into the wilderness” is yet another tough measure that YHWH will take against his wife. rbdm reminds one of v. 5, where YHWH has threatened to make his wife like a wilderness. Furthermore, v. 16 opens with Nkl, just like vv. 8 and 11. In those verses, it introduces the announcement of measures by means of which YHWH will correct his wife’s behaviour or punish her. The reader expects then that the text will continue in the same vein, the more so, because YHWH has just declared that his wife followed the Baals and forgot him (v. 15). Initially, it appears that hytpm in v. 16aa confirms this expectation, for in some texts htp Piel means “to seduce someone into doing things that he or she does not want to do.”23 It can even be used for a man who seduces a virgin (Exod 22:15). That meaning is the more relevant here, as the relationship between the sexes pervades the text from 2:4 onward. For the connotations of “bringing into the wilderness” in v. 16ab this implies that the wilderness is referred to as a place where it is hard to live and where nobody will protect the woman against YHWH’s harmful actions. However, the next words frustrate the reader’s expectations, for they reveal that YHWH does not in the least intend to add another penalty to those announced in the preceding verses. First, hbl-l( ytrbdw (v. 16b) says that YHWH will talk in such a way to his wife that he will win her approval and confidence. It may even mean that he will win her affection and love.24 Second, it follows from “from there I will give her her 23 See

Judg 14:15; 16:5; Jer 20:7, 10; cf. also Ps 78:36, where it parallels Piel “to lie.” 24 See Gen 34:3; 50:21; Judg 19:3; 2 Sam 19:18; Isa 40:2; Ruth 2:13; 2 Chr 32:6. Cf. also HAL, 202b (no. 8d); Francis Landy, “In the Wilderness of Speech,” BibInt 3 (1995), 50, n. 34; Brad E. Kelle, Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective (SBL Academia Biblica 20; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 271. bzk

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

143

vineyards” (v.17aa) that YHWH will reverse the threats uttered in vv. 11 and 14, namely, that he would take away the wine (#$wOryt) he would normally give to his wife, and destroy her vines (Npeg). Third, v. 17ab announces new hope, as it says that rwk( qm(, the “Valley of Trouble,” will lose its ominous nature by being made “a door of hope” (hwqt xtp; cf. Josh 7:24–26). Fourth, irrespective of the exact meaning of hn( (i.e. “to answer,” “to react willingly,” or “to sing”),25 v. 17b obviously describes the woman’s positive reaction to YHWH’s actions announced in vv. 16 and 17a. In other words, instead of adultery there will be harmony and new love, akin to that between amorous youngsters (cf. hyrw(n ymyk). It turns out that “to be brought into the wilderness” may stand for an act that is much less negative or harmful than one would have expected. Either the wilderness is not so bad, after all, or YHWH is able to take advantage of its bad nature in order to produce something good. But where can this wilderness be found: somewhere on the map of the territory of Israel or only in the metaphorical world of Hos 2:4–25? An argument in favour of the former option may be taken from an element in the text that has not been considered so far, namely hm# in v. 17ba. This adverb most probably refers to rbdm in v. 16, just like M#$m in v. 17aa.26 Thus it locates the woman’s positive reaction in the wilderness. The next words compare this reaction with the attitude of the woman “in the days of her youth, as at the 25 Cf.

the discussion in Rudolph, Hosea, 74; Macintosh, Hosea, 72–73. interpretors link it with rwk( qm( in v. 17ab; see, e.g., HeinzDieter Neef, Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Hosea (BZAW 169; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987), 110. Arguments that militate against this view are: 1. the structure of v. 17: htn(w in v. 17ba parallels yttnw in v. 17aa, which is linked with the wilderness by means of M#$m in the same colon, whereas the Valley of Achor is only a more remote object of yttnw; 2. the exodus mentioned in v. 17bb. For hm#$ with the same sense as M#$ “there”, see Rudolph, Hosea, 73–74; Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico 1991), § 93e; Macintosh, Hosea, 73. 26 Some

144

GERT KWAKKEL

time when she came out of the land of Egypt” (NRSV). Thus a historical element is included in the large metaphor that describes the relationship of YHWH and Israel in terms of love and marriage, namely, the trek of the people from Egypt to Canaan through the wilderness. Does this imply that the wilderness must be taken in its literal sense? In other words, does the text assert that YHWH will bring the people back to the desert of the Sinai Peninsula or the wilderness south and east of Palestine? In Hos 8:13; 9:3; 11:5 the prophet announces that Israel shall return to Egypt. He further says in 12:10 that YHWH will make the people live in tents again. Accordingly, it is not inconceivable that Hosea foresaw that Israel would once more have to live in the wilderness. However, it is far from sure that Israel’s return to Egypt should be taken in a literal sense. The main reason for this is that in 9:3 this announcement is paralleled by an allusion to exile in Assyria (see also 11:5, 11). When all data are taken into consideration, the conclusion must be that the prophet may have entertained the idea that some Israelites would go back to Egypt (see esp. 9:6), but this was not central to his announcements. The focus of his prophecies was that the people would end up in the same miserable conditions as once in Egypt, be it in Egypt or Assyria or elsewhere.27 If this is correct, it seems equally probable that the concept of the wilderness shares the metaphorical nature of Hos 2:4–25 as a whole.28 If so, which aspects of the wilderness are mapped to the target domain, that is, the prophecy of restored love and harmony between YHWH and his people? See further Gert Kwakkel, “Exile in Hosea 9:3–6: Where and for What Purpose?,” in: Bob Becking and Dirk Human (eds.), Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA Pretoria August 2007 (OtSt 50; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 125–135. 28 Against Neef, Heilstraditionen, 111, who states that the geographical terms preclude an exclusively figurative interpretation. 27

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

145

According to Macintosh, Hos 2:16 refers to the desert as “the solitary place of lovers.” In support of this view, he refers to Jer 2:2; Song 3:6; 8:5.29 This is an attractive suggestion. As an area outside town and away from the fields of the farmers, the wilderness may have been a favourable place for young people, where they could meet each other and court. Yet the textual base of the motif of “love in the wilderness” is weak.30 Perhaps this aspect is included in the mapping, but it is unwise to use it as the only key to the interpretation of the metaphor. A better key is provided by the context, in which YHWH’s wife refers to the people of Israel living in the land. The people ascribed the products of the land, such as grain, wool, flax, olive oil, wine and figs, to their lovers, that is the Baals (see 2:7.10.14–15.19). Therefore YHWH would take these products away (2:11; cf. also v. 14). Since these products are characteristic of the cultivated land, the main aspect of the wilderness that is mapped is that of an area in which the people will not dispose of these things. This is further confirmed by the reference to the exodus in v. 17b. It evokes the aspect of the wilderness as the area between the cultivated land of Egypt and Canaan, the area in which Israel totally depended on YHWH’s care. In this sense, the wilderness is indeed a solitary place. Brought there, Israel will have no other choice than to react positively to YHWH’s overtures. If these aspects of the wilderness are relevant in this context, M#$m “from there” in v. 17aa yields a good sense. Out of a situation in which the woman “Israel” is deprived of the fields and vineyards of the cultivated land (=M#$m), she will be 29 Macintosh,

Hosea, 70. See also Talmon, ThWAT 4:664, 691–692. Jer 2:6 reveals that the wilderness in 2:2 stands primarily for the wilderness passed by the Israelites after the exodus. Furthermore, it seems doubtful that the motif can be detected in Song 8:5 and more particularly in 3:6. For an alternative interpretation of 3:6, see Baly, Geography, 104; for an overview of interpretations of 8:5, see Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7C, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977), 662. 30

146

GERT KWAKKEL

given “her vineyards” (hymrk), that is, the vineyards she had once got from YHWH in the land.31 This further implies that the situation described as “in the wilderness” will not last for ever. YHWH will deprive his people of the blessings of the cultivated land in order to make a fresh start. When unfaithfulness has given way to new love, they will enjoy those blessings again. Some scholars have suggested more specific interpretations of the metaphorical wilderness, namely, that it stands for the exile32 or for the devastated land as described in 2:14.33 Neither suggestion can claim exclusive rights to acceptance. Against the former it can be objected that the exile has not been mentioned so far in the prophecies of Hosea, although later readers will certainly have made the link. As for the latter, given the development of the text, the most natural interpretation is that YHWH will bring the woman from the devastated cultivated land (v. 14) into the wilderness (v. 16). The two must be distinguished from each other as areas where the people will successively be.34 31 Cf.

Katrin Keita, Gottes Land: Exegetische Studien zur Land-Thematik im Hoseabuch in kanonischer Perspektive (Theologische Texte und Studien 13; Hildesheim: Olms, 2007), 88–89. 32 Cf. Landy, “Wilderness,” 48; Macintosh, Hosea, 70 (Rashi and Kimchi); Dozeman, “Hosea and the Wilderness Tradition,” 68. 33 Thus Matthias Köckert, “Gottesvolk und Land: Jahwe, Israel und das Land bei den Propheten Amos und Hosea,” in: Arndt Meinhold and Rüdiger Lux (eds.), Gottesvolk: Beiträge zu einem Thema biblischer Theologie (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1991), 62. 34 Note also that the wilderness is referred to by means of M#$ “there” in v. 17. According to Köckert, “Gottesvolk und Land,” 62, v. 16 says that Israel will be brought from the exile back into the devastated land. This solution would be acceptable if the exile had been mentioned before, which is not the case. Köckert himself has observed that the catchword “expulsion” (Vertreibung) appears in 7:16 for the first time; see ibid., 60. On the relationship between the forest mentioned in v. 14 and the wilderness, see above, n. 3.

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

147

The conclusion must be that scholars who refuse to choose a more specific interpretation of the metaphor of the wilderness are on the right track.35 If the wilderness functions as a metaphor, it suffices to say that it refers to a situation in which Israel will not dispose of the agricultural products of the cultivated land, but will fully depend on YHWH’s provisions. YHWH, however, will take advantage from this set back in order to make a new start. Thus the negative connotations of the wilderness are still valid, but unexpectedly, they will lead to a change for the better. One element in the text still deserves consideration, namely, the description of the days in which Israel stayed in the wilderness after the exodus as a time of love and harmony (v. 17b). Is this not at odds with the narrative of the wilderness wandering in the Pentateuch? This question will be addressed at the end of this study (§ 8).

5. HOSEA 9:10 l)'rF#&;yI yti)cfmf rb@fd:m@ib@a MybinF(jk Mk3Eyt'wOb)j ytiy)irF h@tfy#$i)r"b@; hnF)'t;bi hrFw%k@bik t#$eb@ola w%rz:n%Fy,IwA rwO(p@;-l(aba w%)b@f hm@fh' .Mbf\h/)fk@; Myciw%q@#$i w%yh;y,IwA

The discussion of the motif of the wilderness in Hos 9:10 must start with an issue relating to the syntax of the line in which rbdmb “in the wilderness” occurs (v. 10aa). Is rbdmb an attributive adjunct qualifying Mybn( “grapes” or an adverbial adjunct specifying the place where YHWH found Israel (l)r#&y yt)cm)? A decisive argument in favour of the former option can be taken from v. 10ab, the synonymous parallel to v. 10aa. hn)tb “on a fig tree” is an attributive adjunct that qualifies hrwkb “first fruit” or “early fig.” The same may apply to the enigmatic hty#$)rb, but perhaps this must be linked with hn)t. However, even so it is still part of the simile at the beginning of the line and not an adverbial

35 Thus,

e.g., Keita, Gottes Land, 88.

148

GERT KWAKKEL

adjunct to Mkytwb) yty)r “I saw your ancestors.”36 A similar interpretation can then be assumed for rbdmb in v. 10aa. Just like hn)tb locates the first fruit or early fig on a fig tree, 37 rbdmb locates the grapes in the wilderness. The phrase “like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel” evidently contains a metaphor. This can be concluded not only from the particle k “like,” but also from the incongruity between Israel and grapes, which obviously belong to divergent categories (i.e. people and fruits respectively). The reader has to consider the question in which respect the people of Israel are compared with grapes or, in other words, which aspects of finding grapes in the wilderness are mapped to YHWH’s discovery of Israel. However, in this study, which concentrates on the metaphorical use of the concept of the wilderness, another question must be considered first: must the wilderness itself be taken as a metaphor or not? Viticulture is done in the cultivated land and not in the wilderness (cf. Num 20:5). According to some interpreters grapes do not grow in the wilderness at all.38 If that is correct, there is much incongruity in the phrase “grapes in the wilderness.” Others have pointed out that grapes can be found in oases, or they claim that viticulture was possible in the Negev and that grapes grown in desert areas are exceptionally sweet.39 If they are right, there is no incongruity.

36 For

a discussion of hty#$)rb, see Rudolph, Hosea, 181. With Göran Eidevall, Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea 4–14 (ConBOT 43; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996), 149, against Francis I. Anderson and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24; New York: Doubleday, 1980), 536, 539–540. 38 Cf. Dwight R. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History: The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy of Hosea (BZAW 191; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990), 56; Eidevall, Grapes, 149. 39 See Rudolph, Hosea, 185; Macintosh, Hosea, 362. For grapes in an oasis, see also Song 1:14 (Engedi). 37

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

149

Of course these points of view lead to different interpretations, but the differences are minor only. If grapes cannot be found in the wilderness, the phrase presents a paradox or a miracle. If they can be found, the phrase still refers to the discovery of something that strikes the finder as a pleasant surprise. However this may be, the result for the question as to whether the wilderness itself figures as a metaphor is the same. Even if there is incongruity in the phrase “grapes in the wilderness,” it does not call for a figurative or metaphorical interpretation of the wilderness. In all options it can be assumed that rbdm stands for a wilderness in the literal sense of the word. The idea that v. 10aa alludes to a pleasant surprise is confirmed by vv. 10ab and 10b. The first figs mentioned in v. 10ab grow on the shoots of the past year and are ripe by the end of May, two months before the new harvest. They are delicious and were very popular, as Isa 28:4 shows: “whoever sees it” (i.e. such a first-ripe fig), “eats it up as soon as it comes to hand” (NRSV).40 In v. 10b, which sharply contrasts with v. 10a (cf. hmh at the beginning of 10b), Mycwq#$ “detestable” figures as the opposite to “grapes in the wilderness” and “early figs.” Thus it underlines the pleasant nature of these fruits. As a result, it can be concluded that the idea of a pleasant surprise is the main aspect of finding grapes in the wilderness that is mapped to YHWH’s discovery of Israel. Besides, vv. 10ab and 10b also present other clues to the interpretation of v. 10aa. The fact that the ancestors (Mkytwb)) are mentioned shows that v. 10a alludes to events from the past. This agrees with the use of Qatal forms in 40 According

to Douglas Stuart, Hosea — Jonah (WBC 31; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 151, Isa 28:4 “describes not the desirability of the first figs, but their fragility and vulnerability.” One must concede that this point is central to the text. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that the text also reveals the popularity of first figs, for why else would someone who finds them eat them so quickly? On early figs, see further Jer 24:2; Mic 7:1; Macintosh, Hosea, 362.

150

GERT KWAKKEL

both 10aa and 10ab. Furthermore, the most natural interpretation of v. 10b is that it refers to the events known from Num 25, that is, that the Israelites participated in the worship of the Baal of Peor. This happened when the Israelites were staying at Shittim, by the end of their trek through the wilderness.41 Consequently, the events alluded to in v. 10a must have happened before that time, either during Israel’s trek through the wilderness or longer ago. The former option is more probable than the latter. The contrast between vv. 10a and 10b is stronger if the events meant were not separated by a long period of time. Moreover, although rbdmb must be connected with Mybn( “grapes,” the choice of the metaphor of finding grapes in the wilderness may have been influenced by the intention to describe an event that itself also happened in the wilderness (which implies that 42 rbdmb performs a double duty). What then is meant by YHWH’s finding of Israel in the wilderness and why is it pictured as a pleasant surprise?

41 See

also Deut 4:3; Josh 22:17; Ps 106:28. Cf. Brigitte Seifert, Metaphorisches Reden von Gott im Hoseabuch (FRLANT 166; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 110; Keita, Gottes Land, 95; against Dozeman, “Hosea and the Wilderness Tradition,” 65–66. According to Boudreau, v. 10b refers to idolatry at Peor that started after the settlement and continued to Hosea’s days; see George R. Boudreau, “Hosea and the Pentateuchal Traditions: The Case of the Baal of Peor,” in: Matt Patrick Graham, William P. Brown and Jeffrey K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (JSOT.Sup 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 121–132. Boudreau is right in pointing out that the text suggests that the Israelites continued practising idolatry until Hosea’s days. However, even if he were correct in assuming that Hos 9:10b is older than all other traditions concerning the Baal of Peor (which is one of his arguments), it is more sound to connect the text with these traditions than with something for which there is no other evidence. Furthermore, the idea that v. 10b refers to the remote past agrees with v. 9, which recalls the old days of the outrage committed in Gibeah (Judg 19). 42

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

151

Following R. Bach,43 some authors have claimed that the phrase refers to a specific tradition with respect to Y HWH’s election of Israel, namely, that he elected the people when he found them in the wilderness. In their view, this tradition can also be found in Deut 32:10; Jer 2:2–3; Ezek 16.44 However, in Hosea 2:17; 11:1; 12:10.14; 13:4, the beginnings of YHWH’s contact with Israel are situated in Egypt. Therefore, it is more natural to relate )cm “to find” and also h)r “to see” in v. 10ab to the metaphorical idiom in these lines. The verbs have been chosen in view of the objects figuring in the metaphors, that is, the grapes and the early figs. Together they depict the pleasant experience God had with his people, in terms of a traveller in the wilderness who unexpectedly gets the opportunity to eat delicious fruits.45 If this is correct, the problem referred to at the end of the previous section arises again: how does this positive view of Israel in the wilderness relate to the numerous records of the people’s stubbornness, to their murmurs and revolts in the Pentateuch?46 For now, it can only be pointed out that Hos 9:10 apparently contrasts Israel’s behaviour in the wilderness with what they did when they arrived at the border of the cultivated land, where the sanctuary of the Baal of Peor 43 In

his unpublished dissertation Die Erwählung Israels in der Wüste (diss. masch., Bonn 1952). For a summary, see TLZ 78 (1953): 687; Neef, Heilstraditionen, 60–62. 44 See, e.g., Wolff, Dodekapropheton, 1:212–213; C.J. Labuschagne, “The Similes in the Book of Hosea,” in Studies on the Books of Hosea and Amos: Papers read at 7th and 8th meetings of Die O.T. Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (n.p., 1964–1965), 70. 45 Cf. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 56–57; see also Jeremias, Hosea, 121–122; Keita, Gottes Land, 95–97. 46 The problem cannot be solved by assuming (with Rudolph, Hosea, 185) that v. 10a merely refers to subjective feelings on God’s side. Although h)r + k can have such a sense (see Judg 9:36), this option is ruled out by the contrast evoked by v. 10b, viz. that the Israelites became as detestable (Mycwq#$) as “the thing they loved” (Mbh); i.e. the Baal of Peor), which evidently expresses more than just a subjective feeling.

152

GERT KWAKKEL

was located. As Hos 2 shows, Baal was worshipped as the god who provided his servants with the blessings of the cultivated land. In Hos 9:10 YHWH complains that upon the very first confrontation with this deity, the Israelites changed their attitude and surrendered to Baal worship.47 The contrast between being like grapes in the wilderness and early figs on the one hand and becoming detestable on the other expresses how painful and embarrassing all this was for God. Two conclusions with respect to the connotations of the wilderness in Hos 9:10 can be drawn now. First, the negative connotations of the concept also apply here, insofar as the wilderness is presented as the place where one does not expect to find grapes, one of the blessings of the cultivated land. Second, the positive view of the relationship between YHWH and the people of Israel in the days of the trek through the wilderness relates to the observation that in those days the relationship was not yet disturbed by Baal worship.

6. HOSEA 13:5 .twOb\)ul;t@a CrE)eb@; rb@F3d:m@ib@a K1yt@i(;dAy: ynI)

In Hos 13:5 the wilderness is referred to by means of rbdm and twb)lt Cr). twb)lt is a hapax legomenon. Several proposals with respect to its meaning can be found in scholarly literature, such as dryness or aridity, afflictions, fever and baking heat.48 Whatever the exact meaning, the result of all interpretations is that the Cr) in question is described as a land in which it is hard to live or even as a land that is life-threatening. Verse 4 reveals that YHWH himself is speaking in v. 5, while the character addressed (K1-) must be the people of Israel or Ephraim (cf. also v. 1). Accordingly, in v. 5 YHWH declares that he is the one who has known ((dy) the people in the wilderness. Furthermore, since v. 4a says that YHWH has 47 Cf.

Rudolph, Hosea, 185; Keita, Gottes Land, 97–98. Cf. HAL, 1599–1600; Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 70–71; Macintosh, Hosea, 528–529. 48

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

153

been the people’s God from (the time of) the land of Egypt,49 the wilderness in v. 5 apparently stands for the Sinai desert or the territory south and east of Palestine, through which the people trekked to the promised land. Consequently, the wilderness is a concrete geographical entity. A metaphorical interpretation must be taken into consideration only if the verb used ((dy) cannot reasonably be combined with a literal sense of “in the wilderness.” Kyt(dy “I knew you” might refer to YHWH’s election of Israel,50 but in this case that option is less probable. The establishment of the relationship between YHWH and Israel has been mentioned in v. 4a already and there it has been linked with Egypt. Moreover, v. 4b has already confronted the addressed with the consequences of their election by pointing out that YHWH is their only God and saviour. Therefore, it makes more sense to relate v. 5 to something that happened after the establishment of the relationship and the exodus, namely, that YHWH took care of the people and fulfilled all their needs when their lives were threatened by thirst and hunger in the wilderness.51 In this way he demonstrated that he, for his part, was faithful to the special relationship he had established with Israel (cf. (dFt@' in v. 4b). If the above interpretation is correct, the purport of v. 5 hardly changes if K1ytiy(ir: “I pastured you” or “I fed you” is read instead of Kyt(dy, following the Septuagint, which has e)poi/maino&n se, and the Peshitta, which has r‘ytk.52 An argument in favour of this reading can be taken from Mty(rmk at the beginning of 13:6. Most probably, ty(rm 49 Cf.

Macintosh, Hosea, 527. Cf. Macintosh, Hosea, 528. For this sense of (dy, see, e.g., Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2. 51 Thus C. van Gelderen and W. H. Gispen, Het boek Hosea (COut; Kampen: Kok, 1953), 411. For this sense of (dy, see, e.g., Exod 2:25; Deut 2:7; Nah 1:7; Ps 144:3; Prov 27:23; cf. also DCH 4:111. 52 Thus, e.g., Wolff, Dodekapropheton, 1:286–287; Rudolph, Hosea, 238. For an alternative interpretation of the textual data, see ArBib 14:58, n. 9; Macintosh, Hosea, 529. 50

154

GERT KWAKKEL

serves as an infinitive of h(r.53 Accordingly, Mty(rmk can be translated by “as soon as they were fed” or “in accordance with the extent to which they were fed.” Irrespective of the translation preferred, the text will be smoother if one reads Kyty(r “I fed you” in v. 5 and links Mty(rmk in v. 6a with this verb. Verse 5 then describes YHWH’s care for Israel by means of the metaphor of a shepherd who pastures his flock in the wilderness, that is, in an area where it was not unusual to tend flock,54 but where the flock still needed the shepherd’s care in order to survive. However, although the interpretation of v. 5 itself will remain unchanged, reading Kyty(r instead of Kyt(dy results in another view of the wilderness period. Verse 6 points out that the effect of their being fed was that the Israelites became satisfied and, subsequently, became proud and forgot YHWH. If Mty(rmk at the beginning of v. 6 refers to Kyty(r in v. 5, the most obvious interpretation is that this effect also manifested itself in the wilderness.55 In that case, the text apparently differs from 2:17 and 9:10 insofar as it suggests that the troubles in the relationship between YHWH and his people started in the wilderness already. If, conversely, Kyt(dy is read in v. 5, the connection between the verses is less close and, accordingly, the text is less explicit as regards the location of the ungrateful reaction meant in v. 6. It still may have manifested itself in the wilderness, but also later on, in the promised land.56 In view of all this, the following conclusions can be formulated.

53 With

Macintosh, Hosea, 530–531. above, § 2; against Eidevall, Grapes, 196, who regards feeding the flock in the desert as a miracle. 55 Cf. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History, 71. 56 The idea that pride and apostasy developed in the cultivated land can also be found in Deut 32:10–16. Besides, it may be significant that ynwxk#$ Nk-l( in 13:6b echoes hxk#$ yt)w in 2:15; there “forgetting YHWH” is also something that happened in the cultivated land. 54 Cf.

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

155

1. In Hos 13:5 the wilderness does not figure as a metaphor. There is no incongruity between the act expressed by the verb (either (dy or h(r) and its location, “in the wilderness.” 2. The negative connotations of the wilderness as an inhospitable area are presupposed. The positive note that pervades 13:5 results from YHWH’s action meant by Kyt(dy (or Kyty(r). The notion of the wilderness contributes to this positive note by means of contrast. 3. In Hos 13:6 reprehensible behaviour on Israel’s side is linked with their being fed and satisfied. The verse might imply a less positive view of the wilderness period, as it does not explicitly locate Israel’s reaction in the cultivated land. This applies all the more if Kyty(r is read in v. 5a.

7. HOSEA 13:15 )yrI3p;yA Myxi)a Nb@' )w%h yk@i wOnyF(;ma brAxvyEw: wOrwOqm; #$wOby"w: hle(o rb@fd:m@imi hwFhy: xAw%r MydIqf )wObyF .hd@F|m;xe ylik@;-lk@f rcawO) hse#$;yI )w%h

Hos 13:15 is a complicated text, but fortunately the complications do not affect the issues that are central here. The verse mentions the wilderness (rbdm) as the area from which the “wind of YHWH” (hwhy xwr) comes up (hl(). The wind is also denoted as an east wind (Mydq), a sirocco. The devastating effects of this wind are pointed out in v. 15bb, which says that Ephraim’s (cf. v. 12) fountains and springs shall dry up. Verse 15bg reveals that the east wind or the wind of YHWH is a metaphor, which describes how the Assyrian army will plunder Ephraim’s treasures.57 In addition, the metaphor may also stand for the slaughter of the children of Samaria mentioned in 14:1.58 Within the framework of this larger metaphor, the wilderness does not present any incongruity, as the east wind actually comes from the Syro-Arabian desert 57 Cf., 58 Cf.

e.g., Wolff, Dodekapropheton, 1:297; Rudolph, Hosea, 246. Eidevall, Grapes, 203.

156

GERT KWAKKEL

east of Palestine. Accordingly, the wilderness itself is not a metaphor. It is a literal element denoting the place of origin of the east wind. Given the devastating effects of the wind, the wilderness has negative connotations only.

8. EVALUATION The last section of this study opens with a brief overview of the results of the analysis as regards the metaphorical nature of the wilderness in Hosea. Next, it elaborates upon the connotations of the concept and their presumed ambiguity. It concludes with some comments on Hosea’s view of the time when Israel lived in the wilderness. In most texts in Hosea that mention the wilderness, the concept is part of a larger metaphor. The only exception is 13:5, where it refers to the territory passed by the Israelites after the exodus, in a phrase that can hardly count as metaphorical. However, in those cases in which the wilderness figures in the context of a larger metaphor, it is not always a metaphor itself. It may be a metaphor in 2:5 and it probably is so in 2:16–17. In 9:10 and 13:15 it is a literal element within a metaphor. If it is a metaphor in 2:5, the aspects of the source domain that are mapped to the target domain are barrenness and infertility. Similar aspects are mapped in Hosea 2:16–17. This text evokes the wilderness as the area where people cannot dispose of the agricultural products and the fruits of the cultivated land. Moreover, it is a solitary place, where life is hard. Being there, Israel will totally depend on Y HWH’s care. The negative connotations of the wilderness just mentioned are also manifest in texts in which it is not used as a metaphor (i.e. 9:10; 13:5.15). Accordingly, the negative connotations of the wilderness are effective in all texts. Yet in some cases, the text as a whole strikes a positive note, but this does not imply that the negative connotations are no longer relevant. In 9:10 the desolate nature of the wilderness contributes to the pleasure of a traveller who unexpectedly finds grapes there. In a similar fashion, the life threatening character of the wilderness serves as the dark background that highlights YHWH’s loving care for his people in 13:5. In

THE WILDERNESS IN HOSEA

157

both cases, then, the positive note is strengthened by the negative aspects of the wilderness. In 2:16–17 the wilderness is the setting of a fresh start in the relationship between YHWH and his people. However, the wilderness can only fulfil this positive function, because of the absence of the products of the cultivated land. This absence makes the cult of Baal useless and it teaches — or even forces — the people to rely upon YHWH alone. Thus, the negative connotations of the wilderness are still presupposed. In itself, the wilderness is not better than the cultivated land. The products of the cultivated land are YHWH’s gifts to his people (cf. 2:10). As such they are not bad, but should be appreciated. Surely, the cultivated land was the place where Israel gave in to Baal worship, but in both Hos 2:4–15 and 9:10 the people of Israel is blamed for that, not the land. Accordingly, YHWH’s ultimate purpose is not that Israel will stay in the wilderness for ever. His ideal is that they return to the cultivated land and enjoy its blessings, but this time without ascribing them to Baal. In short, the wilderness is not considered the ideal place to live.59 If life is good there, this is because YHWH’s loving care overcomes the risks of the wilderness and compensates for its deficiencies. Moreover, it is good insofar as it stimulates the Israelites to live with YHWH as they should. In other words, the relationship with YHWH is decisive, more than the place where it materialises. Hosea 2:17 and 9:10 suggest that this relationship was untroubled when Israel trekked through the wilderness. According to some older scholars, including Budde and Humbert, Hosea propagated nomadism as the ideal way of life (see Talmon, ThWAT 4:682–683). This view, which is now commonly rejected, cannot be reconciled with the fact that Hosea appreciates vineyards as YHWH’s future gift to his people (2:17aa) and looks forward to a return to the cultivated land and a blessed life there (2:21–25). Cf., e.g., Rudolph, Hosea, 76; Talmon, ThWAT 4:692; Neef, Heilstraditionen, 111, 115–116; Keita, Gottes Land, 87–88. 59

158

GERT KWAKKEL

Perhaps 13:6 says that Israel became proud and forgot their God in the wilderness already, but this is far from certain. Apart from that, there is no allusion whatsoever to Israel’s stubbornness and rebellions, which are so well known from the Pentateuch. Given these facts, it is impossible to demonstrate that the prophet was acquainted with these traditions, let alone that he accepted them as part of his view of the history of his people.60 Understandably, some scholars have argued that Hosea held another view of the wilderness period.61 However, an alternative solution is also conceivable. Hosea 2:4–25; 9:10 and 13:4–6 reveal that Hosea was bothered by the fact that Israel worshipped Baal instead of YHWH, more than by anything else. If that is right, one can understand why he held such a positive view of the wilderness period. For him, all rebellions and others sins of that period may have shrunk into insignificance in comparison with serving Baal. In spite of all their offences, the Israelites of that period compared favourably with those of Hosea’s days, because they did not commit the most evil of all offences.62

In this connection, one could also point to the positive view of Israel’s behaviour in the wilderness in Jer 2:2. Talmon, ThWAT 4:692, surmises that this refers to the first stage of the trek, between the exodus and the theophany on Mount Sinai. However this may be, it is not of much value in the interpretation of Hos 9:10, as this text locates the beginnings of the troubles in Peor, at the end of the trek. 61 See, e.g., Wolff, Dodekapropheton, 1:53; Neef, Heilstraditionen, 117; Dozeman, “Hosea and the Wilderness Tradition”. 62 Note that this argument takes it for granted that the golden calf of Exod 32 was not related to Baal worship, no more than the calves of Bethel and Dan (see 1 Kgs 12:25–32 and 16:31). The author wishes to thank Dr C.B. McCully, Usquert, The Netherlands, for his comments on the English text of this paper. 60

CONTRIBUTORS

Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher is Professor of Biblical Studies at the Catholic-Theological Private University of Linz, Austria. Her fields of research are: Old Testament, metaphor, narratology and reception of biblical texts. Her publications include: Die Psalmen im Spiegel der Lyrik Thomas Bernhards: “Ich will meinen Kampf beten, den großen Kampf um meine Seele” (SBB 48; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002); “Body Images in the Psalms”, in: JSOT 28 (2004): 301–326. [email protected] Elizabeth Russell Hayes is Affiliate Professor of Old Testament at the Fuller Theological Seminary. Her fields of research are: Hebrew Bible, Prophets and Psalms. Her publications include: The Pragmatics of Perception and Cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1–6:30: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach (BZAW 380; Berlin, New York: de Gruyter ,2008). [email protected] Gert Kwakkel is Professor of Old Testament at the Theological University of the Reformed Churches (Liberated), Kampen, The Netherlands, and at Faculté Jean Calvin, Aix-en-Provence, France. His fields of research are: prophets and theology of the Old Testament. His publications include: ‘According to My Rigteousness’: Upright Behaviour as Grounds for Deliverance in Psalms 7, 17, 18, 26 and 44 (OTS 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003); “Under YHWH’s Wings”, in: Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (BETL 231; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 141–165. [email protected] 159

160

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN POETIC TEXTS

Antje Labahn is Privatdozentin at Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal; she serves as Regionale Studienleitung of Abt Jerusalem Akademie of Ev.-luth. Landeskirche in Braunschweig and as pastor of Pfarrverband Hasselfelde. Her fields of research are: Chronicles, prophets, metaphors, Second Temple Period, Septuagint. Her publications include: Licht und Heil: Levitischer Herrschaftsanspruch in der frühjüdischen Literatur aus der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 112; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2010); Levitischer Herrschaftsanspruch zwischen Ausübung und Konstruktion: Studien zum multi-funktionalen Levitenbild der Chronik und seiner Identitätsbildung in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (WMANT 131; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2012). [email protected] Pierre Van Hecke is Professor of Languages and Cultures of Syria-Palestine at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies and the Faculty of Arts of the KU Leuven. Since 2008 he has been the international Secretary-General of the European Society for Catholic Theology, and since 2011 he has been the President of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in België en Nederland. His research focuses on the linguistics of Hebrew (semantics and syntax) with special attention to the study of metaphors, for the exegesis of the book of Job and for biblical hermeneutics. His publications include: From Linguistics to Hermeneutics. A Functional and Cognitive Approach to Job 12–14 (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 55; Leiden: Brill, 2011). [email protected] Karolien Vermeulen is Research and Teaching Assistent Hebrew at the department of Languages and Cultures of Ghent University and Research Fellow at the Institute of Jewish Studies, University of Antwerp. Her current field of research is wordplay in the Hebrew Bible. Her publications include: “The ‘Song’ of the Servant – Gen 24:23”, in: Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011): 499–504; “Eeny Meeny Miny Moe Who is the Craftiest to Go?”, in: Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10 (2010): 1–13. [email protected]

CONTRIBUTORS

161

Stefan H. Wälchli is Privatdozent at the University of Berne. His fields of research are: Old Testament, especially theology of the Old Testament, theodicy, metaphors and royal ideology. His publications include: Der weise König Salomo (BWANT 141; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1999); Gottes Zorn in den Psalmen:- Eine Studie zur Rede vom Zorn Gottes in den Palmen im Kontext des Alten Testamentes und des Alten Orients (OBO 244; forthcoming). [email protected]

162

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN POETIC TEXTS

INDEX HEBREW BIBLE / OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1:1 1:3–5 1:6–8 1:9–10 1:11–12 1:14–20 1:14 1:15 1:20 1:28 2:4 2:7 2:9 2:17 2:22–24 3:1–5 3:2–6 3:6 3:7 3:20 3:22–23 4:14 4:22 15:6 21:14–16

56, 98, 119 61 56, 61 59 109 60, 61 56 56 56 109 119–120 84 100 109 110 111 100 109 111 100 100 36 82 43 138

Exodus 14:31 16:3 22:15

43 138 144

Numbers 20:5 15 –152 Deuteronomy 1:19 138 2:7 138 4:3 152 8:2–4 138 8:5 138 8:7–8 35 8:15–16 138 29:4 138 32:10 153 Joshua 7:24–26 15:61 22:17

145 138 152

1 Samuel 13:13 13:20 14:27 14:29 18:13 18:6 28:16

45 82 79 79 36 36 45

2 Samuel 5:2 36 12:1–4 44

163

164

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN POETIC TEXTS

12:9 17:29 19:1–8

45 138 36

1 Kings 3:4–28

103

2 Kings 1:3 3:7 14:9 18:31–32 23:4

45 36 38 35 107–108

Judges 2:1–3 6:7–10 8:22–23 9:7–20

31 31 31, 35 31

1 Chronicles 12:18–19 28 12:24 24 12:34 23–25, 28 12:39 14, 23, 25, 26, 28 15:29 14 16:10 15 17:2 15 17:19 15 22:7 15 22:9 23 22:19 15 28:2 15 28:9 15 29:9 14 29:17 14, 15 29:18 14 29:19 14 29:31 14 2 Chronicles 1:11 14 6:7.8 15 6:14 15

6:30 6:37–38 7:10 7:11 8:4 9:1 9:23 11:16 13:7 15:12 15:15 15:17 16:9 17:6 19:3 19:9 20:30 20:33 22:9 24:4 24:14 24:31 25:2 25:19 26:16 29:34 29:10 30:12 30:15–17 30:19 30:21 30:22 30:23 30:25 30:26 30:27 31:21 32:5 32:6 32:25 32:26 32:31 34:27 36:13

15 16 14 15 138 15 14 15 14 15 15 14 15 15 15 15, 25 23 16 15 15 16 15 16 14 14 14 15 14 21 15 21 18–23, 28 22 21 22 21 15 20 22 14 14 15 16 14

INDEX Proverbs 2:20–21 3:1–2 3:2 3:15 3:16–17 3:17–18 3:18 3:19 3:22 4:18 8:35 9:11 11:3 11:30 12:28 13:9 13:12 15:4 15:30 16:15 20:20 24:20 29:3

97 97 104 98 97 94 92, 108, 110, 112 98 104 79 104 98, 104 99 92, 109 98, 99 78 92 92, 107, 110 79 35 78 78 79

Job 3:5 3:18 3:23 5:14 6:12 7:9 7:16 7:17–20 7:19 10:6 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:14 10:21 10:22 12:12 12:22

64 80 74 64 86 74 88 80 83 80 84, 87, 89 83, 85 86 80 64 64, 76 64 64

12:25 13:15 13:25 13:27 14:3 14:6 14:13 15:22 15:30 16:9 16:16 16:22 17:1 17:7 17:12 17:16 18:5 18:6 18:18 19:8 19:22 20:16 20:26 21:16 21:17 21:18 22:11 23:11 23:16 23:17 24:16–17 26:10 28:3 29:3 29:12 30:19 30:20 30:22 30:26 31:4 31:7 33:11 34:22 37:19

165 64 74 80 80, 81 80 83 83 64 64 80, 81 64 74 73, 78 78 64 74 78 64 64 64, 73, 74, 76 80 112 64 80 78 80 64 74 83, 86–87 64, 73 64 64 64 64, 76 73 87 80, 82, 89 88 76 80 74 81 64 64

166

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN POETIC TEXTS

38:2 38:17 38:19 38:26 42:6

64 64 64 138 88

Psalms 4:7 7:13 8:6 13:4 16:10 18:29 18:43 19:2–7 19:2 19:3 19:4–5 19:5 19:6–7 19:8–11 19:9 19:12–19 27:1 30:10 37:6 38:11 39:14 44:4 44:20 49:20 52:4 52:8 58:9 59:16 63:2 65:10 72:6–7 78:47 80:9–12 80:9 80:15 83:14 88:5

64 82 52 79 65 64 87 49– ff 54–57, 59, 60, 61, 62 57–58, 61, 62 58–61, 62 61 61–62 49 79 49 64 65 65 79 83 64 64 64 82 35 37 36 142 88 35 35 38 35 35 80 65

88:7 88:13 105:33 106:28 107:4 107:27 107:35 118:12 128:3 150:1

64 64 35 152 138 36 142 39 35 56

Ecclesiastes 10:11 111 Song of Songs 1:15 126 3:6 147 4:1 126 4:9 126 5:12 126 6:5 126 7:5 126 8:5 147 8:10 126 Isaiah 2:22 5:6 7:2 7:9 7:23–24 9:17 14:29 21:1 24:20 27:1–5 27:10 28:4 28:16 29:9 33:12 34:4 40:12 40:22

83 37 36 43 37 39 109 138 36 35 138 151 43 36 39 108 122–123,126, 132 124

INDEX 40:24 41:2 41:18 41:25 42:5 42:11 43:10 43:17 44:24 45:8 45:9 45:12 45:18 48:13 49:13 50:2 51:5 51:6 51:13 51:16 57:8 57:10 64:5 64:7

80 80 142 87 126 138 43 79 125, 126, 132 124, 126 84 126, 132 126 123, 126, 132 126 138 123 126, 132 125–126, 132 125, 132 125 125 80 84

Jeremiah 2:2–3 2:2 2:6 2:21 8:13 9:9 13:24 14:10 17:6 18:6 20:14ff 23:10

153 138, 147, 160 147 35 35 138 80 36 138 84 64 138

Ezekiel 9:8 79 17:22–23 38 17:24 39

167

19:13 31:6 31:10–11 34:25

138, 142 38 39 136

Daniel 4:7–9

38

Hosea 1:2 1:3 2:4–25 2:4 2:5 2:7 2:10–11 2:11 2:14 2:15 2:16–17 2:17 2:19 8:13 9:3 9:6 9:10 9:16 10:8 11:1 11:5 11:11 12:10 12:14 13:4–6 13:4 13:5 13:6 13:12 13:15

140, 141 139 160 144 136, 139–143, 158 147 139, 147, 159 141 136, 141, 147, 148 135, 141, 147, 156 135, 136, 143–149, 158, 159 153, 156, 159 147 146 146 37, 136, 146 135, 136, 149– 154, 156, 158, 159, 160 109 37, 136 153 146 146 146, 153 153 160 153 135, 136, 154–157, 158 157, 160 157 135, 157–158

168

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN POETIC TEXTS

14:1 14:6–8

157 37

Nahum 3:14

Joel 1:7 1:19–20

35 138

Habakkuk 2:4 43 3:17 35

Amos 4:1 4:9 7:5

45 35 83

Micah 3:12

136

87

Haggai 2:19 35

EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE 1 Enoch 25:4–5 93–94

4 Ezra 8:52

93

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 6:22 79 Luke 11:34

Revelation 2:7 110

79

ANCIENT NEAR EAST Adapa Fragment B, 60´–63´ 105–106 Fragment B, 67´–69´ 106

HELLENISTIC-ROMAN SOURCES Aristotle Poetic 1457b, 6–9

4

Epic of Gilgamesh XI,283–286 104–105 XI,295–300 105