Congress Volume Genève 1965 (International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament) 900427538X, 9789004275386

Citation preview

r./)

\J

~

a

U

::J Cl ~

~

~

::J H 0

LI')

\J

~

,~

z

~

~

0\ ......

\,Q

GENEVE 1965

,~

VOLlJME DU CONGRES

SUPPLEMENTS TO

VETUS TESTAMENTUM EDITED BY THE BOARD OF THE QUARTERLY

G. W. ANDERSON - P. A. H. DE BOER - G. R. CASTELLINO HENRY CAZELLES - E. HAMMERSHAIMB - H. G. MAY W. ZIMMERLI

VOLUMEXV

~~~p.J.Glb~...0

~

< ~

"

-

';PI r-
OKA., Frgm. 607, zusammen mit ,,~pw., Aucr. 965. HPOß., III, 141. HPOß., III, 411. AI1:X., X01)q:>. 749. 1:0cI>OKA., TpocX. 1260. EYPIII., 'HA. 297, vgl. 'Irere6A. 504 f. API1:TOcI>., N€q:>. 414 f. API1:TOcI>., 'AX. 393. EYPIII., '17m6A. 255. AI1:X., IIepcr. 442; API1:TOcI>., Elp. 675. 1:0cI>OKA., 'HAex"tp. 297. E YPIII., 'Ix. 1029. OM. 'lA. A. 3. 1:IMflN., 140; vgl. AI1:X., IIepcr. 28 ("ljiux'ij., NEcp. 318 f. ') EYPIII., Tp. 1171. 6) EYPIII., 'Icp. T. 881 f. 8) EYPIII., Tp. 640. 7) I:OII>OKA., ma. K. 998 f. 8) I:OII>OKA., ota. T. 727. 9) APII:TOII>., NEcp. 94. 10) APII:TOII>., '11'C1'C. 482. 11) EYPIII., 'Op. 1180. 12) Dabei vgl. N. II. MIIP ATI:H1TOY, E1Q'(xy(,)y~ de; 'roue; MovoA6youe; 'rOU 'JEpEIL(OU (Diss.), ' Ae'ijvlX~ 1959, S. 12ff., vgl. S. 5 f., wo auch Literaturangabe. 13) I:OII>OKA., ' Av'r. 227. 14) Deut. vi 5, xiii 4. 16) Ps. lxiii 9. 16) Jos. xxii 5. 17) Ps. ciii 1, 2, 22, civ 1, 35. 18) Ps. cxix 175, cxlvi 1. 19) Ps. xxxv 9; Jes. lxi 10.

74

N. P. BRATSIOTIS

(11) ("euq;plXlvo[Lrd') 1), ~" (I) ("q;OßOU[LIXL") 2), ~n' ("EA7tl~c.u") 3), (,,tJ7tO[Levc.u") 4), mp (I) ("U7tO[Levc.u") 5), !:I~i ("U7tO't"&crcro[LIXL") 6), ;,on (,,7tdOO[LIXL") 7), ~izll ("IX'CPO[LIXL") 8), ~O~ ("Em7tOOW") 9), l'!o) 10), O,lll), ~~~~ ("aL~W") 12), ':J~~ ("EXXec.u") 13) und ;,~~ ("EXAd7tc.u") 14), alles in unmittelbarer Beziehung auf Gott. Erwähnenswert ist hier ferner die bezeichnende Verbindung von ~!?~ mit ;'=tt)~ (,,&YIX7tiXv") 15), ;'~~~116), ;"~13 17) und ,~! 17). lili~ ;,~n

Zu den eben angeführten Fällen muß noch die lange Reihe jener Stellen im Alten Testament hinzugefügt werden, bei denen ~!?~ auch erscheint als Sitz der religiösen und moralischen Gefühle und Au ß e run gen des Menschen. Dafür dient als Beweis die Verbindung von ~!?~ mit den Verben m~ ("EmOU[LW") 18), i:l!O)

("AIX't"peuc.u") 19), ("alaO[LIXL") 22), ("E[Lß&AAc.u") 25),

'~l ~'i ,~~

20), lii' ("YLV6>crxc.u") 21), 1m 23), ~P:l ("Em~'Y)'t"W") 24), !:I'iD (I) ("q;uMcrcrc.u") 26), ':J~;' (,,7tOpeUO[LIXL") 27), ("E~epeuvw") ("EX~'Y)'t"W")

1) Ps. xciv 19, in Verbindung mit !:I'~~nm (,,7t(~P(XX.A1jcr~~~").

Deut. x 12. Ps. xlii 6, 12, xliii 5, vgl. cxxx 5. Ps. xxxiii 20. Ps. cxxx 5. 6) Ps. lxii 6. 7) Ps. lvii 2. 8) Ps. xxv 1, lxxxvi 4, cxliii 8. 9) Ps. lxxxiv 3. 10) Ps. xlii 2. U) Ps. cxix 20. 12) Ps. xlii 3, lxiii 2. 13) 1 Sam. i 15; vgl. Hiob xxx 16; Ps. xlii 5; Klag. ii 12. 14) Ps. lxxxiv 3, cxix 8I. 15) Deut. x 12, xi 13, xxx 6; Jas. xxii 5, xxiii 1I. 18) Ps. lxii 2. 17) Jes. xxvi. 8. 18) Jes. xxvi 9. 19) Deut. x 12; xi 13; Jas. xxii 5. 20) Ps. cxix 129, zusammen mit (I1I) (,,!L(Xp-rup~ov"). 21) Jas. xxiii 4. 22) 1 Chr. xxii 19; Esth. vii 3; Spr. xxix 17. Vgl. Ps. xxvii 12, xli 3. 23) Deut. iv 29; 1 Chr. xxii 19; Klag. iii 25. 24) Pred. vii 28. 25) Deut. xi 18, in Verbindung mit '=t1 ("p'ij!L(X"). 28) Ps. cxix 167, zusammen mit dem oben genannten (I1I) (,,!L(Xp-rUPLOV") ; Deut. iv 9, 15; Jas. xxii 5, xxiii 11 ; Spr. xiii 3, xvi 17, xix 6, xxi 23; Jer. xvii 21 ; vgl. Spr. xxii 5. 27) Deut. x 12; Jas. xxii 5; 1 Kön. ii 4, verbunden mit ':J11 ("oa6~"). 2) 3) 4) 6)

;"v.

;"v.

lZlEll-

\PTXH

75

::n~ ("bnO"'t"pEtpW") 1) und "~1 (,,&ya8ov 7tOLW") 2), von denen sich ebenfalls vielle unmittelbar auf Gott beziehen. Hier dürfen wir vor allem nicht die folgenden Verben übersehen, die, sicherlich keineswegs nur zuHillig, verbunden sind mit ~~~ ,das oft auch ihr

Subjekt oder Objekt bildet: l:l~N (,,7tA"Y)fLfLEAW") 3), Ntm (,,&:fLap't"ocN~~ ("fLLaLVO(.LaL") 5), 'l7~ ("Aav8ocvw") 6), o~n 7), "l71 (,,7tPOO"OX8L~W") 8), ,Iti" 9), 'T1:l 10 ), l'i'~ ("ßoeAUO"O"W") 11), r,n~ (,,&7tWAELaV 7tEpmOWU(.LaL") 12), ON~ (I) 13), 'T'~ (,,&YPEUW") 14), NOl ("Aa(.Lßocvw") 15), :"Ii'l7 (I) (,,7tOLW") 16), ,El:l ("e~LAriO"XOfLaL") 17), l7:l~ ("O(.LVUw") 18), ml7 (Il) (,,'t"a7tELVOU(.LaL") 19) ,on ("O"'t"ep[O"xo(.La~") 20), :"I:l:l ("O"uyxoc(.L7t't"O(.LaL") 21), 'ON ("op[~w") 22) und ''Tl ("ei5XO(.LaL") 23). Hier weise ich auch hin auf die direkte Verbindung von ~~~ mit :"I~t?!;I (,,&:(.Lap't"ouO"a") 24), l"lNiftt (,,&:(.Lap't"[a") 25), Y!;l1J

vw") 4),

1) Deut. xxx 10 ; 1 Kön. viii 48 ; 2 K ön. xxiii 25 ; Ps . xix 8, xxiii 3, cxvi 7. 2) Spr. xi 17. 3) Num. v 6. 4) Lev. iv 2, 27, v 1, 15, 17,21 ; Num. xv 27; Spr. xx 2; Ez. xviii 4, 20 ; vgI. Hab. ii 10 ("e~IXfJ.lXpTW"). 5) Lev. xi 44, xxii 6 ; Num. xix 22 ; Ez. iv 14. 6) Lev. v 15, 21, vgI. den Gebrauch von ,,~,., (I) ("A~e1t) an beiden Stellen.

7) Spr. viii 36. VgI. hiezu die Verwendung von 0ttlJ (,,&llLx(IX") in : Ps. lxxii 14; Spr. xiii 2; vgI. Ps. xi 5. 8) Lev . xxvi 15, 43, zusammen mit ~~1F~ ("XplfJ.IX"). V gI. auch den Gebrauch

von ,,&7rIX~ AEy6fJ.EIIOII" ,,~~ ("O"XOAL6T7)~") in: Ez. xvi 5 t 9) Hab. ii 4, in Verbindung mit N" . VgI. auch die Verwendung vo n ,~~ ("a(XIXLO~") in: Num. xxiii 10. 10) Spr. xiii 2. 11) Lev. xi 43, xx 25. 12) Spr. vi 32. 13) Spr. xv 32. 14) Spr. vi 26; Ez. xiii 18 (bis), 20 (bis). 15) Lev. v 17, vii 18; Hos. iv 8, Zusammen mit li~ (,,~w" wiedergegeben), '~lD (I) (,, ("E~OA06peuOfLlX~") 2), il::>l (,,7tIXTOCcrcrW") 3) und '1ttln ("qJdaOfLlX~") '), wie auch mit :l,P ("Eyyl~w") 5). Außerdem muß hier auch die Verbindung des Begriffs w~~ mit den Verben angeführt werden: 'l,n (I1) ("ove~al~w") 6), l~ttl ("Eva~IXßOCAAw") 7), :l'K (,,61lpeuw") 8), mp (I) (,,7tIXPlXqJUAOCHW") 9), Wpl (,,7tlXy~aeuw") 10), iil ("EmT16efLlX~") 11), ,~n (I) ("opucrcrw") 12), ili:S; (I) ("aecrfLeuw") 13), tip:l (,,~1lT(;'/') 14), 'li' ("XIXTlXa~6JXW") 15), '::>K ("XIXTecr6lw") 16), 'lpl (I1) (,,7tep~exw") 17), ~,~ (I) ("cr4>~w") 18), tm t... • ( ,,1X~TOUfLlX~ , " ) 20) ,'17il t... ( ,,7topeUOfLlX~ , " ) 21) ,i,n, 22) , ") 19) ,7KTD ("qJeuyw m:l ("qJIXUAl~w") 23), ti'i ("EX~1lTW") 24), 'P' ("EvnfLOUfLlX~") 25), 'il ("fLeYIXMvofLlX~") 26), (I) ("qJOßOUfLlX~") 27), ':ln (I) ("EVexUPOC~w") 28)

K"

1) Ps. xxxi 14; Spr. i 19; Ez. xxxiii 6.

2) Gen. xvii 14; Ex. xii 15, 19, xxxi 14; Lev. vii 20, 21, 25, 27, xviii 29, xix 8, xxii 3, xxiii 29; Num. ix 13, xv 30, 31, xix 13, 20 usw. 3) Lev. xxiv 17 (Cl~ ti~m, vgl. Lcv. xxiv 18 (il~ijf-ti~m. Vgl. ferner Gen.

xxxvii 21 ; Num. xxxv 11, 15,30; Deut. xix 6, 11, xxvii 25; Jos. xi 11, xx 3, 9. 4) Hiob xxxiii 18, zusammen mit nlJ~ ("eOCVIX'O~"). 5) Hiob xxxiii 22, wieder in Verbindung mit nlJ~ ("eOCVIX'O~"). Hier steht W!?~ als Subjekt. S) Richt. v 18. 7) Ps. lxxi 13. 8) Ps. lix 4. 9) Ps. lvi 7. Vgl. dabei den Gebrauch von '~iV ("tpUAOCCTCTWV") in : Ps. lxxi 10. 10) 1 Sam. xxviii 9; vgl. Ps. xxxviii 13. U) Ps. xciv 21. 12) Ps. xxxv 7. 13) 1 Sam. xxiv 12. 14) Ex. iv 19 ; 1 Sam. xx 1, xxii 23, xxiii 15, xxv 29 ; 2 Sam. xvi 11 ; Esth. vii 7; Ps. xxxv 4, xxxviii 13, xl 15, liv 5, lxiii 10, lxx 3, lxxxvi 14; Spr. xxix 10 ; Jer. iv 30. xi 21, xix 7, 9, xxi 7, xxii 25, xxxiv 20,21, xliv 30, xlvi 26, xlix 37. 15) Ps. vii 6, cxliii 3. V gl. auch den Gebrauch von ~~iV in : Ps. cix 31. 16) Ez. xxii 25. 17) Ps. xvii 9. 18) Gen. xix 17 ; 1 Sam. xix 11 ; 2 Sam. xix 6; 1 Kön. 12; Ps. lxxxix 49 ; Am. ii 14, 15; Jer. xlviii 6, li 6, 45; vgl. Ps. cxxiv 7. 19) 2 Kön. vii 7 ; vgl. Jer. xlviii 6. 20) 1 Kön. xix 4; Jon. iv 8, zusammen mit m~7 (,,&rroOlXvELV"). Vgl. auch 1 Kön. iii 11 ; Hiob xxxi 30. 21) 2 Sam. xxiii 17; 1 Kön. xix 3. 22) Ez. xxxii 10. 23) Jes. xlix 7. 24) Ps. cxlii 5. V gl. Gen. ix 5. 25) 1 Sam. xxvi 21 ; 2 Kön. i 13, 14, in Verbindung mit l:~ ("QtpOIXA!L6~").

Ferner vgl. die Verwendung von

'R;

(,,'(!Lw~")

in: Spr. vi 26.

2S) 1 Sam. xxvi 24 (bis), zusammen mit r~ ("QtpeIXA!L6~"). 27) Jos. ix 24 usw. 28) Deut. xxiv 6.

80

N. P. BRATSIOTIS

usw. 1). Ebenso bezeichnend ist die Wendung

~;>~~ ~tP,?~ ~~~i?'!;(J

("xod geY)xlX. ~uX~v f1.0U EV XELp[ f1.0U") 2), sowie jene Fälle, in denen dem tzj!?~ die Präposition f 3) vorangestellt wird, in Verbindung mit

verschiedenen Verben. Offensichtlich haben viele der angeführten Fälle, wie ich schon oben angedeutet habe, einen Bezug zu der vorher genannten biologischen Sinnrichtung von 1Zi!?~, wo es nämlich "Leben" bedeutet und den Sitz und Träger des Lebens anzeigt. Zweifellos aber wird in einer Reihe der aufgeführten Fälle 1Zi!?~ statt eines Pronomens 4) verwendet, da ja ein solcher Gebrauch von tzj!?~ nicht unbekannt ist auch bei den LXX, die diesen Begriff nicht selten durch irgendein Pronomen wiedergeben 5). Hier möchte ich auch in Erinnerung rufen, daß manchmal 1Zi!?~ im massoretischen Text als Synonym für "G(vep(u7tO~" 6), d.h. für tzj1l~, C1!;( usw. vorkommt, indem es gleichgesetzt wird mit "I n di v i d u u m" 7). Eine besondere Hervorhebung verdient hier der Umstand, daß, entgegen den Einwendungen sowohl anderer als auch L. KÖHLERS 8), tzj!?~ sehr oft als Sitz des "Ichs" (des 1) Vgl. den Gebrauch von 'i~17 in: Esth. vii 7, viii 11, ix 16, wie auch die Metapher in : Jer. xxxi 12 (~n T~:P), die sich auf tzj!?~ bezieht. 2) Richt. xii 3 ; vgl. 1 Sam. xix 5, xxviii 21 ; Hiob xiii 14, auch ohne c~ir; in: Ps. cxix 109. Vgl. weiter die Verwendung von c~ir; zusammen mit 1Zi!?~ in: 1 Kön. xix 2; Jes. liii 10. 3) Vgl. Num. xvii 3; Klag. v 9 ("E:V 't'lXr,;; tuxlXr,;;"); 1 Kön. ii 23 ("XIX't'OC 't'~,;; tux'ii,;;") ; Spr. vii 23 (,,1tEpt tux'ii,;;") ; Jon. i 14 (,,~VEXEV 'l"ij,;; tux'ii,;;") usw. 4) Vgl. hier u.a. vor allem: Deut. xxiv 6; 1 Sam. xxii 23 (bis), wie auch, 1 Sam. xxiii, wo die LXX sehr charakteristisch 1Zi!?~ sinngemäss mit "ÄlXu(3" wiedergeben. 5) Vgl. z.B. die LXX-Wiedergabe von 1Zi!?~ mit "crEIXU't''ij'' (Esth. iv 13),

"EIXU't'OV" (Esth. vii 7), "E:fL'ii,;;" (Hiob xvi 4), "crcA" (Hiob xviii 4), ,,1X,)'t'0';;" (Hiob xxiii 13), "EIXU't'OV" (Hiob xxxii 2; Spr. xv 32), ,,1X,)'t'0(" (Jes. xlvi 2) usw. 6) Erwähnenswert ist hier folgende Bemerkung von W. ErCHRoDT (a.a.O.,

S. 89) : "Hier ist das charakteristische Merkmal des Individuellen im Begriff so in den Vordergrund getreten, daß man mit nefes das Einzelwesen überhaupt meint, ohne auf seine Lebendigkeit besonders Rücksicht zu nehmen: man spricht einfach vom Individuum. Die Erinnerung an die ursprüngliche Bedeutung wird dabei so stark ausgeschaltet, daß man dieses Individuum durch besonderen Zusatz als lebend oder tot bezeichet ... ". 7) Vgl. vor allem Gen. xlvi 15, 18, 22, 25, 26 (bis), 27 (bis); Ex. i 5, xii 4, xvi 16; Num. xxxi 28, 35 (bis), 40 (bis), 46; Deut. x 22, xxiv 7; Jer. xliii 6, lii 29, 30 (bis) usw. Vgl. auch Gen. xii 5, xxxvi 6 ("crWfLlX't'IX"); Lev. xxii 11 ; Ez. xxvii 13 usw., wo der Terminus tzj!?~ im Sinne von "Sklave" vorkommt. V gl. auch: Spr. xvi 26, wo die LXX 1Zi!?~ durch ,,&:v~p" wiedergeben. 8) A.a.O., S. 131.

81

!1lbl- 'F'YXH

"zyw") 1) betrachtet wird. Dies wird zudem zweifellos bestätigt und bewiesen durch seine Verwendung in den Monolog-Abschnitten 2), wo nämlich das Individuum im inneren Monolog seine !D~~ anredet 3). Auch in der frühgriechischen Literatur, wo nach obiger Darlegung der Begriff ,, ~uX1( als Sitz und Träger des Lebens verstanden wird, bedeutet ,,~uX~" besonders häufig "Leben" schlechthin. Daher ist ,,~uX~" bezeichnenderweise mit dem Verbum ,,~~w", ,,~&.w" 4) verbunden. Dabei deute ich vor allem hin auf die hieher gehörende Wendung ,,~uX~ ~WO'(l" 5). In gleicher Weise ist hier der Ausdruck ,,~UX(lt 1tOAA(l[" 6) zu erwähnen, wie auch die Beschwörung: t \ .1. ..., ,, 7) , \ 'i'UX'Yj ,r. - ~ ~Xe:Te:UW 8) un d " T'Y' jV e:fL' " YjV ,,1\~O'O'O[..l.(l~ U1te:p 'i'UX'Yj~ , ,,(lvn ~uX~v x(lT6fLVUfL~" 9). Aber auch die Verbindung von ,,~uX~" mit ,,6vnO'xw" 10) und ,,\me:p6vnO'xw" 11) kennt die griechische Literatur durchaus. Auch in ihr gibt es die Wendung ,,~uX~ 6(lv6vTO~" 12). Es ist zu bemerken, daß ,,~uX~" in derselben Bedeutung ebenso in der folgenden Stelle bei Sophokles vorkommt: "TQ qnAT&'Tou fLv'YJfLe:~ov ,iv6pw1twv zfLoL / / ~uX'tj~ 'OpeO'TOU ... " 13). In diesem Zusammenhang erwähne ich ferner die charakteristische Verbindung des Begriffes ,,~UX~" mit folgenden Verben: "xTdvw" 14), "ilAAU" 15) , ,,(l1tOI\I\UfL~ , ' i ). " ) 6) , ,,(l, CP (l~Pe:ofL(l~ 17» , ,,(lVT(lCP (l ~Pe:ofL(l~ 18) , "e:. A. 1390; vgl. 'Op. 1046. 6) EYPIII., 'Iltlt6A. 258 f. 7) EYPIII., 0 LV. 1552. 8) API~TO., Etp. 829. 9) ~OOKA., 'HAexTp. 1127; LA. 54 f.; EYPIII., 'Ex. 21 f., 87; vgl. API~TO., Etp. 829. 10) EYPIII., 'Ex. 21. 11) EENOAN., 6 4 f. 12) Vgl. ~OOKA., ot~. T. 63 f., 93 f., 665 f.; , AVTLY. 559 f.; EYPIII., 'Hp. M. 452 ; 'Iltlt6A. 1039 f.; KUxA. 340 f. usw. 13) EYPIII., M1j~. 247.

lVtll -

85

O/YXH

Es wird aber auch dadurch bestätigt, daß ,,'fUX.~" häufig in Monologen vorkommt, wo sich nämlich die einzelne Person im Selbstgespräch an die eigene ,,~uxH' 1) wendet oder auch umgekehrt 2). In Übereinstimmung mit den entsprechenden Gegebenheiten des Alten Testaments befindet sich bekanntlich die t]j!1~ im "Inneren"

(::I1P) 3) des Menschen, und dieser lebt, solange sie "in" (il)4) ihm ist, nämlich er eine i1!tI tzj!1~ die

tzj!1~

(Aux.~ ~wcrlJ(")

5) ist. Sobald aber

aus ihm "heraustritt" (N:S') 6), wird er

't"e't"eAeu't"'Y)XU~IJ(")

l"l~ tzj!1~

7) oder einfach Clt' tzj!1~ 8) und sogar

tzj!1~

(,,~ux.~

9). Sehr

charakteristisch ist in diesem Zusammenhang auch die Verbindung von tzj!1~ mit dem Verbum np~ ("AIJ([LßOCVeu"), namentlich dann, wenn sein Subjekt Gott ist 10), der ebenso das Subjekt bildet zu dem Verbum ~ON 11), deßen Objekt wiederum die tzj!1~ ist. Hier ist auch das gleicherweise aufschlußreiche V erbum ~O' 12) zu nennen, ein Synonym zu dem vorhergehenden und einige Male mit t!l!1~ verbunden. Außerdem wird man auch nicht übersehen dürfen, daß das Verbum ::I,tzj ("imcr't"pEt.peu") in manchen Fällen tzj!1~ zum Subjekt hat 13). Ebenso muß auf die bezeichnende Stelle hingewiesen werden : 9'!;1'~~ i1Ji'17 l"l!:t C'~tltt ,;,;;~ i1'~';; '~'i~ tzj!1~ i1t'7m ("XlJ(t ~cr't"IJ(L ~ ~ux.~ xup[ou [Lou ivad3e[LEv'Y) iv aecr[L. 569 f. ; aber auch: HPOLl., II, 123 2 • 14) ~OIl>OKA., ' Avny. 1069.

!D!:)l- 'YYXH

87

gabe des hebräischen Textes durch die LXX deutenden Wendungen: "ewe:; -r~e:; ~ux~e:;" 1), ,,(lv-rt -r~e:; E[L~e:; ~uX~e:;" 2) und "cX.7tO ~ux~e:; ewe:; ()OCPXWV" 3) aus der altgriechischen Literatur die Ausdrücke gegenüberstellen: "ewe:; ~e:; ~ux~e:;" 4.), "cX.v-rt -r~e:; E[L~e:; ~ux~e:;" 5), und , .L 6) . "TYlV -rE 'I'uX1Jv ... XOCL -ro ()W[LOC I

,\....,,,

Bevor ich nun diese kurze vergleichende Untersuchung der Begriffe ~!t~ und ,,~uX~" abschließe, ist es zweckmäßig, die Auf-

merksamkeit noch auf einige Stellen zu lenken, wo diese Termini voll und ganz dem uns geläufigen volkstümlichen Verständnis von "Seele" als Abstraktum entsprechen. So sind aus dem Alten Testament vor allem zu nennen: Ex. xxiii 9 und Hiob xvi 4, wie auch 1 Sam. i 15; Hiob xxx 16; Ps. xlii 5 ). Aus dem altgriechischen Schrifttum wiederum könnte man vielleicht folgende Stellen damit vergleichen: Aristophanes, Acharner 375 f.; Vögel 1553 ff.; Ritter 482 8 ); Herodot III, 141 ; VII, 16a2 ; Sophokles, Aias 558 f.; Euripides, Hiketiden 1101 ff.; Andromache 159 f. Ferner könnte man gegenüberstellen: Deut. xxiv 15 und folgende Stellen aus der altgriechischen Literatur: Hesiod, Werke und Tage 684 f.; Pindar, Nemeen IX, 32 ff.; Fragmente 1085 ff.; Euripides, Andromache 418 f.

***

Fassen wir also diese kurze vergleichende lexikographische Untersuchung zusammen, so lassen sich meines Erachtens folgende Punkte herausstellen: 1. Der hebräische Terminus ~~~ und der sehr alte griechische Begriff ,,~uX~" weisen im großen und ganzen dieselbe Breite der Bedeutung und dieselbe Mannigfaltigkeit in der Abwandlung ihrer Bedeutung auf. 2. Die Wurzel der beiden Termini (~!t~ und ,,~uX~") ist sinngemäß die gleiche. 1) Jer. iv 10; Jon. ii 6. 2) Hiob xvi 4. 3) Jes. x 18 (im übertragenen Sinn). An dieser Stelle wird ersichtlich, daß im Volksbewußtsein des Alten Testaments ~!t~ und ,~~ den ganzen Menschen

und zwar als leibseelische Einheit bezeichnen (vgl. hiezu Ps. lxiii 2; Hiob xiii 14, xiv 22; Spr. xi 17; vgl. ferner Ps. lxxxiv 3). 4) ANTI3 - an emendation that has reeently won favour in the light of evidenee from Ugarit and Qumran. See G. M. LANDES, B.A.S.O.R., exliv (Deeember 1956), pp 31-3, followed by M. MANSOOR, Revue de Qumran, iii (1961/2), pp. 392-4.

"SPRING AND TORRENT"

127

was uniformity of belief among ancient Israelites. Some parts of the Old Testament appear to presuppose that the earth existed under the waters before the ereation and that the ereation of the world eonsisted in the removal of the waters from it 1). Therefore, there is nothing improbable in the view that some Hebrews thought that there were springs fee ding the upper parts of the oeean even before the present state of affairs was established. The seeond objeetion is more serious: although :I1P~ ean be explained as a verb denoting hostile aetivity, it does not seem suitable to the eontext. The use of the verb to denote the cleaving of the sea is attested in the Old Testament, but it is doubtful whether to speak of cleaving aspring would have the same meaning; as will be shown below, when the verb is elsewhere used wirh a noun denoting "spring" or the like, the sense is different. This objeetion teHs strongly against the theory. It seemed worth-while to work out this explanation of Ps. lxxiv 15, and it is not perhaps impossible. But, in view of the diffieulties involved, it is probably to be rejeeted as unlikely, and another explanation of the verse must be sought. II It has been seen that, when God ereated the world, he drove the waters off the earth and set them limits whieh they must not pass; but ehannels were cleft open (':I1P~3 m~'~Tl-Prov. iii 20) to permit some water to eome up from the great deep jnto springs on land and, probably, in the sea. However, there was one oeeasion in the his tory of the world sinee ereation when the waters did not keep to their appointed plaee. When God brought the flood upon the earth, he allowed the waters both to pour down through the windows of the firmament and to flow up through the springs; aH the springs of the great deep (~~, C'~Tl Tl3':11~-':l) were cleft open (':I1P~3) and the waters rushed up (Gen. vii 11; ep. 1 Enoeh liv 7 f., lxxxix 3, and also Lucian of Samosata, De Dea Syria xii). As GUNKEL saw 2), this was areturn 1) Gen. i 9 f., Ps. civ 6-9. Cp. J. SKINNER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentar.y on Genesis (2nd ed. Edinburgh, 1930), p. 23; W. H. SCHMIDT, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift (Neukirchen, 1964), pp. 85 f. 2) Genesis (Göttingen, 1901), pp. 70, 132. It is also possible that there is some relation between the rual; that God made to pass over the earth at the end of the flood in Gen. viii 1 and the rual; >elohim of i 2. But such a view involves several

problems and it is too uncertain for much to be built upon it. See the recent discussions by W. H. SCHMIDT, op. cit., pp. 81-4, by T. C. VRIEZEN on pp. 15-19 of his essay, "De Heilige Geest in het Oude Testament", in De Spiritu Sancto

128

J. A. EMERTON

to primeval chaos. The end of the flood was, therefore, comparable to the creatJon of the world. The windows of the heavens and the springs were closed (Gen. viii 2), and further waters were thus prevented from coming to swell the flood. The Old Testament does not explain precisely what became of the waters already covering the earth. But there are extra-biblical traditions showing the way in which some Jews and gentiles at a later date understood what happened. 1 Enoch lxxxix 7 f. records that "the chasms of the earth were levelled up and other abysses were opened. Then the water began to run down into these, till the earth became visible" 1). With this may be compared the account by Lucian of Samosata (De Dea Syria xiii) of the chasm beneath the temple at Hierapolis which, it was believed, had once been very large and through which the waters of the flood had disappeared. It may be noted that the Semitic names of Hierapolis are probably derived from a word meaning "source, spring" 2). Thus 1 Enoch lxxxix speaks of chasms opening to let the water up and of other abysses opening to let the water down, while a Syrian place, the name of which probably means " spring", had a chasm through which the waters descended. J ubilees vi 26 contains a similar tradit ion: " And on the new moon of the fourth month the mouths of the depths of the abysses beneath were closed. And on the new moon of the seventh month all the mouths of the abysses of the earth were opened, and the waters began to descend into them" 3). These words should be compared with a statement in the previous chapter (v 29): "And (on the new moon) in the fourth month the fountains of the great deep were closed and the flood-gates of heaven were restrained; and on the new moon of the seventh month all the mouths of the abysses of the earth were opened, and the water began to descend into the deep below". When the two verses are examined together, it appears that the abysses into which the waters descended were comparable 10, or even identical with, those through which they had previously risen. These passages co me from the beginning of the Christian era or shortly before (though some would date Jubilees earlier), but they are in keeping with the older cosmology, and it is (Utrecht, 1964), and by D. Lys, «Ruach» le souflle dans I' Ancien Testament (Paris, 1962), pp, 174 ff. 1) R. H. CHARLES, Tbe Book of Enoch (Oxfo rd, 1893), ad loc. 2) Mabbogh, etc. Cp. J. A. MONTGOMERY, j. A .O.5., liii (1933), p. 11 1, W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeolo~ and the Religion of Israel (3rd ed., Baltimore, 1953), pp. 194 f., and M. H. POPE, E I in the Ugaritic T exts (5. V. T. , ii) (Leiden, 1955), pp. 73 ff. 3) R. H. CHARLES, Tbe Book ofJubilees (La nd on, 1902), ad loc.

"SPRING AND TORRENT"

129

weIl known that such late writings often preserve ancient traditions 1). If that is what happened at the end of the flood, in circumstances comparable to those of the creation, it is possible that something similar occurred at the creation itself. It may therefore be suggested that Ps. lxxxiv 15 teIls how God cleft open the springs to let the water descend, just as Gen. vii 11 records that the springs were opened to allow the water to rise. The psalm uses the verb 17j:'!l, and it has been seen that the same verb denotes the cleaving open:of the channels of the great deep at the time of creation in Provo ili 20 and at the time of the flood in Gen. vii 11. (It is also used in Num. xvi 31 of the opening up of the ground so that people might fall into Sheol.) The theory held by some scholars that Ps. lxxiv 15 refers to the creation of the springs is therefore probably essentially correct; yet it is likely that the first purpose of the springs was, not to permit limited amounts of water to rise for beneficial purposes, but to drain the earth and to allow dry land to appear. This explanation thus understands the cleaving open of the springs in a way that forms an excellent parallel to the second half of the verse: "Thou didst dry up perennial streams". On this view, the verse forms the transition from the attack on the chaos described in verses 12-14 to the positive work of creation in verses 16 f. So far, the meaning of ';Im has not been discussed in relation to this explanation. It is possible that it is here used of an underground channel (cp. Job xxviii 4) linking the spring to the subterranean deep 2); but it is simpler to suppose that the word has its usual meaning of stream or wady. Although some of the water was sent down to the great deep through the springs, some ran off the land by rivers to the sea. The suggestion advanced in the present paper is thus that the 1) There is perhaps a connexion between these traditions and the legends of the shaft that reached dcwn under the temple on Mount Zion to the great deep. According to the Talmud (B. Makk. 11a, B. Sukk. 53a-b), when David was digging the foundations of the temple, the waters began to rise up from the deep and threatened to flood the world. When, however, a sherd inscribed with the divine name was thrown into them, the waters sank back again. On this story and related Jewish and Arab legends, and on a possible connexion with the creation, see R. PATAI, Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual (London, 1947), pp. 54 ff. After I had read my paper in Geneva, several people reminded me of these legends and drew attention to their relevance to the subject under discussion. I should like to express my thanks to Professors P. R. ACKROYD, C. A. KENNEDY, H. G. MAY, J. R. PORTER and F. ZIMMERMANN, and to Dom AIDAN HARKER for their suggestions. 2) REYMOND, op. cit., pp. 158, 201. S\lpplements to Vetus Testamentum

xv

9

130

J.

A.

EMERTON

whole of Ps. lxxiv 15 describes the removal of the primeval waters from the earth. God deft open springs, so that the water might descend through them. Additional Note

Although it is not possible to ex amine here every denial that Ps. lxxiv 12 ff. refers to the primeval struggle against the chaos monster, some comments may be made on the arguments advanced by E. KöNIG in Die Psalmen (Gütersloh, 1927), pp. 670 f. (cp. 350 f.), which have recently been supported by H. JUNKER in Me/anges Bibliques rediges en I'honneur de Andre Robert (Paris, 1957), pp. 29 f. KÖNIG'S views had been expressed much earlier in "Altorientalische Weltanschauung" und Altes Testament (Berlin, 1905), pp. 37-44; cp. also Die moderne Babyionisierung der Bibel in ihrer neuesten Erscheinungsform (Delitzschs "Babel und Bibel" 1921) (Stuttgart, 1922), pp. 23-9. KÖNIG opposes GUNKEL'S interpretation of the passage and maintains that it refers to the overthrow of the Egyptians at the time of the exodus; verses 15-17 do not, he contends, relate the creation of the world directly to the defeat of Leviathan, but the mention of day and night in v~rse 16 alludes to the pillar of doud by day and the pillar of fire by night, and the following verses are to be explained psychologically as having been suggested to the writer's mind by association of ideas. He refuses to acknowledge the presence of allusions to the defeat of the chaos monster anywhere in the Old Testament except in Job ix 13 and xxvi 12 f., where they are found in the words of non-Israelites. Although JUNKER agrees with much that KÖNIG says, he is more cautious; he recognizes that there was a popular Israelite myth of the slaying of the dragon by Yahwe before the creation, but he maintains that the mythological imagery is here used (as in Isa. li 9 f.) to describe the events of the exodus. One of JUNKER'S arguments 1S that the second part of verse 15 must refer to what happened to the Red Sea and the Jordan; since, however, the present paper as a whole is devoted primarily to a discussion of this verse, it 1S unnecessary to examine it in this additional note. KÖNIG'S unwillingness to recognize an allusion to the dragon myth is difficult to defend, and his view has become even more improbable since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts. Moreover, although the imagery of the myth is undoubtedly used in parts of the Old Testament to describe events at the time of the exodus, this does not mean

"SPRING AND TORRENT"

131

that, wherever it is found, there is necessarily such an historical reinterpretation. In this psalm and in Ps. lxxxix, the defeat of the monster is related to the creation of the world, and the connexion is more plausibly explained mythologically than psychologically. Three arguments have been drawn from Ps. lxxiv 12 in opposition to the view that the passage is concerned with the primeval struggle against the dragon and with the creation of the world. First, verse 12 speaks of God as "my king" (malki). KÖNIG argues that Yahwe became Israel's king through the deliverance from Egypt (cp. Exod. xv 18), and JUNKER says: "Wenn der Psalmist Jahwe «meinen König» nennt, so spricht er nicht von dem allgemeinen Weltkönigtum Jahwes, das mit der Schöpfung gesetzt ist, sondern von dem Königtum Jahwes über Israel, das nach alttestamentlicher Auffassung durch die Befreiung des Volkes aus Aegypten begründet wurde". Against this, it may be pointed out that, although Yahwe was regarded as king of Israel in a special way, his kingship was believed to extend far beyond Israel, and that it is doubtful whether his wider kingship was thought to be based on the events of the exodus. KÖNIG hirnself refers (p. 350) to Ps. xlvii 6 in connexion with lxxiv 12, and the former psalm clearly speaks of a kingship that is not restricted to Israel: although Ps. xlvii 7 refers to Yahwe as "our king", verse 9 says explicitly malak >elohim 'al-gtryim, and, when verses 3 and 8 say that he is king over kol-ha'arC.[, the context shows that the whole earth is meant. It is unlikely that the psalmist is here thinking of a kingship that goes back only to the exodus, despite KÖNIG'S attempt (ad loc.) to relate the subduing of the nations to events of that time. Similarly, Ps. xxix 11 implies the existence of a special relationship between Yahwe and the Israelites by describing them as "his people", and yet the psalm as a whole clearly has in mind a wider kingship. Even KÖNIG here recognizes that the kings hip goes back before the exodus (he thinks that the psalm alludes to the flood in the time of Noah), and he apparently does not regard verse 11 as an obstacle to such a view. He also recognizes (p. 229) that Ps. cxlv 11 (like xciii and ciii 19-22b) refers to a kingship that began with the creation, although verse 1 addresses Yahwe as "my God, 0 King", and verse 10 rnight be supposed to imply the existence of a special relationship with the Israelites. In the same way, Ps. xcix 5, 8 f. speaks of "our God" (cp. verses 6 f.), but verses 1-3 show that he is also to be acknowledged as king by the nations; it is very questionable whether the psalmist would have maintained that the kingship that the nations were to

132

J. A. EMERTON

recognize began only at the exodus. ep. also Ps. ciii, which speaks in verse 7 of Y ahwe' s special relation to Israel and in verses 19 ff., as has been seen, of his universal kingship. Moreover, it is likely that the idea of God as king was derived ultimately from mythological sources; cp. W. SCHMIDT, op. cit., especially pp. 64 ff., and J. GRAY, V.T., vi (1956), pp. 268 ff., xi (1961), pp. 1 ff. The fact that the psalmist says "my king" in Ps. lxxiv 12 testifies that he is conscious of a special relationship to God, but his use of "my" cannot be pressed to mean that he is thinking of Yahwe's kingship over Israel to the exclusion of his wider sovereignty. Secondly, verse 12 speaks of God as the worker of yeJu(o! and, it is apparently maintained, the word implies that he performs acts of deliverance on behalf of IsraelI). Yet KÖNIG recognizes that the word can mean "victories", and he gives no reason why it cannot be used of God's victory over the powers of chaos. Even if it were certain that the word necessarily implies that someone is saved or delivered, a mythological interpretation would not be excluded. We know too little about popular Israelite beliefs to be able to attempt a detailed reconstruction of the forms taken by the dragon myth, but we know that, in the Babylonian myth, Marduk delivered the gods from the danger of Tiamat and her supporters. Moreover, the gods of Ugaritic mythology seem to have been afraid of Yam before his defeat by Baal; cp. the text described as Baal 111* B in G. R. DRIVER, op. cit., pp. 78 ff. It is possible that, in the popular myth, Yahwe delivered the lesser divine beings from the dragon. However, it is simpler to suppose merely that yeJu(o! here means "victories". Thirdly, since the verse says that God is the worker of yeJu(o! beqerek ha'are.f, the earth must already have been in existence; therefore, it is argued, the following verses cannot describe its creation. The argument is not convincing, since Gen. i 2 also speaks of ha'are.f before the work of creation; it is not until verses 9 f. that the dry land appears and is called 'ere.f. To quote the words of S. R. DRIVER, op. cit., p. 3, "the term here denotes the earth, not as we know it now, but in its primitive chaotic, unformed state". It may be in the middle of the earth in this sense that Yahwe is thought to have defeated the dragon. 1) GUNKEL, Die Psalmen, p. 325, explains the word differently: "Diese Tat wird unter die "Heilstaten" G ottes gerechnet: sie hat die gegenwärtige gute und gnädige Weltordnung begründet".

"SPRING AND TORRENT"

133

These arguments against the view that Ps. lxxiv 12 ff. refers to the defeat of the dragon and the creation of the world thus break down. But to say this is not to exclude the possibility that the reader is intended to think of the events of the exodus in addition to those of primeval dmes. JUNKER may, therefore, be right in the positive point that he seeks to make, even though his denial of a reference to the struggle before creation is questionable.

LA ROYAUTE DE YAHVE DANS LES TEXTES CONCERNANT L'ARCHE PAR

J.

DE FRAINE Louvain

Concernant 1'anciennete et l'importance, dans l' Ancien Testament, de la "royaute de Yahve" deux conceptions assez divergentes s'affrontent. D'apres certains auteurs "le theme de la royaute de Dieu constitue le kerygme par excellence de l' Ancien Testament" 1). Pas mal d'exegetes cependant seraient plutöt de l'avis d'Albrecht ALT, quand il estime que "la conception de la royaute de Yahve ne semble guere avoir ete un element constitutif du fonds originel de la religion d'Israel" 2). A s'en tenir a la litteralite de 1'expression malküt YHWH (ou mälak YHWH) on pourrait croire qu'effectivement 1'idee de la royaute de Yahve n'occupait guere une pI ace importante dans la pensee religieuse de l'ancien Israel. On s'est meme demande si le titre royal a jamais ete applique a Yahve avant l'epoque des invasions assyriennes; on fait valoir que l'epithete de Ps xlvii 3 "grand roi par toute la tene" contient une note polemique contre les "pretentions des envahisseurs assyriens qui deferlerent sur la Palestine" 3). Dans un article de 1960 Leonhard ROST resume les positions actuelles en la matiere en ces termes: "La royaute de Yahve ne saurait apparemment etre cons:ue comme un theologumenon de l'epoque pre-monarchique" 4). 1) G. FOHRER, "Messiasfrage und Bibelverständnis" (Sammlung gemeinverst. Vorträge und Schriften alls dem Gebiet der Theol. und Religionsgeschichte 213/4), Tübingen, 1957,42-44. 2) A. ALT, "Gedanken über das Königtum Jahwes", dans: Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte Israels, München, 1953, 345-357, p. 348. Neanmoins ALT appelle la royaute de Yahve "ein bedeutsames Stück der Geschichte des religiösen Denkens, Glaubens und H offens im Volke Israel". - J. SCHREINER, Sion Jerusalem -Jahwes Königsitz (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 7), München, 1963, 214, propose l'avis nuance: sans etre "ein ursprünglich bestimmendes Element in Israel", la royaute de Yahve est loin d'etre une innovation tardive en Israel ("schon in der vorstaatlichen Zeit Israels bekannt") . 3) B. BORNKAMP, Die Psalmen nach dem hebräischen Grundtext, Freiburg i/Br., 1949, 11 et 2295. 4) L. ROST, "Königsherrschaft Jahwes in vorköniglicher Zeit?", dans : ThLZ 85 (1960) 721-724, co!. 724.

LA ROYAUTE DE YAHVE

135

Meme des defenseurs convaincus de 1'antiquite du concept "YahveRoi" sont conscients qu'il "est a peine concevable que le terme "roi" pour designer Yahve etait dej a en usage dans la periode pre-monarchique" 1). Si les textes OU le Dieu d'Israel est appele explicitement "roi" sont relativement peu nombreux, l'idee de la souverainete royale de Yahve semble assez repandue dans l'Ancien Testament. La conception israelite d'un Dieu-roi et conducteur de son peuple rejoint une croyance tres ancienne au sujet de la divinite chez la plupart des Semites 2). Dans ses ouvrages sur l'origine de l'eschatologie juive 3) ou sur le Messie 4), Hugo GRESSMANN croyait deceler dans les textes bibliques des traces tres anciennes d'un culte de Yahve-Roi. Si, a l'heure actuelle, on hesitera a faire credit aux intuitions geniales du regrette Martin BUBER, qui voyait dans le melek divin d'Israel un conducteur (dux, hegemon) plutot qu'on archOn ou un princeps 5), en un mot un "gujde sacrosaint du salut" 6), on ne peut s'empecher de trouver un peu partout, dans les differentes traditions de l' Ancien Testament, la croyance en la souverainete royale de Yahve. Assez souvent la question concernant l'anciennete et l'importance de cette croyance se complique du fait qu'on procede d'une notion trop etriquee ou trop specialisee de la royaute de Dieu. Surtout en matiere de "transposition" religieuse (Kultübertragung) il est extremement hasardeux d'identifier sans plus l'epoque de l'indubitable attestation ecrite d'une conception avec son origine premiere. Dans la grande majorite des cas, le contenu de la notion preexiste a la formule heureuse. Quand Pranz CUMONT, dans l'introduction de son fameux ouvrage sur Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain parle du 1) H. J. KRAUS, Die Känigsherrschaft Gottes im AT (Beitr. hist. Th. 13), Tübingen, 1951, 94, n. 2; cfr p. 88: "Die Prädizierung Jahwes als ,König' ist in der vorexilischen Zeit sehr selten". 2) J. DE FRAlNE, "Teocrazia e monarchia in Israele", dans: Bibbia e Griente 1 (1959) 4-11; A. CAQUOT, "Le psaume 47 et la royaute de Yahve", dans: RHPhR 39 (1959) 311-337, p. 332. 3) H. GRESSMANN, Der Ursprung der isr.-jüd. Eschatologie (FRLANT 6), Göttingen, 1905,267. 4) H. GRESSMANN, Der Messias (FRLANT n.s. 26 = 43), Göttingen, 1929, 229. 5) M. BUBER, Königtum Gottes, Berlin, 19563,49. Le grand philosophe renvoie a Sm xii 2, OU la fonction du roi humain consiste a "marcher devant" ses subordonnes. Yahve egalement prend figure de "guide", qui "marche devant les siens pour les conduire au salut" (Ex xiii 21: exode; Ps cxxxvi 16; Am ii 10: desert; Dt i 30; xxxi 8; Jg iv 14: la conquete de Canaan; Is xlviii 17; lii 12: le retour des exiles babyloniens; Mi ii 12: eschatologie). 6) Cfr Ps xlviii 15: "notre Dieu aux siecles des siecles, lui, il nous conduit".

136

J.

DE FRAINE

"socialisme de Diocletien" 1), il ne s'agit la que d'une expression deliberement anachronique designant une realite qui existait longtemps avant l'origine du terme "socialisme". On pourrait donc legitimement supposer que la notion de royaute, dans son application au Dieu d'Israel, tend a circonscrire par une formule saisissante une realite dej a traditionnelle, notamment la "souverainete profonde et monotheiste de Yahve" 2). Depuis les decouvertes des textes d'Ugarit, il n'est plus possible de mettre en doute l'antiquite de la notion du Dieu-Roi dans l'ambiance cananeenne immediate d'Israel. Par sa victoire sur le dieu Yam (la mer) Baal acquiert la dignite royale, et la liturgie le celebre comme "notre roi, notre juge, qui n'a personne au-dessus de lui" 3). De la a postuler un emprunt de la part d'U garit dans la religion d'Israel, il n'y a qu'un pas 4). Plusieurs auteurs ont eherehe a rattacher l'idee du Dieu-Roi en Israel a l'heritage jebusite 5). On estime que le tÜre melek applique a Yahve appartient a la sphere du dieu "Tres Haut" ('e(yon), qui se trouve dans Gn xiv 18 et dans le psaume lxxxii p. ex.: on compare volontiers le cas de Marduk, declare "roi des dieux" au milieu d'un certain nombre de divinites locales 6). 11 n'est pas question de conte ster les emprunts a la civilisation cananeenne, meme dans le domaine religieux (il s'agit la d'une consequence naturelle de la sedentarisation). 11 faut cependant se souvenir que ce phenomene de transposition comporte toujours une nuance, assez heureusement mise en lumiere par John GRAY, dans un article recent: "Les Hebreux ... ont mis le sceau distinctif de leur foi sur l'ideologie cananeenne, qu'ils adopterent" 7). Le meme auteur nuance 1) Fr. CUMONT, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, Bruxelles, 1929. 2) A. ALT, art. eit., dans: Kleine Schriften, p. 354. 3) E. JACOB, Ras Shamra et I'Ancien Testament, (Cahiers d'archeologie biblique, 12), Neuchatel, 1960, 96. La meme chose est affirmee du predecesseur de Baal, notamment EI (ibid., p. 88). 4) Ce pas a ete franchi par Werner SCHMIDT, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 80), Berlin, 1961. .) Herbert SCHMID, "Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem"; dans: ZAW 67 (1955) 168-197; A. R. JOHNSON, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, Cardiff, 1955, 29; A. CAQUOT, "Le psaume 47 et la royaute de Yahve", art. cit., 335; H. J. KRAUS, Die Psalmen, Neukirchen, 19622 , 199-200; 204; Ed. NIELSEN, "Some Reflections on the History of the Ark" (VT Suppl. 7; Oxford Congress 1959), Leiden, 1960, 61-74, p. 68 n. 6) H. J. KRAUS, Die Psalmen, I. cit., 198. 7) J. GRAY, "Kingship of God in Prophets and Psalms", dans: VT 11 (1961), 1-29, p. 28.

LA ROYAUTE D E YA HV E

137

encore cette affirmation, quand j1 rapp elle que 1'emprunt est nettement "adapte par les Israelites" . Cette adaptation impHque que 1a croyance preliminaire d'Israe1 ne s'est approprie qu'en partie l'expression et 1a conception cananeenne sous-jacente. 11 y aurait peut-etre Heu de faire valoir jci la notion de "demythisation" (Entmythologisierung), comme j' ai eu l' occasion de 1e montrer !ei bJrp >ei bknt >ei bj,tfyn >ei

(

)

By By By By (

GRAY

the 1) of EI, the Nobility 2) of EI, the Stability of EI, the Purpose 3) of EI, )

Here the dominance of EI must be emphasized. Even granted that in bn >ei gods rather than the sons of EI are visualized, it is significant that with the possible exception of bugr of Baal, and Aterat the consort of EI. In the latter ErssFELDT 4) would see the acknowledgement of the conception, familiar in the ancient Near East, that divinity included a female as weIl as a male function. We suggest further that in view of the transcendence of EI, which we consider to be mentioned twice in the text, the attendants of EI jkmn wJnm may have come to occupy the position of intercessory saints in Christendom or the weli, or patron, in Islam. In the case of bnn >ei, n!bt >eI and Jlm >ei n!bt, bnn and Jlm cannot surely all be finite verbs in the same context but must be nouns, and the 1) We have no feasible suggestion to offer for djn, and are not satisfied, with GORDON'S 'sIedge' (UL, p. 109) and ArsTLErTNER's 'niederschlagende' ('beating down') qualifying ,md in the sense of 'mace', both taking the word as cognate with Hebr. !V~i and Arab. ~:>. 2) GOR DON and ArSTLEITNER both taken Irp as denoting 'burning', ArSTLEITNER proposing more specifically 'burnt-offering', which Irp denotes regularly in the offering-texts. ArSTLEITNER further proposes that the preposition b, which up to this point he has taken to be instrumental with the various assumed weapons of EI, now means 'because of', introducing offerings made for the placation of EI, the whole burnt-offering (Irp), the perpetual offering (knt) and the morningoffering (!,dyn), EI throughout being taken as vocative. This is not impossible, but it is more natural that b should have the same sense throughout. H. RrNGGREN (Word and Wisdom. Studies in the Hypostatization o[ Divine Qualities and Functions in the Aneient Near Bast, 1947, pp. 74-78) proposes that the word may denote attendants on EI, Iike the C'!;l':;l'P in Isaiah's inaugural vision. We propose that Irp is cognate with Arabic J"":" 'nobility'. S) We tentatively suggest a connection with Arab. I..i'" 'to direct oneself to an

object with a purpose' . The phrase gdyn 'eI would then be analogous to ':'1' l"1ll) in the Elephantine Papyri according to ALBRIGHT'S feasible view, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 1940, p. 286, n. 51, cf. 2nd ed., 1957, p. 383, n. 51, where the phrase is said to -mean 'Sign of Yahweh', or 'The Purpose of Yahweh'. 4) ErssFELDT, op. eit., p. 65.

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CANA:\ NITE RELIGION

185

preceding invocation of EI and the rest oE the gods, associates oE EI, suggests that bnn 'ei, n.rbt 'ei and flm 'ei are attributes of EI which are also the objects of invocation. IE the text told us nothing more than that that would be highly significant, indicating that the ancient Canaanites were capable of spiritualizing the conception of EI, who on the evidence of this text and ritual texts as weH as the Krt text and, we believe, also the Baal-myth, was the chief god in the religion of ancient Canaan, the ultimate authority both in nature and the moral order. In the reverse of the text again EI predominates, and, while most of the nouns qualified by 'cl, by which adjuration is made, are oE uncertain derivation and import, the anaIogy of the Mercy of EI (bnn 'ei) the Exaltation of EI (n.rbt 'cl) and the Perfection of EI (flm 'cl) in the first part of the text indicates that they are qualities or attributes of EI rather than, as has been suggested 1), weapons, which are not associated with EI elsewhere in the myths or legends or in sculpture, where we should expect them. In the immediate context in the reverse of the text the oath 'By the Stability of EI' (bknt 'ei) indicates that the other nouns are abstracts. On this interpretation not only does the text illustrate the pre-eminence of EI in the worship of Ras Shamra and the tendency to monotheism, at least on the part of a certain section of the peopIe oE U garit, by subsuming under EI the many gods traditionaHy worshipped at U garit, as ErssFELDT has suggested on Egyptian and Babyloruan analogies 2), with a spiritualizing of the conception of EI, but in the terms the Mercy of EI (bnn 'ei, mrb 'ef) and the Nobility oE EI (frp 'ei) it attests the specific interest of EI in social relations, the whole text relating to an intercessory ritual for the welfare of thc state of Ugarit (bab bn >cl ytPe /d(r. bn. >cl) (/)mp~rt. bn >cl I!km(n.wfnm) hn «r)

189

Or vis-a-vis gbr Or vis-a-vis those who plunder you Or vis-a-vis those who impoverish you Or vis-a-vis Qrzbl Mayagift effect your atonement. For your anger and your impatience Or for the crime you have committed Mayagift effect your atonement With sacrifice and with offering Our sacrifice is slaughtered It is the offering made, It is the sacrifice slain, Let it be offered up to the Father of the gods, Let it be offered to the family of the gods, To the assembly of the gods, To the Lofty and Exalted. Here is an ass-load.

As far as the general purport of the text is concerned, so far as the fragmentary condition of the first three paragraphs permit that to be determined, we follow CAQUOT'S reconstruction 1). The first paragraph probably stated that a certain calamity or series of disasters had befallen Ugarit, or might befall her in her relations with her neighbours the Qty, the Didymites, the Hurrians, the Hittites, the people of Alasiya, possibly Cyprus, the gbr, or more obscure bands of brigands as the result of the divine anger and sins of various kinds and degrees, both known and unknown in the community, for which expiatory sacrifice is prescribed. This is of course the theological climate of Israel crystallized in the Prophets and in the Deuteronomic history. It is also the philosophy of history in the inscription of Mesha of Moab and of the Hittites and Assyrians. Nearer ancient Ugarit in time and place it was also the philosophy of Ribaddi of Byblos in the Amarna Age, who wrote to the Pharaoh 2) : AndmaytheKingmylordknowthatthe gods ofByblos are angry and the bitter consequences thereof are grievous. So I have confessed my sins to the gods. 1) 2)

A.

CAQUOT,

J. A.

op. eil., p. 210. Die El-Amarna Tafeln 1908-15, no. 137,33.

KNUDTZON,

190

J.

GRAY

So the defeat at the hands of the Philistines in the days of Samuel brought Israel to a sense of sin, which she confessed before the Lord, while Samuel made libation and sacrifice and intercession at Mizpah (1 Sam. vii 3-9). This spiritual discipline to be sure was ad hoc, but eventually the confession and expiation of the sins of the community, moral and ritual, witting and unwitting, was regularized in the liturgy of the Day of Atonement in the context of the rites of the New Year season. In the U garitic text GORDON UH 2 there is no indication whether the relevant ritual, which was clearly analogous in principle to the experience of the Day of Atonement in Israel, was regular or simply ad hoc. The conjunction 'or' Cu), however, recurring before the various kinds of sin and especially before the compound preposition lp (visa-vis) before the various hostile peoples, seems most likely to visualize possible contingencies rather than adefinite historical experience, which HROZNY and AISTLEITNER assumed. This text leads naturally to a consideration of the ritual text GORDON UH 9, which GORDON (UL, p. 108) regards as relevant to a New Year ceremony and a ritual for forgiveness of soul (sib npI, see below) , seeing a reference to the month of Tishri (1. 11, see below), when the Jewish Day of Atonement was celebrated. The text, which is badly mutilated, begins after about a quarter of the first line with the words sib npI1), followed for the next nine lines by a list of offerings of sheep, and small and large cattle and a bird (b'i knp, cf. Provo i 17; Eccl. x 20) to EI, Baal, Dagan, Anat, Aterat, Yamm and ~apan, which was the Canaanite Olympus. These, or at least some, are specified as whole burnt-offerings (Irp) and communion-offerings (Jimm), another sacrifice of birds being mentioned here (1. 8) as in GORDON UH 5.22; 3.5-6, 27,40 and RS 18,56, a copy of UH 3, f>eni 'eim, which probably means 'to mollify the gods' 2). The occasion oE the rites is noted in 11. 9-10: 'rb Ipi wb! mik b'rb't '(I)rt We propose the Eollowing translation: At sunset 3) and the coming out 4) oE the Venus-star 5) 1) The first letter after the lacuna may belong to /1/, 'the 3rd'. 2) So ArsTLEITNER, JV7örterbuch, 319, 'um die Götter zu besänftigen', associating it, probably correctly, with Arab. """';1, 'to be sociable'. 3) The adverbial accusative of the verbal noun, like the following 4) i.e. when it oe cu pies its station, Arab.

•

j.::.

fil.

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CANAANITE RELIGION

191

On the fourteenth. On this occasion the king must wash himself clean (1. 10),yrtp! mlk brr. Then there is probably a reference to the sacrifice of two oxen on the day of the full moon (1. 11), (bym ml) 'aty ( )tn 'al(p)m. Then in an even more fragmentary passage there is reference to more sacrifices of sheep and cattle, both whole burnt-offering (frp) and communion-offerings (Jlmm) and possibly drink-offerings (to be inferred from kdm, 'jars' at 1. 16) to Baal-$apan and Anat. wnpf in this context, as in the ritual text GORDON U H 5, 12, 15, may indicate another sacrifice, or it may indicate 'fullness' as ArsTLEITNER suggests in GORDON UH 5, 12, 15 after Akkad. napafu. Here HERDNER's reading (Corpus, p. 122)yrb