A Theocentric Interpretation of הדעת טוב ורע: The Knowledge of Good and Evil as the Knowledge for Administering Reward and Punishment [1 ed.] 9783666564994, 9783525564998

Citation preview

Nathan S. French

A Theocentric Interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬ The Knowledge of Good and Evil as the Knowledge for Administering Reward and Punishment

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Edited by Ismo Dunderberg, Jan Christian Gertz, Hermut Löhr, Joachim Schaper

Volume 283

Nathan S. French

A Theocentric Interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬ The Knowledge of Good and Evil as the Knowledge for Administering Reward and Punishment

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2021, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: textformart, Göttingen | www.text-form-art.de Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0939 ISBN 978-3-666-56499-4

For my son, Ezra Nathan French ‫ְׁש ַמע־ה׳ וְ ָחּנֵ נִ י ה׳ ֱהיֵ ה־עֹזֵ ר לִ י‬ Hear, Yhwh, and be gracious to me. Yhwh, be my helper. (Ps 30:11)

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2. History of Research & Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2 Most Suggested by Scholars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2.1 Distinguishing the Beneficial and the Harmful . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.2 Moral Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.2.3 Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2.4 Omniscience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.2.5 Cultural Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.2.6 Sexual Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.2.7 Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2.2.8 Moral Discernment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2.2.9 Magic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2.3 Other Proposed Interpretations Important for this Thesis . . . . . . 63 2.3.1 Speaking Good or Evil as an Authoritative Word . . . . . . . 63 2.3.2 Political Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2.3.3 Societal Rules and Social Conventions (Divine Justice) . . . 66 2.4 Methodological Approach and Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . 69 2.4.1 ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3. Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.2 Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.2.1 Retribution Theology and the Problem of Divine Agency . . 77 3.2.2 The Retribution Principle as an Historiographical Hermeneutical Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.2.3 ‘Good and Evil’ in Literary Contexts of Retribution in Akkadian Texts and the HB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3.2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

8

Contents

3.3 Blessing and Cursing in Legal and Covenantal Literary Contexts of the ANE and the HB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 3.3.1 Blessing and Cursing Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3.3.2 Divine Blessing and Cursing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3.3.3 Blessing and Cursing in a Covenantal and Legal Literary Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4. Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.2 The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.2.1 Gen 2:9 and 2:16–17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.2.2 The Divine Test: Gen 2:16–17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 4.2.3 The Divine Beings and Divine Knowledge (Gen 3:5 and 3:22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 4.3 Nakedness and Shame in the Eden Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 4.3.1 Investiture in the ANE: Gen 2:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 4.3.2 Shame in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Gen 3:7–8 . . . 137 4.4 The Divine Curse as a Form of Punitive Action: Gen 3:8, 14–19 . . 144 4.4.1 Gen 3:14–19 and the Divine Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 4.5 A Theocentric Interpretation of ‫ עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬. . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4.6 Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 5. The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5.2 Setting the Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5.2.1 Josh 23:14b and 23:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5.2.2 Deut 30:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.2.3 Gen 50:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5.2.4 Gen 32:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 5.2.5 Gen 31:24, 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5.3 Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings . . . . . . . . . 167 5.3.1 1 Kings 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 5.3.2 1 Kings 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 5.3.3 1 Kings 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 5.3.4 1 Kings 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 5.3.5 1 Kings 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 5.3.6 1 Kings 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 5.3.7 2 Kings 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 5.3.8 2 Kgs 10:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 5.3.9 2 Kgs 14:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

  Contents  

9

5.3.10 2 Kgs 20:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 5.3.11 2 Kgs 20:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 5.3.12 2 Kings 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 5.3.13 ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ in Jeremiah 18:7–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 6. The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters . . . 205 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 6.2 Setting the Stage    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 6.2.1 Gen 26:28–29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 6.2.2 Num 22–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 6.2.3 Judges 11:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 6.2.4 Gen 21:11–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 6.2.5 Gen 24:50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 6.2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 6.3 Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships in the ANE and the HB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 6.3.1 Good and Bad in the Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre . . . . . 212 6.3.2 Speaking Good Words in 1 Kings 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 6.3.3 1 Samuel 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 6.3.4 1 Samuel 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 6.3.5 2 Sam 2:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 6.3.6 1 Kgs 20:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 6.3.7 2 Kgs 10:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 6.3.8 1 Kings 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 6.4 The Wisdom of Solomon in 1 Kings 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 6.4.1 1 Kgs 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 7. Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative (2 Sam 11–20 & 1 Kgs 1–2)    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 7.2 David’s Crimes Against a Resident Alien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 7.2.1 David and his Crime: The Eradication of Uriah’s Name in Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 7.3 Divine Retribution and ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the 2 Samuel 11–19 and 1 Kgs 1–2 Narrative(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 7.3.1 2 Samuel 11: David and Uriah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 7.3.2 2 Samuel 12: David and Nathan the Prophet . . . . . . . . . 254 7.3.3 2 Samuel 13: Amnon and Tamar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 7.3.4 2 Sam 14: The Wise Woman of Tekoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 7.3.5 2 Sam 15: Absalom’s Rebellion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

10

  Contents  

7.3.6 2 Sam 16: David’s Exile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 7.3.7 2 Sam 17: Absalom Defeated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 7.3.8 2 Sam 18: David’s Good and Bad News . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 7.3.9 2 Sam 19: David Weeps for His Son, Absalom . . . . . . . . 281 7.4 1 Kings 1–2: The Climax of the TSN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 7.4.1 1 Kings 1: Solomon Anointed King; Adonijah is Rejected . . 283 7.4.2 1 Kings 2: Adonijah is Executed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 8. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 8.1 Further Questions Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Autor Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Acknowledgments

This monograph is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation from 2018. I would like to first and foremost thank my doctoral supervisor, Professor Lena-­ Sofia Tiemeyer. Her insight and guidance throughout the writing of this doctoral thesis was immensely helpful and truly invaluable. Professor Tiemeyer’s expertise as a scholar, her giftedness as a teacher, and her enthusiasm for the Hebrew Bible are all inspiring. I am thankful for her critical comments, content suggestions, her editorial wisdom, her enjoyable conversations, and for all that she taught me while I was a student at Aberdeen University. Her example of what it means to be an accomplished scholar of the Hebrew Bible will always have significant impact upon my life and work. I also wish to express my gratitude to Emeritus Professor Lester L. Grabbe (Hull) and Emeritus Professor Hugh Pyper (Sheffield)  for their examination and interactions with my thesis. Their suggestions were very helpful, bringing important clarity and precision to my work. I am also thankful to Vandenhoeck &  Ruprecht for publishing this revised version of my doctoral dissertation. I am especially grateful to Professor Joachim Schaper for meeting with me at SBL in Denver to discuss the possible publication of this work and for his very helpful editorial comments for the work as a whole. I am also grateful to the V & R staff, especially to Christoph Spill, Dr. Izaak Hulster, Laura Röthele, and Renate Rehkopf for their help in editing and producing this manuscript. I wish you to thank my previous teachers and professors that I have had along the way. Although I am unable to mention all of you here, I owe a great deal to those of you under whom I studied at the Hebrew University, especially to Dr. Tarja Philip and Elnathan Weissert, and under those whom I studied at Oral Roberts University, especially Dr. Jeffrey Barbeau, Dr. Donald Vance, Lenore Mullican, Dr. Larry Hart, and Dr. Brad Young. I will forever be grateful for my time at each of these schools. I would also like to extend my thanks to Professor Richard Hess of the Denver Seminary. Also, many thanks to my family for their unceasing support of Haley and me during our time in Scotland. Also, many thanks to my friends and colleagues for your suggestions, encouragement, and support. Although I cannot name everyone, I especially wish to thank Dr. Aboseh Ngwana, Dr. Cory May, Dr. Joseph Hyung S. Lee, Dr. Jeffrey Hamm, Dr. Hsiao Jo-Ping, Jason K. Chambers, Dr. Alex Crawford, Rev. Paul Watson, Dr. Iosif Zhakevich, S. Virgil Goodwin, and Aaron Christianson. Finally, to my precious wife, Dr. Haley R. French. I could not have completed this monograph without your extraordinary love, support, and encouragement

12

Acknowledgments     

as I wrestled with good and evil in an ancient language. I will be forever grateful to the LORD that we were able to write our PhDs together in the Granite City of Aberdeen, Scotland, both in much light (summer) and in great darkness (winter), but always in an abundance of His ḥeseḏ. Although I am indebted to many, all errors that one may find in this monograph are my own.

Abbreviations AB ABRL ABL ABD

Anchor Bible (Commentary) Anchor Bible Reference Library R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols., New York: Doubleday, 1992) AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AHw Akkadische Handwörterbuch. Wolfram von Soden. 3 vols. Wiesbaden, 1965–1981 AIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature AMB J. Naveh & Sh. Shaked. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Leiden, 1985. AmJT American Journal of Theology AnBib Analecta biblica ANEM Ancient Near Eastern Monographs ANESSup Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 ANETS Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies AnOr Analecta orientalia AnSt Anatolian Studies AR Archiv für Religionswissenschaft ARM Archives Royales de Mari ARAM ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies ArOr Archív Orientální ARU J. Kohler and A. Ungnad, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden AUSTR American University Studies, Series 7: Theology and Religion BA Biblical Archaeologist BAR Biblical Archaeologist Reader BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BBRSup Bulletin for Biblical Research, Supplements BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907). Beer-Sheva Beer-Sheva: Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East, Ben-​ Gurion University Beth Mikra Beth Mikra Berit Olam Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series BibOr Biblica et orientalia BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BibSem The Biblical Seminar BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies

14 BKAT BLS BW BWA(N)T BZ BZAW CAD

  Abbreviations  

Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bible and Literature Series The Biblical World Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956–2006 CAH Cambridge Ancient History CahRB Cahiers de la Revue biblique CB Century Bible CB Coniectanea biblica CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBOT Clarendon Bible: Old Testament CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CE Cape Editions CEB Common English Bible CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East ConBOT Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament COS The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002 CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum CTB Calwer Taschenbibliothek CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J. A. Clines. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2014 DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EA El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of Jorgen A. Knudtzon. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908–1915. Rep., Aalen: Zeller, 1964. Continued in Anson F. Rainy, El-Amarna Tablets, 359–379. 2nd rev. ed. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1978 EETh Einführung in die evangelische Theologie EF Erträge der Forschung ERE Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Edited by James Hastings. 13 vols. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1927. Rep., 7 vols. 1951 ErIsr Eretz-Israel EvT Evangelische Theologie ExpTim Expository Times FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley GTS Gettysburg Theological Studies HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Melvyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999 HAR Hebrew Annual Review HAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs

  Abbreviations  

15

HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik Hermeneia Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HTIBS Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical scholarship HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary Imago Zeitschrift für Anwendung der Psychoanalyse auf die Geisteswissenschaften Int Interpretation Iraq Iraq IRT Issues in Religion and Theology ISBL Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JAJ Journal of Ancient Judaism JAJSup Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBLMon Journal of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series. JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JHNES The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies JLCRS Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion Series JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JOTGES Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society Joüon Joüon, Paul. A Grammer of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991 JPS Jewish Publication Society (translation of the Bible) JPSTC The JPS Torah Commentary Series JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KAI H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916–1923; Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1954KEHAT Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament LBI Library of Biblical Interpretation LBS Library of Biblical Studies LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies Leshonenu Leshonenu LRS Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien Maarav Maarav Man Man: Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland MARI Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires MC Mesopotamian Civilizations NAC New American Commentary NCBC New Century Bible Commentary

16 NEAEHL

  Abbreviations  

The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephraim Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993 NET New English Translation of the Bible NIBC New International Biblical Commentary NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 NRSV B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy (eds.), New Revised Standard Version OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology ORA Orientalische Religionen in der Antike OTL Old Testament Library OTR Old Testament Readings OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PBS University of Pennsylvania, Publications of the Babylonian Section PD Psychoanalytic Dialogues PIASHUJ Publication of the Institute for Advanced Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Proof Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies PRU Le palais royal d’Ugarit PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (London 1878 ff.) PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RANE Records of the Ancient Near East RAr Revue archéologique RB Revue biblique RBL Review of Biblical Literature RC Religion Compass REB Revised English Bible RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods RIME The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods RR Review of Religion RS Ras Shamra RSV Revised Standard Version SAALT State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge SBFLA Studii Biblici Franciscani liber annuus SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism Semeia Semeia SGKIO Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East SHANE Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Siphrut Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series SPSHS Scholars Press Studies in the Humanities Series

  Abbreviations   SSBT SSN ST Syria TBC TCS TDOT

17

Studies in Scripture & Biblical Theology Studia semitica neerlandica Studia theologica Syria. Institut français du Proche-Orient. Torch Bible Commentaries Texts from Cuneiform Sources G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament TEG Traditio exegetica Graeca ThWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helfer Ringern. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970TLCANE Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East. Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul J. N. Lawrence. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012 TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni, with assistance from Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries TS Theological Studies TWOT R. L. Harris (ed.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament TZ Theologische Zeitschrift UF Ugarit-Forschungen UMS.H University of Michigan Studies: Humanistic Series USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review UT Ugaritic Textbook. Cyrus H. Gordon. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965 VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements WAW Writings from the Ancient World WAWSup Writings form the Ancient World Supplement Series WBC Word Biblical Commentary WC Westminster Commentaries WF Wege der Forschung WTJ Westminster Theological Journal ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZBK.AT Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Altes Testament. ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zion Zion ZIBBCOT Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. Edited by John H. Walton. 5 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013 ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

1. Introduction The makers of biblical literature were not solely concerned with advancing a particular view of God, or religious ritual, or moral law; on another plane, they were not solely concerned with telling a good story. Rather, they were deeply preoccupied with the nature of Israel’s political community and were interested in the premises of political existence, addressing themselves to readers who thought about such things as leadership, authority, social cohesiveness, political order, rebellion, crime, justice, institutional evolution, and the relation of rich and poor. Any attempt to characterize biblical religion and culture that does not take into account the political dimension, that speaks in ‘eternal’ verities and purely ‘spiritual’ categories, will deeply misunderstand the subject. — Joel Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible1

The seed for this study was first planted in my heart while I was a graduate student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. During the spring of 2010, I was afforded the opportunity to take a seminar on Genesis 1–11. After deciding to write a paper on one of the two trees in the Eden Narrative (EN), i. e., ‫עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬, “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” thinking that the interpretation of this particular term would be quite straight forward within the larger scholarly discussion surrounding it, I quickly found that there did not exist a scholarly consensus regarding an interpretation for the sort of knowledge meant by the phrase, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. Likewise, I was intrigued by the many interpretations of this enigmatic phrase, all of which were based (of course) upon certain methodological, philosophical, and theological assumptions. Moreover, through my own then-simultaneous-reading of certain texts of the Hebrew Bible (HB), I was intrigued by how both of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, at least in my reading, suggested an interpretation akin to the notions of divine justice / retribution. What I mean by Yhwh as the ‘subject or causation’ of these lexemes is multifaceted. For the simplicity of an introduction, it will suffice to say that certain permutated lexemes of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬often occur in the HB in phrases referring to Yhwh’s evaluation of something or someone; to Yhwh’s response to said evaluation; or to something generally described as having occurred because of the will of Yhwh, though not explicitly stated so by the verse in which the lexemes are found. In any case, after a more intense study and private tutorial, I ultimately came to the conclusion that ‫—הדעת טוב ורע‬in light of the disagreement in scholarly opinion regarding 1 Joel Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible, ISBL (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1986), x.

20

  Introduction  

its interpretation—was worthy of a much larger project. After considering and contemplating this particular topic over the years that followed, having already taken from the tree and eaten of its fruit, I began to consider pursuing a PhD about this topic. In 2013, I came across the work of Professor Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, whom I contacted with a proposal to begin working on this present thesis. In gratitude to her and the University of Aberdeen, I began work on this project in the autumn of 2014. There are eight chapters to this study. The chapter following this one will consider the history of research regarding ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. The aim of that chapter is fivefold: 1) to situate the study within the scholarly debate regarding an interpretation of ‫ ;הדעת טוב ורע‬‎2) to show not only the disagreement of interpretation that exists regarding this enigmatic phrase, but also, to show the varied nuances within each particular interpretation; 3) to bring to the fore the interpretive methodology of scholars that have approached this topic previous to my own study; 4) to highlight three particular studies with which I am in general agreement and which help to support my own proposed interpretation; and 5) to state my own methodological approach to this thesis. Due to the disagreement regarding the interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, and too, due to the nuanced particulars within the interpretations and the numerous methodological approaches observable in the history of research, I will lay out three parameters that I suggest are required for any interpreter moving forward (§ 2.4). Those parameters will serve as my own methodological approach to this topic and they are as follows: (P1) an interpretation must classify ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬as divine knowledge, which refers to a specific knowledge possessed in the EN by Yhwh and the divine beings of Gen 3:5 and 3:22; (P2) building upon the first parameter, an interpretation must show how the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes; (P3) an interpretation must reasonably demonstrate why it is that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is forbidden on pain of death (Gen 2:16–17) and why human acquisition of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬serves as a threat to Yhwh (Gen 3:22). Finally, it must be stated from the outset of this thesis that the norm in the history of research is to begin the interpretive process within the EN itself, followed immediately by the consideration of other texts in the HB to provide data for the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. The reason that this is so is because interpreters agree that there is just not enough data in the EN to provide a certain interpretation of this enigmatic phrase. The texts to which any one interpreter will venture varies based upon any given interpretation (e.g., an interpretation of wisdom will turn to the Wisdom Literature of the HB). As it will be shown in my history of research, the most oft-cited passages for any interpretation come from only a handful of passages in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and certain books of the DtrH. Three of these passages come from the Throne Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20 & 1 Kgs 1–2; TSN). Partly due to this fact, I will begin my exegetical work in the EN and its surrounding context (chapter 4), followed by extensive exegetical work in narrative contexts of Genesis and the

  Introduction  

21

DtrH (chapters 5 and 6), followed by an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the TSN (chapter 7). In the third chapter, the ancient Near Eastern backgrounds pertinent to this research will be surveyed. More specifically, I will address the question of whether divine retribution in the Hebrew Bible, as expressed in current theological debate, should be interpreted as an act-consequence model or one of active agency. Then, I will consider the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution as a structuring element to ancient Near Eastern ‘historiography’ widely attested in ancient Near Eastern texts spanning the second to first millennium BCE (§ 3.2.2). Finally, I will take into account the practical and legal function of divine blessing and cursing in these ANE texts (§ 3.3), with a particular focus upon the appearance of ‘good and bad / evil’ within these literary contexts in the ANE and in the HB. It will be demonstrated that the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, in relation to ‘some’ experiences of ‘good and bad / evil,’ as alluded to in these literary documents, assumes the divine agency of reward and punishment through the medium of divine blessing and cursing. Additionally, it will be shown that these texts reveal an interplay between human and divine retribution as indication of divinely sanctioned retribution through ‘blessing and cursing.’ Thus, the words that generally mean ‘good and bad / evil’ in their target languages often appear within these literary contexts, signifying the whole of the retributive process, from discrimination to response. Having grounded the discussion within an ancient Near Eastern framework, I will then turn to my exegetical work, beginning with the EN. In the fourth chapter, I will employ my methodological approach discussed above (§ 2.4) by focusing upon each parameter within the EN and its surrounding context. I will begin the chapter with the translation of ‫עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬, and more importantly, its constituent parts (i. e., ‫ רעע‬,‫ ידע‬,‫טוב‬‎) (§ 4.2.1), in light of the EN and its surrounding context. Then, I will consider thematic narrative elements important to this discussion, including the divine test / prohibition of Gen 2:16–17 (§ 4.2.2), which is indication of deuteronomistic resonances and deuteronomic theology in the EN (so Mettinger). I, too, agree that on some level there are shared thematic elements and theology between the EN and the DtrH (see § 4.2.2 and esp. n. 81 of that section). Next, I will consider human acquisition of divine knowledge (P1) in the ANE (e.g., the Adapa myth; § 4.2.3.1.a); the ‘opening of the eyes’ upon human acquisition of divine knowledge (Gen 3:5, 7; § 4.2.3.1.b); nakedness with and without shame (Gen 2:25; 3:7–8; § 4.3); and the divine curse as a form of punitive action in Gen 3:14–19 (§ 4.4), which provides a contrast, within the EN and its surrounding context, of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as Yhwh’s blessing and curse (P2). In light of the analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the EN and Gen 1–11, I will offer an interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬‎(§ 4.5), suggesting that it is the knowledge for administering reward and punishment (retribution); a knowledge that empowers humans to become judges with ultimate power to reward and punish (‫)טוב ורע‬

22

  Introduction  

like Yhwh in the EN and its surrounding context. In light of the data and this interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, it is safe to conclude that the divine knowledge of the EN is reasonably forbidden since it is ultimate power for retribution (P3). In this way, Yhwh’s reward and punishment serve as his tools for establishing a particular political and social order in the body politic (e.g., Gen 3:14–19). The textual evidence is limited within the EN and you therefore need to look outwith this text for further data. Therefore, because specific occurrences of ‫טוב‬ and ‫ רעע‬function in the EN and its surrounding context as Yhwh’s discriminatory evaluation followed by Yhwh’s response of blessing and cursing (gift / reward and punishment), and too, because the history of research explicitly makes a majority connection between the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN via data from other passages in Genesis and the DtrH, and likewise, because the EN has resonances of deuteronomistic theology within it, we are able to ask this very important question: Do ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in narrative segments of Genesis and the DtrH, function similarly to the EN with regard to ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’ and the divine character, Yhwh (so P2)? In the fifth chapter, I will seek to answer this particular question, and I will show how the many permutated Hebrew lexemes of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in narrative contexts of Genesis and the DtrH. Interspersed throughout various footnotes within this chapter are other scriptural references to permutations of these same lexemes throughout the HB, which I contend function similarly to Yhwh and provide further corroboration to this thesis. What will become overwhelmingly clear in this chapter is that these lexemes do function as Yhwh’s evaluation and as his reward and punishment (e.g., Josh 23:15). Having confirmed that this is so, we should then consider these lexemes and their function in relation to the human characters. If the humans acquire ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN—a knowledge uniquely possessed by Yhwh and the divine beings—and if that knowledge is the knowledge necessary for administering reward (‫ )טוב‬and punishment (‫)רעע‬, then ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬should function similarly as they do to Yhwh when human characters are the subject or causation of these extremes. Thus, we should ask: Do ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in narrative segments of Genesis and the DtrH function in a similar way to Yhwh when the human characters are the subject of these extremes (‫?)טוב ורע‬ In the sixth chapter, I will seek to answer the above question by employing the same sort of exegetical analysis in Genesis and the DtrH as I have previously accomplished in chapter 5. If ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function as a discriminatory knowledge followed by a response of reward (‫ )טוב‬and punishment (‫)רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes (chapters 4 & 5), then human acquisition of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN would suggest that these lexemes will function in the same way in narrative contexts of retribution when the humans are the subject of these extremes. These lexemes do just that in narrative contexts of human retribution within Genesis and the DtrH (e.g., 1 Sam 24–25), and therefore shows

  Introduction  

23

how humans have acquired ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. In this way, human acquisition of ‫הדעת‬ ‫ טוב ורע‬enables humans to become ‘judges’ and actively employ retribution in human society, similar to Yhwh in the HB and for the purpose of sustaining a particular moral and political order in the social sphere. There still remains the TSN, which was proven to be essential by interpreters in the history of research for any interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN (e.g., 2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:36). As such, the question becomes: Do ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function similarly to Yhwh and the human characters in this longer running narrative of 2 Sam 9–20 & 1 Kings 1–2? In my seventh chapter, I will apply the same lexical analysis to the TSN. The interpreters surveyed in the history of research clearly demonstrate that this narrative (the TSN) is important for any interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, precisely because three of the most oft-cited passages within the history of research appear therein (e.g., 2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:36). I will add to this discussion by showing how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function—when Yhwh and the human characters are the subject or causation of these extremes—as the markers of divine and human retribution. On another level, this chapter will also be a demonstration of how the permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function as the ‘structuring’ element of Hebrew historiography, which is the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. In this way, the TSN tells the story of how Solomon came to be David’s successor to the throne in Jerusalem as an act of Yhwh’s retribution (§ 7.2.1), which gives uncanny allusion to levirate law and the furtherance of the name, Uriah the Hittite (the murdered husband of Bathsheba), in Israel. In conclusion, this exegetical work in the TSN will confirm that ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function similarly to the EN, and to narrative segments of Genesis and the DtrH (so chapters 4, 5, and 6). Finally, in my eighth chapter, I will conclude that in light of this study, the most reasonable interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN is the divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment (retribution). This interpretation is sound due to the fact that ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function (often) in their many permutations—first interpreted in relation to Yhwh, then interpreted in relation to the human characters—as indication of the whole process of reward and punishment in the EN, the rest of the book of Genesis, and in narrative portions of the DtrH. In closing, I will suggest what further research can now be considered in light of this completed thesis. The great interest evident throughout the millennia regarding this term demonstrates the deeply complex and enigmatic nature of these words occurring together, not just in any narrative segment but within a narrative segment appearing in the opening chapters of the Hebrew Bible. Obvious to me is this one central proposition: If the Eden Narrative is partly telling a story about how it is that humans have acquired the divine knowledge of good and evil (‫)הדעת טוב ורע‬, then the meaning and interpretation of this phrase is vital to the larger narrative of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the primary research question of this study comes to the fore: How would an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the EN, the rest of the book

24

  Introduction  

of Genesis, and in the DtrH (when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes), shed new light upon the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN? My exegetical chapters in this thesis will seek to answer this primary research question in order to confirm my stated interpretation of this phrase in the EN. The answer to that question will also serve to answer the core question of the entire history of research: What is the best interpretation of the phrase ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN? The answer to this question has implications not simply for the interested and serious reader of the Hebrew Bible but, more broadly, for the study of what it means to be human, both ancient and modern. In the pages that follow, I will seek to address these two immensely, tempting questions.

2. History of Research & Methodology ‫ויאמר ה׳ אלהים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים ואכל וחי לעלם‬ Then Yhwh-Elohim said: “Now that the man (humanity) has become like one of us, knowing good and bad / evil, what if he were to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever!” – Genesis 3:221

2.1 Introduction There is some justification in stating that within the history of biblical interpretation, no enigmatic phrase has garnered more attention from biblical interpreters than the phrase, ‘the knowledge of good and evil,’ (‫ )הדעת טוב ורע‬in the Eden Narrative (EN).2 In an article partly concerned with his own interpretation of what the author meant by this perplexing narrative element, P. Machinist states: “This question, of course, has been debated endlessly throughout the millennia of biblical interpretation.”3 Likewise, R. Gordis in his article devoted to this question, writes: “The Qumran text and the OT passages prove mutually revealing and now enable us to give a definitive answer to a problem which is as old as biblical study itself.”4 One interpreter called into question the dominant interpretation of omniscience for ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in his own day, while another interpreter contends that this discussion “remains one of the most difficult and yet intriguing problems of the Bible.”5 Finally, whatever one’s interest may be in understanding the significance of what the EN means by ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, there is no doubt that this term, and its signification, has found throughout the millennia an unbridled way of ‘tricking’ its interpreters into disagreement regarding its meaning.6 In this survey of the interpretations of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, “the knowledge of good and evil,” in the EN, I will focus directly upon critical scholarship, beginning with 1 Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this study are my own. 2 EN will take the place of Eden Narrative throughout the remainder of this thesis. 3 Peter Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic Restructuring,” in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. Beate Pongratz-Leisten (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 210. 4 Robert Gordis, “The Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls,” JBL 76 (1957): 124. 5 See W. Malcom Clark, “Legal Background to the Yahwist’s use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2–3,” JBL 88 (1969): 266 (§ 2.3.1.1), and Herold S. Stern, “The Knowledge of Good and Evil,” VT 8 (1958): 405. 6 E.g., Gen 3:5.

26

History of Research & Methodology   

the mid to late nineteenth century and continuing to the present. In no way do I contend that this survey is exhaustive of all who possibly could be included in this discussion within the parameters set above.7 Rather, what follows will be a thorough showing of the disagreement of interpretation that exists apropos ‫הדעת‬ ‫טוב ורע‬, while at the same time showing the hidden unity that exists across the varying interpretations regarding which texts of the HB are most prominent for the interpretation of this phrase in the EN. For example, Gen 31:24 and 29, Deut 1:39, 2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:36, 1 Kgs 3:9, and Isa 7:15–16 are a few passages from the HB that are referenced as support by at least one interpreter in almost all of the categories listed. The specific categories that have been chosen are named by me and are not necessarily agreed upon in the literature. In a pursuit of objectivity, as much as that is possible within a history of research regarding a phrase like this one, I have placed each corresponding commentator within a category that I suggest is most suitable to their interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. On that note, there are some key studies to which I am grateful for their own survey of the history of research regarding this phrase in the EN. Their work has greatly benefited my approach to this present chapter.8 In addition to these works, I have also gathered much of the research directly from the commentators themselves, as the dialogue between said commentators proves to be quite rich. There are three main sections to this chapter: (§ 2.2) Interpretations Most Suggested by Scholars; (§ 2.3) Other Proposed Interpretations Important to this Thesis; (§ 2.4) Methodological Approach and Concluding Thoughts. Each sub-section is laid out thematically, while a further delineation in sections is laid out chrono 7 See Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, HSM 32 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 116, who considers just such a task to be impossible. 8 See, Wallace, “Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life,” ABD 6:656–660, and Ibid., The Eden Narrative, 115–132; Susan Gillingham, The Image, the Depths and the Surface: Multivalent Approaches to Biblical Study, JSOTSup 354 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 10–44; I. Höver-Johag, “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:296–297, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:315–317; J. Botterweck, “‫ידע‬,” TDOT 5:464–465, and Ibid., “‫ידע‬,” ThWAT 3:480–482; Christoph Dohmen and D. Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:560–561, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:582–584; W. Schottroff, “‫ דעת‬,‫ידע‬,” TLOT 2:513; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11, trans. John J. Scullion, 3 vols. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 1:240–241, and Ibid., Genesis 1–11, EF 7, 3 vols. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972), 1:328; Seizo Sekine, Transcendency and Symbols in the Old Testament: A Genealogy of the Hermeneutical Experiences, BZAW 275 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 233–236; Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, CBET 25 (Belgium: Peeters, 2000), 294–296, 462–465; Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, NAC 1A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 204–207; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, WBC 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 62–64; B. Reicke, “The Knowledge Hidden in the Tree of Paradise,” JSS 1 (1956): 193–194; Robert Gordis, “The Significance of the Paradise Myth,” AJSL 52 (1936): 86; Ibid., “The Knowledge of Good and Evil (Qumran Scrolls),” 124–129; Louis Francis Hartman, “Sin in Paradise,” CBQ 20 (1958): 26–27.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

27

logically with each scholar receiving titles with their first initial and surname that corresponds to my comment upon their own work. Finally, each sub-section is provided with a short introduction to the whole of that specific interpretation with a short concluding comment of the major scholarly contention against said interpretation. My intention in the following survey is not to discuss the pros and cons of each interpretation. Rather, my intention is simply to lay out these varying interpretations to bring the reader to a place of familiarity within this discussion. I will, however, offer a definitive (yet concise) critique of each interpretation in my methodological section to conclude this history of research (see § 2.4 below). Finally, the disagreement of interpretation within the history of research is summed up best by K. Greenwood as he concludes his own comment on ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬: “Since the tree of knowledge only appears explicitly in two verses, there is simply not enough information to know its precise meaning. Despite the compelling arguments for each interpretation, scholars remain divided over which view presents the most persuasive case.”9 Be that as it may, the discussion remains and scholars continue to put forth varying interpretations regarding this phrase in the EN. Precisely because this phrase in the EN is not clear and does not provide a definitive interpretation, scholars turn to other texts in the HB to supply the lacuna of data needed in order to interpret this phrase in the EN.10 Thus, in the following survey of the interpreters, the starting point is the EN, since the phrase appears therein, followed immediately by the consideration of other texts and phrases in the HB, which varies greatly depending upon the methodology and interpretation of any one interpreter.

2.2 Most Suggested by Scholars In this section, I have listed all of the categories that are most agreed upon in the literature. This means that there is a plethora of scholars who have offered commentary in support of these varying positions. 9 Kyle Greenwood, “Tree of Knowledge”, n.p. [cited 11 Aug 2017]. Online: http://www. bibleodyssey.org / passages / related-articles / tree-of-knowledge. See e.g., Lewis Aron, “The Tree of Knowledge: Good and Evil: Conflicting Interpretations,” PD (2005): 681–707. 10 See e.g., Jacob Milgrom, “Sex and Wisdom: What the Garden of Eden Story Is Saying,” BAR 10.6 (1994): 21: “Turning to the second tradition (Genesis 2:4b–3:24), the key to the story is the prohibition against eating from the tree of ‘knowledge of good and evil.’ This expression occurs four times in this story (Genesis 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22). In this context, its meaning is not clear; but the expression ‘knowledge of good and evil’ is found elsewhere in the Bible, where its meaning can be ascertained.” To be clear, the expression, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, does not occur elsewhere in the HB; only expressions similar to it (e.g., Deut 1:39; 2 Sam 14:17). See too, Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 62–63: “Second, we must attempt to establish the meaning of ‘knowing good and evil’ by examining the use of the phrase as a whole here and in other passages, not simply by looking at its component parts.”

28

History of Research & Methodology   

2.2.1 Distinguishing the Beneficial and the Harmful In this first interpretation, a range of commentators suggest that the primary focus of interpretation should be upon the construction ‫ טוב ורע‬in the phrase ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ורע‬. For these interpreters, the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, within their varying permutations throughout the HB, tend toward a contextualized meaning of the ‘beneficial’ (‫ )טוב‬and the ‘harmful’ (‫ )רעע‬in said permutations.11 The following texts—2 Sam 13:22, 19:36, 1 Kgs 3:9, Isa 7:16, and Deut 1:39—are all key texts in this interpretation. Thus, the ability to distinguish between the beneficial and the harmful within the contours of human experience and existence is what the EN, so these commentators suggest, means by ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.12

2.2.1.1 H. J. Stoebe To begin, H. J. Stoebe suggests that the task in seeking an interpretation for the knowledge of good and evil should begin with identifying what it is specifically that the “Yahwist” means by the construction ‫טוב ורע‬.13 He cites passages such as 2 Sam 13:22, 19:36, 1 Kgs 3:9, Jer 42:6, and Deut 1:39 (among others) showing that the construction ‫ טוב ורע‬has a practical meaning (“eine überwiegend praktische”) that gives a semantic force to some action or thing as being beneficial or harmful (“förderlich” oder “abträglich”) to one’s life.14 Due to these occurrences and the meaning of this construction therein, he conjectures that it must be the same for the appellation ‫ טוב ורע‬in the EN. Thus, the human acquisition of divine knowledge in the EN means that humans now have the ability (“Fähigkeit”) to decide for themselves what will benefit (“frommt”) their life or not. For Stoebe, then, the knowledge of good and evil is self-autonomy; an ability and knowledge that provides humans the faculty of discriminating between that which is beneficial and that which is harmful to their lives. Most important for my own research is Stoebe’s close attention to the texts wherein the construction ‫ טוב ורע‬is used in the HB, and his keen observation that in said contexts, the overwhelming meaning of 11 Wellhausen was one of the first to make this suggestion with regard to ‫( הדעת טוב ורע‬see § 2.2.5.1 below). 12 See e.g., Rudolf Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte (Freiburg: Mohr, 1893), 120–121; Samuel S. Cohon, “Original Sin,” HUCA 21 (1948): 275–330. Cohon appears to understand the divine knowledge of the EN to be a knowledge that provides humanity with the ability to have “mastery over nature” through the ethical religion of ancient Israel; a tradition in religious ethical wisdom that explicates and seeks to instruct Israel in “the physical” human experience of “the beneficial and the harmful” (Ibid., “Original Sin,” 277). 13 H. J. Stoebe, “Gut und Böse in der Jahwistischen Quelle der Pentateuch,” ZAW 65 (1953): 188–204 (195). 14 Ibid., “Gut und Böse,” 201, esp. 195–201.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

29

‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬has to do with the resultative function of the beneficial and the harmful in important human decisions depicted narratively in the biblical episodes that he surveyed. In other words, there is an important element of practicality represented by the functional sense to many of the narrative contexts wherein the semantic range of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬is the beneficial and the harmful. It is this precise understanding of ‫ טוב ורע‬that must be considered when pursuing an interpretation for ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN, according to Stoebe, and on this note, I too agree.

2.2.1.2 W. Zimmerli In 1967, W. Zimmerli argued for an interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬that focused upon the faculty of discernment regarding the results of good and bad.15 What is peculiar about Zimmerli’s interpretation is that he understands the divine knowledge to be divine discrimination but not in a moral sense. Commenting upon Isa 7:16, Zimmerli writes: “Hier ist deutlich, daß nicht an eine Fähigkeit zu tiefer sittlicher Erkenntnis gedacht ist, sondern einfach an die Möglichkeit eines selbständigen Unterscheidungsvermögens,” which is translated: “Here it is clear, that a capability of great moral knowledge is not meant, but simply the possibility of an individual discernment.”16 He clarifies his thoughts some more by suggesting that ‫ טוב‬and ‫“ רעע‬point toward two alternatives, that which can be chosen and upon which, decided.” For Zimmerli then, the divine knowledge of the EN does not allude to a religious or moral knowledge per se, but to the “whole emphasis upon the capacity of independent recognition that lies between possible alternatives.”17 What is clear from Zimmerli’s interpretation is that the knowledge of good and evil is a discriminating knowledge that is not strictly relegated to the moral or religious categories of epistemology. His suggestion is based upon Isa 7:15–16, wherein the child does not know how to choose the good and refuse the bad. In light of this interpretation, divine and human discrimination is not moral or religious, but refers to a faculty of discrimination and discernment that can be observed in at least the most basic choices of life, such as simple and complex foods.18

15 Walther Zimmerli, 1. Mose 1–11: Die Urgeschichte, ZBK.AT, 3rd ed. (Zurich: Zwingli, 1967), esp. 131–136. 16 See e.g., Lev 27:12, 14; 27:33. 17 Zimmerli, 1. Mose 1–11, 133–134. 18 E.g., Isa 7:15–16; Zimmerli, 1. Mose 1–11, 134–136, esp. 136.

30

History of Research & Methodology   

2.2.1.3 C. Westermann19 Finally, Westermann contends that the phrase ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬must be taken as a whole and must not be divided up into a verb-object grammatical construction. In support of this argument, Westermann understands the verb ‫להשכיל‬, “to make wise,” found in Gen 3:6 as having the connotation of causing one to succeed (“gelingen”).20 For Westermann, the humans are able to find “success” by distinguishing between that which is beneficial and that which is harmful (‫“ ;טוב ורע‬förderlich und schädlich”). In addition to this understanding of the knowledge of good and evil as a whole phrase, he also argues that the knowledge alluded to in the EN is a ‘functional knowledge,’ one that is principally concentrated upon the “mastery of one’s own existence,” especially as it pertains to the collective understanding of ‫אדם‬.21 Such an “unbridled ability” to determine the fate of one’s own existence is what Westermann understands to be the divine quality of distinguishing between the ‘beneficial and the harmful,’ that is to say, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, in the EN.22

2.2.1.4 Major Criticism Against ‘Distinguishing of the Beneficial and the Harmful’ The major contention against this interpretation of distinguishing between the beneficial and the harmful in particular is that the woman in the EN already seems to have such an ability. Take for example the fact that both Stoebe and Westermann emphasize the acquisition of the ability of the humans to decide for themselves what is beneficial and harmful through acquiring divine knowledge; a specific knowledge possessed only by Yhwh and the divine beings in the EN.23 But is this not what the woman does immediately prior to eating from the tree in 3:6? Is individual autonomy not already part of her nature in the story? Clearly 19 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 241; Ibid., Genesis: 1–11 (German), 328–29. 20 Cf. Stoebe, “Gut und Böse,” 200. 21 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 241; Ibid., Genesis: 1–11 (German), 328–329. 22 Ibid., Genesis 1–11, 248; Ibid., Genesis: 1–11 (German), 337. The broader ancient Near Eastern context is also stated by Westermann to be in support of his suggestion regarding this divine characteristic. For an erudite ecological reading of the EN, see Carol Newsom, “Common Ground: An Ecological Reading of Genesis 2–3,” in The Earth Story in Genesis, eds. Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst, Earth Bible 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 67: “Thus, what the tree confers is the ability to discriminate, to make distinctions, to evaluate, to prefer, to choose.” 23 For divine knowledge, see e.g., Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 209: “…the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the symbol of higher divine knowledge.” Also, Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 203: “Eating of the tree conferred a kind of knowledge that was an exceptional possession of deity and was attributable only to God, who is provider of the tree.” See too, Catherine L. McDowell, The Image of God in Eden: The Creation of Mankind in Genesis 2:5—3:24 in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, Siphrut 15 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 169.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

31

the act of eating from the forbidden tree logically assumes the ability to choose for oneself what is beneficial and harmful over and against the prohibition of Yhwh. If such is the case in the narrative (and I suggest that it is), then according to this interpretation, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the EN is nothing more than a greater literary metaphor for individual autonomy. But as will be shown in my exegesis on the EN (see my chapter 4 below), it is better to understand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as dispensing a specific knowledge in the EN just as the tree of life dispenses a specific type of life, i. e., eternal life (‫חי לעולם‬, Gen 3:22) in the EN, rather than to understand the trees as nothing more than literary metaphors. Moreover, the contention that humans acquire the most basic of human knowledge—the distinguishing of what is beneficial and harmful in the acquisition of divine knowledge—is far removed from the actual knowledge of what is beneficial and harmful in the EN, i. e., the divine command of 2:16–17. The command on pain of death in the EN (2:17) clearly distinguishes between that which is beneficial and that which is harmful, a subtle but logical contention against this argument. Finally, why would this power of discrimination be forbidden to humans by Yhwh on pain of death in the EN?

2.2.2 Moral Discrimination Not wholly different from a discussion about distinguishing between that which is helpful and that which is harmful is the suggestion that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is best interpreted as the divine knowledge of moral discrimination. The major digression from the previous interpretation is that although the Hebrew lexemes in varying contexts could take on the connotation of ‘beneficial and harmful,’ this interpretation emphasizes the moral aspect of ‘good and evil.’ Moreover, the stress lies not only upon the moral quality of ‫טוב ורע‬, but also upon the aspect of discrimination itself. Key texts in support of this interpretation include 2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:36; 1 Kgs 3:9; Isa 7:15–16. Thus, according to this interpretation, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is the divine knowledge of moral discrimination.24

2.2.2.1 S. R. Driver One of the first commentators to suggest that the knowledge of good and evil in the EN is akin to moral discrimination, i. e., the act of discriminating between good and evil, is S. R. Driver.25 For Driver, other texts beyond the EN, wherein 24 E.g., Botterweck, “‫ידע‬,” TDOT 5:464, and Ibid., “‫ידע‬,” ThWAT 3:495. 25 Samuel R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, WC, 12th ed. (London: Methuen & CO., 1904), 41; Cf. George W. Buchanan, “The Old Testament Meaning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” JBL 75 (1956): 115–116 (§ 2.2.7.1 below).

32

History of Research & Methodology   

the construction ‫ טוב ורע‬appears, help to extrapolate the meaning that the author intended in this term under discussion. For example, the text of Deut 1:39aβ clearly states that little children do not have the knowledge of good and evil: ‫וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה ובניכם אשר לא־ידעו היום טוב ורע‬ And your little children, who you thought would become bounty, and your teenage sons, who, this day, do not know good and bad / evil…

Driver postulates from this verse that whatever the EN writer intended to imply as being gained in ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, little children do not yet have the capacity for it. Moreover, in considering Isaiah 7:15–16, Driver concludes that children do “gradually” acquire the knowledge, as it states in Isa 7:15–16: ‫( כי בטרם ידע הנער מאס ברע‬Isa 7:16) ‫( חמאה ודבש יאכל לדעתו מאוס ברע ובחור בטוב‬Isa 7:15) ‫ובחר בטוב תעזב האדמה אשר אתה קץ מפני שני מלכיה‬ (Isa 7:15) He will eat buttermilk and honey by the time he knows to reject the evil and choose the good. (Isa 7:16) For before the child knows how to reject the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

Furthermore, Driver suggests, in light of 2 Sam 19:35aβ, that the divine knowledge is “deficient in second childhood.”26 This interpretation is based upon eighty year old Barzillai’s rhetorical question to David: ‫ אנכי היום האדע בין־טוב לרע‬‎(2Sam  19:35aβ) (2 Sam 19:35aβ) Can I, this day, discern the difference between good and bad?

In addition to this suggestion, he also postulates that it is “specially necessary for a judge” due to the occurrence of ‫ טוב ורע‬in Solomon’s request of 1 Kgs 3:9: ‫ונתת לעבדך לב שמע לשפט את־עמך להבין בין טוב לרע כי מי יוכל לשפט את־עמך הכבד הזה‬ And give to your servant a hearing heart to judge your people, to understand between good and bad. For who is able to judge this your great people?

Finally, in his reference to Gen 3:5b, 22aβ, as well as his reference to 2 Sam 14:17bα, Driver suggests that this particular knowledge is “possessed” to an extent by “divine beings”: ‫( והייתם כאלהים ידעי טוב ורע‬Gen 3:5b) ‫(‏ הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע‏‬Gen 3:22a) ‫ ‏( כי כמלאך האלהים כן אדני המלך לשמע הטוב והרע‬Sam 14:17–2)

26 Driver, Genesis, 41.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

33

(Gen 3:5b) And you will become like divine beings, knowers of good and evil; (Gen  3:22aβ) Now that the man (humanity) has become like one of us, knowing good and bad / evil; (2 Sam 14:17bα) For my lord the king is like the messenger (angel) of God, hearing the good and the evil.27

Clearly, Gen 3:5b and 3:22aβ provides the interpretive possibility that knowledge of good and evil in the EN is considered to be divine knowledge possessed by divine beings, as Driver has highlighted. On a philological level, Driver does state in a short footnote that the expression ‫ טוב ורע‬includes both the moral sense of these terms as well as the meaning of beneficial and harmful, which is probably a reference to Wellhausen (§ 2.2.5.1).28 Thus, these texts help Driver to interpret the knowledge of good and evil in the EN as “the power of distinguishing” between good and evil, “and estimating each at its proper worth.”29

2.2.2.2 S. Niditch In 1985, S. Niditch begins her interpretive work by focusing upon the snake and thereby casting the EN as a story which narrates humanity’s “passage from paradise and communitas to reality and structure.”30 This structuralist approach sees a telling of two realities in the same narrative, namely, “Eden / Post-Eden oppositions.” The snake is interpreted by her to be a literary motif of the Earth / Heavenly oppositions within an ancient Near Eastern mythological structure. Because of this opposition, the snake then is both “divine and human,” according to Niditch, and therefore, already has “the knowledge of good and evil.”31 She suggests that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬should be interpreted as “the ability to think independently and differentiate good from evil.” It is clear that the oppositional focus inherent in the structuralist approach has influenced Niditch’s interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.32 27 Cf. James S. Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2,” JBL 109 (1990): 41–60, esp. 42. 28 Driver, Genesis, 6, n. 1. 29 Ibid., Genesis, 6. Also, Lester J. Kuyper, “To Know Good and Evil,” Int 1 (1947): 490–492 (492). 30 Susan Niditch, Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation, SPSHS 6 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), esp. 36. 31 Ibid., Chaos to Cosmos, 34–36. 32 Ibid., Chaos to Cosmos, 36 and Gen.Rab 8:11. See too, Calum M. Carmichael, “The Paradise Myth: Interpreting without Jewish and Christian Spectacles,” in A Walk in the Garden. Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, eds. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer, JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 47–63 (55); James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (London: SCM Press, 1992), esp. 62; Ellen van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11, BibInt 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 37, who suggests that ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫“ ורע‬denotes a discriminating [my emphasis] power, a knowledge based on experience which comprises everything, both persons and objects, and this is represented by the two halves of the

34

History of Research & Methodology   

2.2.2.3 G. Mendenhall In 1974, G. Mendenhall took a different approach to the interpretation of Genesis 3.33 For starters, Mendenhall is adamant that there exists “a systematic misrepresentation of the Bible” when texts are taken out of their own “historical and cultural context”; a charge that he levels against varying theological interpreters.34 For Mendenhall, the narrative of Genesis 3 is a “mashal,” that is to say, a parable; one that should be ascribed to the “ferment of thought and creativity” of the Judean exiles following the disaster of 587 BCE.35 Only after the disaster of the Judean exile, suggests Mendenhall, does a “chastened wise man” return to “old tradition to construct a new parable of the human plight.”36 He suggests that this sophisticated story (i.e, the EN) is concerned with a functional wisdom that is focused primarily upon the “power structures” of the ancient Near Eastern political state. Thus, Mendenhall assumes the Genesis 2–3 narrative to be a reaction to the wisdom of the “wise men” condemned by Jeremiah (Jer 9:22–23). They saw themselves as having full dominion over their historical situation, neglecting the reality of a ‘transcendent factor’ in the “process of cause and effect” in history.37 According to Mendenhall, the transgression of Yhwh’s command led to the ability of Adam and Eve “to distinguish between good and evil.” Thus, Mendenhall’s interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬can be said to be a moral discrimination between good and evil, but only in the context of the wisdom tradition, as he has interpreted it in his article.38

merism: good and bad.” Her interpretation could just as easily be classified under omniscience (see § 2.2.4 below). Cf. J. W. Rogerson, “Genesis 1–11,” CurBS 5 (1997): 79. 33 George E. Mendenhall, “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Meyers, eds. Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim and Carey A. Moore, GTS 4 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 319–334. 34 Ibid., “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” 319–320, esp. 323. 35 Ibid., “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” 320. 36 Ibid., “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” 323. 37 Ibid., “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” 330. Consider too, Mark Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2019), 45: “All in all, Genesis 2–3 looks like a wisdom story that seems to regard royal wisdom itself as mistaken or at least inadequate.” 38 Mendenhall, “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” 331. See too, George W. Coats, “The God of Death: Power and Obedience in the Primeval History,” Int. 29 (1975): 230–231, and Ibid., Genesis: With and Introduction to Narrative Literature, FOTL 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 53–54, who contends for a political power of sorts. Also, John Day, From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11, LHBOTS 592 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 43–44 (43): “…to distinguish ethically between good and evil.” Cf. Clark, “Legal Background,” 266–278 (§ 2.3.1.1). For my section on wisdom, see § 2.2.3 below.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

35

2.2.2.4 Major Contention Against ‘Moral Discrimination’ The major contention against this interpretation of moral discrimination is the same as the previous interpretation. The woman character in the EN already provides in her speech and in her actions the ability to choose for herself prior to the acquisition of divine knowledge, and more so, she proves the ability to be morally discriminating in her initial response to the ‫נחש‬. One could contend that the divine knowledge is the ability to discern rightly between good and evil. Such a suggestion would be better classified as moral discernment (see § 2.2.8 below) or simply as a kind of wisdom and not as the power of moral discrimination itself.39 Finally, why would the human faculty of moral discrimination be forbidden to humans by Yhwh on pain of death in the EN?

2.2.3 Wisdom Many commentators suggest that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is wisdom. Within this category as a whole, there is great variation in the specific details. However, the overall consensus is that the EN is contrasting divine wisdom with divine life, and so positing the problem of how it is that humans can have divine wisdom without divine life. Some commentators within this category pull heavily from the wisdom literature of the HB; others, however, focus more upon other ANE stories, such as the Adapa Myth and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gen 3:6 plays a central role in this discussion since it states explicitly that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬has the ability “to make one wise” (‫)להשכיל‬.40 As to what wisdom means specifically depends heavily upon the interpreters and their varied nuances in interpretation.

2.2.3.1 J. Pedersen For J. Pedersen, this discussion does not begin with knowledge in general but with the ancient Israelite concept of “‫ּב ָרכָ ה‬,ְ ‘blessing.’”41 He starts by suggesting that in ancient Israelite thought, the “capacity” of a thing is the same as its “result.”42 In this way, Pedersen proposes that the idea of the “blessing”—“the life-power”—in ancient Israel is both “something internal and something external”; the internal, at least for Pedersen, can be broadly described as the “soul,” or “man’s psychic totali 39 Mendenhall conflates wisdom and moral discrimination (Mendenhall, “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” 331). 40 For ‫ להשכיל‬as “in order to become wise,” see E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 23. Compare Enoch 32:3–4. 41 Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, 4 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1926), esp 1:182–202 (202). 42 Ibid., Life and Culture, 1:182.

36

History of Research & Methodology   

ty.”43 The blessing can work itself out in every sphere of human life and in varying degrees of operability. For Pedersen, Yhwh is the originator, the force behind, and the overseer of the blessing; but the blessing itself contains the outward result.44 Within this framework of blessing there is an obvious connection to the idea of human success, which Pedersen sees as synonymous with the word blessing.45 It is here, in the concept of human success, that Pedersen makes a statement regarding blessing and wisdom, namely, that they are one and the same, that is, “the power to work and to succeed.” So too then the notions of “knowledge and understanding.” Precisely because Gen 3:6 states that the fruit of the tree could make one wise (‫)להשכיל‬, Pedersen makes the connection between his understanding of the blessing and ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. The knowledge of good and evil is, therefore, the knowledge of “blessing,” namely, “wisdom,” in the sense that it provided humans the “power to live, and strength to get happiness and to prosper in the world.”46 Thus, for Pedersen, the knowledge of good and evil is wisdom / blessing. In a 1955 article, Pedersen focuses on the general uniformity between the concepts of wisdom and immortality in the EN and other ancient Near Eastern mythological texts, namely, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Adapa Myth.47 For Pedersen, all three narratives express the ancients’ understanding of their relation to the “gods / God,” namely, that “man is related to the gods” through “his wisdom.”48 However, for all three stories, the divine counterpart / s are reluctant to allow humans to become divine, thus the attainment of immortality by the humans is forbidden. As it pertains specifically to the EN, Pedersen sees the humans as having acquired wisdom through their disobedience to the “only one acting god” in the narrative, who then acts quickly to block human attainability of eternal life. Through the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil, according to Pedersen, the humans in the EN are endowed with “strength and wisdom,” becoming partly divine, and yet, they are forbidden access to immortality and the attainment of divinity as such.49 Most important to observe for our purposes is Pedersen’s notions regarding blessing and success (so wisdom) as being one and the same in a process originating and guided by the divine will that culminates in final externality.50 43 Ibid., Life and Culture, 1:182–183. 44 This is similar to K. Koch’s ‘mechanical retribution’ in the HB. See § 3.2.1 below. 45 Pedersen, Life and Culture, 1:194–196. 46 Ibid., Life and Culture, 1:198–199. 47 Johannes Pedersen, “Wisdom and Immortality,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley, eds. Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas, VTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 238–246. 48 Ibid., “Wisdom and Immortality,” 244. 49 Ibid., “Wisdom and Immortality,” 244–245. 50 For wisdom as an interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, see Karen R. Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament: A Linguistic, Archaeological, and Literary Study (Hadenfield, NJ: Hadenfield House, 1974), esp. 16–41, and her comparison of the EN to the Adapa myth and the Epic of

Most Suggested by Scholars   

37

2.2.3.2 A. Gardner In 1990, A. Gardner suggested that the knowledge of good and evil was indeed wisdom, albeit, wisdom bestowed by the goddess, Athirat (Asherah).51 Mostly however, his reasoning is based upon serpentine imagery that is often associated with the goddess, either “standing upright beside her” or, as Gardner stresses, as standing near “fruit bearing” trees. Furthermore, he suggests that in various passages in the HB (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:13 and Judges 6:25–26), the term ‫“( אשרה‬Asherah”) can either refer to the goddess herself or to the “cult object,” which “was made of wood” and “resembled a tree, tree stump or pole.” Although Gardner suggests that the tree motif in the EN was at one time—before the edits / additions of “the Yahwist”—simply one tree, he does find the terms ‘knowledge of good and evil’ and ‘life’ as “pointing to the goddess.” As it pertains to ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, Gardner turns to several passages in the HB, such as 1) Deut 1:39, where it is said that children lack the divine knowledge of good and evil; 2) 2 Sam 14:17, 20, where David is compared to the angel of God having divine wisdom, which is the ability to discern good and evil; and 3) 1 Kgs 3:9, 12, where Solomon also receives divine wisdom to discern good and evil. However, and most important for Gardner’s interpretation is that the wisdom of the knowledge of good and evil—said to be inherent in the fruit of the forbidden tree (Gen 3:5–6)—was forbidden because its “bestowal” upon humanity would have been by the goddess and not by Yhwh. Moreover, Gardner contends that such is confirmed by the punishment the woman receives in the “multiplication” of the pain of childbirth in Gen 3:16. Thus, for Gardner, the knowledge of good and evil is the wisdom bestowed by the goddess, Asherah, whom Yhwh had forbidden the man to worship in Gen 2:16.52 Gardner’s interGilgamesh wherein the human characters become half-divine through the acquisition of divine wisdom. See too, Luis Alonso–Schökel, “Sapiental and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3,” in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. Harry M. Orlinsky, LBS (New York: Ktav, 1976), 456–468; Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977), 72; Nicolas Wyatt, “Interpreting the creation and fall story in Genesis 2–3,” ZAW 93 (1981): 16; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 63–64, and Ibid., “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, eds. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, SBTS 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 399–404 (402–403); John Van Seters, “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King,” ZAW 101 (1989): 333–342 (340), who bases his argument largely upon similar sapiential motifs in Ezek 28, of which, cf. McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 152–157. 51 A. Gardner, “Genesis 2:4b–3: A Mythological Paradigm of Sexual Equality or of the Religious History of Pre-Exilic Israel?,” SJT 43 (1990): 13–14. 52 Ibid., “Genesis 2:4b–3,” 14. See too, John F. A. Sawyer, “The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents and the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” in A Walk in the Garden. Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, eds. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer, JSOTSup, 136 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 117–166 (72); Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 64, who contends for an interpretation of wisdom.

38

History of Research & Methodology   

pretation, however, sounds more like the Adapa myth than it does the EN. In any case, within the EN, Yhwh-Elohim plants the garden and causes the trees to grow (Gen 2:8–9), not the goddess, Asherah.

2.2.3.3 D. Carr In 1993, D. Carr suggested that the knowledge of good and evil in the EN is presented as a polemic against “independent human determination of good and evil,” which can be broadly called, wisdom.53 For Carr, the EN is a story that is focused upon “the humans’ disobeying God’s stark prohibition” in Gen 2:17.54 Furthermore, he suggests that the phrase, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, is reminiscent of other passages in the HB that “characterize wisdom lore”; passages such as 1 Kgs 3:9, 11 and 2 Sam 14:17, 20.55 Carr then references the work of Mendenhall and his suggestions regarding the connection between Gen 3:1–17 and wisdom (§ 2.2.2.3 above). For example, Carr highlights that the Hebrew term to describe the snake as “prudent” in Gen  3:1 (i. e., ‫ )ערום‬is often contrasted in Proverbs with its opposite meaning “fool” (‫)אויל‬, both of which lead to the extreme of success or disaster. However, and this is central to Carr’s argument, the EN is a critique against the sort of “reasoning based more on collected human experience” (i. e., wisdom) than upon obedience to the command of Yhwh.56 The serpent leads the human couple to disaster by challenging “divine fiat” with the allure of acquiring “wisdom.” Finally, it is important to note Carr’s “closest analogies” elsewhere in the HB to the text of the EN: 1) Isa 5:21, 29:13–14 and “Isaiah’s polemics against the wise”; 2) the “viability of the wisdom tradition” as seen in Jer 8:8–9 and Prov 25:1; and 3) the claim that the “Torah of Moses is true wisdom” (Deut 4:6–8 and 30:15) over and against the wisdom school, which, although claiming obedience to the Torah of Moses, was, according to Jer 8:8–9, in violation of its covenantal obligations to Yhwh.57 Carr has many helpful observations in his article, not least of which his observation that there exists the “problem of law and wisdom” as juxtaposed in the “wisdom and narrative traditions” of the HB.58 53 David Carr, “The Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of Eden Story,” JBL 112 (1993): 588; Esther G. Chazon, “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays, eds. Judith Frishman and Lucas van Rompay, TEG 5 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 19; Martin Arneth, Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt: Studien zur Entstehung der alttestamentlichen Urgeschichte, FRLANT 217 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 122–128 (esp. 128). 54 Carr, “The Politics of Textual Subversion,” 588–89. 55 Ibid., “The Politics of Textual Subversion,” 589. 56 Ibid., “The Politics of Textual Subversion,” 590. 57 Ibid., “The Politics of Textual Subversion,” 592. 58 Ibid., “The Politics of Textual Subversion,” esp. 592–93; Rainer Albertz, “Chancen und Gefahren der Zivilization–Kulturarbeit und technischer Fortschritt nach der biblischen Urgeschichte Genesis 1–11,” in Der Mensch als Hüter seiner Welt. Alttestamentliche Bibelarbeiten

Most Suggested by Scholars   

39

2.2.3.4 Major Contention Against ‘Wisdom’ Although wisdom is certainly thought to have been possessed by divine beings in the ANE, it is difficult to understand why it would be prohibited by Yhwh in the EN on pain of death, especially since human acquisition of it is so positively praised and coveted in the HB (e.g., Prov 4:7). I contend that an interpretation of wisdom requires further specification in order to be understood rightly. In short, what sort of wisdom is assumed in ‫ ?הדעת טוב ורע‬As one can see from this short survey, that depends greatly upon the focus of the interpreter. As demonstrated, it is difficult to know what the commentators mean specifically with regard to a divine knowledge that is wisdom. That being said, there is certainly a ‘sapiential’ quality (e.g., Gen 3:6) to the knowledge dispensed by the tree.

zu den Themen des konziliaren Prozesses, CTB 16 (Stuttgart: Calwer Taschenbibliotek, 1990), 109–110, though he brings self-autonomy, wisdom, and technological advancement (much like Wellhausen, see § 1.2.2.5) into the discussion. See too, Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2–3, JSOTSup 208 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), esp. 223–250, who contends for an intertextual reading of Gen 2–3 with the wisdom literature of the HB. Also, Phillip R. Davies, “Making It: Creation and Contradiction in Genesis,” in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson, eds. David J. Clines, M. Daniel Carroll R. and John W. Rogerson, JSOTSup 200 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), 255. Davies suggests that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬be understood as the “incarnation of Dame Wisdom of Proverbs 8.” Consider too, Shamai Gelander, The Good Creator: Literature and Theology in Genesis 1–11, SFSHJ 147 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 26; Mark G. Brett, Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity, OTR (London: Routledge, 2000), 33–34, who sees the EN to be a critique on “royal wisdom” (e.g., 2 Sam 14:17, 20), surmising that within the final editorial process of the book of Genesis, evidence of anti-monarchic motifs and themes are present in the EN, such as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in which royal wisdom is acquired by the humans through consumption of the fruit (Ibid., Genesis, 34–35); William N. Wilder, “Illumination and Investiture: The Royal Significance of the Tree of Wisdom in Genesis 3,” WTJ 1 (2006): 54, and his “tree of wisdom” (55); Robert P. Gordon, “The Ethics of Eden: Truth-Telling in Genesis 2–3,” in Ethical and Unethical Behaviour in the Old Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue, ed. Katharine J. Dell, LHBOT 528 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 26–27, 31; L. J. Swidler, “The Garden of Eden Story—Source of Often Mis-Read Wisdom: A Jewish-Christian Dialogue,” JES 46 (2011): 146; John A. Davies, “Discerning Between Good and Evil: Solomon as a New Adam in 1 Kings,” WTJ 73 (2011): 53; John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2015), 143. Cf. Michaela Bauks, “Erkenntnis und Leben in Gen 2–3: Zum Wandel eines ursprünglich weisheitlich geprägten Lebensbegriffs,” ZAW 127 (2015): 20–42; McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 194: “The claim that ‘the knowledge of good and evil’ belongs exclusively to the wisdom tradition is belied by Deut 1:39; 2 Sam 14:17; and 1 Kgs 3:9, none of which are wisdom texts.” For an excellent overview of the reception history of Gen 3:22–24, see Peter Lanfer, Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

40

History of Research & Methodology   

2.2.4 Omniscience One of the more prominent and widely held interpretations of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN is that of omniscience. The primary focus of this interpretation is upon the Hebrew construction ‫טוב ורע‬, which is interpreted as a merism that refers to all things in between these two extremes.59 Since this Hebrew construction appears in relation to the Hebrew verb, ‫ידע‬, the conclusion for these interpreters is that the knowledge in question is a knowledge of everything, from good to bad. Also important are such passages as 1 Kgs 3:9 but especially 2 Sam 14:17 and 14:20, wherein David and Solomon are described as being like the angel of God who has omniscience.

2.2.4.1 H. D. A. Major One of the first commentators to suggest that the knowledge of good and evil was best interpreted as an all encompassing, general knowledge, was H. D. Major in 1909.60 For Major, the critical commentators of his day (e.g., Dillmann, Spurrell, Gordon, and Driver) had failed to give support to the interpretation of omniscience, even though several of said commentators had already perceived the meaning of “everything” (i. e., omniscience) in such texts as Gen 24:50 and 31:24. Major’s own interpretation rests mostly upon Deut 1:39, which, for him, must mean that the children spoken of in the passage “have no knowledge at all.” Because of this perceived meaning in Deut  1:39, Major contends that the knowledge of good and evil spoken of in Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5 and 3:22 must refer to all knowledge.61

59 Regarding merism, see e.g., Lev 5:4. 60 Henry D. A. Major, “Contributions and Comments: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” ExpTim 20 (1909): 427–428. 61 Major further suggests that Isa 7:15–16 helps to define the meaning of these two passages as the power to distinguish between good and evil. See too, John Skinner, A Critical Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 95–96; Alan Richardson, Genesis 1–11, TBC (London: SCM Press LTD, 1953), 64, who suggests that it is “human experience” in its entirety. Also, Cyrus H. Gordon, Introduction to Old Testament Times (Ventnor, N. J.: Ventnor Publishers, 1953), 22–23. His suggestion is primarily based upon an Egyptian text wherein the phrase “evil-good” refers to “everything,” so e.g., Ibid., “Samsi-Adad’s Military Texts from Mari,” ArOr 18 (1950): 202, n. 7. For ‘good and evil’ in ancient Egyptian texts, see esp., Bernd U. Schipper, “Gut und Böse im Alten Ägypten,” in Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt: philosophische und religiöse Konzeptionen vom Alten Orient bis zum frühen Islam, eds. Henz-Günther Nesselrath and Florian Wilk, ORA 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 7–30.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

41

2.2.4.2 U. Cassuto In 1961, U. Cassuto proposed a similar interpretation, albeit, interpreting the EN as a story about human maturation.62 Cassuto suggests that the primary meaning in ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬must be gleaned from the words of the EN, while at the same time being compared with the biblical texts that show a similar phrase. Cassuto stresses the consideration of other similar phrases in the HB precisely because there is no equivalent to ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬anywhere in the ANE. Cassuto’s main argument is based upon the result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, namely, that the human pair recognize and are observant of their nakedness (Gen 3:7, 11), whereas before, they were ignorant of this fact. For Cassuto, there is no indication of an ability to be discriminating, judging, or discerning of good and evil, such as in 2 Sam 19:36 and Isa 7:15–16; rather, the acquisition of knowledge leading to the awareness of nakedness reveals that the knowledge of good and evil must be omniscience, the knowledge of everything good and bad. Because Cassuto finds the awareness of nakedness to be directly connected to the knowledge itself—as opposed to saying that nakedness is the resulted awareness of disobedience to the command—he references Deut 1:39 which supports his argument suggesting that a lack of the awareness of nakedness is synonymous with childhood. As it is stated that small children do not yet have the knowledge of good and evil in Deut 1:39, so too were Adam and Eve as little children before the acquisition of “the objective knowledge of things good and bad,” i. e., divine omniscience. Furthermore, Cassuto references 2 Sam 14:17 and 20 to support his argument in that the angel of Yhwh is said to know all things that are on the earth. He also contends that Gen 24:50, Gen 31:24, and 31:29 lend support to his argument. Thus, Cassuto interprets ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as omniscience; a knowledge that offers at least part equality with the divine and through which a human progresses from a childlike state through adolescence toward the full stature of adulthood.63 62 Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Adam to Noah, Genesis 1–6:8, trans. Israel Abrahams, Perry Foundation Committee for Biblical Research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961), 110–114 (esp. 112–113). 63 Ibid., From Adam to Noah, Genesis 1–6:8, 113. See too, Gerhard von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis, OTL (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 63, 65; Ibid., Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, OTL, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (London: SCM Press LTD, 1972), 78, 81, and his suggestion of omniscience, “Allwissenheit im weitesten Sinn des Wortes” (65). See also, Robert Davidson, Genesis 1–11, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), esp. 34–40; D. G. R. Beattie, “What is Genesis 2–3 About?,” ExpTim 92 (1980): 8–10 (8), and the allusion to humanity’s “superior intelligence to animals.” For a structuralist approach to an interpretation of omniscience, see T. E. Boomershine, “The Structure of Narrative Rhetoric in Genesis 2–3,” Semeia 18 (1980): 113–129 (123); R. A. Oden, “Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1–11,” ZAW 93 (1981): 197–216 (212–213); Modupẹ Oduyọye, The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men: An Afro-Asiatic Interpretation of Genesis 1–11 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984), 48.

42

History of Research & Methodology   

2.2.4.3 H. Wallace In 1985, H. Wallace suggested that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬was best interpreted as universal knowledge, thereby putting himself in the line of interpreters who perceive omniscience in this term.64 Wallace argues that the phrase “good and evil” is a merism, which suggests the interpretation of omniscience.65 He does allow for further specificity to the meaning of the phrase ‫ טוב ורע‬in certain narrative contexts. For Wallace, the phrase ‫ טוב ורע‬as a merism, has no sense of “mutually exclusive alternatives” in the HB, thus lending the interpretive notion of the general ‘everything.’66 Wallace’s study of this term is the most thorough of the literature and includes either direct exegetical work on a specific text or lists scriptural references to a total of thirty-one passages in the HB wherein there exists a permutation of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬or ‫ ;רעע‬twenty-nine of which are passages that contain the phrase ‫טוב ורע‬.67 He also includes one reference from Qumran, 1QSa 1:9–11 (Rule of the Congregation).

2.2.4.4 Major Contention Against ‘Omniscience’ It is true that omniscience is a quality of divine likeness (or at least could be considered so), and therefore, suitable as a major contention for interpreting this phrase. This category could also be defined as ‘universal knowledge’. It is reasonable to assume that a knowledge of omniscience would be forbidden by 64 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, esp. 115–132 (128–129); Ibid., “Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life,” ABD 6:6:656–660 (657). 65 Ibid., The Eden Narrative, 128; Ibid., “Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life,” ABD 6:6:657. 66 Ibid., The Eden Narrative, 129. 67 Those passages are: Gen 2:17; 3:5; 3:22; 19:7; 24:50; 31:24, 29; Lev 27:12, 14; Num 24:13; Deut 1:39; 30:15; Judg 19:23; 2 Sam 13:22; 14:17; 19:36; 1 Kgs 3:9; Ps 34:15; 37:27; 52:5; Prov 31:12; Eccl 12:14; Isa 5:20; 7:15–16; 45:7; Jer 21:10; 39:16; 42:6; 44:27; Lam 3:38; Mic 3:2. See also, Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, WBC 31 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 507; Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPSTC (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 19; Ronald A Veenker, “Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near Eastern Sexual Metaphors,” HUCA 77 (1999): 57–73 (70, n. 49), who suggests that it is the knowledge of all things from good to evil, as well as, Milgrom, “Sex and Wisdom,” 21, 52, with whom Veenker is in agreement to an extent (for Milgrom’s interpretation of sexual knowledge, see § 2.2.6.3 below). See too, André LaCocque, The Trial of Innocence: Adam, Eve, and the Yahwist (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2006), 77; Ibid., “Cracks in the Wall,” in Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies, eds. Paul Riceour and André LaCocque (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 23, who contends that “the knowledge of one thing and its opposite, and all that stands between these two poles,” ethically speaking. Also, Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2–3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 62–64 (64); James H. Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serptent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized, ABRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 304, who bases his suggestion on von Rad’s interpretation. See too, Michaela Bauks, “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors,” JAJ 3 (2012): 268: “The knowledge of good and evil thus denotes all-embracing knowledge.”

Most Suggested by Scholars   

43

Yhwh in the EN. However, I contend that the major deficiency in this category is that it does not provide an adequate accounting of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬and their function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, both in the EN and in the HB more generally.

2.2.5 Cultural Knowledge Another category of interpretation broadly defines ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as the knowledge of civilization. Within the research concerning this interpretation, there is variation; but the overarching consensus is that this divine knowledge in the EN enables humanity to construct culture and to build civilization by understanding the difference between what is ‘helpful’ (‫ )טוב‬and what is ‘harmful’ (‫ )רע‬to humanity. Support for this interpretation focuses upon literary motifs in the EN such as the making of clothes in Gen 3:7. Finally, this interpretation is also highly contingent upon reading the EN within the whole of Gen 1–11, which shows an advancement in human knowledge, culture, and the first movements of human civilization.

2.2.5.1 J. Wellhausen In 1883, J. Wellhausen defined ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as the ‘knowledge of culture.’68 It must be said from the outset that Wellhausen could be classified under, distinguishing the beneficial and the harmful (§ 2.2.1), for in his initial explanation of what ‫טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬means literally, he uses precisely that interpretation. In his reading of this term in Genesis 2–3, the Hebrew lexeme ‫ טוב‬carries a connotation of the beneficial (heilsam) and that which avails one’s life (frommt), while the Hebrew lexeme ‫רעע‬ carries a connotation of injurious (schädlich) and that which is harmful (schadet) to one’s life. For Wellhausen, the moral quality of these lexical permutations are not emphasized by “the Yahwist” in Gen 2–3. Rather, he suggests that the ‘knowledge’ explicates not the moral polarity between the extremes of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ in this phrase, but the resultative function of what is beneficial and harmful in the general interests of humanity. However, Wellhausen does not end his commentary on this note regarding what sort of knowledge is implied in Gen 2–3. Because of the EN’s relation contextually to what follows in Gen 4–11, Wellhausen suggests that the knowledge must be interpreted corporately and not at all in the individual sense. More precisely, and in the words of Wellhausen, “Es ist das gemeint, was wir Kultur zu nennen pflegen,” which is translated, “What is meant is what we call

68 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Druck und Verlag von G. Reimer, 1883), 305–308 (esp. 306–307).

44

History of Research & Methodology   

culture.”69 The basis for this suggestion is in the narrative elements that follow the human acquisition of divine knowledge in Gen 3–11, i. e., the making of clothing in Gen 3:7, the founding of cities, the creation of weaponry, and the advancement of the arts in Gen 4, along with the story of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11. All of these narrative elements seem to play into Wellhausen’s interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. Thus, for Wellhausen, the divine knowledge of the EN is best interpreted as an ability that allows for advancement in human cultural drive that is succinctly summarized as the knowledge of culture.

2.2.5.2 B. Reicke B. Reicke begins his article by focusing upon the particulars of the EN, specifically human lack of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬due to Yhwh’s prohibition.70 Reicke suggests that the story of the EN is about one transgression, namely, the illegitimate taking of divine knowledge by the humans. With this setup to the question, he then begins to address what sort of knowledge is to be perceived in this term. He postulates that the first indicator is the nakedness and shame felt by the human pair in Gen 3:7 as the result of having acquired the divine knowledge.71 In light of this literary motif, one must perceive in this narrative moment “a sexual import” in the knowledge of good and evil. As support for understanding ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as meaning “sexuality,” Reicke provides three passages from the HB: Deut 1:39 [sic 1:31], Isa 7:15, and 2 Sam 19:36. These passages, according to Reicke, suggest that neither innocent children, nor a “decrepit old man,” have the knowledge of good and evil. However, he does admit that in 2 Sam 14:17, the meaning of the phrase, ‫לשמוע‬ ‫הטוב והרע‬, “hearing the good and the bad,” refers not to sexuality (§ 2.2.6 below), but to omniscience (§ 2.2.4). That being said, Reicke does not think that “omniscience,” as the meaning for ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, can be gleaned from the story of the EN; rather, the knowledge of good and evil is a “euphemism for the secret of sex” and the knowledge of “procreation.”72 Although Reicke perceives this sexual element in the knowledge of good and evil, he contends that sexual knowledge is not a “satisfactory definition” due to the context of the EN. Basing his final conclusions upon what he calls “Prometheus” topics, Reicke states: “Particularly the aim is to demonstrate how the fatal powers of civilization are released through the excitation of sexual instincts.”73 He sees within the EN a story about the 69 Ibid., Prolegomena, 307. See too, Frederick C. Eiselen, “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” BW 36 (1910): 110–111; Skinner, Genesis, 96; James B. Pritchard, “Man’s Predicament in Eden,” RR 13 (1948): esp. 20–23. 70 Reicke, “The Knowledge Hidden,” 196–201. 71 Ibid., “The Knowledge Hidden,” 196. 72 Ibid., “The Knowledge Hidden,” 196–197. For the interpretation of sexual knowledge, see § 2.2.6 below. 73 Ibid., “The Knowledge Hidden,” 199.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

45

“dangers” of the advancement of human culture and civilization, which is uniquely amalgamated with human sexuality. Thus, for Reicke, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is neither the knowledge of sin, nor the knowledge of sex, at least not in the “strictest sense of the word”; rather, it is the knowledge of civilization through procreation, which according to Reicke, is the only explanation that fits within the context of the EN.74

2.2.5.3 J. Kennedy The final commentator to suggest a similar interpretation to Wellhausen is J. ­Kennedy.75 For Kennedy, the knowledge is not a ‘knowledge of civilization’ per se; rather, he suggests that this phrase has less to do with the mythological concepts of the ANE, and more to do with the “intellectual distance” between two classes of peoples; the social élite and the peasant class, as he labels them. Taking it a step further, Kennedy describes the tree of knowledge as a “symbolic embodiment of royal privilege pertaining to knowledge.” In this way, his reading of the narrative is a political reading, one that assumes the supremacy of the king’s authority, as Kennedy describes it; policy is wholly with the monarch while obedience the concern of the king’s subjects. Kennedy interprets the command not to eat from the forbidden tree as a form of “enforced ignorance” upon the peasant class by the élitist class. The ignorance, according to Kennedy, is of knowledge that can broadly be described in Wellhausen’s classification, namely, a knowledge of civilization. Thus, for Kennedy, the knowledge of good and evil is a royal knowledge, one that empowers the social élitist class to “master the human situation” at the cultural level.76

2.2.5.4 Major Contention Against ‘Cultural Knowledge’ The major contention in the literature against this interpretation is that Wellhausen’s understanding of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as ‘useful and harmful’ does not provide an adequate accounting for the many permutations in the HB in which these lexemes do carry a morally charged sense.77 In addition, I contend that the greatest weakness of this interpretation is that it does not take the implications of its argument to its logical end, which would be the building up and tearing down of civilization. If Wellhausen suggests that the meaning in these lexemes of ‘useful and harmful’ is representative of the resultative function of these extremes with 74 Ibid., “The Knowledge Hidden,” 201. See too, Francis Landy, Paradoxes of Paradise, BLS 7 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 231–233. 75 James M. Kennedy, “Peasants in Revolt: Political Allegory in Genesis 2–3,” JSOT 47 (1990): 3–14 (esp. 6–7). 76 Ibid., “Peasants in Revolt,” 7, who generally agrees with Westermann on this point. 77 See e.g., Karl Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte: Gen. 1–12, 5 (Giessen: J. Ricker, 1883), 66, and my discussion (§ 2.2.8.1) below concerning his own interpretation.

46

History of Research & Methodology   

regard to the advancement of civilization, then it would mean that the ‘harmful’ must refer to the tearing down of civilization since its opposite obviously refers, in this argumentative logic, to the advancement of civilization through that which will bring the ‘useful.’78 Otherwise, we are simply having a discussion about omniscience (§ 2.2.4) or the discrimination of what is beneficial and harmful (§ 2.2.1). This particular interpretation needs to take a turn toward the moral implication of the lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in addition to its helpful emphasis upon the building up of civilization. On that note, some would argue that the Gen 11 episode is evidence of Yhwh’s aversion to allowing humans to advance in the building of civilization. I understand why this argument seems reasonable within this particular interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. Nevertheless, I disagree with this proposition simply because human unity in language and human rebellion to Yhwh’s command to ‘multiply and fill the earth’ (so Gen 9:1) underlies the major critique in this story of Gen 11 (e.g., Gen 11:6, 8). Although the development of human civilization through the construction of a ziggurat—a “lofty, massive, solid brick, multistaged temple tower”—is essential to the story of Gen 11, I do not get the sense that human building practices (in general) are under divine critique in this story.79 Rather, Yhwh has rejected the hubris of Babylon in its global unification to thwart Yhwh’s command (i. e., Gen 9:1) in the earth. This rebellion may be accomplished through the human building of a sacred mountain (i. e., a temple) but certainly not through other markers of cultural ingenuity (e.g., the making of clothes, agriculture, etc.); at least not in the context of this particular story. Therefore, I do not consider this interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as cultural knowledge to be reasonably forbidden by Yhwh on pain of death in the EN. Finally, this interpretation fails to show how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function as the markers of cultural knowledge when Yhwh is the subject or cause of these extremes in both the EN and the HB.

78 Consider Isa 10:13 and its reference to the Assyrian king’s boasts of conquest as enacted through ‘wisdom.’ See esp. Shawn Zelig Aster, Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1–39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology, ANEM 19 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 190–191. I am grateful to Professor Aster for responding to my e-mail inquiry regarding this very notion of Assyrian wisdom used in the context of Assyrian conquest. 79 Sarna, Genesis, 82: “In the present context, the stated purpose of the builders, ‘that we be not scattered all over the world,’ constitutes a direct challenge to the intent of God as expressed in the blessing to postdiluvial humanity: ‘Fill the earth.’ Man did not perceive this to be a blessing and so devised means to thwart its fulfillment” (Ibid., Genesis, 83).

Most Suggested by Scholars   

47

2.2.6 Sexual Knowledge One of the more agreed upon interpretations among scholars is that ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬ is synonymous with the knowledge of sex. As with the other interpretations, this one also has varying degrees of nuance within the scholarly discussion. However, the unifying impression amongst these scholars is that the EN has sexual motifs throughout. Thus, their method often involves an interpretation of different symbols that appear in the EN before considering other examples from the HB. The knowledge of good and evil for these interpreters is the knowledge of sex, to some degree or another.

2.2.6.1 W. F. Albright In 1920, W. F. Albright suggested that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬has a sexual connotation to it.80 For Albright, there are several “principal mythological motives” from the ANE that can be detected within the EN, one of which can be described as the seduction of the first man by “the mother (-goddess),” who entices the man to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, namely, to have “sexual intercourse.”81 In a footnote, Albright cites an article that provides comment upon the Assyrian use of inbu, “fruit,”—an Akkadian term shown to have “sexual force” in certain contexts—and which, in his view, helps to elucidate the understanding of the fruit in the EN as symbolizing the act of sex; an interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬ that he describes as being “generally recognized” in his own day.82 For that example, he cites F. Thureau-Dangin, who contends that in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Akkadian word for fruit (inbu) can refer to sexual pleasure, not unlike the CAD’s definition for the same word, i. e., “sexual attractiveness and power.”83 For Albright, the “seduction motive,” as he calls it, is the standard motif by which the

80 W. F. Albright, “The Goddess of Life and Wisdom,” AJSL 36 (1920): 258–294. See too, George A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious, 2nd ed. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1902), esp. 93–97; cf. W. R. Paton, “The Pharmakoi and the Story of the Fall,” RAr 9 (1907): 51–57, esp. 51–53; William H. Bennett, Genesis, CB 20 (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1904), 95; Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bible: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. Genesis und Exodus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908), 9, 13. See too, Ludwig Levy, “Sexualsymbolik in der biblischen Paradiesgeschichte,” Imago 5 (1917): 16–30 (21). Cf. Ibn Ezra, Rabbinic Bible, Gen 3:6: “.‫ ובעבור עץ הדעת נקרא כן‬.‫”וזאת הידיע׳ כינוי למשגל‬ 81 Albright, “The Goddess of Life and Wisdom,” 281. 82 Ibid., “The Goddess of Life and Wisdom,” 281, n. 5. 83 See e.g., Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 618–619, VI:8; F. ThureauDangin, “L’Exaltation D’IŠTAR,” RA 11 (1914): 153, line 7; cf. CAD, I-J, 146–147.

48

History of Research & Methodology   

ancient Near Eastern cultures accounted for the “origin of fertility.”84 Thus, the tree of wisdom as contrasted with the tree of life, so Albright suggests, is assimilated into what he calls, “the tree of the fruit of sexual knowledge.”85

2.2.6.2 R. Gordis In 1936, R. Gordis suggested that the phrase ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬does carry the semantic force of sexual consciousness.86 The primary reason for his suggestion is due to the Hebrew lexeme ‫ ידע‬in its verbal permutational form, such as in Genesis 4:1: ‫והאדם ידע את־חוה אשתו ותהר ותלד את־קין ותאמר קניתי איש את־ה׳‬ Then the man knew Eve, his wife. And she conceived and bore Cain. Then she said, “I have acquired a man with the help of Yhwh.”

Gordis shows how this nuanced use of ‫ ידע‬is common in other Semitic languages such as Syriac, Arabic, and Akkadian, as well as in Greek and Latin. Furthermore, he suggests that a study of the phrase “knowing good and evil” in the HB will show that little children and the elderly do not have the capacity to be sexually conscious, citing Deut 1:39, Isa 7:15–16, and 2 Sam 19:36. Gordis then asks the question of how it is that the phrase ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬came to be associated with sexual consciousness. In his view, modern psychoanalytical theories, the knowledge of civilized history (Greeks and Romans), as well as the biblical text, show that on the whole spectrum of sexual experiences, there exists the classifications of natural and unnatural in all of the aforementioned contexts.87 For Gordis, the HB in its “limited vocabulary,” expresses this spectrum of natural and unnatural sexual experiences in the phrase ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, where ‫ טוב‬refers to natural sexual expression, while ‫ רעע‬refers to its opposite unnatural sexual expression.88 As an example, he cites Gen 19:5–7 [sic 19:5–6], wherein the Hebrew lexeme ‫ רעע‬appears in a certain permutation that, in his opinion, demonstrates his suggestion of sexual consciousness: ‫( ויקראו אל־לוט ויאמרו לו איה האנשים אשר־באו אליך הלילה הוציאם אלינו ונדעה אתם‬Gen 19:5) ‫) ויאמר אל־נא אחי תרעו‬19:7( ‫ויצא אלהם לוט הפתחה והדלת סגר אחריו‬‎(19:6) 84 Albright, “The Goddess of Life and Wisdom,” 282, and Ibid., “Historical and Mythical Elements in the Story of Joseph,” JBL 37 (1918): 123–124. 85 Ibid., “The Goddess of Life and Wisdom,” 283. See too F. Dornseiff, “Antikes zum AT, I. Genesis,” ZAW 52 (1934): 57–75 (62), who suggests that the EN does not speak of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the moral sense of these terms; rather, it understands ‫ טוב‬in the sense of “pleasant, pleasure” (angenehm, lustvoll) and ‫ רעע‬in the sense of “ill, unpleasant” (übell, unangenehm). 86 Gordis, “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 90. 87 Ibid., “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 90–91. 88 Ibid., “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 91.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

49

(Gen 19:5) And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you this night? Bring them out to us in order that we might know them! (19:6) Then he [Lot] went out to them, opening and closing the door behind him. (19:7) And he said, “My brothers, do not act so wickedly!”89

For Gordis, the verbal permutation of ‫תרעו‬, “act so wickedly,” is a reference to “unnatural sexual acts” and demonstrates how it is that the Hebrew lexeme ‫רעע‬, in his opinion, refers to sexual knowledge. Although Gordis does not state it explicitly in his article, I suppose he also assumes that the verbal permutation of ‫ ידע‬in Gen 19:5 (‫ )ונדעה אתם‬adds support to his argument. In any case, Gordis cites Judg 19:23 as another similar example of ‫ תרעו‬in the HB. Finally, he considers Isa 1:4 and 14:20: ‫( הוי גוי חטא עם כבד עון זרע מרעים בנים משחיתים‬Isa 1:4a) ‫( לא־יקרא לעולם זרע מרעים‬Isa 14:20b) (Isa 1:4) Ah, sinful nation; people heavy in iniquity! Seed of evil-doers, sons of destruction! (Isa 14:20b) May the seed of evil-doers never be named for eternity!90

For Gordis, the phrase ‫זרע מרעים‬, “seed of evil-doers,” with its participial permutation of ‫רעע‬, is best translated in the sense that he has suggested above regarding Gen 19:7, namely, “unnatural offspring.”91 Clearly, Gordis has based his reasoning upon A. Ehrlich’s work, especially as it pertains to all the above mentioned verses, save for Isa 14:20b. Ehrlich understands the prophet’s description of Yhwh’s children as being “unnatural” (unnatürliche); a comment that he makes in reference to Gen 19:7, wherein he translates ‫ תרעו‬as the unnatural acts of sodomy.92 Most peculiar, however, is Gordis’s own comments regarding a reference to the “king of Babylonia” seen in the phrase ‫ זרע מרעים‬in Isa 14:20b, which he translates as “unnatural offspring.” He writes: “The prophet taunts the king that he has brought destruction upon his own people instead of spreading devastation among foreign nations, as is usual with great conquerors.”93 In light of his statement, it is curious that Gordis does not see in this particular permutation of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ רעע‬a sense of retribution—the king of Babylon has brought destruction upon his people (‫—!)זרע מרעים‬over and against the sense of “unnatural.” Gordis further suggests that lying beside the ethical connotation of the phrase ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is the more “special meaning of sexual awareness, in its broadest sense.” He adds 89 Ibid., “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 91. 90 Gordis is citing A. Ehrlich regarding Isa 1:4, see Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bible: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. Jesaia, Jeremia (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912), 3; Gordis, “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 91, n. 19. 91 Ibid., “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 92, n. 19. 92 Ehrlich, Jesaia, Jeremia, 3; Ibid., Genesis und Exodus, 78. 93 Gordis, “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 92, n. 19. 

50

History of Research & Methodology   

further that it is “the knowledge of the natural and unnatural, the heterosexual and the homosexual impulses.”94 As it pertains to the equality of the humans with the divine, in the sense that they have the knowledge of good and evil like the divine beings (Gen 3:22), Gordis postulates that said equality refers to “the power of calling into existence new beings” because Adam lacked “only the power of creation through sexual experience” before he acquired the divine knowledge.95 In 1957, and after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, R. Gordis sought to strengthen his original interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as the knowledge of sexuality in light of 1QSa 1:9–11.96 For Gordis, a newly published passage from the Qumran archive offered “a definitive solution to a long-standing biblical text” and “a definitive answer to a problem which is as old as biblical study itself.”97 He garners his support from the text of 1QSa 1:9–11, which reads: ‫ולא י[קרב] אל אשה לדעתה למשכבי זכר כיאם לפי מילואת לו עש[רי]ם שנה בדעתו[ טוב] ורע‬ A man shall not come near a woman to know her, to have sexual intercourse, before he is fully twenty years old, when he possesses the knowledge of good and evil.

However, Gordis’s original points remain, and the only additional support added to his original argument is his perception that ‫ בדעתו[ טוב] ורע‬in 1QSa 1:10–11 refers to “sexual consciousness” precisely because it appears within the context of the Qumran community’s rule regarding the age of sexual consent, for a man, in marriage.98 94 Ibid., “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 92. 95 Ibid., “Significance of the Paradise Myth,” 93. Gordis also cites Ibn Ezra regarding this observation (see footnote 80 in this chapter). See too, Arthur Geddes, “Creation, and the Blessing or the Curse Upon Fruitfulness: An Anthropogeographical Interpretation of Genesis I-III,” Man 45 (1945): 123–128 (124). His suggestion is largely based upon the work of A. De Gubernatis. See e.g., Angelo de Gubernatis, La mythologie des plantes, ou, Les légendes du règne végétal, 2 vols. (Paris: C. Reinwald, 1878); John L. McKenzie, “The Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2–3,” TS 15 (1954): 571, and Ibid., The Two-Edged Sword: An Interpretation of the Old Testament (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1959), 100; Ivan Engnell, “Knowledge and Life in the Creation Story,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley, eds. Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas, VTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 103–109 (115), and his suggestion that the expression (i. e., ‫“ )דעת טוב ורע‬refers to the sexual sphere.” 96 Gordis, “The Knowledge of Good and Evil (Qumran Scrolls),” 123–138. 97 Ibid., “The Knowledge of Good and Evil (Qumran Scrolls),” 124. 98 Ibid., “The Knowledge of Good and Evil (Qumran Scrolls),” 130. See too, Hartman, “Sin in Paradise,” 26–40; Edmund Leach, Genesis as Myth and Other Essays, CE 39 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1969), 14, who postulates a knowledge of “sexual difference.” Also, Y. Marzel, “The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – Recognition of Life and Death (Genesis 2–3),” [Hebrew] Beth Mikra 29 (1983): 352–360 (359–360); Dirk U. Rottzoll, “… ihr werdet sein wie Gott, indem ihr Gut und Böse kennt,” ZAW 102 (1990): 385–391 (esp. 390–391), and his analysis of the Christian Greek writing, Physiologus—a collection of allegorical animal tales from the second century CE which interpreted the EN’s ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as sexuality. Also, Sam Dragga, “Genesis 2–3: A Story of

Most Suggested by Scholars   

51

2.2.6.3 J. Milgrom In 1994, J. Milgrom suggested that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is “often a Biblical code phrase for sexual experience.”99 Taking the argument a step further, Milgrom suggests that the whole of the EN is in fact a story about “sexual awareness and the creativity of which that is a part.” For Milgrom, the EN does not allow for clarity with regard to ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, so one must turn to other passages in the HB where knowledge of good and evil appear, namely, 2 Sam 19:36 and Deut 1:39. In both of these passages, the lack of the knowledge of good and evil is tantamount to a lack of sexual ability or experience. Although the EN may not give a clear interpretation to ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, Milgrom does see in the juxtaposition of Gen 2:25 (nakedness without shame) and Gen 3:7 (nakedness with shame) an euphemistic explanation by the EN for the first act of coitus between the man and the woman. Then, in addressing several possible objections to his interpretation, Milgrom offers a series of rebuttals suggesting that 1) Gen 2:24, as indicating original intent for cohabitation in the garden, is an “editorial gloss” and “not an integral part of the narrative”; and 2) the woman’s curse may indeed have been an “increase” in the pain of child birth, but the point of the EN is that she was—before the acquisition of divine knowledge—sexually unaware.100 In the midst of these rebuttals, Milgrom then drives the discussion toward a statement made by the Rabbis in Gen. Rab. 9:7: “But if it were not for the evil inclination, a man would not build a home, nor would he marry, nor would he beget children, nor would he do business.”101 For Milgrom, and commenting on this Rabbinic reflection, sex is “an outward manifestation of the creative impulse” that can be “constructive or destructive.” Moreover, he suggests that this “creative impulse as manifested in sex (knowledge), can either build a world (good) or destroy it (evil).”102 He then focuses upon the curses of Gen 3:16 and 3:19, wherein he sees a connection between the subservience of the woman to the man (3:16) and a connection between “sex and agriculture” (3:19), as adding support to the interpretation of sexual knowledge.103 Finally, Milgrom concludes his article suggesting that the divine knowledge has provided humans of

Liberation,” JSOT 55 (1992): 3–13 (4–5); Berhnhard Lang, “The Forbidden Fruit: An Ancient Myth and Its Transformation in Genesis 2–3,” in Hebrew Life and Literature: Selected Essays of Bernhard Lang, SOTSMS (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), 111–126. 99 Milgrom, “Sex and Wisdom,” 21. 100 Ibid., “Sex and Wisdom,” 21. 101 For Hebrew, see Gen. Rab. 9:7. 102 Milgrom, “Sex and Wisdom,” 21, 52. 103 Ibid., “Sex and Wisdom,” 21, 52. I contend that these latter statements in Milgrom’s article seem far more intuitive and contextual to the HB in general if the meaning of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is something akin to retribution or blessing and cursing, rather than sexual awareness (see my interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the following chapter 4, esp. § 4.5 below).

52

History of Research & Methodology   

today the power “to create God’s kingdom on earth or to turn it into hell” through their sexual awareness and ability to create.104

2.2.6.4 Major Contention Against ‘Sexual Knowledge’ Wenham may state the contention against this interpretation most clearly: “Though this explanation suits the situation of the elderly and the young, it is incongruous in its present context. In Gen 1 and 2 there is no hint that sexual knowledge is reserved for God, or that it was wrong for man (cf. 1:28; 2:18–25).”105 Thus, it could be argued that humans are already sexual beings in the EN, as is possibly the indication in Gen 2:24–25 with regard to marriage and nakedness without shame. It must be reiterated that the comparison between Yhwh and humans with regard to this interpretation is mostly an emphasis upon the begetting of children (progeny). Nevertheless, Yhwh is not considered a sexual being by the biblical writers; it cannot be sexual knowledge as God is not a sexual being.106 Finally, I suggest that the major contention against this interpretation is that it does not provide an adequate accounting of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬and their function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes.

2.2.7 Maturity The knowledge of good and evil as a symbol for human maturity understands the EN to be a story about the progression of humanity from a state of childlikeness through adolescence on to full adulthood. The acquiring of divine knowledge is the acquisition of human independence from a state of dependence; all through a disobedient act to a command. Such passages used in support of this interpretation are Deut 1:39 and even 1QSa 1:10–11. The overarching basis for this argument is grounded in the motif of ‘knowledge,’ which is often lacking in children and which characterizes adulthood.

104 Ibid., “Sex and Wisdom,” 21, 52. See also, Graham Ward, “A Postmodern Version of Paradise,” JSOT 20 (1995): 3–12, who contends that Yhwh is not a sexual being in the EN; rather, Yhwh is a character in the EN, who has desire (Ibid., “A Postmodern Version of Paradise,” 10). Much of Ward’s suggestions are based upon Reicke (§ 2.2.5.2), Engnell (footnote 95 above), and Trible (footnote 157 below). 105 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 63. So too, Martin Buber, Good and Evil: Two Interpretations (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953), 71; Ibid., Bilder von Gut und Böse (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 14. 106 So Day, From Creation to Babel, 43.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

53

2.2.7.1 G. W. Buchanan To begin, G. W. Buchanan agrees with those who suggest that the construction ‫טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬broadly means “everything” (see § 2.2.4 above for omniscience).107 However, instead of suggesting that the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is omniscience, he postulates that this particular phrase is an idiom that broadly describes human maturity; the age when one is able to make good decisions based upon experience and knowledge. Nevertheless, Buchanan advances this particular discussion by suggesting that the age at which one is understood to have ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is the age of twenty. He corroborates this argument by beginning with a peculiar statement found in the Qumran scrolls, The Rule of the Community (1QSa 1:10–11). In this particular text, a man is admonished not to approach a woman for sexual intercourse before the age of twenty, when he possesses the knowledge of good and evil: ‫( כיאם לפי מילואת לו עש[רי]ם שנה בדעתו[ טוב] ורע‬‎ 1QSa 1:10–11) (1QSa 1:10–11) …before he is fully twenty years old, when he possesses the knowledge of good and evil.

This passage from the Qumran scrolls clearly indicates that there is an age at which a young man was believed to have ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, at least as it pertained to this Qumran sect. What Buchanan shows in his article is that such a claim by the Qumran community is well founded within the narrative of the HB. As an example, Buchanan cites Num 1:3, a text that indicates the permissible age of twenty for men to go to war: ‫מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל־יצא צבא בישראל תפקדו אתם לצבאתם אתה ואהרן‬ From the age of twenty years and upwards, all who are going to war in Israel, you and Aaron shall register them by their companies.

This text clearly indicates that the minimum fighting age in the priestly source is twenty years.108 A more significant text that Buchanan cites is Num 14:28–30: ‫) במדבר הזה יפלו פגריכם‬29( ‫( אמר אלהם חי־אני נאם־ה׳ אם־לא כאשר דברתם באזני כן אעשה לכם‬‎ 28) ‫) אם־אתם תבאו אל־הארץ‬30( ‫וכל־פקדיכם לכל־מספרכם מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה אשר הלינתם עלי‬ ‫אשר נשאתי את־ידי לשכן אתכם בה כי אם־כלב בן־יפנה ויהושע בן־נון‬ (28) Say to them: “As I live,” declares Yhwh, “Just as you have spoken in my hearing, so will I do to you. (29) In this desert, your carcasses will fall, and all of you who were 107 Buchanan, “OT Meaning,” 114–120 (114). 108 Buchanan also cites other occurrences from the priestly source: “Exod 30:14; 38:26 [sic 39:26]; Lev 27:3; Num 1:20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45; 14:29; 26:2; 32:11; 1 Chr 27:23; 2 Chr 25:5” (Ibid., “OT Meaning,” 115).

54

History of Research & Methodology   

recorded and all who were numbered, from the age of twenty years and above; you who have complained against me, (30) none of you shall come to the land which I swore by my hand to settle you in it, except for Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.”

What is significant for this passage is the age of accountability—that being twenty years of age—for the generation that was delivered from Egypt, who, in this passage, receives the retributive punishment of death in the wilderness by the decree of Yhwh. Buchanan’s main point is to stress the significance of the age of twenty in Num 14 in order to address another passage that pertains to this moment of Israel’s transgression in the wilderness (e.g., Deut 1:39). It was discussed already regarding Driver’s (§ 2.2.2.1 above) interpretation of Deut 1:39 that little children do not possess ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. However, the entirety of Deut 1:39 does not refer only to little children, but to teenage sons as well, since there is a notable difference in BH between ‫טפכם‬, “your little children,” and ‫בניכם‬, “your teenage sons.”109 For Buchanan, this observation helps to reinforce that the age at which one was considered to have ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, in the priestly source, was the age of twenty years.110 The example of military service as well as this example in Num 14, shows, according to Buchanan, how it is that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬refers to “maturity,” and even more specifically, to “mature judgment.”111 Thus, Buchanan’s interpretation of the EN is one that can be described as the human progression from “adolescence to maturity.”112 In addition, Buchanan draws attention to R. H. Charles’s translation of Avot 5:21, especially his translation of the short phrase, ‫בן עשרים לרדוף‬, as, “at twenty for retribution,” where ‫ לרדוף‬means retribution.113 For Buchanan, it signifies that although Avot 5:21 states that the age of thirteen is the time of legal responsibility (‫)בן שלש עשרה למצות‬, the ages of eighteen and twenty as the time of legal responsibility were closer to the HB texts and thus regarded “marriage and legal disputes” (‫ )לרדוף‬to be identified by Avot 5:21 as the assumed time in which a man had 109 Ibid., “OT Meaning,” 116. Buchanan makes this suggestion based upon this distinction made in Eze 9:6 and loosely upon Deut 20:14, proposing that “the Deuteronomist possibly considered ‫ בנים‬to be older than the ‫ טפים‬but not quite as old as the ‫בחורים‬.” In any case, he suggests either the original author or a later editor interpreted ‫ בניכם‬and ‫ טפיכם‬in this manner (Ibid., “OT Meaning,” 115–116). 110 Ibid., “OT Meaning,” 115–116. 111 Ibid., “OT Meaning,” 117, 119. He also includes Isa 7:15–16, 2 Sam 19:36 and 1 Kgs 3:9 as support for his argument. 112 Ibid., “OT Meaning,” 119; see too, Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil, 38–40. 113 E.g., Hos 8:3; R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 710; Buchanan, “OT Meaning,” 119; cf. Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 689: “(6) twenty to responsibility for providing for a family.” Note the use of ‫ רדף‬and its use in the psalmist’s request for divine retribution in Ps 83:16.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

55

‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.114 Buchanan’s observations will prove helpful in sustaining my own interpretation (see § 4.5 below).

2.2.7.2 H. Gunkel Not many years later, H. Gunkel suggested a similar reading.115 Although it might be possible that Gunkel understands the basic human faculty of “reason” to be ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, his comments regarding the state of adulthood over and against childhood suggests that Gunkel perceives in this term a meaning of “maturity.”116 He goes so far as to suggest that this myth is founded upon the premise that the adult is superior to a child.117 Thus, for Gunkel, the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the process of maturation; before eating, they are ignorant children (unwissende Kinder), but after eating the fruit, they have immediately become adults (werden sie jetzt met einem Male Erwachsene).118 Gunkel even considers it ‘childish’ (kindlich) that God’s first commandment concerns food.119

2.2.7.3 L. Bechtel L. Bechtel grounds her discussion in the argument that ‫ ידע‬is best interpreted as a general knowledge that encompasses “intellectual, moral, experiential and sexual discernment.”120 The discernment element is also important for Bechtel, who suggests that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is a faculty of discriminating (what she calls) “oppositional forces” that humans then determine to be good or bad. Up to this point, it seems that Bechtel belongs in several different categories. However, she continues her contrast of both trees in the EN in her article, suggesting that the tree of life represents the “tree of immature knowledge of life,” or childhood, which means that the tree of knowledge represents the maturation process whose telos is the end of adolescence. Once divine knowledge is acquired by the humans, “sexual maturation” and an “awareness of oppositional forces” is the result. In 114 Buchanan, “OT Meaning,” 120. However, does not a woman have ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as well (cf. Gen 3:5–7)? 115 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, HAT 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), esp. 6–7, 25.  116 For example, he writes: “Man würde im Sinne der Antike hinzufügen dürfen, dass nur der Mensch die Erkenntnis hat; die Tiere haben sie nicht….Uns würde es naheliegen, mit Pathos die Herrlichkeit menschlichen Wesens zu feiern: die Vernunft, das Himmelslicht, macht den Menschen zum kleinen Gott der Welt” (Gunkel, Genesis, 25). 117 Gunkel, Genesis, 25. 118 Ibid., Genesis, 25. See too, John A. Bailey, “Initiation and the Primal Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2–3,” JBL (1970): 137–150 (esp. 147). 119 Gunkel, Genesis, 8: “Dass das erste Gebot Gottes das Essen betrifft, ist sehr kindlich.” 120 Lyn M. Bechtel, “Genesis 2.4B-3.24: A Myth About Human Maturation,” JSOT 67 (1995): 3–26 (esp. 12).

56

History of Research & Methodology   

a footnote, Bechtel suggests that she has “combined the three general scholarly interpretations” of the knowledge of good and evil: moral discernment (§ 2.2.8 below), sexuality (§ 2.2.6 above), and omniscience (§ 2.2.4 above).121 Thus, Bechtel argues that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is “the tree of mature knowledge of life” as defined by the general sense of the Hebrew word ‫ ;ידע‬to acquire the knowledge of good and evil, according to Bechtel, is “to acquire adult knowledge of life.”122

2.2.7.4 Major Contention Against ‘Maturity’ The major contention against this suggestion is that the knowledge itself is a metaphor for stepping into mature adulthood having walked through the process of human maturation in the EN. It is important to emphasize that Deut 1:39 and 2 Sam 19:36 do suggest a lack of this divine knowledge in children and an inability of the knowledge to be used by the elderly. The interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as mature adult knowledge still requires further specificity, especially with regard to 1) how such adult knowledge makes one similar to the divine beings (Gen 3:22); 2) how said knowledge can account for the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in the HB; and 3) how it is that maturity is reasonably forbidden by Yhwh to humans on pain of death in the EN.

2.2.8 Moral Discernment There are only a few commentators that suggest the specific interpretation of moral discernment for ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. In this category, the particular human capacity emphasized is that of moral and ethical discernment. One of the primary arguments of support suggested by these commentators is that the permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬are the primary way in which the HB expresses these notions of ethical and moral good and evil. In passages such as Amos 5:14, Hos 8:3, Deut 1:39 and 1 Kgs 3:9, to name a few, the overall theme is one of moral and ethical discernment that is expected and desired in mature adults as well as in leadership roles of all sorts.

121 Ibid., “Genesis 2.4B-3.24,” 12, n. 22. As support from the HB, she references Deut 1:39 and Isa 7:15–16, as well as other studies that have given more attention to the knowledge of good and evil specifically. 122 Ibid., “Genesis 2.4B-3.24,” 12. 

57

Most Suggested by Scholars   

2.2.8.1 K. Budde K. Budde is critical of J. Wellhausen’s theory that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is the knowledge of civilization.123 For the most part, Budde’s own suggestion is based upon the often varied yet most basic meaning one ascribes to the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬. For Wellhausen, the construction ‫ טוב ורע‬carried with it the connotation of “useful and harmful,” as opposed to the moral range usually ascribed to these terms.124 In contrast to Wellhausen, Budde argues that one cannot dismiss the moral component present in ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in BH.125 His reading of the texts suggests that the basic semantic range of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬is the moral sense as in Hos 8:3: ‫זנח ישראל טוב אויב ירדפו‬ Israel spurned (the) good; an enemy will pursue him.

For Budde, Hos 8:3 is an example of the simple definition of moral goodness in the Hebrew lexeme ‫טוב‬. Further, Budde includes Amos 5:14 and 5:15, along with Isa 5:20, in order to substantiate his argument over and against Wellhausen’s. He also suggests that Deut 1:39 and Isa 7:15 refers to the moral sense of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ as it pertains to childhood and the state of innocence, so often ascribed to the first humans in the EN.126 Budde continues his study by citing 2 Sam 14:17 and 1 Kgs 3:9 as corroboration for his argument in that ‫ טוב ורע‬appears therein in the context of legal (and therefore, moral) judgment. As it pertains to 2 Sam 19:36—the episode of David and Barzillai—Budde contends that the meaning of ‫ טוב ורע‬in this passage has to do with discerning good and bad food, which Barzillai can no longer do in his old age, and has little to do with the discernment of moral matters. Budde’s point is that this episode shows how the lexemes find their semantic meaning only in the context in which they are used.127 Although he does not perceive a moral sense in these permutations in 2 Sam 19:36, neither does he see Wellhausen’s suggestion of “useful and harmful” as adequate for explaining the meaning of this passage. Finally, Budde turns to the EN itself, specifically the result of nakedness and shame after the human couple acquire the knowledge of good and evil. Wellhausen suggests that the recognition of the need for clothes is the first step in human civilization after acquiring the divine knowledge; Budde argues to the contrary, in that the humans cover their shame; a step toward moral cognition and a contrast of

123 Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte, esp. 65–86 (see § 2.2.5 above). 124 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 306 (see § 2.2.5.1 above). 125 Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte, 65–66. 126 Ibid., Die Biblische Urgeschichte, 66–67. 127 Ibid., Die Biblische Urgeschichte, 68–69.

58

History of Research & Methodology   

Gen 3:7 with Gen 2:25. Thus, for Budde, the knowledge of good and evil is neither spiritual knowledge, nor natural knowledge; it is a moral knowledge.128

2.2.8.2 F. Delitzsch F. Delitzsch also disagrees with Wellhausen’s semantic range of the “useful and the harmful” for ‫טוב ורע‬, and further disagrees with the interpretation that ‫הדעת‬ ‫ טוב ורע‬refers to everything (see § 2.2.4 above).129 For Delitzsch, passages such as Deut 1:39, 2 Sam 19:36, as well as Isa 7:15 f, demonstrates that one who lacks ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is considered by the HB to be in a state of childhood.130 Furthermore, Delitzsch argues that 1 Kgs 3:9 and 2 Sam 14:17 show that recognizing and distinguishing good and evil is a special knowledge held by kings and angels.131 Thus, for Delitzsch, the stage of advancement has nothing to do with maturation from childhood to adulthood regarding culture (so Wellhausen); rather, ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬represents the advancement from “childlike innocence to moral decision.”132 Mature moral discernment is Delitzsch’s interpretation of this phrase in Gen 2–3. In his 1852 commentary, Die Genesis, Delitzsch makes an observation regarding ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬that is pertinent for this study. He writes: “The good is obedience with its good consequence and the evil is disobedience with its bad consequence.”133 This observation is close to my interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as the knowledge for administering reward and punishment (see § 4.5).

2.2.8.3 D. Asselin In 1954, D. Asselin also suggested that the divine knowledge of the EN has implications for human power and control over the moral order.134 Asselin postulates that the interpreter must begin with the understanding that knowledge, in relation to its object, especially in the Semitic world, refers to “experimental,” knowledge, “connoting power, control, dominion,” over said object.135 On this basis, Asselin suggests that ‫ טוב ורע‬is a merism that indicates totality (and everything in between) of a certain category related to the semantic force of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in any given 128 Ibid., Die Biblische Urgeschichte, 70. 129 Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, trans. Sophia Taylor, 2 vols. (New York: Scribner & Welford, 1889), 1:138. 130 Ibid., Die Genesis (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1852), 127. See too, H. G. Mitchell, “The Fall and Its Consequences according to Genesis, Chapter 3,” AmJT 1 (1897): 915–916. 131 Delitzsch, Die Genesis, 127. 132 Ibid., A New Commentary on Genesis, 138. 133 Ibid., Die Genesis, 127. See too, August Dillmann, Die Genesis, KEHAT 11 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1882), 65; Alexander R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), esp. 156–162. 134 David T. Asselin, “The Notion of Dominion in Genesis 1–3,” CBQ 16 (1954): 277–294. 135 Ibid., “Notion of Dominion,” 287.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

59

permutation.136 Thus, for Asselin, the lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬must certainly require a moral category, which implies an interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as “judgments regarding good and evil.”137 He clarifies his suggestion some more by stating that these are “practical judgements and not speculative.”138 Based wholly upon this argument, Asselin defines ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as a human ability to make practical judgements regarding everything within the category of human morality, as he puts it, ascribing its nuance to a knowledge fitting and proper to God; divine knowledge that is “effective, somehow connoting control, dominion, power over the moral order.”139

2.2.8.4 Major Contention Against ‘Moral Discernment’ The central argument against this interpretation is that the commandment given in Gen 2:17 already assumes the human ability, at least on some level, to exercise moral discernment. If ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is the knowledge of moral discernment, then how could the human couple be held responsible for any actions of wrong doing prior to having acquired moral discernment? Finally, it is difficult to know how such knowledge is believed to have made a person like the divine beings. Likewise, is it reasonable to assume that Yhwh would have forbidden moral discernment to humans on pain of death in the EN?

2.2.9 Magic The interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as magic suggests that what is acquired is a divine ability that allows for the secrets of the natural created order to be manipulated. Whether or not the term magic for our interpreters refers to knowing what brings or does not bring disaster, or whether it refers to the knowledge of sorcery, divination, or even to Canaanite fertility cults, it certainly refers, in light of the interpreters, to a suprahuman power over nature that is accessed by humans through methods and practices summed up by the term, magic. 136 For omniscience, see § 2.2.4 above. 137 Asselin, “Notion of Dominion,” 288. 138 Ibid., “Notion of Dominion,” 288. 139 Ibid., “Notion of Dominion,” 288; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, 1970), 556: “…the entire range of moral knowledge and experience.” See too, Sekine, Transcendency and Symbols in the Old Testament, 236. For ‘moral autonomy,’ see Christoph Dohmen, Schöpfung und Tod: Die Entfaltung theologischer und anthropologischer Konzeptionen in Gen 2–3, SBB 35, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996), 54–56; Dohmen and Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:581, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:604–605. Also, Carly L. Crouch, “ḥṭʾṯ as Interpolative Gloss: A Solution to Gen 4,7,” ZAW 12 (2011): 256 (“moral responsibility”); Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil, 59 and 71: “As a result of their new knowledge, the two humans become moral agents with responsibility for their actions” (71).

60

History of Research & Methodology   

2.2.9.1 H. Greßmann In 1907, H. Greßmann argued for what some commentators call a ‘less probable’ interpretation for ancient Israelite Religion regarding ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.140 For Greßmann, this term does indeed cause the humans to acquire divine knowledge, which is confirmed in the EN at Gen 3:22 by Yhwh. Furthermore, he understands the speech of the serpent to be truthful and the speech of Yhwh to be untruthful.141 Greßmann suggests that only one sort of knowledge remains as a reasonable interpretation: “There only remains one knowledge, which is really God made and is still at the same time contrary to divinity, that being the secret knowledge, magic.”142 For Greßmann, this suggestion finds corroboration in that the serpentine figure points toward sorcery / magic, and so, it should not be surprising that the tree of knowledge dispenses the divine knowledge of magic.143 Even so, Greßmann is unwilling to acknowledge the certainty of any single interpretation, including the one proposed by him because the snake of the EN is a natural snake, and not a demon, and too, the knowledge received by the humans, leads to the knowledge of “nakedness” in Gen 3:7, which, according to Greßmann, is in no way reminiscent of sorcery.144

2.2.9.2 S. Hooke S. Hooke, in 1947, considered the comparative material from the ANE, such as the Adapa myth and the Epic of Gilgamesh, in order to elucidate the meaning of the EN’s “knowledge.”145 The people of the “Tigris–Euphrates delta” were deeply concerned with the workings of the natural phenomena around them, such as devastating floods, soil that fails to produce a crop after incessant labour, the unknown of natural and human fertility, “the mystery of life and death, disease and pain, and the secret ways of the serpent.” In other words, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, according to Hooke, is the “knowledge of friendly and hostile forces”; the secrets to the control of that which is “behind” said natural phenomena. Hooke ascribes this interpretation in the “Jahvist” account of the EN to a vestige of the cultic practices of the peoples of 140 Hugo Greßmann, “Mythische Reste in der Paradieserzählung,” AR 10 (1907): 345–367. 141 Ibid., “Mythische Reste,” 351. 142 Ibid., “Mythische Reste,” 355. In n. 2, he finds a connection to H. Duhm’s suggestion regarding the temptation of the first humans to be toward divine magic as proposed by the serpent demon. See Hans Duhm, Die bösen Geister im Alten Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904), 13. 143 Greßmann, “Mythische Reste,” 355. 144 Ibid., “Mythische Reste,” 355. See too, Th. C. Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude Semietische volken (Wageninben: H. Veenman and Zonen, 1937), 142–148 (esp. 148 for magic). 145 Samuel H. Hooke, In the Beginning, CBOT 6 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947), 29–32.

Most Suggested by Scholars   

61

the Fertile Crescent, which—for Hooke—are traceable in the story.146 Thus, ‫הדעת‬ ‫ טוב ורע‬within this interpretive framework is the knowledge of “magic”; a distant echo to what was in other ancient Near Eastern beliefs and practices “potent rituals in which lay the secret of life.”147 Finally, the one passage that Hooke references from the HB, as support for his interpretation, is Deut 29:29, suggesting that the “secret things” (MT 29:28, ‫ )הנסתרת‬stated therein, namely, the “secrets of life and death,” belonged to Yhwh alone (divine knowledge).148

2.2.9.3 T. Stordalen T. Stordalen, in 2000, suggests three echoes that reverberate in the literary motif of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.149 In two echoes, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is “characteristically human” and “characteristically royal” in what it conveys to its consumers.150 Most important for Stordalen’s placement within this category is the third echo that he perceives in this phrase, namely, the attribute of “magic or mantic knowledge.”151 For Stordalen, there are some textual allusions within the EN that resonate with other texts in the HB more generally, which help to support the notion of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as a knowledge of magic. One of the first connections is based upon Num 24:4, 13, and 16, wherein the blessing and cursing of Balaam, described in the text as the doing (‫ )לעשות‬of ‫ טובה‬and ‫רעה‬, is juxtaposed with Balaam’s ability to “see” with his “eyes.” This interpretive move with regard to ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN is not difficult to ascertain.152 Stordalen then suggests that another connection to the tree of knowledge may have affinities to other cultic trees that would be associated with the cultic practices of necromancy and magic in the HB.153 The most significant connection to which Stordalen refers is based upon Lev 19:31, wherein the Hebrew participle ‫ידענים‬, “soothsayer,” is parallel to a similar lexeme, ‫אבת‬, “mediums.” For Stordalen, it is significant that those who have “obtained magical knowledge,” such as is the case in Lev 19:31, are referred to using a participial permutation of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ידע‬. Thus, according to Stordalen, “‫ ידע‬in the Eden story would be punning upon the magic category ‫ידענים‬.” Within this framework, the seeking of divine knowledge through either the ‫ אבת‬or the ‫ ידענים‬would be comparable to “prophetic knowledge obtained 146 Ibid., In the Beginning, 30. 147 Ibid., In the Beginning, 32. 148 Ibid., In the Beginning, 32. 149 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 294–96 and 462–65 (462–463). 150 Ibid., Echoes of Eden, 462. 151 Ibid., Echoes of Eden, 462–63. 152 Ibid., Echoes of Eden, 462; Hans-Peter Müller, Mythos – Kerygma – Warheit: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament in seiner Umwelt und zur Biblischen Theologie, BZAW 200 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991), 78. 153 He references Isa 1:29 as support suggesting that cultic trees in said passage are ‫נחמד‬, “desirable.”

62

History of Research & Methodology   

from Yhwh.” Finally, remaining steadfast on the “echoes of manticism,” Stordalen suggests that 2 Sam 14:17 and 1 Kgs 22:8 demonstrate how “divinely assisted decision-making” is related to “good and evil,” at least in these two passages. Therefore, the prohibition of Yhwh to human acquisition of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN is an allusion to the greater “antagonism of Yahwism and manticism in the primeval world.”154

2.2.9.4 Major Contention Against ‘Magic’ The major contention against this argument is that it seems to suggest a method through which a super- or supra-natural knowledge is attained by humans. Thus, magic would not be a knowledge possessed by Yhwh (e.g., Gen 3:22). Rather, magic implies knowledge of what the divine realm is doing, or differently, knowledge that tries to influence the divine realm to do something desirable (e.g., Num 24).155 The precision required to delineate what one means by magic generally, let alone, what one means by magic in the HB or in the ancient Near East, is summed up well by J. Kummerlin-McLean in the introduction to her article on this topic in the OT: “Recognizing the limitations and difficulties of any definition, the term ‘magic’ will be used here to refer to methods associated with the gaining of suprahuman knowledge and power or with influencing suprahuman powers.”156 Hence, my original point above: Can one assume that Yhwh has a ‘method’ (magic) that he uses to gain suprahuman knowledge and power? Does Yhwh have 154 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 464–465; cf. Duane E. Smith, “The Divining Snake: Reading Genesis 3 in the Context of Mesopotamian Ophiomancy,” JBL 134 (2015): 31–49. Smith argues that ‫ טוב ורע‬should be translated as ‘good and ill’ fortune in light of Mesopotamian Ophiomancy. His primary argument is that the words ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רע‬overlap in meaning with the Akkadian words damqu and lemuttu, which appear in the various Mesopotamian omens (Ibid., 43). Smith suggests an interpretation of the knowledge as an ability to “know the results of divination” (Ibid., 42). It is an intriguing interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in light of the ‫ נחש‬and Mesopotamian Ophiomancy. However, I contend that the interpretation should focus upon Yhwh as opposed to the ‫נחש‬. That being said, Smith’s emphasis upon ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as referring to the extremes of ‘good and ill’ fortune is correct in my estimation. See also, Yitzhaq Feder, “Morality Without Gods? Retribution and the Foundations of the Moral Order in the Ancient Near East,” in Teaching Morality in Antiquity, eds. T. M. Oshima and Susanne Kohlhaas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 253–264. For ‘good and evil’ and its function within the ancient Near Eastern mythical tradition, see Catherine Mittermayer, “Gut und Böse: Anforderungen an menschliches Handeln im Beziehungsgefüge zwischen Göttern und Menschen in den mesopotamischen Mythen,” in Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt: philosophische und religiöse Konzeptionen vom Alten Orient bis zum frühen Islam, eds. Henz-Günther Nesselrath and Florian Wilk, ORA 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 31–50. 155 See esp. Joanne K. Kuemmerlin-McLean, “Magic: Old Testament,” ABD 4:467–470. 156 Ibid., “Magic: Old Testament,” ABD 4:467. For magic in the ancient Near East, see Daniel Schwemer, “The Ancient Near East,” in The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West: from Antiquity to the Present, ed. David J. Collins (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 17–51.

Other Proposed Interpretations Important for this Thesis   

63

a ‘method’ (magic) to influence suprahuman powers? If divination is assumed in this interpretation, then it would address why ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is forbidden to humans on pain of death in the narrative (e.g., Deut 18:10–11). However, it is difficult to see how magic is a knowledge possessed by Yhwh and the divine beings. To sum up: magic is human knowledge of how to manipulate the divine; it thus cannot be knowledge that the divine possesses. Finally, I contend that this interpretation does not provide an adequate accounting of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬and their function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in both the EN and the HB.

2.3 Other Proposed Interpretations Important for this Thesis There are three additional proposals that are important to the thesis of this research. Each of these scholars, in my estimation, help to raise important insight that was overlooked by the most widely accepted interpretations.157

2.3.1 Speaking Good or Evil as an Authoritative Word For W. M. Clark, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is best interpreted as a knowledge that allows for the legal pronouncement of ‘good or evil’ in an appropriate context. Within this framework, attention is paid to how ‘good and evil’ function so as to allow for an authoritative person to pronounce a judgement in certain narrative judicial / legal contexts of the HB. Although this argument does appear in much of the commentary on this subject, it is often dismissed since such an interpretation is not clear in every instance of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the HB. Clark’s suggestion will prove important 157 Consider too, some other studies that merit mentioning, though their interpretations do not garner a consensus in the literature: Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Two Trees in the Garden of Eden,” [Hebrew] ErIsr Nelson Glueck Memorial Volume (1975): 40–43 (Tree of Death), and Marjo C. A. Korpel and Johannes C. de Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A New Beginning, HBM 65 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 125–126; Arthur Ungnad, “Die Paradiesbäme,” ZDMG 79 (1925): 111–118 (Tree of Truth); Speiser, Genesis, 26 (Full Possession of Physical and Mental Powers); Buber, Good and Evil, 73–75 (74) (knowledge of opposites in creation) and Ibid., Gut und Böse, 16–17; J. A. Soggin, “The Fall of Man in the Third Chapter of Genesis,” in Old Testament and Oriental Studies, ed. J. A. Soggin, BibOr 29 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975), 88–111 [104] (Omnipotence); Crawford H. Toy, “Analysis of Genesis II., III,” JBL 10 (1891): 1–19 (12) (Rational Responsibility); Stern, “Knowledge of Good and Evil,” 414 (Power of Choie), and too, John Baker, “The Myth of Man’s ‘Fall’—A Reappraisal,” ExpTim 92 (1980): 235–237 (236); Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, OBT 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 74 (Symbol for Obedience and Disobedience). See too, her understanding of Eros, Ibid., God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 139, n. 2. For an earlier attestation to this interpretation of obedience / disobedience, see Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. D. J. Wiseman, TCOT 1 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 67–68.

64

History of Research & Methodology   

since my exegetical work will concern the function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in judicial contexts when Yhwh and the human characters are the subject or causation of these extremes.

2.3.1.1 W. M. Clark In 1969, W. M. Clark challenged the then widely accepted interpretation of his own day— ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as omniscience—with a new interpretation.158 To begin, Clark contends that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is moral autonomy in the sense that humans can decide for themselves what is good and bad.159 However, most peculiar is that the majority of Clark’s essay is focused upon understanding ‫ טוב ורע‬in the HB as it relates to the spoken authoritative word of the authorized person, who makes a declarative statement ‘for good’ or ‘for bad,’ in judicial legal contexts.160 By focusing upon 1 Kgs 3:9, 2 Sam 14:17, and 2 Sam 13:22, wherein Absalom does not speak with Amnon “for good or for bad,” Clark suggests that the knowledge of good and evil has more to do with judicial decisions, which in the case of Absalom’s remarks, means that Absalom refrained from taking “legal action” against his brother Amnon for his (Amnon’s) rape of Tamar.161 In order to substantiate his argument, Clark then turns to Isa 5:20a and 5:23: ‫( הוי האמרים לרע טוב ולטוב רע‬Isa 5:20a) ‫( מצדיקי רשע עקב שחד וצדקת צדיקים יסירו ממנו‬Isa 5:23) (Isa 5:20a) Woe to those who say to the evil good and to the good evil… (Isa 5:23) who say righteous to the wicked for the sake of a bribe, and the righteousness of the righteous they remove from him.162

For Clark, this passage demonstrates his argument regarding the giving of a judicial decision. In 5:20a, Clark understands ‫ אמרים‬to refer “to the spoken decision, good or evil, functioning as a declarative pronouncement.”163 He would not, however, suggest that the decision for good or for bad in the HB is always relegated to the legal sphere because the priest and the prophet can make declarative judgments within the realm of discrimination between ‫ טוב ורע‬as well.164 Thus, commenting upon this term in the Gen 2–3 narrative, Clark pivots back to a more 158 Clark, “Legal Background,” 266–278. 159 Ibid., “Legal Background,” 277; so too, John J. Scullion, “Genesis, Narrative of,” ABD 2:945; also § 2.2.8 above. 160 Ibid., “Legal Background,” esp. 268–269, 275. 161 Ibid., “Legal Background,” 269. See my discussion on 2 Sam 13 (§ 7.3.3) below. 162 I have provided Clark’s translation of both Isa 5:20a and 5:23 (Ibid., “Legal Background,” 271). 163 Ibid., “Legal Background,” 271. 164 Ibid., “Legal Background,” 272.

Other Proposed Interpretations Important for this Thesis   

65

general interpretation of divine discrimination, or as Clark puts it, “man’s moral autonomy,” based upon his interpretation of the various occurrences in the scriptures, especially the episode in 2 Sam 19:36 regarding Barzillai and his inability to discern ‫טוב ורע‬. Overall, I find Clark’s suggestion of the function of the spoken word for good or for bad of the authorized person to be helpful in beginning this research. I hope to move the discussion forward by building upon his insight.165

2.3.2 Political Knowledge R. Sacks, in his commentary on the book of Genesis and in his comment on Gen 3:5 in the EN, suggests that the divine knowledge be defined as political knowledge. This interpretation focuses upon the use of ‫ טוב ורע‬in contexts of the HB that deal with rulership, kingship, and rights of judgment, such as in the case of Jacob and Laban in Gen 31:29. Other passages used for support also include 2 Sam 14:17, 1 Kgs 3:9, and Deut 1:39, to name a few. Finally, this interpretation also sees the decisions between the extremes of ‘good and evil’ as having an effect upon the polity in general, hence the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as political knowledge.

2.3.2.1 R. Sacks R. Sacks, in 1990, suggested that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is best understood as the knowledge of political matters, or even, the knowledge of the ruler and the ruled.166 Sacks begins his analysis by commenting on the semantic range of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬. For Sacks, the moral / ethical qualities of these Hebrew lexemes never, in the HB, refer to animate or inanimate objects being “evil.”167 Rather, the semantic force of the Hebrew lexeme ‫רעע‬, in its many permutations, carries the connotation of “disagreeable, malignant, or harmful,” to use the words of Sacks.168 Furthermore, Sacks bases his conclusions upon a survey of seven passages in the HB wherein the phrase “good and bad” appears: Gen 24:50; 31:24, 29; Deut 1:39; 30:15; 2 Sam 14:17; and 1 Kgs 3:9. He begins with the occurrences of this phrase in the book of Genesis, specifically Gen 31:24: 165 Ibid., “Legal Background,” 275, esp. 277: “I would suggest that behind the usage of ‫ טוב‬for yes is the idea, especially emphasized in wisdom circles but not peculiar to them, of the divinely established world order which manifests itself in all realms (e.g., nature, society, and cult). ‘Good’ then would be what corresponds to this world order (Maat), as ultimately only what is in harmony with this order can endure.” 166 Robert D. Sacks, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, ANETS 6 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990), 30.  167 Ibid., Book of Genesis, 29. 168 Ibid., Book of Genesis, 29.

66

History of Research & Methodology   

‫ויבא אלהים אל־לבן הארמי בחלם הלילה ויאמר לו השמר לך פן־תדבר עם־יעקב מטוב עד־רע‬ Then God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night. And he said to him, “Guard yourself in order that you do not speak with Jacob for good or for bad.”169

For Sacks, this passage has a practical sense about it, which is confirmed in Gen 31:29a when Laban says outright that due to Jacob’s actions, he [Laban] has the power to do Jacob harm: ‫יש־לאל ידי לעשות עמכם רע‬ There is in my hand power to do you harm.

What makes Sacks’ interpretation different from the others is that he perceives, on a narrative level, an overwhelming emphasis upon political reward and punishment. Thus, in 2 Sam 14:17, the wise woman of Tekoa claims that David is like ‫“( המלאך האלהים‬the messenger of God”), but only after she accuses David of having wrongly punished his own son, Absalom. Sacks suggests the same for 1 Kgs 3:9, wherein Solomon is stated to have divine wisdom, but only after his judgment in the case of the two prostitutes. Finally, in Deut 1:39, children do not know good and evil, but in Deut 30:15, those same children are told to choose between good and bad. For Sacks, all of these instances show how the knowledge of good and bad refers to “political life” in general.170 Therefore, Sacks’s interpretation for this particular phrase is best described as the knowledge of political matters, the distinction between the ruler and the ruled.171 My own interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬as the knowledge for administering reward and punishment is similar to Sacks’s interpretation.

2.3.3 Societal Rules and Social Conventions (Divine Justice) Finally, P. Machinist suggests that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is best interpreted as the knowledge of Societal Rules and Social Conventions within the context of divine justice. The emphasis of this interpretation lies in the implementation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, that is to say, the ‘societal rules and social conventions’ that so often in the HB are related to

169 See my discussion on Gen 31:24, 29 (§ 5.2.5) below. 170 Sacks, Book of Genesis, 29. 171 Ibid., Book of Genesis, 30. For a similar suggestion, see James B. Jordan, “Merit Versus Maturity: What Did Jesus Do for Us?,” in The Federal Vision, eds. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner (Monroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2004), 151–202; Joel Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible, ISBL (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1986), 182–199 (esp. 182–183).

Other Proposed Interpretations Important for this Thesis   

67

the ideas of ruling, kingship, and ultimately to justice. Thus, the implementation of these ideals is synonymous with divine justice in the HB.

2.3.3.1 P. Machinist In 2011, P. Machinist suggested that divine knowledge in the EN “may be said to be a knowledge of social conventions,” wherein a performed and effectuate knowledge of “what rules or conventions govern early society,” and the “larger cosmos” is meant by the phrase ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.172 Within his analysis of Psalm 82, Machinist finds elucidation for how one is to understand ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. After providing a significant contribution to the question as to what ‫ אלהים‬refers in Psalm 82,—namely, ‫“( אלהים‬gods / Head of the gods”)—Machinist then turns to the more pressing question of what it is exactly that the “gods” are accused of by Elohim. For Machinist, the overall movement of Psalm 82 is an indictment by Elohim against the ‫ אלהים‬of the divine council, who have failed in their duties to judge / rule righteously (Ps 82:2).173 The first two lines of the psalm clearly demonstrate this point: ‫) עד־מתי תשפטו־עול ופני‬82:2( ‫( מזמור לאסף אלהים נצב בעדת־אל בקרב אלהים ישפט‬Ps 82:1) ‫רשעים תשאו־סלה‬ (Ps 82:1) A psalm of Asaph. Elohim has taken his place in the assembly of gods; in the midst of the gods, he (Elohim) will judge. (Ps 82:2) How long will you judge falsely and lift up the countenance of the wicked?!

In these two lines, it is clear that the injustice of the divine assembly—in judging / ruling the nations falsely (‫—)תשפטו־עול‬has been called to account by Elohim, who, so the psalmist states, charges the gods of having neglected justice (82:3) for the orphan (‫ )יתום‬and poor (‫)דל‬, as well as the oppressed (‫ )עני‬and the destitute (‫)רש‬. Furthermore, the gods of the divine assembly are charged by Elohim (82:4) as having failed to rescue the oppressed and the needy (‫)אביון‬. Because of these failures, the gods of the divine assembly will be cast from their positions as rulers over the nations by Elohim (82:6–7), who is then called upon by the psalmist to “judge / rule the earth” (‫שפטה הארץ‬, Ps 82:8) and to “carry out acts of justice / care” for the nations that belong to him.174 Most important to note in this psalm is the emphasis laid upon the Hebrew ‫שפט‬, which describes broadly the act of judging / ruling / taking care of the nations. Thus, the divine beings have committed a grave injustice “against justice in general.”175 Most important for our discussion, 172 Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 212. 173 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 204–210 (esp. 209–210). 174 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 209. 175 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 209.

68

History of Research & Methodology   

and one reason as to why Machinist finds analogous literary motifs in Ps 82 with the EN, is Ps 82:5: ‫לא ידעו ולא יבינו בחשכה יתהלכו ימוטו כל־מוסדי ארץ‬ They do not have knowledge, nor do they have understanding; in darkness they walk; all the foundations of earth quake.

For Machinist, this phrase in Ps 82:5, ‫לא ידעו ולא יבינו‬, means precisely that the “actions” of the divine assembly are “illegal and immoral” and “carry physical consequences for the very stability of the cosmic order.” Furthermore, the very notions of “knowing and understanding” (‫ יבינו‬,‫ )ידעו‬has a categorical connection to “proper judging,” both in Ps 82, and as Machinist suggests, in the EN as well.176 In turning to the discussion of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, Machinist begins by observing that said knowledge is a “mark of deity”; it is divine knowledge. He cites Gen 3:5 and 3:22, both of which attest to the veracity of such a claim in the EN. Moreover, the phrase, ‫הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע‬, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil,” in 3:22, attests to the argument that the humans have become like the divine beings (‫ אלהים‬in 3:5), not only like “Yhwh-Elohim.”177 Next, Machinist inquires into the specifics of this divine knowledge, namely, to what does ‫“( טוב ורע‬good and evil”) refer? To answer this question, he suggests that one should look to the resulting consequence of having acquired divine knowledge, which in Gen 3:7 is the awareness of human nakedness and the need to cover it.178 It is here that Machinist begins his interpretation for ‫ ;הדעת טוב ורע‬it is “a knowledge of what rules or conventions govern earthly society.” However, he qualifies his statement even further, suggesting that it is not simply an intellectual knowledge, but a knowledge to be “implemented into action,” and too, it can have implications for the “larger cosmos.”179 As support from the HB specifically, Machinist cites Deut 1:39 and 2 Sam 19:36, surmising that the divine knowledge is absent in children and lost to the elderly; in other words, the divine knowledge, according to Machinist, is “characteristic” of adults—“those in charge of maintaining societal rules and conventions.”180 As additional support, he also references Isa 7:15–16, wherein one who is close to mature adulthood (i. e., ‫ )נער‬is still without knowledge for making right choices, “for good and not for evil.” Machinist concludes this point by stating that the knowledge of good and evil contributes “to the maintenance of good order in society.” Finally, Machinist makes note of the contrast between divine knowledge 176 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 210. 177 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 211. 178 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 212. See my discussion on Nakedness and Shame in the EN (§ 4.3) below. 179 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 212. 180 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 213.

Methodological Approach and Concluding Thoughts   

69

and divine life in the EN, concluding that in said story, the humans have become half divine, being forbidden by Yhwh-Elohim to partake of the magical tree of life.181 Due to this contrast between divine knowledge and divine life, Machinist then turns again to Ps 82, showing how it is that the ‫ אלהים‬of the divine council have both divine knowledge and divine life; a life they lose in the judgement of Elohim (Ps 82:6–7), a judgment that is enacted against the failure of the divine beings to administer “knowledge / justice” to the nations.182 The most important observation to take from Machinist’s erudition in this discussion—as it will pertain to my own interpretation and argument—is to note how (judgement / ruling) informs our understanding of the implementation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. To state it differently, the maintenance of societal rules and conventions, as Machinist so aptly understands ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, is affixed to the concepts of judgement, ruling, and the providential care of the nations. Within this framework, divine knowledge is the implementation of divine justice.183

2.4 Methodological Approach and Concluding Thoughts Many important observations could be made from this survey of the history of research. My main intention is simply to lay out the varying interpretations in order to show the disagreement of interpretation regarding this term in the EN. In light of the many interpretations in the history of research, and too, in light of the numerous methodological approaches employed by the many interpreters, I contend that there are three methodological parameters that need to be set forth for any work moving forward regarding the interpretation of this phrase in the EN. The first parameter is the classification of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as divine knowledge (so Machinist, among others; § 2.3.3.1); a nonhuman knowledge that is first possessed by Yhwh and the divine beings of Gen 3:5 and 3:22. The second parameter requires that an interpretation must show how the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes in the EN and its surrounding context (e.g., Gen 1:4; 3:14–19, inferred; 4:7; 6:5; see too, § 2.4.1 below). If ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is divine knowledge, and too, if Yhwh is said by the EN to have this knowledge (so Gen 3:5, 22), then it would only be reasonable to consider the function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in the EN and its surrounding context. This parameter is practically missing from the history of research. It will be the bedrock of my exegetical work moving forward, and it is the foundation of what I call a theocentric interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. Finally, the third parameter requires that 181 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 215. 182 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 216, 223. 183 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 223.

70

History of Research & Methodology   

an interpretation reasonably demonstrate why it is that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is forbidden on pain of death (Gen 2:16–17) and why human acquisition of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬serves as a threat to Yhwh (Gen 3:22–23). Many of the interpreters in the history of research dismiss other interpretations based upon an unsatisfying answer to this question. For example, if ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is best interpreted as wisdom (§ 2.2.3), then why would it be forbidden to humans on pain of death, especially when its acquisition by humans is so positively praised in the HB (e.g., Prov 4:7)? However, it is not the only reason as to why interpretations are deemed insufficient as interpretations by some scholars. For example, consider the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as a greater metaphor for sex (§ 2.2.6). This interpretation is unreasonable because it violates the first and second parameters even though it may remain within the third parameter to an extent. In this way, I suggest that these three parameters must be taken into account for any interpreter moving forward. In my judgment, all of the interpretations presented in the history of research breach at least one or all of these parameters. A visual will help to illustrate these three parameters (P1, P2, P3) and how the history of research fits within them:

Methodological Approach and Concluding Thoughts   

71

In light of the logic of the EN and the human acquisition of divine knowledge of ‫ טוב ורע‬therein, I will employ a methodological approach consisting of several criteria that I have developed, which I suggest will satisfy the demand for the three aforementioned parameters: – An interpretation must show how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes (so P1 and P2); – An interpretation must show how the function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, in relation to Yhwh, functions similarly in relation to the human characters in narrative texts of the HB, thus showing human acquisition of divine knowledge (Gen 3:6–7; so P1 and P2); – An interpretation must demonstrate how ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is reasonably prohibited by Yhwh on pain of death in the narrative (so P3). When these criteria are used while holding to the aforementioned parameters, then the most reasonable interpretation will come to the fore. In the following chapters, I will employ these criteria as my methodological approach, remaining within the three previously mentioned parameters above in order to answer the core question of this study regarding what is the most reasonable interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. Finally, it must be stated that my primary exegetical work will be relegated to the book of Genesis and the books of the DtrH in order to remain methodologically sound. The choice to relegate my exegetical work to these texts is based upon the following reasons. The first reason is due to the fact that the EN is ‘narrative’ much like the majority of Genesis and the DtrH. The second reason concerns the justification of considering the DtrH. Due to the shared themes and theology between the EN and the DtrH, I suggest that certain permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ in the latter can shed new light upon the former (see § 4.2.2 below). The third reason is on account of the history of research, wherein seven of the most oft-cited passages as support come from Genesis and the DtrH. Three of those passages come directly from the Throne Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20 & 1 Kgs 1–2). For these reasons, I will mostly remain within the texts of Genesis and the DtrH. However, within footnotes and other excursus sections, I will employ similar exegesis from other texts throughout the HB in order to show support for my own interpretation. Nevertheless, I contend that an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the EN, its surrounding context (including the rest of Genesis), and within narrative segments of the DtrH, will suffice as support for my proposed interpretation. The bulk of the wisdom literature of the HB is not narrative, and thus I will not provide direct exegetical work upon ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬therein. Yet there will be a few references and footnotes to passages from the wisdom literature that I contend lend support to my proposed interpretation. I may, at a future time, widen my study to include exegetical work within the wisdom literature as well. In any case, a myriad of studies regarding the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as wisdom—studies

72

History of Research & Methodology   

with direct exegetical work within the wisdom literature itself—already exist. For some of these key studies, see my section on the interpretation of wisdom above (§ 2.2.3, esp. n. 58).

2.4.1 ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh Before turning to my exegetical work, I must first demonstrate what I mean regarding an analysis of the function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes. The most oft referenced passages in the above history of research come from only a relatively small number of scriptures: Gen 31:24, 29; 2 Sam 14:17, 2 Sam 19:36, 1 Kgs 3:9, Deut 1:39, and Isa 7:15–16. The main priority and emphasis placed upon these passages by interpreters are due to the appearance of a Hebrew phrase that is in some sense similar to ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, “the knowledge of good and evil,” in Gen 2:9; similar to ‫ידעי טוב ורע‬, “knowers of good and evil,” in Gen 3:5; or similar to ‫לדעת טוב ורע‬, “knowing good and evil,” in Gen 3:22. So, for example, in 2 Sam 14:17, the Hebrew phrase, ‫לשמע הטוב והרע‬, “hearing the good and the evil,” provides a point of comparison (for many of the above interpreters) between the EN’s divine knowledge and these other texts of the HB. The same is true of 2 Sam 19:36, where the Hebrew phrase, ‫אנכי היום האדע בין־טוב לרע‬, “Can I, this day, know [the difference] between good and evil?” in the mouth of the character Barzillai, provides an inner biblical allusion as a starting point for these commentators, who seek to interpret the meaning of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. I have no major contention with this starting point of comparison. Nonetheless, the narrative scope and context of such a comparison is far too narrow to provide the interpretive data needed in order to give a full accounting of the meaning inherent in these phrases regarding ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬. To keep this discussion concise for concluding remarks, I will only focus upon the oft-cited passage of 2 Sam 14:17 since in choosing it, I will demonstrate how this comparison with ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬ in the EN is too narrow without considering first permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ in the entirety of the the TSN. In addition to this narrow scope, I will also show in the following example how this material from the DtrH (and the TSN more specifically) can illuminate an interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. This passage (2 Sam 14:17) occurs in the narrative segment regarding the wise woman of Tekoa, who, on the behalf of Joab, confronts king David with having unjustly (so Joab) continued the exile of his own son, Absalom, who murdered his brother, Amnon, on account of Amnon’s crime against their sister, Tamar.184 However, even this short and basic description of the context of this passage is often overlooked in the above history of research. Moreover, and what I stress is most pressing, is the absence of the greater context of 2 Sam 14 within the Throne 184 For my own exegetical and interpretive work on this particular segment, see § 7.3.4 below.

Methodological Approach and Concluding Thoughts   

73

Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20 & 1 Kgs 1–2) in the history of research.185 This latter point regarding the TSN is not to be diminished, for an accounting of all of the permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 2 Samuel shows that within the David story, said permutations are central to the movement of the narrative. For example, a lexical search in all of 2 Samuel reveals that between 2 Sam 1–8 and 2 Sam 21–24 (twelve chapters), there are a total of ten permutations of both the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬combined. Within the narrative segment of 2 Sam 9–20 (twelve chapters; the TSN), the combined permutation total of these same lexemes is thirty-seven. Thus, I suggest that the exegete widen the contextual scope to include other occurrences of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the TSN in order to provide further data to interpret ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. If we consider an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes (so P2), within a close contextual range of 2 Sam 14:17, then 2 Sam 11:27 and 2 Sam 12:11 come to the fore. In 2 Sam 11, the narrative movement is focused upon David’s crime of having taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite, only to have him (Uriah) murdered by the sword of the Ammonites in order to hide his earlier ‘taking’ (‫ )לקח‬of Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife. Furthermore, at the end of 2 Sam 11, David instructs his commander, Joab, not to let this thing—the murder of Uriah!—be ‘evil’ in his [Joab’s] eyes (2 Sam 11:25, ‫)אל־ירע בעיניך את־הדבר הזה‬. In 2 Sam 11:27, the narrator reveals that the very thing that David did to Uriah was ‘evil’ in the eyes of Yhwh (‫וירע הדבר אשר־עשה דוד‬ ‫ )בעיני ה׳‬and by the next chapter (2 Sam 12:11), Nathan the prophet speaks an indictment with divine sanctions against David, stating that Yhwh is going to bring “evil / misfortune” (‫ )רעה‬upon David from his own household, as punishment for his (David’s) crimes against Uriah the Hittite.186 The biblical comparison of these three passages (2 Sam 11:25, 27, and 12:11) with the EN is possible, wherein both the human characters (David warning Joab) and Yhwh (judging David’s crime) ‘see with their eyes’ a deed as being ‘evil’ (permutation of Hebrew lexeme, ‫)רעע‬. In the EN, this could be said to be reminiscent of the immediate result of acquiring a divine knowledge of ‫ טוב ורע‬where the text states that their ‘eyes are opened’ (Gen 3:5, 7).187 More important is to note that Yhwh, after evaluating David’s deed as being ‘evil’ (‫)וירע…בעיני ה׳‬, then declares in the narrative confrontation through the prophet that he will bring “disaster / calamity / evil” (‫ )רעה‬upon David (2 Sam 12:11) from David’s own household as punishment for his crimes against Uriah the Hittite. Furthermore, it is just such “disaster / calamity / evil” (‫)רעה‬ 185 Cf. Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil,” 41–60, who does indeed emphasize good and evil in the whole of the TSN. Moving forward, I will supplement TSN for Throne Succession Narrative. 186 See my final chapter 7 below. 187 A similar interpretive move is made by one commentator above, who perceives an allusion to this literary motif of the eyes in Balaam’s ability to bless only when he can see his objects of blessing (Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 462; Müller, Mythos – Kerygma – Warheit, 78).

74

History of Research & Methodology   

that leads to the exile of Absalom in 2 Sam 13 and Joab’s ruse in 2 Sam 14. Thus, if one is to see a bridge of comparison between 2 Sam 14:17 and the EN, especially regarding a discussion about how to interpret the divine knowledge of ‫טוב ורע‬ in the EN, then one must also consider the significance of 2 Sam 11:25, 27, and 2 Sam 12:11. If 2 Sam 14:17 is saying something about divine knowledge in the context of Absalom’s exile, then it is only reasonable that within the immediate context of 2 Samuel 11–14, any permutation of ‫ טוב‬or ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, would also be significant for interpreting the divine knowledge of ‫ טוב ורע‬assumed in 2 Sam 14:17. The above suggestion is simply one example from the history of research; however, I contend that it demonstrates quite well how the second parameter (P2) set above is practically missing from the history of research.188 Therefore, in my exegetical work on 2 Samuel, I will show that the whole of the David story is essential for any interpreter who uses 2 Sam 14:17 to help inform their interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. In other words, one of the primary difficulties to be addressed in my work is to provide a thorough consideration and analysis into how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, within the EN, Genesis, and the books of the DtrH. In this survey of the history of research, it is clear that this comprehensive analysis of the many permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬has not been considered in the many methodological approaches of interpretation regarding this phrase in the EN, even though the primary texts referenced for support are garnered from the books of Genesis, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and Deuteronomy. Thus, the primary research question that situates this project and the exegetical investigation to follow is: How would an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the EN, in the remainder of the book of Genesis, and in narrative sections of the DtrH, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these lexemes, shed new light upon the interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬in the EN? However, before answering this question by turning to the EN and the required contextual analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬therein (chapter 4 below), I will first consider the needed background information regarding the ancient Near East and this particular discussion.

188 For example, Isa 45:11 is little represented in the work of the commentators on the whole, save for one commentator to my knowledge (Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 126).

3. Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds 3.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will explore the ancient Near Eastern backgrounds and themes that are pertinent to this research. Before considering how certain permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function in the EN, the rest of Genesis, and in the books of the DtrH, we must first consider the function of the same within the greater ancient Near Eastern milieu from which the HB comes. This chapter is divided into two sections, the first of which (§ 3.2) focuses upon divine retribution in the HB, followed by a focus upon the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution as a structuring element to ancient Near Eastern historiography. The second section (§ 3.3) considers blessing and cursing in the ancient Near East, specifically with regard to how the words meaning ‘good’ and ‘bad / evil’ function in these literary texts to connote divine retribution, mediated through blessing and cursing as legal sanctions for obedient / moral and disobedient / immoral behavior. The primary reason for the consideration of these themes in the ANE is as follows: Although my interpretation (see § 4.5 below) for ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN—i. e., the knowledge of good and evil as the knowledge for administering reward and punishment—is evident from a primary exegetical study of the HB alone (see chapters 4 through 7), I consider it imprudent to discuss ‫ טוב‬and ‫( רעע‬good and bad / evil) in light of divine retribution and blessing and cursing in the HB without first grounding the reader in a wider understanding of what these themes and terms meant within the cultural milieu of these ancient peoples. In other words, other texts from the ANE shed important light upon the topics of good and evil, divine retribution, and blessing and cursing in the HB. That being said, this present chapter is, practically speaking, supplemental to the remaining research, and so, if my reader desires to move forward with the exegetical work in this research, then they should immediately turn to chapter 4, Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative.

3.2 Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East Based upon the various textual traditions of the ANE, it can be assumed that one of the most basic phenomenological notions of human experience for the ancient person is that of retribution enacted through human agency. As H. W.F. Saggs writes in his 1978 article: “Despite the considerable differences between the structures of the two societies [i. e., Mesopotamia and Israel], in both of them a man was able to recognize a direct relationship between human evil-doing and human

76

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

retribution.”1 Unexplainable to these ancients apropos this observation was, of course, the experience of some ‘evils’ “which had no apparent human activation” but had to be (so the ancient Near Easterner assumed) activated “by some will,” divine or otherwise.2 Furthermore, P. Steinkeller states that, “It is fair to make a generalization that the concepts of ‘luck’ and ‘fortune,’ at least as autonomous, self-generating phenomena, were essentially alien notions to ancient peoples.”3 As is quite well known to any student of these ancient Near Eastern texts, the varying interpretations of this notion of ‘evils’ as retribution—within the categories of ‘divine or otherwise’—is quite vast.4 In the HB, the motif of Yhwh as the one responsible for divine retribution is indicative of the ancient Near Eastern understanding of the ‘will’ as explanation for certain experiences of ‘good or bad’ in the context of reward and punishment.5 That being said, divine retribution—as it appears as a literary motif in the many narrative texts of the HB—as having emanated from the ‘will’ of Yhwh, has evolved, morphed, and devolved again into a diverse body of scholarly opinion, wherein some retain the notion that Yhwh in the HB is actively involved in retribution, while others postulate a more ‘deistic’ interpretation of retributive agency.6 In recent decades, some critical exegetes have suggested that retribution in the HB is inherently an act-consequence model, wherein there is absent a divine agent from which retribution comes; the act itself is the seed of the consequent result. Thus, I must begin this section by focusing upon ‘Retribution Theology’ in HB scholarship, addressing its main premise in rejecting divine agency as the source for retribution in the texts of the HB. Then I will consider the retribution principle of the ANE and how one scholar has articulated its function in ancient Near Eastern texts, with special attention given to its role in the HB as a “hermeneutical device” used in an “emergent attempt” at Hebrew historiography (§ 3.2.2).7 Following this overview, I will then provide examples of said ‘principle’ in ancient Near Eastern texts and in the HB (§ 3.2.2.1 and § 3.2.3.2). Finally, I will conclude this section by considering how ‘good and 1 H. W. F. Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel, JLCRS XII (London: The Athlone Press, 1978), 93. 2 Ibid., The Encounter with the Divine, 93–94. 3 Piotr Steinkeller, “Luck, Fortune, and Destiny in Ancient Mesopotamia—Or How the Sumerians and Babylonians Thought of Their Place in the Flow of Things,” in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Warsaw, 21–25 July 2014, eds. Olga Drewnowska and Malgorzata Sandowicz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 5. 4 For example, the curse was often thought to become a force all its own after activation. See esp., my discussion of Anne Marie Kitz’s work below § 3.3. 5 However, it the will of Yhwh is not the explanation posited by the HB for every experience of ‘good or bad’ in the human realm. 6 Remembering that retribution refers to both ‘reward and punishment.’ 7 Daniel Bodi, Demise of the Warlord: A New Look at the David Story, HBM 26 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010), 195.

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

77

evil’ function within the framework of this more broadly considered notion of human and divine retribution in these ancient texts (§ 3.2.3). In this way, I will be situating this pursuit of a definition of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬firmly within 1) retribution literary motifs in the HB, and 2) the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution widely attested throughout the ANE.

3.2.1 Retribution Theology and the Problem of Divine Agency In his 1955 article, K. Koch offered a monumental thesis that challenged the scholarly consensus of his day that there exists in the HB an observable literary motif of retribution as enacted, in primacy, through divine agency.8 In that thesis, Koch argues that instead of a theology of retribution in a juridical sense, wherein Yhwh is responsible for reward and punishment grounded within an “established norm,” he contends that there exists in the HB the notion that a good or bad act blossoms into its physical consequence under the “facilitation” of Yhwh.9 Put another way, retribution is not “a legal act of God imposed from outside the human realm” but results from within the human realm itself through a domain conceptually described and uniquely phrased by Koch as, “die schicksalwirkender Tatsphäre,” which is best understood to be “the powerful sphere of influence.”10 Within this ‘sphere of influence,’ human acts of good and bad produce good and bad consequences due to their inherent seed-like properties. Yhwh is therefore only something akin to a “midwife” (Hebammendienst) “facilitating the completion of something which previous human action has already set in motion.”11 Most important to note presently is that Koch rejects the idea that Yhwh is a judge who rewards and punishes in a “juridical sense.”12 Thus, Yhwh, according to Koch, is more like a farmer tending to a planted seed, which produces a crop,

8 Klaus Koch, “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?,” ZTK 52 (1955): 1–42; Ibid., “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?,” in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw, IRT 4 (London: SPCK, 1983), 57–87. 9 Ibid., “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament,” 5, and Ibid., “Retribution in the Old Testament,” 60–61. 10 Robert L. Hubbard, “Is the ‘Tatsphäre’ Always a Sphere?,” JETS 25 (1982): 257; Koch, “Retribution in the Old Testament,” 82, and Ibid., “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament,” 37. Cf. Hubbard’s translation of Koch’s, ‘die schichksalwirkender Tatsphäre,’ as “the dynamic process” (Hubbard, “Tatsphäre Always a Sphere,” 257, n. 3); Karel van der Toorn, Sin and sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study, SSN 22 (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1985), 53. 11 Koch, “Retribution in the Old Testament,” 61, and Ibid., “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament,” 5. 12 Ibid., “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament,” 5, and Ibid., “Retribution in the Old Testament,” 60–61.

78

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

and less like the judge in our legal, “Western way of thinking” (abendländischem Rechtsdenken).13 Koch’s thesis has received both support and criticism from the wider scholarly community. J. Gammie, in 1970, considers Koch’s thesis in light of the literary motif of retribution in the book of Deuteronomy.14 Gammie’s article is very important in this discussion precisely because he demonstrates that there already existed by 1970 division within the scholarly debate regarding Koch’s thesis of mechanical retribution.15 There is no need to restate Gammie’s section in his article here (see footnote 14). However, one of the most important criticisms against Koch’s thesis—given by E. Pax in 1960—is that Koch does not state explicitly in his work a definition for retribution, which Pax goes on to define as, “… als die lohnende und strafende Reaktion Gottes auf die guten und schlechten Taten des Menschen,” which is translated as, “the rewarding and punishing reaction of God to the good and bad deeds of men”; a definition with which I am in agreement.16 In summarizing Koch’s critics, Gammie states: Thus, we have observed that most of Koch’s critics give him full credit for having rediscovered a previously hidden primitive notion of retribution which borders on the magical. All of them go on, however, to assert that the magical, mechanical and more impersonal sphere is replaced by more personal conceptions.

As Gammie rightly notes, Koch’s response (in an additional article) to these critiques was to lighten his emphasis upon the ‘mechanical’ interpretation, wherein 13 Ibid., “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament,” 4, 22, and Ibid., “Retribution in the Old Testament,” 59, 74. See too, Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, trans. James D. Martin (London: SCM, 1972), 124–137; John Barton, “Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament,” JTS 30 (1979): 10. There are plenty of examples that Koch provides from the HB to make his point. Since my work is not dealing directly with Koch’s thesis per se, I do not find it necessary to include exegetical or critical comment upon Koch’s own exegetical work. As can be gleaned from the footnotes to follow, the literature is already replete with regard to such endeavors. 14 John G. Gammie, “Theology of Retribution in the Book of Deuteronomy,” CBQ 32 (1970): 1–12. In that section, Gammie surveys some of Koch’s main critics from that time, e.g., F. Horst, “Recht und Religion im Bereich des AT,” EvT 16 (1956): 49–75; Joseph Scharbert, “šlm im Alten Testament,” in Lex tua veritas: Festschrift fur Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 8. August 1961, dargeboten von Kollegen, Freunden und Schulern, eds. Hubert Junker, Heinrich Gross and Franz Mussner (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1961), 209–229, and Ibid., “Das Verbum pqd in der Theologie des AT,” in Um das Prinzip der Vergeltung in Religion und Rech des Alten Testaments, ed. Klaus Koch, WF 125 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972), 278–99, first published in Ibid., “Das Verbum pqd in der Theologie des AT,” BZ 4 (1960): 209–26; Henning Graf Reventlow, “Sein Blut komme über sein Haupt,” VT 10 (1960): 311–27. 15 See Gammie, “Theology of Retribution,” 1–5. 16 E. Pax, “Studien zum Vergeltungsproblem des Psalmen,” SBFLA 11 (1960): 62; for the quoted translation above, see Gammie, “Theology of Retribution,” 3–4; see too, Josef G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, BBB 26 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1967), 199–200.

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

79

he suggests that “God is understood to be a co-worker” in the process of retribution. This revised “mechanical” interpretation was in contradistinction to the understanding of Yhwh as a “judge,” especially with regard to blood guilt and the Hebrew phrase, ‫( דמו בו‬see e.g., 1 Kgs 2:32).17 Gammie suggests that Koch is correct in identifying an inherent connection between human action for good or bad and its ‘magical’ consequent; however, he [Koch] is incorrect, according to Gammie, to suggest that the HB rejects the notion of divine agency in the process of retribution, and contends that in Deuteronomy such a notion is supported by the text, even to the level of personal and communal “reward and punishment,” as both Gammie and Plöger noted in their respective articles.18 Since 1970, Koch’s main thesis has remained, on the one hand, both influential and informative, even if, on the other hand, contradicted and severely critiqued. For example, in his 1971 article, W. Towner writes, “Like it or not, there is a notion of divine retribution in the Old Testament which presents God as one who intervenes in human affairs to punish those who anger him.”19 Regarding Deut 8:5, a text that states Yhwh disciplines Israel as a parent disciplines a child, H. Saggs writes, “Thus the idea developed that divine sending of what appeared to be evil was not necessarily a mere automatic punishment for sin, but could be a mark of God’s concern for the individual.”20 In a study devoted to “Wisdom Psalms,” J. Kuntz, in 1977, argues that a “dominant theological dimension” of said psalms assumes “a conscious agent who justly oversees the bestowing of reward and punishment” in contradistinction to “an automatic act-consequence relationship.”21 Moreover, in 1979, J. Barton assessed that “it is probably fair to regard Koch’s interpretation of poetic justice in the Old Testament as largely unsuccessful,” while still postulating 17 Gammie, “Theology of Retribution,” 5, and Klaus Koch, “Der Spruch “Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt” und die israelitische Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut,” VT 12 (1962): 396–416. Koch’s article is primarily a response to Reventlow, “Sein Blut,” 311–327. Cf. Paul Raabe, Obadiah, AB 24D (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 196, regarding 1  Kgs 2:32–33: “The parallelism of v 32 and v 33 reveals that the idea does not preclude the notion of divine retribution, as if it were a quasi-immanental process of one’s fate flowing out of one’s deed (pace Koch 1955). Rather, v 32 speaks of Yhwh bringing the crime back upon the guilty party and thus of divine retribution. The two ideas are complementary and not mutually exclusive.” Compare Yitzaq Feder, “The Mechanics of Retribution in Hittite, Mesopotamian, and ancient Israelite Sources,” JANER 10 (2010): esp. 138–149. 18 Gammie, “Theology of Retribution,” 6 and Plöger, Literarkritische, 200; Pax, “Studien zum Vergeltungsproblem,” 62. 19 W. Sibley Towner, “Retributional Theology in the Apocalyptic Setting,” USQR 26 (1971): 204–205. 20 Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine, 123. 21 J. K. Kuntz, “Retribution Motif in Psalmic Wisdom,” ZAW 9 (1977): 232; Ed Noort, “Yhwh und das Böse. Bemerkungen zu einer Verhältnisbestimmung,” in Prophets, Worship and Theodicy: Papers read at the join British-Dutch Old Testament conference held at Woudschoten, OtSt XXIII (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 131; Dohmen and Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:586, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:609–610; see esp. Feder, “Mechanics of Retribution,” 119–157.

80

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

that Koch’s “important data,” if provided a more fruitful explanation of Koch’s main hypothesis, might lead to formulating and discerning something akin to “natural law in the Old Testament.”22 Yet as Barton demonstrated, such a “detection” only derives from the notion of a God who, having a “consistent and moral character,” acts like a human judge, causing the “punishment to fit the crime,” which, incidentally, is consistent with OT texts.23 Moreover, R. Murphy suggests that although Koch’s thesis has merit within the biblical material, one cannot deny that within the same material, there is an overwhelming sense of God’s “reaction” to the good and bad actions of humanity.24 Finally, in his excellent survey and critique of Koch’s main thesis in 2004, S. Chapman states that Koch’s “restriction of God’s activity to guaranteeing the results of ‘natural laws’ sounds much more like the Enlightenment than the ANE!”25 Thus, Koch’s thesis does raise some important and invaluable points regarding a wide range of texts within the HB; however, the scholarly consensus remains that many texts in the HB attest to the notion that Yhwh is the active agent of retribution, i. e., the “rewarding and punishing” of human good and evil deeds.26 As it will be demonstrated throughout this study, the many permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the HB, when Yhwh is the subject or cause of said permutations, clearly supports the notion that Yhwh is considered in the text to be the active agent of retribution. Such a claim is vital to my thesis, which argues that the divine knowledge of ‫ טוב ורע‬in the EN is the divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment. A very simple example of how these lexemes function, with Yhwh as the subject in a context of retribution, can be garnered from Judg 3:12: ‫ויספו בני ישראל לעשות הרע בעיני ה׳ ויחזק ה׳ את־עגלון מלך־מואב על־ישראל על כי־עשו את־הרע‬ ‫בעיני ה׳‬ Then the children of Israel continued to commit evil in the eyes of Yhwh; and so Yhwh strengthened Eglon, king of Moab against Israel, for they had committed evil in the eyes of Yhwh. 22 Barton, “Natural Law and Poetic Justice,” 11, 13. 23 Ibid., “Natural Law and Poetic Justice,” 12. 24 Roland E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1996), 117; Lennart Boström, The God of the Sages: The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs, CBOT 29 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990), 94–95. 25 Stephen B. Chapman, “Reading the Bible as Witness: Divine Retribution in the Old Testament,” PRSt 31 (2004): 182. Chapman remains sympathetic, however, to Koch’s thesis throughout the remainder of his very instructive article. 26 Temba L. J. Mafico, “Just, Justice,” ABD 3:1,128: “In the OT, God’s justice is manifested in his retribution to all people and nations according to their just deserts.” See also, Angel Marzal, “The Provincial Governor at Mari: His Title and Appointment,” JNES 30 (1971): 190, 196–97, who contends that “the notion of ‘judging’ precedes that of ‘governing,’” as stated and cited by Daniel Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History: Yasmaḫ-Addu’s Letter to Nergal (ARM I 3) and Adad’s Message to Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968),” ARAM 26 (2014): 289, n. 15.

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

81

In this particular instance, Yhwh is responsible for the retribution enacted against ‫בני ישראל‬. The text employs the standard Dtr phrase of evaluation, which often (but not always) contains a permutation of the Hebrew lexeme, ‫רעע‬. In this case, the phrase, ‫הרע בעיני ה׳‬, “evil in the eyes of Yhwh,” is the evaluation of Yhwh that leads to the subsequent retribution of Israel’s subjugation by an enemy and which could be classified as a divine curse of the covenant; a curse enacted as punishment for disloyalty to covenantal obligations.27 Although the retributive result is not described by the text using a permutation of ‫רעע‬, I suggest that in theory, it could be described in that way.28 Consider, for example, Deut 32:23: ‫אספה עלימו רעות חצי אכלה־בם‬ I will multiply against them evils, use up my arrows on them.29

This particular passage undoubtedly shows how a permutation of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ רעע‬refers to the curses of Deuteronomy 28, and of which, Yhwh is the subject of the sentence. In any case, the punitive result of subjugation by the king of Moab in Judg 3:12 is considered in the narrative to be the reaction of Yhwh to the ‫ רע‬of the covenanted people as judged by the eyes of Yhwh. Regarding the active agency of Yhwh having a bearing on retribution, this particular text is quite obviously in disagreement with Koch’s thesis of mechanical retribution, especially when the matrix of interpretation includes the Deuteronomic law-code that at the most basic level exists within a covenantal and ancient Near Eastern legal framework.30 However, what is vital to the larger discussion of this research is the fact that the text employs literary motifs of retribution to explain the strengthening of Eglon, king of Moab, against Israel. This particular way of interpreting ‘historical’ events in the ANE is known to scholars as the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, which I suggest—especially apropos the dichotomy created by Koch’s thesis concerning ‘mechanical retribution’ and ‘retribution through

27 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 339; cf. Deut 28:20, 48. 28 E.g., 2 Sam 12:11aαβ. 29 See e.g., Deut 31:17, 21, 29; Amos 3:6; Mic 4:6; Lam 3:38. 30 Being part of the DtrH, it most certainly does. There are times in which my work will show how Koch’s thesis of mechanical retribution, although assumed by the authors to have been activated by Yhwh, is confirmed to a degree, which Koch admits especially with regard to the ‘midwife’ allusion discussed above. Suffice it to say, what Koch calls ‘magical’ and ‘mechanical,’ both ancient Near Eastern texts and the HB call divine ‘blessing and cursing’ (see § 3.2.4 and § 3.3 below). Consider, too, Feder’s erudite conclusion to his very helpful study: “In our analysis of Mesopotamian and Hittite oaths, through consideration of grammatical forms, orthographic conventions, etymology and semantic transitions, we have uncovered a process through which the mechanistic conception has emerged from an earlier theistic scheme” (Feder, “Mechanics of Retribution,” 149).

82

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

divine agency’—is the moderator needed to bring further clarity between these two extremes within this particular debate.

3.2.2 The Retribution Principle as an Historiographical Hermeneutical Device A common feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is the structuring element known as the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. As Daniel Bodi states in a more recently published article regarding this notion, “The view of history as the outworking of a retributive principle is common to all the major cultures of the Mediterranean seashore.”31 By using the phrase “hermeneutical principle,” Bodi is suggesting that calamitous events, as well as times of great prosperity and peace, were interpreted by the ancients to be talionic retribution from the divine realm. For example, if city X suffers from severe drought, the retribution principle, as a hermeneutical device, would possibly suggest an interpretation that city X is suffering said drought by divine will due to an offense of some kind. The same is true regarding a time of great prosperity for city X. That ancient Near Eastern cultures interpreted some prosperous times and some calamitous events according to this principle is precisely what Bodi means by “hermeneutical device.” What is more important for my thesis is Bodi’s suggestion that in Hebrew historiography, the retribution principle is the “main structuring element in the presentation of historical events,” and too, this ‘structuring element’ is evident precisely because the Hebrew tradition shares in this hermeneutical principle of the “ancient Near Eastern way of interpreting history.”32 As T. Frymer-Kensky suggests, talionic retribution possibly found its way into Mesopotamia via the migration of the West Semites.33 She writes: 31 Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 285; Ibid., Warlord, 206, 208: “The kernel of the retribution principle is already found in Old Babylonian Amorite texts…. It is more plausible to view the retribution principle as an indigenous Northwest Semitic hermeneutical device, transmitted as a traditional Weltanschauung of the Bedouin and nomadic tribes in the Syro-Palestinian geographical area.” See too, Robin Cover, “Sin, Sinners (OT),” ABD 6:39. 32 Bodi, Warlord, 195, 208. Historiography can be broadly defined as “the recounting of the past.” See Albert K. Grayson, Thomas L. Thompson and Donald Lateiner, “Historiography,” ABD 3:205–219 (205); Lester L. Grabbe, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?, rev. and enl. ed. (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 26–31. 33 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical Law,” BA 43 (1980): 230–234, esp., 233: “The fact that talionic principles first appear in the Old Babylonian period as the basis for determining the appropriate penalties for these offenses and the similarity of this procedure to that known from the Bible may indicate that these innovations were perhaps reflections of the new ideas introduced into Mesopotamian thought in the wake of the West Semitic migrations.” See also, Samuel Greengus, “Laws,” ABD 4:248–249; David P. Wright, “David Autem Remansit In Hierusalem: Felix Coniunctio!,” in Pomegranates

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

83

The West Semites, far from being barbarians who carefully learned the culture of Mesopotamia, were themselves the bearers of a rich cultural tradition and had a major impact on future civilizations—an influence both direct, through their descendants, the Hebrews, and also indirect, through their contribution to the tremendously influential culture of Babylon.34

Thus, Bodi rightly contends that through a shared “Weltanschauung of the Bedouin and nomadic tribes in the Northwest Semitic world,” this particular hermeneutical principle was used by authors to describe and interpret calamitous events as divine retribution adjudicated by the gods in response to human conduct.35 Before considering how it is that this hermeneutical principle is employed in the HB, most importantly with regard to permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, I must first provide several examples from both the ANE and the HB that show intelligibly this phenomenon of the retribution principle.

3.2.2.1 Examples of the Retribution Principle in ANE Texts In this sub-section, I will only provide three examples that will help to situate this project with keen awareness of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in the ANE. These examples are taken from Bodi’s work on this subject. a) From the Mari Archive, 18th c. BCE: ARM I 336 In a letter (probably) written to the god, Nergal, Yasmaḫ-Addu seeks to clear himself and his family of any wrong doing by sending petition for justification to the deity, stating his case therein. In that petition, there are four instances of the retribution principle that will help to demonstrate this literary phenomenon. In lines 1–7, one statement refers to the hypothetical retributive action of a deity against a transgressive human: (1) [a-na dnè-eri]-gal pa-al-ḫ i-im ša ke-em iq-bé-em (2) [qí-bí]-ma (3) [um-m]a ia-ás-ma-aḫ -diškur (4) ìr-ka ù pa-li-iḫ-ka-a-ma (5) iš-tu ṣí-ti-ia ma-am-ma-an and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, eds. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 215–230. 34 Frymer-Kensky, “Tit for Tat,” 233–34; Bodi, Warlord, 208. 35 Ibid., Warlord, 8 and 192. 36 See Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 288–90. For transcription and translation, Bodi follows D. Charpin and J. M. Durand, “La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim,” MARI 4 (1985): 293–343 (339–342); cf. Albert K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, TCS 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 43–45, 145–51; Jack M. Sasson, From the Mari Archives: An Anthology of Old Babylonian Letters (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 238.

84

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

(6) [š]a a-na dingir ú-ga-a[l]-li-lu ú-ul i-ba-aš-ši (7) ka-lu-šu me-a ša dingir-ma ú-ka-al (1) [To Nerg]al, the feared one, who thus spoke to me, (2) say, (3) Thus Yasmaḫ-Addu, (4) your servant and the one who fears you: (5) “Ever since I was born, whoever (6) sinned against the god existed no more (i. e., perished) (7) everyone observes divine instructions.37

As is demonstrated in lines 5–7, Yasmaḫ-Addu affirms the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution by stating that there is a link between human perishing and sinning against “the god.”38 In line 6, the word translated by Bodi as ‘sinned’ and by Sasson as ‘transgressed’ is the Akkadian, gullulum, “to commit a sin.”39 The result of transgressing against a deity, in the observation of Yasmaḫ-Addu and the Amorite view of history, is that said violator perishes (ūl ibāšši, “certainly existed no more”) presumably by the will of the deity.40 Thus, according to the religious views of the Amorites in 18th c. BCE Mari, and the sort of interpretation of events employed in these texts, to sin against a god could incur divine retribution from said deity, and in this particular case, the retributive act is synonymous with human perishing. The second instance in ARM I 3 that helps to demonstrate the retribution principle intelligibly are lines 11–14: (11) [m]i-la-kab-ka-bu-ú a-na ia-gi-id-li-im (12) [ú]-ul ù-ga-al-li-il5 (13) [m][ia-gi]id-li-im a-na i-la-kab-ka-bu-ú (14) ù-[ga]-al-li-il5 te-el-qé-e-ma ta-ša-al-šu (11) Ilā-Kabkabū against Yagid-Līm (12) committed no wrong (13) but it was Yagid-Līm who, against Ilā-Kabkabū (14) committed wrong. You undertook to call him to account.41

In these few lines of the letter, Yasmaḫ-Addu condemns Yagid-Līm for having previously “committed wrong” (D-Stem, gullulum) against Ilā-Kabkabū with regard

37 For this transcription and translation see, Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 288. 38 Cf. Sasson’s translation of “God” to Bodi’s “the god,” (Sasson, From the Mari Archives, 238). 39 So Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 288 and too, n. 12; CAD, G, 131. 40 See CAD, B, 144. 41 For this transcription and translation, see Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 288.

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

85

to the “strong oath of the god sworn between them.”42 By recounting this trespass of the sworn agreement, Yasmaḫ-Addu then suggests that the deity intervened to call Yagid-Līm to account. This Akkadian phrase in line 14, telqēma tašālšu, translated, “you called him to account,” demonstrates how the Akkadian verb, šâlum, can be used in judicial contexts, especially when the verb appears with an accusative of person.43 J. Sasson contends that this phrase, “you called him to account,” is, to use his words, “for the purpose of carrying on justice.”44 In this second instance, it is observable that Yasmaḫ-Addu, in an interpretation of history, understands the deity to have intervened in human affairs, administering justice with regard to a breach of an agreement between Yagid-Līm and Ilā-Kabkabū. What is more, in lines 15–17, Yasmaḫ-Addu states the specific act of retribution that followed this known breach of the agreement: (15) [ù a-na] i-di i-la-kab-ka-bu-ú ta-al-li-ik-ma (16) m[i-la-ka]b-ka-bu-ú bàd-šu iq-qú-ur (17) [ù dumu-š]u ia-aḫ -du-li-im ik-šu-ud (15) You walked on the side of Ilā-Kabkabū. (16) Ilā-Kabkabū destroyed his fortress, (17) [and] captured [the son] of Yaḫdun-Līm.45

In this third instance, Yasmaḫ-Addu interprets Ilā-Kabkabū’s own act of retribution against Yagid-Līm as indication of Nergal’s “calling into account” of the latter’s wrong doing against Ilā-Kabkabū. The point to stress here is that the retribution principle, through which Yasmaḫ-Addu is interpreting Amorite history, assumes, at least on one level, divine retributive agency through the successful act of human retribution, which in this case, involves Ilā-Kabkabū destroying the fortress of Yaḫdun-Līm and capturing his son.46 Thus, according to Amorite texts interpreting history, retribution is not simply a mechanical reaction inherent in nature,

42 Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 288, lines 9–10. 43 For these insights and for the normalization of telqēma tašālšu, see Jack M. Sasson, “Yarim-Lim’s War Declaration,” in Miscellanea Babylonica. Mélanges offerts à M. Birot, eds. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1985), 242; Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 288, n. 14. 44 Sasson, “War Declaration,” 242. 45 For this transcription and translation, see Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 289. 46 Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 292, section e: “The operation of the retribution principle in the enfolding of events is common both to the Amorite and to the Hebrew view of history. As stated in ARM I 3, in the past, Yasmaḫ-Addu’s grandfather Ilā-Kabkabū, the Benjaminite, and Yagid-Līm, the Bensimʾalite, had exchanged binding oaths, which means that they had contracted an alliance. However, since Yagid-Līm broke his word, the god had given his backing to Ilā-Kabkabū, who destroyed the fortress of his former ally, Yagid-Līm, and apparently captured his son, Yaḫdun-Līm (l. 17).”

86

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

but allows, so to speak, both human and divine agency to be present in the act of “carrying on justice” (i. e., the act of human / divine retribution). In another example of this same phenomenon, the two parties involved in a dispute are a human ruler and the deity, Nergal, himself. In lines 6’-11’, Yasmaḫ-Addu interprets history according to the retribution principle: (6’) msu-mu-ia-ma-am qa-tam [š]a a-bi-[š]u-ma (7’) mia-aḫ -du-un-li-im ir-ḫ [ú-u]b i-[t]e-[e]p-pu-ša-am (8’) ù la ši-na-ti i-na qa-ti-š[u i-pu-úš]-ma (9’) é-ka ša lugal-meš pa-nu-ut-tum i-[pu-šu] iq-qú-ur é dam-ni / i-pu-úš (10’) ta-al-li-ik-ma ta-ša-al-[š]u ù ìr-meš-šu-ma (11’) i-du-ku-šu (6’) Sūmū-Yamam continued to do exactly like (7’) his father Yaḫdun-Līm (8’) and with his hands did outrageous things: (9’) your temple which former kings made, he destroyed and made it into a house for his wife (10’) You undertook to call him to account, (11’) and his servants killed him.47

In this instance, Sūmū-Yamam is evaluated by Yasmaḫ-Addu as having committed “outrageous things” (lā šināti), one of which being the destruction of a temple of Nergal, which he then built into a house for his wife. By committing such an egregious act against a god, one could expect a retributive act of justice to follow, which is precisely how Yasmaḫ-Addu interprets the death of Sūmū-Yamam at the hands of his own servants, who killed him (11’, i-du-ku-šu). The act that occurs in line 11’ is clearly stated in line 10’ to be the “carrying on of justice” (ta-al-li-ik-ma ta-ša-al-[š]u ù) by Nergal for the “outrageous things” committed by Sūmū-Yamam. This act of justice is described by the D-stem form, tašālšu, of the Akkadian verb šâlum, meaning, “to account,” that appears in line 10’.48 Thus, in this example as in the former, the human and divine agency involved in the act of retribution is assumed in the interpretation of Amorite history. These four instances from letter ARM I 3 (18th c. BCE) clearly demonstrate the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in the interpretation of events at Mari. The first instance in lines 1–7 show that human perishing could be interpreted by Yasmaḫ-Addu to be retribution from the divine realm against 47 For this transcription and translation, see Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 289. 48 Sasson, “War Declaration,” 242; cf. Albert K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. From the Beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi I, RANE, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972), 1:28, and his translation of lines 10'-11': “You went to attack him but his own servants had already killed him.” Sasson translates the same lines as: “You went ahead and took him to task, with his own servants killing him” (Sasson, From the Mari Archives, 238).

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

87

human transgression.49 In the second instance in lines 11–14, Yasmaḫ-Addu assumes divine agency to be present in the restoration of justice to a breach of an agreement made between two human parties and sworn on oath to the deity. In the third instance in lines 15–17, the retributive act of Ilā-Kabkabū destroying the fortress of Yaḫdun-Līm and capturing his son is considered to be divine retribution for Yaḫdun-Līm’s wrong doing against Ilā-Kabkabū. In the fourth instance, in lines 6’-11’, the outrageous things committed by Sūmū-Yamam are met with divine retribution, which is interpreted by Yasmaḫ-Addu to be the death of Sūmū-Yamam at the hands of his own servants. In these four instances from this first example of ARM 1 3, the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution demonstrates the interpretive assumption of divine acts of justice in the realm of human jurisprudence. Thus, human acts of justice through acts of human retribution had the possibility of being interpreted in ancient Near Eastern texts as divine retributive agency. b) Weidner Chronicle The second example to be stressed in this study and that Bodi provides in his discussion regarding the retribution principle in the ANE, is taken from the Weidner Chronicle, which, as Bodi rightly contends, finds parallels with the DtrH.50 Probably first written no earlier than the 18th c. BCE, during the first dynasty of Babylon, the texts preserved until today come from a much later time during the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian eras.51 Grayson considers this work to have “propagandistic motives” behind its inception but nevertheless suggests that “there is no indication that the author has departed from historical facts”; even so, he advises caution to the historian when dealing with this text.52 Most important for this research is to note that the Weidner Chronicle tells of the reigns of Babylonian kings from as early as the first half of the 3rd millennium BCE to the early part of the 2nd millennium BCE, narrating an evaluation of those reigns as being either good or bad, which is peculiar for this particular genre of writing, but similar to the Akkadian prophecies.53 As Grayson states: The whole point of the narrative is to illustrate that those rulers who neglected or insulted Marduk or failed to provide fish offerings for the temple Esagil had an unhappy end while those who did concern themselves with these matters fared well.54 49 Cf. my comment below on Gen 38:7 (§ 3.2.3.2.a). 50 Sasson, “War Declaration,” 295–96; Bodi, Warlord, 201–2; Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 43–45, 145–51. 51 Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 295, n. 42; Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 44. 52 Ibid., Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 44. For the Akkadian prophecies, see W. G. Lambert and Albert K. Grayson, “Akkadian Prophecies,” JCS 18 (1964): 7–30. 53 Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 295; Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 43. 54 Ibid., Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 42.

88

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

There are only two examples that need to be highlighted here from the Weidner Chronicle. Those two examples are taken from lines 46–48 and lines 52–52b. As it pertains to lines 46–48, the transcription and translation is as follows: (46) Ur-dZa-ba4-ba4 giškarānī meš ma-qa-a-ti šá É-sag-gíl a-na … šu-pi-li i[q(?)-bi(?)] (47) Šarru-kîn ul uš-pe-el it-ta-id-ma ana É-sag-gíl [(…) uš-ta-aḫ -m]e(?)-e[ṭ(?)-ma] (48) dMarduk mār bīti šá Apsê ḫ a-diš ip-pa-lis-su-ma šarru-ut ki[b]-rat ar-ba-ʾi id-din-šú (46) Ur-Zababa c[ommanded] Sargon to exchange the libations of wine for Esagil… (47) Sargon did not exchange (them). (Instead) he was careful to [deliver with h]as[te (the fish)] to Esagil. (48) Marduk, “son of the temple” of Apsu, looked with joy upon him and gave to him sovereignty over the Four Quarters.55

In this particular instance of the Weidner Chronicle, Sargon remains in compliance with the cultic practices regarding the temple of Esagil, offering in line 47 the fish offerings required there. For Sargon’s compliance to these cultic practices at the temple of Esagil, Marduk is said to have “looked with joy upon him,” giving to Sargon sovereignty over the four quarters. It is essential here to note that an act of obedience or compliance to cultic practices at the temple results—according to the interpretation of ancient Near Eastern ‘history’—in what is described generically as ‘good’ for Sargon. In this text, the retribution principle is employed by the authors of the Weidner Chronicle to interpret a perceived good for Sargon as a retributive good from Marduk for Sargon’s compliance to cultic practices at the temple of Esagil. It must be stressed that divine retribution in the ANE includes the good as much as it does the bad in the interpretation of events. The second example, taken from lines 52–52b, demonstrates how a wrong committed by Sargon results in divine retribution and punishment from Marduk, according to the interpretation of the writer of the Weidner Chronicle. The transcription and translation of lines 52–52b are as follows: (52) [ana ikk]ib i-pu-šu ik-kir6-šu-ma iš-tu(!) ṣi-it dŠamšiši a-di e-reb dŠamšiši (52b) ik-​ ki-ru-šu-ma la ṣa-la-lu šakin-[šu(?)] (52–52b) [Because of] the wrong he (Sargon) had done, he (Marduk) became hostile towards him (Sargon). They (his subjects) rebelled against him from east to west. He was inflicted with insomnia.56

In this instance, Sargon is said by the Weidner Chronicle to have committed a wrong, which causes Marduk to become “hostile” toward Sargon. Based upon the 55 Transcription and translation are taken from Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 148. 56 For this transcription and translation, see Ibid., Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 149.

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

89

hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in the ANE, the Weidner Chronicle interprets the rebellion of Sargon’s subjects against him, as well as his suffering from insomnia, as divine retribution from Marduk for the wrong that Sargon had committed. Although the text does not state it explicitly (i. e., with an Akkadian word meaning, “evil / bad”), this ‘bad’ time for Sargon is interpreted by the writer of the Weidner Chronicle as divine retribution which is juxtaposed with the ‘good’ time stated above in lines 46–48. Also, important to note is that said retribution materializes in the form of 1) rebellion against Sargon by his own people, and 2) Sargon’s bout with insomnia. Both of these instances show how the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, from the earliest of written history in the ANE, is employed in texts interpreting events in order to delineate what was believed to be reward and punishment (retributive justice) from the divine realm. c) The Poem of Era57 In our final example, Bodi suggests that the Poem of Erra, a Neo-Babylonian text dated roughly to the 9th c. BCE, provides a “religious transposition” of a particularly unsettled historical situation in Mesopotamia, namely, the destruction of Babylon and other cities in the invasion of the Aramaen tribes known as the Sutû.58 Bodi contends that the Poem of Erra is written as a teaching tool that instructs those who hear it to interpret history through a religious lens. A foundational notion in this hermeneutical interpretation of phenomenon is that the god is the “Ruler of History.”59 To quote Bodi’s own words: “The way the author attributes directly to the god Erra the devastation and subsequent reconstruction of Babylon represents a religious way of interpreting history.”60 There are two words in the poem that describe the human offenses and “noise” committed against the gods which resulted in the wrath of Erra, namely, ḫ ubūru and rigmu.61 In this case, the specific outrage is the maltreatment of the cult statue of Marduk and the offenses committed against Erra and his divine warriors.62 As it pertains to ḫ ubūru, Bodi follows B. Hruška’s understanding that the Akkadian term in the Poem of Erra refers to human offenses (die menschlichen Verfehlun 57 Bodi has done extensive research on this particular text. See his published work, Daniel Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra, OBO 101 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), esp. 52–68. 58 Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 298; Ibid., Warlord, 203; Ibid., Poem of Erra, 54. 59 Ibid., Poem of Erra, 61; Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 298. 60 Ibid., Poem of Erra, 61. 61 CAD, H, 220–21 (ḫ ubūru B); CAD, R, 332–34; Bodi, Poem of Erra, 131–44. 62 Ibid., Poem of Erra, 61; Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 298.

90

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

gen).63 The Akkadian term, rigmu, which Bodi translates as “din, clamor,” occurs also in the Atraḫasis Epic and is the stated reason as to why the gods sent the deluge in that story.64 Furthermore, Bodi shows from Tablet IV of the Poem of Erra that the writer of the poem is telling how it is that humans have been punished by Erra for their sins against him. The discussion happening between Erra and Išum at this juncture in the poem is focused upon the injustice of Erra in killing the righteous with the unrighteous. In tablet IV, lines 104–107, the transliteration and translation is as follows: (104) qurādu dErra kināmma tuštamit (105) lā kināmma tuštamit (106) ša iḫtụ kāma tūštamit (107) ša lā iḫtụ kāma tuštamit (104) Hero Erra, you killed the righteous one. (105) You killed the unrighteous one. (106) You killed the one who sinned against you. (107) You killed the one who did not sin against you.65

This particular Akkadian expression, as it pertains to cultic sins against the deity, is not dissimilar to “legal contexts,” where the Akkadian, ḫ īṭu, designates 1) an offense “against the suzerain”; 2) “breaking a covenant or a treaty”; or 3) “failing in keeping up with some obligations.”66 The context of the Poem of Erra, apropos the religious interpretation of the destruction of Babylon and other cities, is one in which humans have sinned (i. e., ḥīṭu) against a deity. However, it must be stated that destruction should not simply be understood as blind punishment / retribution. Rather, the main purpose of retribution from the divine realm, as interpreted by and according to these literary texts, is to restore order, or in this case, “rest.” P. Machinist states this well, when he writes, “‘Destructive fury,’ in other words, does not simply oppose ‘rest,’ it can also bring it about, by the cleansing exhaustion it creates,” which is the result at the end of the poem.67 Order and justice is very much the concern of the retribution principle in these Akkadian literary documents, and I suggest the same is true in the HB. Suffice it to say, the Poem of Erra, in its unique religious interpretation of ‘historical events,’ is not unlike the DtrH in the HB, in which the majority of my own exegesis will be completed.68

63 Ibid., Poem of Erra, 63; B. Hruška, “Einige Überlegungen zum Erraepos,” BiOr 30 (1973): 6. 64 Bodi, Poem of Erra, 131–44; Ibid., Warlord, 203. 65 For this transcription and translation, see Ibid., Poem of Erra, 68. 66 Ibid., Poem of Erra, 68. 67 Peter Machinist, “Rest and Violence in the Poem of Erra,” JAOS 103 (1983): 224. 68 Bodi, Poem of Erra, 61.

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

91

3.2.3 ‘Good and Evil’ in Literary Contexts of Retribution in Akkadian Texts and the HB There are several examples in ancient Near Eastern texts and in the HB that show how ‘good and evil’ function in light of the retribution principle. Since this chapter serves as a general introduction to the whole study, I will provide only a few examples from both Akkadian and Hebrew texts at this point in the research. It must be reiterated that the only reason in providing these examples is to show that ‘good and evil’ does appear (at times) in these literary compositions in a context of retribution. Also, it must be stated that these examples constitute my own research; I have not taken these examples from another work regarding this topic of the retribution principle.

3.2.3.1 Akkadian Texts The first example (PBS 7, tablet 61, line 7) is taken from the OB period (ca. 1900–1600 BCE). In this particular line, the god, Adad, is petitioned in a precative statement to return ‘good’ for what is presumed to be a ‘good’ act: (PBS 7, 61:7) ša tēpušanni ilka DN li-id-dam-mi-[qá-kum] (PBS 7, 61:7) Because you did this for me, may your god, Adad, show you favor.69

In this instance, the precative permutation of the Akkadian, damāqum (lit., “to do good”), is used by the writer of this letter to describe the retributive result wished for from the god, Adad, as repayment for the good deed committed by the one to whom the statement is directed. Such an example shows that at the most basic level of human experience in the ANE, there existed the belief (generally) of reciprocity between human action and divine retribution. Yet, more important is that the text refers to such retribution from the gods by using a very generic and widely attested term in Akkadian (damāqum, “to do good / to show favor”). A similar example, also taken from the OB period (ca. 1900–1600 BCE) and from the PBS collection, demonstrates a similar accounting of this word. In this particular letter (PBS 1/1, 2 ii:40), the retribution is in response to a criminal act: (PBS 1/1, 2 ii:40) ugallilmi gilla[tu … ] Ištar ú-da-mi-qá-am (PBS 1/1, 2 ii:40) I committed a crime […but] Ištar has been gracious to me.70 69 Transliteration and translation taken from CAD, D, 62. In the Akkadian language, a precative statement indicates either a wish or an indirect command that occurs in the first or third persons. See e.g., John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, HSS 45, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 144. 70 Transliteration and translation taken from CAD, D, 63.

92

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

As can be ascertained from this one line, the writer of this particular letter has perceived, in some sense, an act of retributive good from Ištar, even though said person had committed a crime. The hermeneutical principle of divine retribution employed in this letter interprets X’s well-being (at least on one level) as “graciousness” (udammīqam; lit. “has done good to me / has been gracious to me”) from the divine realm in response to a crime, which might have incurred a retributive ‘evil’, hypothetically speaking. It is important to note that such a statement could be made after one had perceived the experience of a lesser evil of perceived retribution; however, the greater point is to demonstrate from the OB period how it is that Akkadian, damāqum, “to do good,” can be used in contexts of retribution. If one were to consider texts referring to a retributive ‘evil,’ two very similar examples prove helpful in this discussion. The first example is taken from the Mari archive, the Foundation Inscription of the Šamaš Temple. In this particular text of Yaḫdun-Lim (ca. 19th c. BCE), column IV, line 24, reads as follows: (E4.6.8.2:147) é-a šar ši-im-tim (E4.6.8.2:148) ši-im-ta-šu li-le-mi-in (E4.6.8.2:147) May the god Ea, king of destiny, (E4.6.8.2:148) assign him an evil destiny.71

In this particular instance, the precative use of the Akkadian, lemēnu, “to change a fate into evil / bad,” is used by the writer to suggest that any violator to this Foundation Inscription of the Šamaš Temple will incur an ‘evil’ fate (lit., “May his fate become evil”) from the divine realm, i. e., from Ea. The hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, although appearing as a threat in literary form for a future infraction, assumes a potential disastrous end / fate to be divine retribution and is employed in the text using the Akkadian word for bad / evil, lemēnu. Again, the main point to be stressed is that the Akkadian lexeme for ‘evil / bad’ is employed in this text to describe a hypothetical experience of divine retribution for a transgressive act against the Temple of Šamaš. Similarly, there is one text that uses both ‘good and bad’ to describe human retribution. In a Neo-Assyrian tablet from Nineveh, PSBA 16, 132:37 reads as follows: (PSBA 16, 132:37) ana ēpiš limuttika damiqtu rîbšu ana raggika mīšara [gi]m-la-áš-šú 71 For transcription and translation, see Douglas R. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period: 2003–1595 BC, RIME 4 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 608; CAD, L, 117; Georges Dossin, “L’inscription de Fondation de IAHDUN-LIM, Roi de Mari,” Syria 32 (1955): 17, line 24; cf. “The Dedication of the Shamash Temple by Yahdun-Lim,” trans. A. Leo Oppenheim (ANET,, 557): “Ea, the master (lit.: king) of fates, should make his fate a bad one.” For an overview of ‘Fate-Deciding’ in ancient Mesopotamia, see Steinkeller, “Luck, Fortune, and Destiny in Ancient Mesopotamia,” esp. 12–17.

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

93

(PSBA 16, 132:37) Pay back with a good deed him who does you wrong, act justly toward your enemy.72

In this wisdom saying, the Akkadian substantive, limuttika, “lit., evil deed to you,” is juxtaposed with the Akkadian substantive, damiqtu, “good deed.” The point to be stressed once again is that within literary contexts of retribution, even something as basic as individual human retribution, as in this case, the Akkadian lexemes for ‘good and evil’ appear. In this instance, the admonishment for the victim is to return ‘good’ for the ‘evil / wrong’ deed committed against said victim.73 These few examples will suffice for now to demonstrate that ‘good and evil’ in Akkadian texts can function within contexts of retribution. Now, we must consider the same in the HB.

3.2.3.2 HB Texts Due to the fact that the vast majority of this study is devoted to surveying how the many permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function within literary contexts of retribution, I will only provide two examples at this point in order to demonstrate similar notions of retribution in relation to ‘good and evil’ in the HB. a) Gen 38:7, 10 ‫ויהי ער בכור יהודה רע בעיני ה׳ וימתהו ה׳‬ But Er, the first born of Judah, was evil in the eyes of Yhwh, and Yhwh put him to death.74

In this particular passage, the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is logically employed in the text. Yhwh provides an evaluation of Er (‫ )ער‬as being “evil” (‫ ;רע‬permutation of ‫ )רעע‬in his eyes.75 Then, the text states that Yhwh put Er to death. In light of the ‘structuring element’ of ‘historical’ events in Hebrew historiography (so Bodi), Er’s death is interpreted as divine retribution.76 Notice that the text is silent on what sort of ‘evil’ Er committed that was worthy of death. Furthermore, notice how the text is silent regarding which sort of death befell Er. 72 For transliteration and translation, see CAD, G, 22. 73 For an example of the Akkadian cognate of the Hebrew ‫טוב‬, i. e., ṭābu, as juxtaposed with Akkadian lemutti (“bad / evil”) in a context of retribution, see KBo 8 14:7 and CAD, Ṭ, 26. For a very helpful discussion regarding the comparison of these Akkadian cognates with their Hebrew counterparts (‫ טוב‬and ‫)רעע‬, see Smith, “Mesopotamian Ophiomancy,” 43 and n. 31 (see my § 2.2.9.3, n. 154 above). Also, see my lexical discussion regarding ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the following chapter (§ 4.2.1.1 and § 4.2.1.2). 74 Cf. 1 Chr 2:3. 75 Do note the play on the name of ‫ ער‬as being the reverse of ‫רע‬. 76 Compare ARM 1 3 above (§ 3.2.2.1.a).

94

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

Did he die of the plague, or did he fall off of a cliff? Was his death at the hands of another human, or did a messenger of Yhwh strike him down? The text remains silent. It is assumed by most commentators that the action that caused Er’s death was one of sexual misconduct, similar to that which was charged against his brother Onan in the verses that follow in the narrative.77 Due to Er’s death, Onan was then obligated to bring forth an heir for his brother through levirate marriage to Tamar. Onan refused to fulfill his lawful duties to his deceased brother, and as a result, Yhwh put him to death (Gen 38:10): ‫וירע בעיני ה׳ אשר עשה וימת גם־אתו‬ What he did was evil in the eyes of Yhwh, and he also put him to death.

What is certain in this text is that the author has employed the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in Hebrew historiography. These two examples demonstrate with clarity how it is that the divine evaluation of ‫ רעע‬in these texts assumes a result that could just as easily be described (and often is in the HB, though not in this passage) using a permutation of ‫ רעע‬to describe the disaster / calamity sent forth from the divine realm. b) 1 Kgs 3:10 Turning toward the positive side of retribution and to an example of the Hebrew lexeme, ‫טוב‬, I suggest that 1 Kgs 3:10 helps to demonstrate this notion of a hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, which appears in Yhwh’s response to Solomon, following his request to receive discernment in order to render ‫משפט‬. In 1 Kgs 3:10: ‫וייטב הדבר בעיני אדני כי שאל שלמה את־הדבר הזה‬ And the thing was pleasing in the eyes of my Lord; this thing that Solomon requested.

Due to the request’s quality in Yhwh’s eyes, i. e., it is ‫טוב‬, the retributive result is a reward, so to speak, given by Yhwh to Solomon (1 Kgs 3:11–14).78 As the author of the text makes clear in the following verses, Solomon received from Yhwh his request, and then some. As in the Weidner Chronicle’s interpretation of ‘history’ regarding Sargon’s retributive ‘good’ from Marduk for cultic obedience (see § 3.2.2.1.b above), so too here in the case of 1 Kgs 3:10 wherein Solomon’s 77 See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, WBC 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 366. 78 Mordechai Cogan, I Kings, AB 10 (Garden City: Doubleday, 2001), 187: “The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked this thing. According to the oft-repeated evaluation of Dtr throughout the book of Kings, Yhwh takes pleasure in the cultic loyalty of royal incumbents; here it is Solomon’s humility that finds divine approval.” See too Robert N. Wilkin, “Repentance and Salvation Part 2: The Doctrine of Repentance in the Old Testament,” JOTGES 2 (1989): 20.

Divine Retribution in the Ancient Near East   

95

perceived obedience in his request (i. e., ‫ )וייטב הדבר‬is stated by the author to result in Solomon’s unprecedented state of wisdom granted and bestowed by Yhwh. This example demonstrates clearly how it is that the Hebrew lexeme ‫ טוב‬can function in a context of divine retribution in the HB in light of the retribution principle of the ANE.

3.2.4 Summary In this section, I have demonstrated that divine retribution (reward and punishment) is essential to notions of justice (‫ )משפט‬in the HB. Although K. Koch’s thesis of mechanical retribution is affirmed by certain texts in the HB, his suggestion that divine retributive agency is nullified in the HB, does not receive a positive verdict in the court of scholarly opinion. Rather, the authors of these texts seek to tell their stories and narratives based within the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, where good and bad experiences (e.g., drought, peace, warfare, times of prosperity, etc.) are oft described in the texts (and interpreted so) by these writers to be the result of divine retribution. Within that framework of thought, I then showed how ‘good and evil’ function within both Akkadian and HB texts, as it pertains to these notions of divine and human retribution. What now requires additional emphasis is the literary phenomenon of blessing and cursing in the ANE; for it is in this study that Koch’s thesis of a ‘magical’ or ‘mechanical’ aspect to retribution in the HB finds its rightful definition. Moreover, if the authors in the ANE structured historical texts based upon a hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, wherein perceived ‘good or bad’ experiences in ‘historical events’ are interpreted as the result of divine retribution, then it would only be logical that the mode through which said retribution was thought to be carried out is through divine blessing and cursing. Furthermore, it would also be logical that the textual marker within those historical works that is used to describe the materialized result of divine blessing and cursing would often be words from the target language that basically mean ‘good or evil / bad.’ Thus, divine retribution (reward and punishment) in the ANE was understood to be enacted through divine blessing and cursing, which, upon closer analysis in these texts, reveals said retribution to be materialized through human acts of retribution (reward and punishment). To this discussion, I now turn.

96

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

3.3 Blessing and Cursing in Legal and Covenantal Literary Contexts of the ANE and the HB The topic of blessing and cursing in the ANE and in ancient Israel is a vast and intricate area of study.79 Due to the complexity of the topic, I will strictly relegate 79 I am grateful to Anne Marie Kitz for her tome on this subject. Much of the bibliography for this section was garnered from her extensive research on this topic. For general Bibliography, see Anne Marie Kitz, Cursed Are You! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), and Jeff S. Anderson, The Blessing and the Curse: Trajectories in the Theology of the Old Testament (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2014). See too, Chee-Chiew Lee, “Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael of ‫ ברך‬in the Abrahamic Blessing for the Nations,” JSOT 36 (2012): 279–96; Jeremy D. Smoak, “May Yhwh Bless You and Keep You from Evil: The Rhetorical Argument of Ketef Hinnom Amulet I and the Form of the Prayers for Deliverance in the Psalms,” JANER 12 (2012): 202–36; J. K. Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew, ANESSup 23 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007); Rob Barrett, Disloyalty and Destruction: Religion and Politics in Deuteronomy and the Modern World, LHBOTS 511 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 160–201; Anne Marie Kitz, “Curses and Cursing in the Ancient Near East,” RC 1 (2007): 615–27; David Frankfurter, “Curses, Blessings, and Ritual Authority: Egyptian Magic in Comparative Perspective,” JANER (2005): 157–185; Anne Marie Kitz, “An Oath, Its Curse and Anointing Ritual,” JAOS 124 (2004): 315–21; Noel Weeks, Admonition and Curse: The ancient Near Eastern Treaty / Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships, JSOTSup 407 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004); Tzvi Abusch, “The Socio-Religious Framework of Maqlû,” in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. Tzvi Abusch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 1–34; Rodney R. Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited (Lev. XXIV 10–23),” VT 49 (1999): 532–41; Jeff S. Anderson, “The Social Function of Curses in the Hebrew Bible,” ZAW 110 (1998): 22–37; Ann Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria, SHANE 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), esp. 244–50; Bruce Zuckerman, “On Being ‘Damned Certain’: The Story of a Curse in the Sefire Inscription and Its Interpretation,” in Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, eds. Astrid B. Beck et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 422–435; Robert Polzin, “Curses and Kings: A Reading of 2 Samuel 15–16,” in New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, eds. David J. Clines and J. Cheryl Exum, JSOTSup 143 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 201–26; William J. Urbrock, “Blessings and Curses,” ABD 1:755–61; Timothy G. Crawford, Blessing and curse in Syro-Palestinian inscriptions of the Iron Age, AUSTR 120 (New York: Peter Lang, 1992); George W. Coats, “The Curse in God’s Blessing: Gen 12,1–4a in the Structure and Theology of the Yahwist,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Hans Walter Wolff, Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 31–41; Joseph Scharbert, “‫ארר‬,” TDOT 1:405–18; Ibid., “‫ברך‬,” TDOT 1:279–308; Anthony C. Thistleton, “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings,” JTS 25 (1974): 283–99; Frederick L. Moriarty, “Word as Power in the Ancient Near East,” in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in honor of Jacob M. Meyers, eds. Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim and Carey A. Moore, GTS 4 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 345–62; Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, ConBot 1 (Lund: Gleerup, 1967), esp. 53–67; Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, BibOr 16 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964); F. Charles Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions

Blessing and Cursing in Legal and Covenantal Literary Contexts   

97

this discussion to blessing and cursing within a context of divine and human retribution in these literary compositions. As a sub category to blessing and cursing within this said context, I will also demonstrate how blessing and cursing played a primary role in covenantal, oath, and legal texts in the ANE (§ 3.3.3).

3.3.1 Blessing and Cursing Defined I must first provide adequate definition and critical perspective of the notions of blessing and cursing in the ANE and in the HB before moving onto the raison d’être of this section. In my opinion, there is one recent publication that provides an excellent overview of the history of scholarship as it pertains to blessing and cursing, even though said publication is focused primarily upon the curse. A. M.  Kitz, in her published monograph, Cursed Are You! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, demonstrates that there is a diverse and yet universal understanding to cursing (and too, blessing) in the ANE. Most importantly, her excellent survey of the literature, especially some of the earlier material, shows that no matter what sort of contextual nuance is applied by the critical exegete to a specific occurrence of blessing or cursing, the primary connotation and semantic force behind what is called a ‘blessing’ or a ‘curse’ in these literary compositions, is what can be termed, ‘good’ and ‘bad / evil.’80 For example, in quoting her translation of J. Pedersen’s monumental study on this phenomenological characteristic of the ANE, Kitz demonstrates the broad interpretation of the ancient Near Eastern perception of cursing: “The curse covers everything that is evil and harmful, everything that is not in accord with normal conditions. (It is) the negation of the living.”81 In a similar comment, she demonstrates that perceptions in the ANE regarding the blessing are quite opposite that of the curse, which she notably sums up in a comment upon J. Hempel’s observations in his compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” ZAW 75 (1963): 155–75; Ibid., “Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,” VT 13 (1963): 133–43; Herbert Brichto, The Problem of ‘Curse’ in the Hebrew Bible, JBLMS XIII (Philadelphia: SBL, 1963); Stanley Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law,” VT 11 (1961): 137–58; E. A. Speiser, “An Angelic ‘Curse’: Exodus 14:20,” JAOS 80 (1960): 198–200; Sheldon H. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath,” HUCA 23 (1951): 73–95; Thomas Plassman, “The Semitic Root brk,” CBQ 11 (1949): 445–6; Samuel A. B. Mercer, “The Malediction in Cuneiform Inscriptions,” JAOS 34 (1915): 282–309; Johannes Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, SGKIO 3 (Strassburg: Trübner, 1914); Samuel A. B. Mercer, “The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions,” JAOS 33 (1913): 33–50; A. E. Crowley, “Cursing and Blessing,” ERE 4:367–74. 80 Kitz, Cursed are You, 9–31. 81 Ibid., Cursed are You, 9. For the German, see Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, 64: “Der Fluch bezeichnet alles, was böse und schädlich ist, alles, was mit normalen Verhältnissen nicht übereinstimmt, die Negation des Lebens.”

98

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

1925 study: “Simply put, blessings seek to expand and enhance life, curses aspire to bring about death and make life difficult.”82 As Kitz states regarding certain curse rituals: “For the most part, these rituals bring into being the horrors of a divinely executed malediction. They perform evil. They generate malevolence.”83 As can be garnered from Pedersen, Hempel, and Kitz, at the most basic level, blessing and cursing concerns the semantics of the human experience of ‘good’ and ‘bad / evil.’84

3.3.1.1 Blessing and Cursing: ‘Good’ and ‘Bad / Evil’ The above scholars are not the only ones who would suggest that blessing and cursing is fundamentally amalgamated with ‘good’ and ‘bad / evil’ in these ancient Near Eastern literary documents. For example, Ann Jeffers in her work entitled, Magic and Divination in ancient Palestine and Syria, writes that a “curse or a blessing may be defined as a wish, expressed in words that evil or good might befall someone.”85 Her definition is actually a direct quote of A. E. Crowley’s 1912 article entitled, “Cursing and Blessing,” in which Crowley contends that the spoken action of blessing and cursing is located somewhere between an individual’s wish and volitional cause to action.86 In a similar way, Samuel A. B. Mercer defined a curse as “the praying down of evil upon a person, and implies the desire or threat of evil declared either upon oath or in the most solemn manner.”87 J. Scharbert demonstrates that curse formulas in the ANE were all understood to enact a desired evil against the recipient of said curse according to the divine word of the gods.88 Stanley Gevirtz’s strikingly similar observation in his survey of West Semitic curses defines the curse as “the deliberate, considered expression of a wish that evil befall another.”89 Moreover, Timothy G. Crawford has noted: “The wish that the deity invoked bestow the desirable things of life (progeny, food, security, etc.) on the favored one or deprive the despised one of the same things” 82 Kitz, Cursed are You, 11. For the German, see Johannes Hempel, “Die israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen,” BZAW 81 (1925): 47. 83 Kitz, Cursed are You, 94. 84 Ibid., Cursed are You, 56, who suggests that the Sumerian erim2 (lit., “bad / evil”), in certain contexts, is a textual referent to the curse. 85 Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria, 244. 86 Crowley, “Cursing and Blessing,” ERE 4:367. 87 Mercer, “Malediction,” 282. 88 Scharbert, “‫ארר‬,” TDOT 1:407, especially where he states that it cannot be known for certain if it was believed that the gods “pronounced a curse formula before the announced misfortune began, or whether it was understood in the sense of ‘determining or causing misfortune.’” Also, Patrick D. Miller Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis, SBLMS 27 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 25: “Even the sequence of evil things against wives / women, sons, and daughters is common in the curses.” Miller’s study is one of the most helpful with regard to the curse in relation to judgment pronouncements in the HB. 89 Gevirtz, “West Semitic Cruses,” 140.

Blessing and Cursing in Legal and Covenantal Literary Contexts   

99

is precisely how blessing and cursing functioned in these ancient Near Eastern literary compositions.90 In his 1992 ABD article, W. Urbrock writes: In the Bible, blessing may be understood as a performative utterance … bringing about good for someone. It may be the resultant favor (benefaction) or enablement itself. Blessing may also be an act of greeting or prayer that invokes good for someone or seeks to avert or neutralize evil.… The meaning of cursing is just the opposite. It may refer to the pronouncement of evil which brings about punishment or harm to someone, the actual harm or punishment effected, or an invocation of the same.91

Clearly, blessing and cursing had a phenomenologically interpreted ancient literary function intrinsic to the actions of meting out the notions of good or bad / evil upon another through speech-acts of mostly divine but also human origin.92

3.3.2 Divine Blessing and Cursing It is clearly and widely attested from the “Pre-Sargonic and Old Babylonian periods well into Neo-Assyrian times” that the curse was often understood by these ancient Near Easterners to be the punishment of the deity’s divine weapon / s.93 In other words, one inherent feature of cursing can broadly be described as “divine judgment,” which for our purposes already presumes divine retribution and the administering of justice in the world, as noted in the above section.94 There are only two types of curses: 1)  the unconditional curse, which requests from the gods an action of harm against a “particular target without provision”; and 2) a conditional curse, which requests injury upon a “target” from the gods if certain obligations are transgressed and dishonored.95 The former understands harm as threatened against a target unconditionally, while the latter understands harm as threatened against a target from the divine realm with conditions. There are four 90 See Crawford, Blessing and Curse, 16. 91 Urbrock, “Blessings and Curses,” ABD 1:755; Anderson, “Social Function,” 223–237 (esp. 227). 92 Thistleton, “The Supposed Power of Words,” 283–99; cf. Kitz, Cursed are You, 25–31. 93 Ibid., Cursed are You, 59, and on divine weapons, see pp. 306–10. 94 Ibid., Cursed are You, 68, and her discussion regarding the Akkadian term, māmītu, which is generally agreed to mean “oath, evil, conditional-curse” in the literature. See too, Abusch, “The Socio-Religious Framework of Maqlû,” 24–5 (24): “The māmītu is meant to deter its subjects from breaking the terms of the agreement—the rules of society.” Also, George E. Mendenhall and Gary A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1,182; Miller, Sin and Judgment, 22–23; Samuel Greengus, “Covenant and Treaty in the Hebrew Bible and in the Ancient Near East,” in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, eds. Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 94, n. 9; Feder, “Mechanics of Retribution,” 127–135 (esp. 132–133 for māmītu as ‘curse.’). 95 Kitz, Cursed are You, 75.

100

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

principle characteristics of these divine curses, according to Kitz, that are prevalent in the cuneiform and Hebrew texts: 1) The divine curses “function as mandates”; 2)  once enacted, the results of the curse are immediately experienced by that person, kingdom, or land that is cursed; 3) the curses of a deity cannot be thwarted or changed except by a benediction by the deity to counter the malediction; and 4) the curse could take on an existence all its own.96 Due to this belief in the power of divine blessing and cursing, ancient Near Easterners were highly cognizant of their natural surroundings. Kitz states: This feature in particular put humanity on guard, making ancient Near Easterners extraordinarily aware of their environment. They were ever watchful for any change, any transformation in their surroundings that may indicate that the effects of a divine curse were invading their cities, homes, land, livestock, and / or people.97

The curse in the HB has a similar definition and function as it had in its ancient Near Eastern context, as described by Kitz and others above; by extension, the same is true of the divine blessing.98 I conclude, therefore, that divine reward and punishment (retribution) must infer the medium of divine blessing and cursing in the ANE. How then does blessing and cursing function within the literary compositions of the ANE? The answer to that question requires a tome like Kitz’s. Since our purposes here are different, I will only focus upon what I have called in this research a ‘covenantal’ and ‘legal’ literary context.

3.3.3 Blessing and Cursing in a Covenantal and Legal Literary Context It is well known that blessing and cursing assumed the position of divine sanctions in ancient Near Eastern covenantal, oath, and treaty texts.99 According to Victor Korošec, who Kitz discusses in her summary of this phenomenon, there are two 96 Ibid., Cursed are You, 134–152. 97 Ibid., Cursed are You, 152. Consider too, Graciela Gestoso Singer, “Fortunes and Misfortunes of Messengers and Merchants in the Amarna Letters,” in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Warsaw, 21–25 July 2014, eds. Olga Drewnowska and Malgorzata Sandowicz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 146: “Divine santion rather than state consent gave ancient law its obligatory quality, and it was in some respects more feared and binding than modern international law.” 98 Aitken, The Semantics, 4. 99 See e.g., Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, AnBib 21A (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), 10. For a history of scholarship concerning Treaty and Covenant, Curses and Oaths, see Kitz’s wonderful survey, Kitz, Cursed are You, 16–31; Urbrock, “Blessings and Curses,” ABD 1:757: “Covenants were believed to be central in determining the nation’s fortunes. The rituals renewing or reaffirming covenant included reciting blessings and curses.” See too, Richard S. Hess, The Old Testament: A Historical, Theological, and Critical Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 133, 135–138; Greengus, “Covenant and Treaty,” 114–118.

Blessing and Cursing in Legal and Covenantal Literary Contexts   

101

forms of treaty sanctions: “iuris humani and iuris divini.”100 These two forms are understood as the “authority” to protect the treaty, to punish the recalcitrant, and to reward the compliant (e.g., Deut. 28); an authority that exists in two different forms, namely, one in the human realm and one in the divine realm.101 Kitz suggests that, “The oath in vassal treaties could draw on both, thereby allowing the ruler to execute punishment with divine backing.”102 With regard to the Hittite vassal treaties, G. Mendenhall states that, “The treaty stands wholly within the realm of sacred law, for the only sanctions for the covenant are religious ones.”103 Furthermore, Mendenhall makes the assumption that in the case of a breach of the treaty, military force carried out by the Hittite king would have been understood as the materialization of the divine curse.104 In a similar comment regarding the purpose of blessing and cursing in the treaties, Mendenhall writes: The treaty made an inseparable connection between ethical adherence to promises made and the consequences of economic prosperity, freedom from disease, and tranquil long life. The text of the treaty typically concluded with this enumeration of the consequences of obedience and disobedience.105

F. C. Fensham argues that the covenant curses of the HB are best understood as the agency of human and therefore divine “penalties of law.”106 Kitz rightly observes another contribution that Fensham makes concerning these curses, namely, that “regardless of the variety of context and regardless of differences in language, these curse themes endure with uncanny continuity from culture to culture.”107 In addition to these, Stanley Gevirtz demonstrates that there is a close and unique parallel between the conditional curses and the casuistic legal formulations of the West Semitic world.108 He writes: Each is promulgated in an attempt at protecting a given situation; and each pronounces punishment(s) upon the infractor commensurate, in some manner, with the gravity of the violation. In legal enactments power to execute punishment for infraction is sought, presumably, in a properly constituted, certainly human, gov-

100 Kitz, Cursed are You, 17 and Viktor Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Juristischen Wertung, LRS 60 (Leipzig: T. Weicher, 1931), 92–3 (92): “Beim Vertragsabschluß hat man die Wahl zwischen den Sanktionen iuris humani und solchen iuris divini.” 101 Ibid., Hethitische Staatsverträge, 93. 102 Kitz, Cursed are You, 17; cf. Aitken, The Semantics, 3: “Both blessing and cursing, nevertheless, are also actions of God, and the semantic value of such divine actions is no doubt to be considered of a different order from that of human actions.” 103 George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 60. 104 Ibid., “Covenant Forms,” 60. See too, Kitz, Cursed are You, 73–75, esp. 75. 105 Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1,181; Hillers, Treaty Curses, 87. 106 Fensham, “Common Trends,” 175; Anderson, “Social Function,” 233–234. 107 Kitz, Cursed are You, 19. 108 Gevirtz, “West Semitic Cruses,” 158.

102

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

ernmental agency; in imprecations, doubtless because of the inadequacy of human detective measures, appeal is made to supernatural agency.109

With regard to Gevirtz’s statement, it can be said that the “prohibitive-protective” function of the curse has a “legal air” about it.110 Put another way, and in reading a bit between the lines of his statement, Gevirtz is suggesting that there existed a belief of ancient Near Easterners in which there was a cooperative function of punitive actions between the human and divine realm. Kitz provides a similar observation regarding an UR III Tablet from Nippur and the importance of the invocation, which was wholly “safeguarded by the central authority of the city and / or its heavenly counterpart.”111 S. Mercer writes that the curses in the Babylonian and Assyrian system were part of a “highly developed legal and religious ceremony, universally practiced and respected” and that it “penetrated into the lives of the people.”112 Mercer also made a comparison between this system of blessing and cursing and that which is understood in the modern world as “Common Law.”113 Finally, and returning to Mendenhall’s suggestion that a suzerain of a LB age treaty could have been understood to be the materialization of the divine curse, he writes: In such circumstances, the suzerain could legitimately claim to be the agent of the avenging deities, since the actions of the deities themselves were evidently unreliable (and therefore insufficient). As the ultimate curse for the breach of covenant was the complete destruction of the vassal kingdom, the logical instrument for realizing such a historical event (in distinction from the curses of the treaty text that represent natural events) would be the suzerain himself.114

The point to be stressed is that the human agent could be interpreted by ancient Near Easterners to be the harbinger and the materialization of the divine curse within reason. The suzerain could have been understood to be the one who brings bad / evil (i. e., the curse; see Kitz’s discussion of māmītu above, n. 94) down upon the disobedient vassal, at which point, the author of the text interpreting said ‘historical’ event already assumes the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution.

109 Ibid., “West Semitic Cruses,” 158. 110 Ibid., “West Semitic Cruses,” 140. 111 Kitz, Cursed are You, 40–63 (48). 112 Mercer, “Malediction,” 310. See also, McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 81: “When the oath tied the parties together it was to create an affective relationship as well as a legal bond.” 113 Mercer, “Malediction,” 310. 114 Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1,182; Barrett, Disloyalty and Destruction, 177: “An offended treaty partner is both justified and obligated by the gods to inflict human punishment.” See too, Richard J. Thompson, Terror of the Radiance: Aššur Covenant to YHWH Covenant, OBO 258 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 84.

Blessing and Cursing in Legal and Covenantal Literary Contexts   

103

This is not to say that the phenomenon of blessing and cursing is only relegated to the particular literary form of covenants, oaths, and treaties, nor to a context that must only be named ‘legal.’ Nevertheless, in my exegetical work on ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the HB, I will often refer to the ‘covenantal’ and ‘legal’ context of a narrative by which I mean an allusion to this ‘legal’ function of blessing and cursing, its assumed place in a narrative about divine retribution, and its wider context of attestation in this much studied textual tradition in the ANE. I am not suggesting that the knowledge of ‘good and bad / evil’ is the knowledge of blessing and cursing. Rather, I am suggesting that the divine knowledge of ‘good and bad / evil’ as the divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment (retribution) assumes the ancient Near Eastern phenomenological interpretation of blessing and cursing in literary compositions. Thus, if we are at all speaking about the actualization of ‘divine retribution’ as a literary device in these texts, then we must acknowledge the assumed medium through which said retribution is thought by an ancient Near Easterner to have originated in the divine realm, namely, through divine blessing and cursing.

3.3.4 Summary In this section, I demonstrated that the phenomenon of blessing and cursing is uniquely amalgamated with the notions of ‘good and evil’ in the ANE, specifically as it pertains to human experience. At times, the blessing and the curse in the ANE was perceived to be the medium through which divine judgment was materialized in the world. This belief is especially noticeable in the covenantal and treaty literary context, where the curse and the blessing functioned as divine sanctions for loyal and disloyal behavior, as evident in a plethora of textual documents from the ANE. Blessing and cursing is understood to be legal sanctions. Most important, however, is to note that human acts of retribution could have been interpreted by an ancient Near Easterner to be the materialization of the divine curse for sanctions against a disobedient target. Thus, the blessing and the curse was understood by ancient Near Easterners to be the social control through which a body politic was organized.

104

Ancient Near Eastern Backgrounds   

3.4 Conclusion In this chapter, I gave ample definition to the retribution principle of the ANE and to the phenomenon of blessing and cursing in these literary texts.115 By focusing upon the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution employed by authors of the ANE to interpret ‘historical’ events, and too, by emphasizing the phenomenology of blessing and cursing in these ancient Near Eastern texts, which often have a locus of covenantal and legal matters, I was able to demonstrate how it is that ‘good and evil’ function within these texts. Such examples as Gen 38:7, 10 and 1 Kgs 3:10 demonstrate how good and evil (‫ טוב‬and ‫ )רעע‬in the HB can function as retribution with regard to Yhwh in these many narratives. As we move forward, I suggest that this data is integral apropos the many permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬that will be surveyed in this research in order to interpret our term in the EN at the center of this research, namely, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. In so doing, I suggest that the results will become overwhelmingly clear that ‘good and evil’ function quite often in these literary texts of the HB as a textual marker for the whole process of divine and human retribution, so employed by the ancient Near Eastern author’s faithfulness to the hermeneutical principle of the same.

115 For the motif of Retribution in the History of Research, consider Carmichael, “The Paradise Myth,” 54; Buchanan, “OT Meaning,” 119–120. “Legal disputes” is the translation of ‫ לרדוף‬by R. H. Charles (Charles, The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, 710). Delitzsch writes regarding ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬: “Das Gute ist der Gehorsam mit seinen guten und das Böse ist der Ungehorsam mit seinen schlimmen Folge,” which is translated: “The good is obedience with its good consequence and the evil is disobedience with its bad consequence” (Delitzsch, Die Genesis, 127; see too, Dillmann, Die Genesis, 65); Pedersen, Life and Culture, 196, and human ability to achieve success as provided by Yhwh. Also, Milgrom, “Sex and Wisdom,” 21, 52, and his discussion with regard to the ‘creative’ impulse in sexuality that helps to build (good) or destroy (evil) a world. For the motif of blessing and cursing in the History of Research, consider Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 462, and his reference to Balaam’s inability to do ‫ טובה‬or ‫ רעה‬apart from that which Yhwh speaks. So too, Müller, Mythos – Kerygma – Warheit, 78. For the Covenantal and Legal Context in the above History of Research, consider Kennedy, “Peasants in Revolt,” 6; Mendenhall, “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” 331; Alonso–Schökel, “Sapiental and Covenant Themes,” 474; Carr, “The Politics of Textual Subversion,” 592; Davies, “Making It,” 255.

4. Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative 4.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will offer a theocentric interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN.1 First, I will provide a contextualized translation of the phrase, ‫ עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬that occurs in Gen 2:9 and 2:17 (§ 4.2.1). In pursuit of said translation, each lexeme within this phrase (save for ‫ )עץ‬will be given due attention to its semantic range and to its immediate and surrounding context within the EN, providing the most precise translation of, “The Tree of the Knowledge of Knowing Good and Bad / Evil.” I will then consider the divine test and prohibition of Gen 2:16–17, which will help to form one of the central pursuits of this chapter: Why is ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬forbidden to the humans by Yhwh? Then, I will consider the motif of the opening of the eyes in Gen 3:5–7 and how the acquisition of divine knowledge in the ANE informs this investigation (§ 4.2.3). By way of comparison, I will analyze the Adapa myth and its portrayal of divine wisdom as uniquely amalgamated to human speech acts of the curse (§ 4.2.3.1.a). Then, the question of nakedness without shame (Gen 2:25) and nakedness with shame (Gen 3:7–8) will be surveyed in light of ancient Near Eastern notions of nakedness and shame (§ 4.3). It will be shown that nakedness with shame in 3:7–8 is not the result of the acquisition of divine knowledge, but the result of disobedience to the divine command (§ 4.3.2.4). Finally, I will consider the judgment scene of Gen 3:8, 14–19 (§ 4.4), suggesting that a locus upon the actions of Yhwh will divulge a juxtaposition of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the EN as ‘sanctions’ contextualized to the ancient Near Eastern phenomenon of divine blessing and cursing that results in the human experience often alluded to textually in the HB using permutations of the lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬‎(§ 4.4). In light of the data, I will offer a theocentric interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as, the divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment (§ 4.5), i. e., a divine knowledge that enables humans to become ‘judges’ and actively employ retribution in human society, similar to Yhwh in the HB and for the purpose of sustaining a particular moral and political order in the social sphere. This chapter is devoted to divine knowledge within the EN and its surrounding context, and so, the locus of this chapter will remain solely upon this stated topic.2 1 By theocentric interpretation, I simply mean an interpretation that first takes into account, Yhwh. 2 In the research that follows, I will employ the comparative method in my analysis of HB texts by comparing and contrasting said texts at times with the greater cultural milieu of the ANE. In short, the comparative method employed in this research will not seek on the whole to compare and to contrast the texts of the ANE (Akkadian, Ugaritic, etc.) with those of the HB.

106

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

4.2 The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil At the center of the EN are two trees that stand in the “middle of the garden” (‫)בתוך הגן‬, the fruit of which, when consumed, gives to humanity respectively the qualities of divine life and divine knowledge.3 The tree of knowledge receives disproportionately more attention in the narrative action than does the tree of life, which only appears in Gen 2:9 and 3:22, 24. Nevertheless, both literary themes of ‘life’ and ‘knowledge’ are indispensable to the tension of the EN and situates said narrative within its ancient Near Eastern context.4 This dichotomy between these two themes suggests that humans acquire divine knowledge, but are unable to attain divine life (e.g., 3:5–7, 22–24). This narrative tension comes to its zenith in 3:22, after the illicit taking of divine knowledge by the humans and after the subsequent sanctions employed by Yhwh: ‫ויאמר ה׳ אלהים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים ואכל‬ ‫וחי לעלם‬ Rather, said method will be employed in such a way as to bring similarities in the greater cultural tradition of the ANE to the fore. As will be demonstrated in this chapter, the sort of comparison that I have employed in this research concerns motifs and themes that are widely attested in various textual documents from the ANE that span from as early as the late 3rd millennium BCE to that of the mid to late first millennium BCE. Therefore, as a standard, I am in agreement in this study with W. Hallo’s position of employing a “contextual approach”: “Here as elsewhere, comparison and contrast are alike legitimate tools in providing the essential context of biblical historiography; they are the twin components in a contextual approach to biblical literature.” See e.g., William W. Hallo, “Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach,” in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method, eds. William W. Hallo, Carl D. Evans and John B. White, PTMS 34 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: This Pickwick Press, 1980), 2, 18. For a brief introduction to the comparative method, see William H. Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case-Study in the Contrastive Approach,” HUCA 48 (1977): 1–18; K. Lawson Younger Jr., “The ‘Contextual Method’: Some West Semitic Reflections,” in Archival Documents from the Biblical World, COS 3, eds. K. Lawson Younger Jr. and William W. Hallo (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3:xxxv–xlii; see esp. Neal A. Huddleston, “Deuteronomy as Mischgattung: A Comparative and Contrastive Discourse Analysis of Deuteronomy and Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2015), 17–23; Grabbe, Ancient Israel, 3–38 (esp. 37–38). Cf. Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13; Morton Smith, “The Present State of Old Testament Studies,” JBL 88 (1969): 19–35. 3 For a discussion about whether there exists only one tree or two trees in the EN, see Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 5–11; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 187–197; Rosenberg, King and Kin, 64–65; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 212; Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte, 51. I agree with Cassuto that there are two trees as evidenced by the rhythmic nature of Gen 2:9b, see Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, Genesis 1–6:8, 111. Consider the rhythmic qualities of 2:9b: ‫וְ עֵ ץ ַה ַחּיִ ים ְּבתֹוְך‬ ‫הּגָ ן וְ ֵעץ ַה ַּד ַעת טֹוב וָ ָרע‬.ַ See too, van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 38; Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 21, n. 45. 4 Compare the Gilgamesh Epic and the Adapa myth, so Rosenberg, King and Kin, 64; Engnell, “Knowledge and Life,” 103–119 (esp. 116); cf. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 212.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

107

“Then Yhwh-Elohim said: ‘Now that the man (humanity) has become like one of us, knowing good and bad / evil, what if he were to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever!’”

This passage establishes the logical movement in the narrative, namely, that just as the tree of life dispenses divine life (‫ )חי לעלם‬when its fruit is consumed, so must the tree of knowledge dispense divine knowledge. If divine life refers to life eternal (‫ )חי לעלם‬in the logic of the narrative, then to what does divine knowledge refer, and moreover, why is it forbidden on pain of death to humans and why is human acquisition of it a threat to Yhwh? To begin, we must first consider Gen 2:9 and 2:16–17.

4.2.1 Gen 2:9 and 2:16–17 ‫ ויצמח ה׳ אלהים מן האדמה כל עץ נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל ועץ החיים בתוך הגן ועץ הדעת‬Gen 2:9 ‫טוב ורע‬ ‫) ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא‬17( ‫ ויצו ה׳ אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל‬Gen 2:16–17 ‫תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות‬ Gen 2:9 Then Yhwh-Elohim caused to grow from the ground every tree pleasing to the sight and good for food; also, the tree of life was in the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:16–17 Then Yhwh-Elohim commanded the man saying, “From every tree of the garden you shall freely eat. (17) But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from it; for on the day that you eat from it, you will certainly die.5

The phrase, ‫עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬, is first encountered in 2:9bß and appears again in 2:17aα. The syntax of this phrase proves difficult for translators, as seen through these few examples: “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” (JPS); “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (NRSV, REB, NET; Westermann, Wenham, Matthews, Mettinger); “the tree of knowledge of good and bad” (Speiser, Sarna); and “the tree of knowing good and evil” (Greenstein).6 Wallace and Mettinger 5 For an interesting discussion regarding the translation of ‫אדם‬, see Richard S. Hess, “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ‘ādām’ in Genesis I-V,” in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. John Emerton, VTSup 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 15. Hess demonstrates that the Hebrew term ‫ אדם‬in the EN is comparable to the logographic sign lú in Akkadian texts of the second millennium BCE where the context of said terms “refer to a particular individual who has or is given responsibility for the care and maintenance of a particular geographical area, be that a city, a city-state, a region, or a garden” (Ibid., “Splitting the Adam,” 7). 6 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 213; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 44; Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 199–200; Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 5; Speiser, Genesis, 14; Sarna, Genesis, 19; Edward L. Greenstein, “Presenting Genesis 1, Constructively and Deconstructively,” Proof 21 (2001): 15.

108

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

offer the clearest discussion regarding the awkwardness in the syntax of this phrase, which mostly concerns the function of ‫הדעת‬.7 Should ‫ דעת‬be taken as the absolute noun of the construct state with the definite article ‫ה‬, thus, ‫עץ הדעת‬, “the tree of the knowledge”? If so, then how are we to understand ‫ טוב ורע‬since neither of these adjectival permutations in the construct chain appear with the definite article? The other option is to understand ‫ דעת‬as an infinitive construct of ‫ידע‬ that takes a definite article. Wallace suggests that the substantivised infinitive, ‫הדעת‬, should be understood as taking as its object the phrase, ‫טוב ורע‬.8 As an example from the HB, Wallace cites Jer 22:16, the only other instance in which this substantivised infinitive appears: ‫דן דין־עני ואביון אז טוב הלוא־היא הדעת אתי נאם־ה׳‬ “He emphatically judged the case of the poor and the needy. Then all was well! Is not this to know me?” says Yhwh.9

Although uncommon, Jer 22:16 confirms that ‫ הדעת‬as a substantivised infinitive can take an object. Van Wolde suggests convincingly that ‫ הדעת‬in Gen 2:9 is pulling “double duty” as an absolute noun in construct with ‫ עץ‬and as a substantivised verb that takes the direct object ‫טוב ורע‬.10 Thus, ‫ עץ הדעת‬is simply two nouns in construct, i. e., “the tree of the knowledge”; however, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, is verbal, i. e., “the knowing of good and evil.”11 Having understood the syntax then, how should we translate and interpret the phrase in light of its constituent parts?12

7 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 115–116; Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 61–62. 8 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 116; Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 61. 9 See e.g., Joüon, § 124j and § 124d, n. 4; GKC § 115d. Note also the retributive aspect of this verse with regard to ‫טוב‬. 10 van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 36; Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 61. 11 See Mettinger’s helpful diagram (Ibid., Eden Narrative, 62); cf. Dohmen, Schöpfung und Tod, 55, who contends that the syntax reads: ‫עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬. See too, Schottroff, “‫ דעת‬,‫ידע‬,” TLOT 2:513: “Here haddaʿat should be construed as a verbal noun (inf. cs.) whose verbal nature has been functionally maintained as the nomen rectum in a cs. relationship.” 12 In the following analysis, I will not consider the noun, ‫עץ‬. For a thorough overview of the tree motif in the EN in light of its ancient Near Eastern setting, see Bauks, “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden,” 267–301.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

109

4.2.1.1 ‫טוב‬ The first lexeme to be considered is ‫טוב‬.13 It is of Proto-Semitic origin and belonging to the “small group of originally biliteral substantives.”14 From its earliest attestation, this lexeme carried a wide range of semantic function. Höver-Johag lists eight different categories of meaning in its use across the ANE: 1) desirability of an object; 2) the utility of an object; 3) “right words and deeds” that define the relationship between the gods and humans; 4) “gracious will” (šāru ṭābu, lit., his ‘good breath’) of the king in Assyrian and Babylonian texts; 5) the description of loyalty in suzerainty treaties and in “‘official’ letters and communications between individual rulers”; 6) in Aramaic, ṭôḇ is specialized in its use “in the administration of justice”; 7) used as descriptions of persons; and 8) as a sacral symbol for blessedness.15 These eight categories show the degree to which the context of any particular usage of this root is vital for its understanding and interpretation. The same is true of its use in the HB, in which attestation of said root is “from the early period down to the latest period of the OT canon.”16 The categories of semantic function listed above can be applied in a general sense to the overall function and attestation of ‫ טוב‬in the HB.17 a) Immediate Context within the EN Precisely because the context of any derivative of this root is essential to its semantic function, I suggest that ‫טוב‬, as included terminologically in the divine knowledge, must be interpreted within the surrounding context of the EN and with a particular lens upon how it is that ‫ טוב‬functions when Yhwh is the subject or cause of ‫טוב‬. The only permutations that occur are found in two other passages apart from Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22, the latter passages (3:5, 22) being equivalent or similar to ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. The first occurrence of ‫ טוב‬is in 2:9, where it is stated that Yhwh made trees to grow that were “good for food” (‫)טוב למאכל‬. This statement carries a utilitarian quality, pointing to the function for which these trees are to serve. The second occurrence in 2:12 is an adjectival permutation modifying the noun, ‫זהב‬, which simply means that the ‫“( זהב‬gold”) of the land (Havilah) is ‫טוב‬ (“good”). Clearly, this semantic function of this employment of the lexeme, ‫טוב‬,

13 For extensive bibliography regarding this lexeme, and its employment throughout the HB, see Höver-Johag, “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:296–297, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:315–317; Robert P. Gordon, “‫טוב‬,” NIDOTTE 2:346–350; Andrew Bowling, “‫טוב‬,” TWOT 1:345–346; H. J. Stoebe, “,‫ יטב‬,‫טוב‬ ‫יפה‬,” TLOT 2:486–495; “‫טוב‬,” HALOT 2:370–371, “‫טוב‬,” DCH 3:349–356; “‫טוב‬,” BDB 373–376. For its Akkadian cognate, ṭābu, see CAD, Ṭ, 15–42; AHw, 1377–1378. 14 Höver-Johag, “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:297, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:317. 15 Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:298–303 (a–h), and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:318–323 (a–h). 16 Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:304, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:322. 17 For said accounting and derivations in the HB specifically, see n. 13 above.

110

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

is utilitarian as well. It is good / precious gold! The third occurrence is found in 2:18, where Yhwh-Elohim states that he will make a partner for the man because it is “not good” (‫ )לא טוב‬that he should be alone. In order to supplement this negative evaluation, Yhwh-Elohim makes and provides for the man a partner “corresponding to him,” ‫“( ִא ָשה‬woman”; 2:21–22).18 In these occurrences, the semantic range of ‫ טוב‬is basic. However, with a focus upon the narrative action of Yhwh, these permutations of ‫ טוב‬suggest a semantic function equivalent to the provision of benefits by Yhwh for the human. Matthews writes: “The ‘good’ (‫)טוב‬ gold echoes the ‘good’ creation of chap. 1 and testifies to God’s excelling provision for the human couple.”19 These are the only additional occurrences of ‫ טוב‬next to those permutations found in 2:9, 17; 3:5, and 22 (save for Gen 3:6), and therefore, I suggest that a consideration of ‫ טוב‬in the ‘priestly’ version of the creation narrative will prove helpful in supporting my suggestion of interpreting ‫ טוב‬as ‘benefits’ in this analysis.20 b) Surrounding Context to the EN: Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31 In Genesis 1, there are seven permutations of the Hebrew lexeme, ‫טוב‬:‎ 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, and 31. Each permutation is adjectival and occurs in the divine evaluative phrase, ‫וירא אלהים כי טוב‬, “And God saw that it was good.” Traditionally, interpreters understood a moral quality to this permutation of ‫ טוב‬in the creation narrative.21 After a short survey of the semantic nuances that ‫ טוב‬can carry in the HB, Smith concludes that these seven permutations of ‫ טוב‬in Genesis 1 suggest both semantic functions of ‘benefit’ and ‘moral’ good, albeit, within a priestly framework of holiness.22 Differently, Greenstein argues for a semantic meaning of “pleasing” in the sense that what God sees is pleasing to him, which neither implies a meaning of moral goodness in creation itself, nor the assurance of the same evaluation by another judge.23 Contra to Smith and Greenstein, Walton suggests interpreting ‫ טוב‬in Genesis 1 as meaning “functioning properly,” in the sense that creation is evaluated by ‫ אלהים‬as “operating well” and according to the purposes and direction of ‫אלהים‬.24 He bases this argument upon the occurrence of ‫ לא טוב‬in 2:18, postulating that said evaluation refers neither to “moral perfection” nor to “quality or workmanship”; rather, it refers to a lacuna of function remedied by the 18 Sarna, Genesis, 21. Cf. Prov. 18:22. 19 So Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 213. 20 For ‫ טוב‬in Gen 3:6, see § 4.2.3.1.b below. 21 See e.g., Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 61–64. 22 Ibid., Priestly Vision, 62: “God is good in all these respects, and when God creates, creation is likewise good.” 23 Greenstein, “Presenting Genesis 1,” 13–17. 24 Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, 50; Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 40.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

111

creation of the woman.25 Arnold contends that this evaluative phrase means that all of creation “pleases” Yhwh in its proper function and order.26 I suggest that in light of this study so far, a theocentric interpretation of ‫ טוב‬in Genesis 1 suggests that what Yhwh sees and evaluates as ‫ טוב‬is a referent to creation as doing what it was commanded to do (similar to Walton and Arnold) and as a consequence is existing in a state of high order according to the will / pleasure of Yhwh (so Greenstein and Arnold).27 Moreover, the evaluative ‫ טוב‬by Yhwh cannot be separated from the narrative action that suggests a flourishing ecosystem that has within it benefits that enhance and sustain life in the cosmic order (benefit and moral good; so Smith and Matthews). Similarly, Hess draws attention to the employment of the Akkadian cognate, ṭābu, in one particular text from Alalakh that demonstrates its reference to ‘satisfaction’ in a sale of land agreement between two parties.28 Commenting upon line 17, Hess suggests that this permutation of ṭābu “may be compared with the wide use of Hebrew ‘‫ ’טוב‬in biblical contexts related to the covenantal work of God in creation (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) and his covenantal gifts (e.g., Deut 3:25).”29 Moreover, Hess’s direct comment upon the aforementioned passages from Gen 1 suggests an emphasis similar but of different nuance to the “treaty language of loyalty and agreement,” pointing rather to the “moral quality of divine goodness” in creation; to the perfect harmony of creation as responding to the “divine creative word”; and in Gen 1:31, to the evaluation that creation is exactly “as God intended.”30 Although not commenting upon ‫ טוב‬regarding these passages, Levenson’s summary of creation theology proves most helpful here: The concern of the creation theology is not creatio ex nihilo, but the establishment of a benevolent and life-sustaining order, founded upon the demonstrated authority of the God who is triumphant over all rivals. Their elimination, together with the joyful subordination to the divine victor of all that survive, is the tangible proof of his lordship and the enduring availability of a friendly world.31 25 Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, 50. For ‫ לא טוב‬in the HB, see Exod 18:17; 1 Sam 26:16; 29:6; 1 Kgs 19:4; 2 Kgs 5:12; Isa 65:2; Ezek 18:18; Ps 36:5; Prov 16:29; 17:26; 18:5; 19:2; 20:23; 25:27; 28:21; Neh 5:9. 26 Arnold, Genesis, 40. 27 See too, Levenson’s, “obedient environment,” [Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 86] as well as Middleton’s similar conclusions [J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005), 68]. I am thankful to Professor Brian Brock for bringing Middleton’s work on this passage to my attention. 28 “Sale of a Town (AT 52),” trans. Richard S. Hess (COS 3.99B:249–250), line 17. See e.g., 1 Kgs 21:2. 29 “Sale of a Town (AT 52),” COS 3.99B:250, n. 2. 30 Hess, The Old Testament, 46 (excursus on Alalakh). See too, Matthew McAffee, “The Good Word: Its Non-Covenant and Covenant Significance in the Old Testament,” JSOT 39 (2015): 399, n. 68 31 Levenson, Creation, 47.

112

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

Suffice it to say, ‫ טוב‬carries all of these meanings within Gen 1, and demonstrates clearly the complexity of the semantic function of this particular lexeme’s many permutations at the contextual level.32 c) Surrounding Context to the EN: Gen 4:7 ‫הלוא אם תיטיב שאת ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ ואליך תשוקתו ואתה תמשל בו‬ If you do what is right (‫)יטב‬, there is exaltation; but if you do not do what is right (‫)יטב‬, sin is the demon at the door and its desire is for you; but you should rule over it.33

This passage is replete with difficulties, both with regard to the text and to its interpretation. Concerning the purposes of this study, there are two permutations of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫יטב‬, an “alternative form of ‫( ”טוב‬lit., “to be good”).34 Both instances attest to ‫ טוב‬as referring to the act of doing what is ‘good’ according to the evaluation of Yhwh, who, in this case, has indicated his displeasure with Cain’s offering (v. 5). Yhwh provides two contrasting notions in this verse: 1) If Cain does well (‫)אם תיטיב‬, then he can expect ‘exaltation’ (‫ ;)שאת‬but if Cain does not do well (‫)ואם לא תיטיב‬, then sin (‫ )חטאת‬seeks to rule over him. Thus, ‘doing well’ is a reference to doing the will of Yhwh, i. e., doing what pleases Yhwh, which, in this instance, refers to proper sacrifice. Most instructive for our purposes is to note the positive and negative result of a positive or negative evaluation as given and judged by Yhwh (e.g., v. 5).35 d) Summary What this short analysis shows unequivocally is that within the immediate context of Gen 3, the employment of the Hebrew ‫ טוב‬refers to 1) the benefits of / in creation, 2) divine evaluative preference, 3) faithfulness of the created order to Yhwh, and 4) moral goodness. Firstly, ‫ טוב‬employs the function of ‘beneficial’ in the sense that creation sustains and enhances the flourishing of the ecosystem (life) and its origin 32 See too, Konrad Schmid, “Genealogien der Moral. Prozesse fortschreitender ethischer Qualifizierung von Mensch und Welt im Alten Testament,” in Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt: philosophische und religiöse Konzeptionen vom Alten Orient bis zum frühen Islam, eds. Henz-Günther Nesselrath and Florian Wilk, ORA 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 89–90, and his instructive comments there. 33 Following Speiser, Genesis, 32–33, and his reading of the syntax of v. 7 and his translation of ‫רבץ‬. For recent discussions regarding this passage, see Crouch, “Interpolative Gloss,” 250–258; Robert P. Gordon, “‘Couch’ or ‘Crouch’: Genesis 4:7 and the Temptation of Cain,” in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, eds. James K. Aitken, Katherine J. Dell and Brian A. Mastin, BZAW 420 (Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2011), 195–209; Matthew R. Schlimm, “At Sin’s Entryway (Gen 4,7): A Reply to C. L. Crouch,” ZAW 12 (2012): 409–415. 34 “‫יטב‬,” HALOT 2:408; Stoebe, “‫ יפה‬,‫ יטב‬,‫טוב‬,” TLOT 2:486. 35 I have omitted Gen 6:2 since it is basic in its semantic quality, i. e., ‫כי טבת הנה‬, “that they were beautiful.”

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

113

is only the result of the creative actions of Yhwh in the narrative. Secondly, ‫ טוב‬also indicates the divine evaluative function of ‘pleasure’ for Yhwh (so Greenstein). Thirdly, ‫ טוב‬also refers generally to the semantic notion of ‘faithfulness’ in that creation is fully harmonious with the word spoken by Yhwh, doing what it was commanded to do. Fourthly, ‫ טוב‬carries the nuance of ‘moral’ in the sense that creation reflects ‘divine goodness’ as emphasized by Smith and Hess above. It is best to hold these varying interpretations in tension since each carry with it a critical and reasonable reading of the text. However, it must be stated that in the above references to ‫טוב‬, it is not difficult to see the narrative focus of reciprocity between Yhwh and his creation in Gen 1–3. In light of the above discussion, and precisely because Gen 1–3 is inherently theological, it is essential that an analysis of Yhwh’s knowledge and actions be employed in the interpretive process of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. For our purposes, I will emphasize the ‘beneficial’ nuance of ‫ טוב‬since its most basic function is the central movement of the narrative, that is to say, the ‫ טוב‬in creation is assumed to be the result of the will of Yhwh. Furthermore, the beneficial nuance of ‫ טוב‬is demonstrable in both Gen 1 and in the EN, as evidenced above. In this way, the semantic function of ‫טוב‬, first and foremost, clearly refers to the blessing (“gift / reward”) within a creational and covenantal framework, such as in Deut 3:25 (so Hess), ‫הארץ הטובה‬, “the good land,” and ‫ההר הטוב הזה‬, “that good hill country,” as well as in other examples such as Exod 18:9.36 In light of this discussion, I suggest that ‫טוב‬, as referring to that which sustains and enhances life in Gen 1–3, is synonymous with the notion of the divine blessing in an ancient Near Eastern context.37 This notion is supported by Deut 30:15, wherein ‫ טוב‬refers generally to the blessing which leads to the fullness of life.38

36 Compare Miller, Sin and Judgment, 10, where he expounds on Hosea’s use of ‫ארץ‬: “It [the land] belongs to Yhwh and is the locus of his blessing, the means by which he enriches his people.” See too, Num 14:7; Deut 1:25, 35 (‫ טוב‬and ‫;)רעע‬‎ 3:25; 4:21–22; 6:18; 8:7, 10; 9:6; 11:17; Josh 23:13, 16.  37 See e.g., Kitz, Cursed are You, 11, and 56, where she suggests that the Sumerian erim2 (lit., “bad / evil”), in certain contexts, is a textual referent to the curse. See too, Hempel, “Segen und Fluch,” 47; Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria, 244; Crawford, Blessing and Curse, 16; Urbrock, “Blessings and Curses,” ABD 1:755; Anderson, “Social Function,” 223–237 (esp. 227). For a very helpful discussion regarding the comparison of these Akkadian cognates with their Hebrew counterparts (‫ טוב‬and ‫)רעע‬, see Smith, “Mesopotamian Ophiomancy,” 43 and n. 31 (see my section § 2.2.9.3, n. 154). See also, Austin Surls, Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus: From Etymology to Literary Onomastics, BBRSup 17 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), who contends that ‫טּובי‬ ִ in Exod 33:19 is partly a reference to “the blessings that attended Moses’s covenant relationship with him.” Compare Ps 31:20: ‫מה רב טובך אשר צפנת‬ ‫ליראיך פעלת לחסים בך נגד בני אדם‬, “How abundant is the good, that You have in store for those who fear You, that You do in the full view of men, for those who take refuge in You” (JPS). 38 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 307–313.

114

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

4.2.1.2 ‫רעע‬ The second lexeme to be considered in this phrase is ‫רעע‬.39 Unlike the root for its opposite (i. e., ‫(טוב‬, ‫ רעע‬is not as common in other semitic languages.40 In the West Semitic world, the only attestation outside of the HB of this lexeme is in Phoenician, albeit scarcely, and there is no consensus on whether or not the root appears in Ugaritic.41 Even though this particular lexeme is not as common across the ANE, its semantic function and attestation throughout the HB is comparable to lexemes such as lemēnu in Akkadian and ‫ באש‬in Aramaic.42 Dohmen rightly notes that “each of these terms covers the most varied aspects of everything not good or negative: they do not make a distinction between ‘bad’ and ‘evil,’ and so the exact meaning of ‫ רעע‬in each instance can be determined only from contextual clues.”43 Similarly, Stoebe observes that while English oscillates between the two terms ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ to describe the adjectival and moral nuances in all that signifies non-goodness, “Hebrew unites them in a single expression.”44 This proves problematic for translation and interpretation, which requires a careful parsing of the conflation of the English ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ present in any permutation of ‫רעע‬. On that note, Stoebe proposes four distinct nuances to the various derivations of ‫ רעע‬in the HB: 1) “‫( רע‬and ‫ רעע‬qal) in evaluations and decisions”; 2) “‫רע‬/‫רעה‬ as “misfortune,” etc.”; 3) “as ‘evil, evil act,’ etc.”; and 4) the use of ‫ רעע‬hi.”45 The root can occur in both passive and active connotations, as well as in profane and moral contexts.46 Just as its opposite ‫ טוב‬is basic in everyday use, so too of ‫ רעע‬in its elemental function. Moreover, verbal permutations (and others as well) can have as their subject and agent both Yhwh and the human characters, such as in Jer. 18:7–12 or Ruth 1:21. However, it must be stressed that a permutation of ‫רעע‬ as referring to a ‘wicked / immoral’ action never has Yhwh as the subject.47 Such a fact must be set at the fore in interpreting ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN precisely because 39 Dohmen and Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:560–588, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:582–611; David W. Baker, “‫רעע‬,” NIDOTTE 3:1,151–1,155; G. Herbert Livingston, “‫רעע‬,” TWOT 2:854–856; H. J. Stoebe, “‫רעע‬,” TLOT 3:1249–1254; “I‫רעע־‬,” HALOT 3:1269–1270; “I‫רעע־‬,” BDB 947–949. 40 Dohmen and Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:562, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:584. 41 Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:562, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:584. For Ugaritic, see “I‫רעע־‬,” HALOT 3:1,269. It does have attestation in Aramaic, see Smith, Genesis of Good and Evil, 51, 133 n. 10, who cites J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of North–West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 2:1079 (in AMB 13:10). 42 “‫באיש‬,” HALOT 5:1830. Also, Akkadian, bīšu, CAD, B, 270b and AHw, 131. Some contend that the Akkadian, ragāgu, is related, see “I‫רעע־‬,” HALOT 3:1269. 43 Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:562, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:585. E.g., 2 Kgs 4:41: ‘‫= ’דבר רע‬ ‘something harmful.’ See too, Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil, 51–53. 44 Stoebe, “‫רעע‬,” TLOT 3:1,249. 45 Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” TLOT 3:1,250 (for full exposition of said categories, 1,250–1,254). 46 Livingston, “‫רעע‬,” TWOT 2:854 47 Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” TWOT 2:855.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

115

Yhwh is the subject / agent of some experiences textually signified using permutations of ‫רעע‬. Therefore, the HB does depict Yhwh as the causation over extremes that are experienced by humans that are textually signified using a permutation of ‫ רעע‬that generally means in those contexts, ‘misfortune / bad / disaster.’48 In those cases, said permutations never refer to moral wickedness as is often the case with the human characters and their ‘evil’ actions. Thus, actions by Yhwh that generally describe human experiences textually in the HB using a permutation of ‫ רעע‬are considered just punishments against human immorality or are considered actions of divine sovereignty.49 a) Immediate Context within the EN Apart from the permutations found in Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, and 3:22—permutations in a similar phrase to ‫—הדעת טוב ורע‬there are no other permutations of ‫ רעע‬in the EN, and therefore, any inference based upon the EN itself, must proceed by focusing upon what could be similar to a permutation of ‫ רעע‬elsewhere in the HB, of which, so I contend, there are two possible examples in the EN. However, I will defer that discussion until further below in this chapter. b) Surrounding Context of the EN: Gen 6:5; 8:21 In Gen 6:5, there are two permutations of ‫רעע‬: ‫וירא ה׳ כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ וכל יצר מחשבת לבו רק רע כל היום‬ And Yhwh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every idea of his heart was only evil continually.

The first permutation is in a nominal form that is in construct with ‫ האדם‬and modified by the preceding adjective ‫רבה‬, to form the phrase, ‫רבה רעת האדם‬, “the evil / wickedness of humanity was very great.” Moreover, the construct chain occurs in a phrase of divine evaluation, wherein Yhwh sees (‫ )וירא ה׳‬that humanity’s wickedness was very great on the earth. The second permutation in 6:5 is adjectival and connotes the idea that humanity’s thoughts / ideas (‫ )יצר מחשבת לב‬were only evil (‫)רע‬. The noun, ‫יֵ צֶ ר‬, generally means, “inclination, striving,” or something that is already concrete and formed into shape, having been derived from the Hebrew lexeme, ‫יצר‬, connoting the action of shaping and forming.50 This passage, as well as the passage in 8:21, gave rise to the Rabbinic notion of ‫ יצר טוב‬and ‫יצר רע‬, the good and evil inclinations presiding within individuals, ‘inclining’ them towards the 48 See e.g., § 4.4 below, and too, 2  Sam  12:10 (§ 7.3.2.1 below) and 1  Kgs 17:20 (§ 5.3.5.1 below). 49 Cf. Dohmen and Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:585, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:609; Stoebe, “‫רעע‬,” TLOT 3:1,254. 50 “‫ ;יצר‬I‫יצר־‬,” HALOT 2:428–429.

116

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

moral actions of good or evil.51 The only other place in the Pentateuch where this nominal permutation of ‫ יצר‬appears is in Deut 31:21, referring to the inclination of the Israelites toward idolatry as well as to disobedience to the covenant set out by Moses.52 Commenting upon 6:5 specifically, Matthews contends that humanity’s proclivity to evil plans is “the continuing aftermath of humanity’s first partaking of ‘good (tôb) and evil (raʿ)’ (2:17; 3:5–6:22).”53 The question that must be raised at this juncture is: How is it that Gen 6:5 helps to interpret the meaning of ‫הדעת‬ ‫ טוב ורע‬in the EN? If we follow Matthews’ comment, then the assumption would be that moral autonomy is the result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which leads to the ‘potential’ actions of moral evil / wickedness (‫)רע‬ over and against actions of moral goodness (‫)טוב‬.54 Clearly, that is the meaning of Gen 6:5 and Deut 31:21 with regard to the employment of ‫ יצר‬in these texts. The inner inclinations of humans (‫ )יצר‬in Gen 6:5, and of the Israelites in Deut 31:21, do infer a proclivity toward that which is described as contrary (‫ )רע‬to the will of Yhwh, and therefore, assumes moral autonomy. However, does this not say more about humanity’s ‫ יצר‬than it does about ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, namely, the divine knowledge of good and evil? Precisely because Yhwh in the HB is not thought by the authors of these texts to commit evil in the sense of moral wickedness, these acts of human wickedness (‫ )רבה רעת האדם‬in Gen 6:5 only speak to the interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬from the perspective of Yhwh. Clearly, Gen 6:5 is a phrase of divine evaluation and carries “juridical overtones” and the beginnings of the retributive response by Yhwh in the flood narrative.55 The great evil / wickedness of humans (‫רבה רעת‬ ‫האדם‬, to whatever that may refer!) in 6:5a and the evil inclination of human ideas (‫ )יצר מחשבות לבו רק רע‬in 6:5b, assumes that said actions are evil (‫ )רעע‬because of the divine evaluation (‫)וירא ה׳ כי‬. A theocentric interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, when using Gen 6:5 as support for said interpretation, must conclude that said knowledge has something to do with moral and judicial evaluation, which, in this instance, judges human actions to be contrary to the divine, moral will. That humanity’s ‫ יצר‬remains contrary (‫ )רע‬to the moral will of Yhwh in these texts, as 51 For a recent discussion on this notion, see Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma,” JSJ 39 (2008): 513–539; Johann Cook, “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‫ יצר הטוב‬and ‫יצר הרע‬,” JSJ 38 (2007): 80–91; Miryam T. Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature, JAJSup 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 19–22 and her extensive bibliography there. See also, Chazon, “The Creation and Fall of Adam,” 16–18; Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil, 76–77. 52 Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 341. 53 Ibid., Genesis 1–11:26, 341; so too, Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil, 59 and 69. 54 It must be noted that Matthews suggests that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is best interpreted as divine wisdom that is received through an act of moral autonomy (Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 205). 55 Retributive actions in the HB by Yhwh are (in a normative sense) always for the purpose of reestablishing order/‫ משפט‬in the earth. See Sarna, Genesis, 47.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

117

stated in Gen 6:5, may say something about the initial taking of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬by the humans in the EN in direct violation of the command in Gen 2:17, but it does not speak to Yhwh’s ‘knowledge’ of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Gen 6:5.56 The same is true of the permutation of ‫ רעע‬that appears in Gen 8:21: ‫וירח ה׳ את ריח הניחח ויאמר ה׳ אל לבו לא אסף לקלל עוד את האדמה בעבור האדם כי יצר לב האדם רע‬ ‫מנעריו ולא אסף עוד להכות את כל חי כאשר עשיתי‬ Then Yhwh smelled the very pleasing aroma, and Yhwh said to himself: “I will never again curse the earth on account of humanity, for the inclination of the heart of humanity is evil from his youth. Therefore, I will never again strike all life as I did.”

Here, like its counterpart in 6:5, the permutation of ‫ רעע‬is a description of the human inclination (‫)יצר לב האדם‬, the inward thoughts that lead to human action. Yet, once again, the description appears in a phrase of divine evaluation since, in this instance, Yhwh is speaking to himself. In this case, it is not a judicial phrase, but simply, a moral evaluation; however, Yhwh does curb the retributive response of future judicial evaluations against human evil by promising never again to curse the ground with a flood, striking (‫ )להכות‬all that lives. Furthermore, there are two facets of this verse that are important for our study. The first facet of Gen 8:21 is that Yhwh refuses to curse the ground again (‫ )לא אסף לקלל עוד את האדמה‬with a flood on account of human ‫רעה‬. The cursing (‫)קלֵ ל‬ ִ of the ground refers to the flood waters and to Yhwh’s retributive response to the evil / wickedness of humanity (e.g., Gen 6:7).57 Most important to note here is that Yhwh’s retributive action to ‫ רבה רעת האדם‬in Gen 6:5 is described by Gen 8:21 as a curse. The punitive action of the curse of Yhwh in the HB is often described using the nominal permutation, ‫רעה‬, that refers specifically to the calamity / disaster / trouble resulting from divine retribution.58 Commenting upon Micah 2:3, Miller states: “The correspondence of human ‫ רע‬and divine ‫ … רע‬is relatively frequent … and functions as a kind of general category which specific instances of correlation of sin and punishment particularize.”59 To be sure, such a permutation of ‫ רעע‬does not occur in Gen 6–8. Nevertheless, I contend that the resulting calamity of the flood as punishment (‫קלֵ ל‬,ִ Gen 8:21) against great, human evil (Gen 6:5, ‫ )רבה רעת האדם‬in the earth could very well be described by the text as ‫“( רעה‬calamity / disaster”).

56 Consider Tikva Frymer-Kensky’s suggestion that ‫ רבה רעת האדם‬in Gen 6:5 refers to unrestrained murder and bloodguilt in the earth. See Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1–9,” BA 40 (1977): 147–155 (151–154). See too, e.g., Exod 32:22. 57 For a concise and helpful discussion regarding ‫ קלל‬in this passage, see Aitken, The Semantics, 240–241, A.5. 58 E.g., 2 Sam 12:11. 59 Miller, Sin and Judgment, 30.

118

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

The second facet concerns the short phrase, ‫מנעריו‬, “from his youth.” The term, ‫נער‬, can mean both “youth” and “infancy,” and so, alludes to the youngest of ages up until the time of full adulthood.60 In this way, Gen 8:21 informs our discussion by demonstrating that human proclivity toward ‫ רע‬occurs from the youngest of ages, and therefore, is in contradistinction to Deut 1:39, wherein children (‫ בניכם‬,‫ )טפכם‬are said to be devoid of knowing ‘good and bad / evil.’61 Therefore the human inclination to do ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, in the sense of pleasing or displeasing Yhwh, cannot be an interpretation of ‫( הדעת טוב ורע‬at least in the logic of the history of research) since Deut 1:39 clearly states that children do not know (‫‘ )לא־ידעו‬good and evil’ (‫)טוב ורע‬. c) Summary What is agreed upon in the literature is that ‫רעע‬, and any derivative of it, might carry a connotation generally described as spanning everything that is understood by the English words “bad” and “evil.” Many permutations of ‫ רעע‬refer to human evil / wickedness. However, no moral equivalent is carried by other permutations of ‫ רעע‬that assume Yhwh as the subject. Within the immediate context of the EN, there are no permutations of ‫ רעע‬that help to elucidate its meaning, save for two inferences that I contend are observable in Gen 3:1–6 and Gen 3:14–19.62 The closest example is found in Gen 6:5 and 8:21, wherein both permutations refer to the immoral and unethical intentions / actions of human characters. What is noteworthy, however, is that these permutations appear in phrases of divine evaluation; in Gen 6:5 as a juridical phrase, indicating an indictment against humans for their immoral and unethical actions that have corrupted the earth; and in Gen 8:21, ‫ רעע‬appears in a similar phrase of divine evaluation, suggesting that the human heart is wicked from one’s infancy onwards. Most instructive in 8:21 is that the text assumes the retributive result of the divinely sent flood against human ‫( רעה‬Gen 6:5) to be the divine curse (‫קלֵ ל‬,ִ Gen 8:21). Thus, the divine curse of retribution to human ‫( רעה‬so Gen 6:5), as informed by Gen 8:21, reveals that the text could very well employ a permutation of ‫רעע‬, i. e., ‫“( רעה‬calamity / disaster”), to refer to the divinely sent “disaster” of the flood, which is common in the HB.63 Within a Deuteronomic framework (e.g., Deut 30:15), which will be demonstrated in the remaining chapters of this research, ‫ רעע‬carries the contrastive notion to

60 Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 396, n. 108; Speiser, Genesis, 53. However, cf. Sarna, Genesis, 59. Compare Isa 7:15–16, so Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 213. 61 I understand the problematic term ‘moral autonomy’ in a post-Kantian world with regard to this discussion. Nevertheless, it is clear from Gen 8:21 that a ‫נער‬, from the youngest to the oldest, has a ‫( יצר‬or two) influencing their moral actions judged as ‫ טוב‬or ‫רע‬. 62 For this discussion, see § 4.3.2.3 and § 4.4.1 below. 63 To be clear, Gen 6–8 does not refer to the flood using the nominal permutation of ‫רעה‬ (“calamity / disaster”).

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

119

life (‫)טוב‬, that being all that is meant by death. Within that particular framework, ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬refer generally to the extremes of divine blessing and cursing, which result in life to its fullest (‫ )טוב‬or the experience of its opposite (‫)רעע‬, life at its worst, culminating in death.64

4.2.1.3 ‫ידע‬ The final lexeme that must be considered is ‫ידע‬.65 It is well attested throughout the ancient Semitic world.66 This lexeme carries the very basic and general notion of perception and knowing, both intellectually and experientially; it is the root that generally means knowledge. Its derivatives throughout the HB connote a wide range of nuanced variations of this basic meaning, requiring extreme sensitivity to the translation and interpretation of any permutation. Just a few examples will demonstrate the variation of this root. In Exodus 1:8, the text reads: ‫ויקם מלך־חדש על־מצרים אשר לא־ידע את־יוסף‬ Then a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.

In this instance, ‫ ידע‬has the meaning of being familiar with a person or being acquainted with an individual. Another example shows how ‫ ידע‬can refer to the act of sexual union between people, as in Gen 4:1: ‫והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו‬ Then the man knew Eve, his wife.67

In addition to these, the cognate refers to the knowledge of being able to do something, as in Jer 1:8: ‫ואמר אהה אדני ה׳ הנה לא ידעתי דבר כי נער אנכי‬ Then I said, ‘Ah, my Lord! See, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a boy.’

In another context, the root is used to indicate knowledge of Yhwh’s vengeance, as is the case in Ezek 25:14:

64 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 307–313; Stoebe, “‫רעע‬,” TLOT 3:1249; Dohmen and Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:583, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:606–607. 65 Botterweck, “‫ידע‬,” TDOT 5:448–481, and Ibid., “‫ידע‬,” ThWAT 3:479–512; Terrence E. Fretheim, “‫ידע‬,” NIDOTTE 2:401–406; Schottroff, “‫ דעת‬,‫ידע‬,” TLOT 2:508–522; Jack P. Lewis, “‫ידע‬,” TWOT 2:366–368; “‫ידע‬,” HALOT 2:390–392; “‫ידע‬,” BDB 393–396. 66 Botterweck, “‫ידע‬,” TDOT 5:449, and Ibid., “‫ידע‬,” ThWAT 3:482; Schottroff, “‫ דעת‬,‫ידע‬,” TLOT 2:508. 67 E.g., Gen 4:17, 25.

120

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

‫ונתתי את־נקמתי באדום ביד עמי ישראל ועשו באדום כאפי וכחמתי וידעו את־נקמתי‬ I will put my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel; they will put into action against Edom my anger and vengeance; and they will know my vengeance.

Still more, the root can refer to covenantal knowledge in its ancient Near Eastern context, as demonstrated in Deut 9:24: ‫ממרים הייתם עם ה׳ מיום דעתי אתכם‬ You have been rebellious people from the day I knew you.68

Although not exhaustive, these few examples show how wide the semantic range of ‫ ידע‬is in the HB. Most important to note is the confluence inherent in this root lexeme generally meaning intellectual and experiential knowledge. a) Immediate Context: Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 7, 22 In Gen 2:9 and 2:17, the derivative of ‫ ידע‬that is present in the phrase, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, i. e., ‫דעת‬, has already been analyzed above (§ 4.2.1). A similar infinitive construct of ‫ ידע‬appears for a second time in 3:22, ‫לדעת טוב ורע‬. However, these three phrases must be contrasted with ‫י ְֹדעֵ י טוב ורע‬, “knowers of good and bad,” in 3:5. I will digress at the moment regarding an analysis of 3:5 and 3:22, of which, see further below (§ 4.2.3). There are two other occurrences of this root in the EN. One occurrence is found at the beginning of Gen 3:5aα, ‫כי ידע אלהים‬, “For God knows.” This permutation is very basic and refers to the greater knowledge that Yhwh has pertaining to the effects of human partaking of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. The second occurrence is found in Gen 3:7, ‫וידעו כי עירמם הם‬, “And they knew that they were naked.” This permutation refers to the awareness of human nakedness that was seemingly unknown prior to the taking of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬by the humans. Both of these permutations in Gen 3:5 and 3:7 show a basic accounting for ‫ ידע‬in the EN, and they generally refer to ‘knowledge / knowing.’69 b) Surrounding Context: Gen 4:9; 8:11; 9:24 Besides the occurrences outside of the EN that refer to sex (e.g., Gen 4:1, 17, 25), there are three other instances in which ‫ ידע‬appears. The first is found in Gen 4:9, wherein Cain responds with the phrase, ‫לא ידעתי‬, “I do not know,” to Yhwh’s 68 See e.g., Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew yāda’,” BASOR 181 (1966): 31–37. 69 See esp., Speiser, Genesis, 26: “The Heb. stem ‫ ידע‬signifies not only ‘to know,’ but more especially ‘to experience, to come to know’; in other words, the verb describes both the process and the result.”

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

121

interrogation regarding Cain’s crime of murdering his brother, Abel. This example demonstrates a very basic meaning in the permutation of this lexeme. Similarly, the next occurrence of ‫ ידע‬in Gen 8:11 is basic and refers to Noah’s observation that the waters of the flood had receded from the earth. The final permutation of ‫ידע‬ in Gen 1–11 occurs in Gen 9:24, and it may prove most helpful for understanding ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN: ‫וייקץ נח מיינו וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן‬ When Noah had awakened from his wine, he knew that which his youngest son had done to him.

What is instructive regarding this permutation is that it refers to the knowledge of an immoral act committed by his youngest son. The text does not state how it is that Noah knew what had happened. Nevertheless, his ‘knowing’ is one of a moral and judicial quality, which leads to retributive sanctions, backed by the divine curse in v. 25: ‫ויאמר ארור כנען עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו‬ Then he (Noah) said: “Cursed (by Yhwh) be Canaan, slave of slaves may he be to his brothers.”70

This example is the first in Gen 1–11 wherein a human character curses another with similar function to that which Yhwh performs in the EN (e.g., Gen 3:13–19). As Kitz states regarding v. 25: “Noah assumes Yhwh will accomplish the punishment expressed in the simple malediction.”71 It must be noted that at the most basic level, a curse (in the ANE; see § 3.3 above) intends to harm and degrade its target, which places the results of said curse within the semantic range of the Hebrew lexeme, ‫רעע‬. The opposite, of course, is true regarding blessings, which follow v. 25 in v. 26: ‫ויאמר ברוך ה׳ אלהי שם ויהי כנען עבד למו‬ He also said, “Blessed by Yhwh, the God of Shem (be Shem); and may Canaan be his slave.”72

In this particular verse, Noah blesses Shem for his righteous actions over and against the actions of Ham. Most important to note is that the blessing, which at the most basic level conveys notions of life to the fullest, is often described in the 70 I have provided Kitz’s translation in order to emphasize the point of the curse as punishment, see Kitz, Cursed are You, 171. 71 Ibid., Cursed are You, 171; cf. Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 421. 72 For translation, see Kitz, Cursed are You, 171.

122

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

HB using a permutation of the Hebrew lexeme, ‫טוב‬.73 Thus, Gen 9:24–26 informs our discussion by showing how it is that a human character (Noah) employs the punitive actions of blessing and cursing in response to knowledge (‫ )ידע‬of righteous and unrighteous human actions. In this way, the human character (Noah) participates in the divine actions of punitive retribution (for reward and punishment) through speech acts of blessing and cursing. c) Summary These are the only examples in Gen 1–11 where a permutation of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ ידע‬appears. The only permutation that informs our discussion is found in Gen 9:24, wherein the human character, Noah, has knowledge (‫ )ידע‬of the immoral action of his son Ham, and presumably, of the moral actions of Shem. This knowledge results in Noah’s participation in the divine retributive response of blessing and cursing, which affects the lineage of both sons, for good (Shem) or for bad (Ham).

4.2.1.4 Summary to Gen 2:9 Therefore, the most literal translation possible (so I contend) for ‫עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬ in Gen 2:9 is, “The Tree of the Knowledge [of] knowing good and bad / evil.” This translation is as proper to the Hebrew syntax as is possible. Before providing an ‘interpretation’ of this knowledge (see § 4.5 below), we must move forward with the most important thematic elements in the EN that concern our term, ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ורע‬, beginning with the divine test and prohibition of Gen 2:16–17.

4.2.2 The Divine Test: Gen 2:16–17 ‫) ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום‬17( ‫ויצו ה׳ אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל‬‎(16) ‫אכלך ממנו מות תמות‬ (16) Then Yhwh-Elohim commanded the man, saying: “From every tree of the garden you may certainly eat. (17) But from the tree of the knowledge [of] knowing good and bad / evil, you shall not eat from it, for in the day that you eat from it, you will certainly die.

The question of the prohibition and the divine test in Gen 2:16–17, and why it is that eating from ‫ עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬is forbidden to the man on pain of death in the EN, is important for the interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.74 Mettinger suggests that the 73 See esp., Ibid., Cursed are You, 9–31. 74 For the suggestion of a divine test in the EN, see Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 52–58; Walter Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get It Right?,” JTS 39 (1988): 16–17; Gordon, “Ethics of Eden,” 29–31.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

123

literary motif of the ‘divine test’ is evidence of Deuteronomistic influence, which will prove important for my choice to relegate a majority of my exegetical work to narrative segments of the DtrH.75 He contends that this divine test is observable when we consider two other well known texts in the HB that concern divine testing, namely, Genesis 22 and the book of Job. In Gen 22, the Hebrew root ‫ נסה‬in its piel stem (“to test”) does appear in this narrative regarding Abraham’s obedience. However, it does not appear in the book of Job even though the theme of that particular book is indeed one of divine testing. Likewise, this lexeme (‫ )נסה‬does not appear in the EN. Nevertheless, Mettinger contends that the thematic elements of 1) a divine test; 2) Yhwh-Elohim knowing one’s show of obedience / fear toward him; and 3) ignorance on the part of humans regarding said test, all suggest Dtr influence.76 He cites Deut 8:1–3 as an example of divine testing (‫)נסה‬, wherein the Israelites were humbled in order that Yhwh would know (‫ )לדעת‬whether or not they would obey his commandments, in order that he might ‘do good to them’ (‫להיטבך‬, Deut 8:16). Mettinger suggests something similar with the prohibition in the EN.77 In support of Mettinger, it is in Gen 2:16 that the Hebrew root lexeme, ‫צוה‬, in piel, occurs for the first time in the book of Genesis: ‫וַ יְ צַ ו ה׳ אלהים על־האדם‬, “And Yhwh-Elohim commanded the man.”78 Stordalen contests that this phrase is the typical language of Yhwh’s issuing of laws, showing to the contrary that ‫ צוה את‬is the more typical construction for the issuing of commands, and that ‫ צוה על‬refers to a form of instruction being given by a “ruler (or father) concerning his subordinates.”79 It is true that the construction ‫ צוה את‬appears most often in the issuing of commands in the book of Exodus and elsewhere; however, there are examples where the use of ‫ צוה‬with each preposition works both ways. For example, in Gen 27:8, Rebekah gives a command to Jacob saying, ‫ועתה בני שמע בקלי לאשר ְמצַ ּוָ ה אתך‬, “And now my son, obey my voice as I have commanded you.” This is clearly an 75 See e.g., Deut 8:16 and the resultative ‘good’ (‫ )להיטב‬from Yhwh. See too, 76 Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 57. All three themes occur in Gen 22, Job, and the EN, even though ‫ נסה‬only appears in Gen 22. Mettinger argues that the EN “moves in the theological neighborhood of late, postexilic compositions such as Genesis 22 and the Job prologue” (Ibid., Eden Narrative, 57). See too, Norbert Lohfink, Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer: Christliche Auseinandersetzungen mit dem Alten Testament (Frankfurt: Joseph Knecht, 1965), 81–101 (esp. 90–94), when he writes: “Hätte Israel nicht sein Gottverhältnis in den ausgesprochen juristischen Kategorien eines Vertrages gedacht, dann wären das Moment der Freiheit an der Sünde und der Zusammenhang zwischen Sünde und bösem Ergehen sicher nicht so deutlich ins Bewußtsein getreten” (93). 77 See also, Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 211–212. 78 See, Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 51; Eckart Otto, “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionschistorischem Kontext,” in ‘Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit …’: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weishet Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Anja A. Diesel, BZAW 241 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996), 181. 79 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 226; Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 51, n. 31.

124

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

instruction given by a mother to her son. Also, in 1 Chr 16:40, the proposition ‫על‬ is used in relation to having been commanded by Yhwh: ‫ולכל־הכתוב בתורת ה׳ אשר‬ ‫צִ ּוָ ה על־ישראל‬, “According to all that was written in the teaching of Yhwh which he commanded Israel.” The language of Gen 2:16–17 does involve a divine command and also alludes to a divine test, as Mettinger correctly shows, which suggests that Yhwh is seeking to know (‫לדעת‬, Deut 8:2) whether or not the man will be obedient to the command in order ‘to do good’ to the obedient (‫להיטבך‬, Deut 8:16). Obviously, this has strong resonances with covenantal theology in the HB and the ANE, especially with regard to divine blessing and cursing as retribution for human obedience / disobedience.80 Without arguing for relative dating of the EN, and too, without arguing for direct borrowing between the EN and the DtrH or vice versa, I conclude that these themes suggest a connection at least on some level, even if that level may simply turn out to be nothing more than a shared cultural milieu.81 However, such a claim is significant if it can be demonstrated that ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function similarly in the EN as they do in the rest of Genesis and the books of the DtrH, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes. Thus, because of these thematic and theological connections between the EN and the DtrH, I suggest that certain permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the latter can provide important insight for the former. That being said, precisely because this is a divine test, it is only logical that upon a successful show of obedience to the divine command, the humans will then be invited to acquire the divine knowledge of ‫( טוב ורע‬see § 4.2.3 below).82 But 80 See too, Lohfink, Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer, 90–94 (esp. 92–93). 81 For an excellent overview of the dating and authorship of the EN, see McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 189–200 (199): “We are left, thus, with no satisfactory answer to the question of when, precisely, the Eden story was composed.” McDowell does suggest for a possible relative date, concluding that Gen 2:5–3:24 would be the older text to Gen 1:1–2:3 (Ibid., Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 199, 202). For a possible earlier date of J (9th–7th c. BCE), see John A. Emerton, “The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel and Ancient Hebrew Writing,” in Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, eds. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, PIASHUJ 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 33–49 (esp. 49), and McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 198–199. See too, Walter Bührer, “The Relative Dating of the Eden Narrative Gen *2–3,” VT 65 (2015): 365–376, who argues that Gen 2–3 is a ‘pre-priestly’ composition in contradistinction to the suggestion of Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic or late wisdom compositional traditions. Cf. Bauks, “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden,” 301: “These observations make it most likely to view Gen 2–3 as dating from perhaps not before the Persian period, which gives the tree-motif a new wisdom-critical profile, at least in comparison with Proverbs: these valuable trees are ambivalent, because they are the source of contestation and of progress at the same time.” See too, Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil, 45–58. The scope of my own study is too narrow to consider this debate at length. Nevertheless, I do contend that the thematic elements mentioned by Mettinger and others do show a connection between the EN and the texts of the DtrH on some level, even if (so J. Emerton) that level turns out to be simply a shared Weltanschauung within the scribal tradition of the 9th–7th c. BCE Northwest Semitic milieu. 82 So Wilder, “Illumination and Investiture,” 52.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

125

can we assume that the only reason for the prohibition in the narrative is a divine test, especially since a show of disobedience is threatened on pain of death? To this question, we now turn.

4.2.2.1 The Prohibition: Gen 2:17 I agree with Mettinger and others that the divine test is central to the whole of the EN:83 ‫ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות‬ But from the tree of the knowledge [of] knowing good and bad / evil, you shall not eat from it, for in the day that you eat from it, you will certainly die.

Essential is the phrase ‫ ביום‬in 2:17 and whether or not it refers to (1) the very day on which the command was broken; (2) to a more generalized sense of what happens when the fruit is / will be consumed; (3) or to a state of ‘being’ in which immortality is no longer attainable.84 Should the phrase, ‫ביום…מות תמות‬, be understood as a divine threat of punishment against disobedience? Westermann claims that it is a divine warning, suggesting that Yhwh acts differently to the threat after the humans disobeyed the command.85 Wenham disagrees with Westermann by showing that if indeed this were similar to the death sentence in legal texts, one would expect the inf. + hophal, ‫יּומת‬ ָ ‫מות‬, “he shall be put to death,” as opposed to the inf. + qal, ‫מות ָתמּות‬, “you will die.”86 Wenham shows how the latter is the “standard form of divine and royal threats in narrative and prophetic texts.”87 Moreover, 2:16 and the threat of death in 2:17 raises a different problem in the narrative, namely, that the humans have access (logically speaking) to the tree of life since it is not forbidden.88 Machinist postulates, therefore, that because this can be assumed from this particular reading, it is better to understand that the ‘death’ referred to in the EN is a loss of immortality.89 However, the narrative in 3:22 suggests that human eating from ‫ עץ החיים‬would result in eternal human life, and it leaves the reader with a sense that the humans have yet to eat from it. That being said, the prohibition of 2:17 is best understood to be on pain of death and the loss of immortality; divine retribution for disobedience to the command, which 83 Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 51; Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 211–212. 84 See Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 224; Speiser, Genesis, 17; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 67–68. 85 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 225. 86 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 67. Cf. ‫לא מות תמותון‬, “surely you will not die,” in Gen 3:4b. 87 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 67. He cites: Gen 20:7; 1 Sam 14:39, 44; 22:16; 1 Kgs 2:37, 42; 2 Kgs 1:4, 6; Ezek 33:8, 15. 88 See Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 214–16. 89 Ibid., “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise,” 214.

126

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

will be demonstrated more clearly in the discussion of the divine curse in the EN further below (see § 4.4.1).90 Precisely because ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is forbidden on pain of death / loss of immortality, and too, precisely because the narrative ends in Yhwh’s swift actions in Gen 3:22–24 of exiling the humans from ‫( גן עדן‬see § 4.4.1.4), I contend that the divine knowledge itself is reasonably forbidden and therefore, within the logic of the narrative, but be a dangerous knowledge. Yhwh does not deem it acceptable for humans to acquire / have this divine knowledge of ‫טוב ורע‬ in and through disobedience to his command. Thus, the human acquisition of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, through disobedience to the command of Yhwh, results in Yhwh’s quick actions to remove humanity from ‫ גן עדן‬and block their access to ‫עץ החיים‬ (e.g., Gen 3:22–23).91 Before stating explicitly what it is that is so dangerous about this divine knowledge (see § 4.5 below), which would require my stated interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, I must first consider the remaining thematic elements of the EN along with the actions of Yhwh in Gen 3:14–19 in order to substantiate this claim that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is reasonably forbidden (so P3).

4.2.2.2 Summary The command (‫ )צִ וָ ה‬given in Gen 2:16 and 2:17 is evidence of the language of law / command similar to other instances in the HB. Furthermore, Mettinger demonstrates that the central motif of the EN is a divine test, suggesting strong resonances with Deuteronomistic theology. The prohibition given in 2:17 is to be understood as a threat of divine retributive punishment against disobedience. Thus, in light of the prohibition, and precisely because the divine test is amalgamated with divine knowledge in the EN, there is one question that rises to the fore: If humans were to acquire ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, in what way would they become like Yhwh and the divine beings? To begin to answer this question, we must first turn to Gen 3:5 and 3:22.

4.2.3 The Divine Beings and Divine Knowledge (Gen 3:5 and 3:22) 4.2.3.1 Knowers of Good and Bad: Gen 3:5 and 3:22 ‫כי ידע אלהים כי ביום אכלכם ממנו ונפקחו עיניכם והייתם כאלהים ידעי טוב ורע‬‎ (3:5) ‫ויאמר ה׳ אלהים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים‬‎ (3:22) ‫ואכל וחי לעלם‬ 90 The sort of death may refer to both (1) the universal experience of death for all humans; and (2) the exile of the covenanted nation, see e.g., Wilder, “Illumination and Investiture,” 51; Davies, “Discerning Between Good and Evil,” 40; Sarna, Genesis, 21; Speiser, Genesis, 17: “The point of the whole narrative is apparently man’s ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death.” 91 So Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 85.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

127

(3:5) For God knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will become like divine beings, knowers of good and bad. (3:22) Then Yhwh-Elohim said: “Now that the man (humanity) has become like one of us, knowing good and bad / evil, what if he were to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever!”

How are we to understand the serpent’s phrase in Gen 3:5, ‫?והייתם כאלהים ידעי טוב ורע‬ Clearly, ‫ י ְֹדעֵ י‬is a qal masculine participle in plural that functions as an adjective to ‫אלהים‬, “divine beings,” which suggests the translation of that particular phrase as, “And you will become like divine beings, knowers of good and bad.”92 What is instructive about this passage is that both ‫אלהים‬, “God,” and the ‫אלהים‬, “divine beings,” are said to be “knowers of good and bad,” which is confirmed at the end of the narrative in 3:22.93 This particular knowledge, as indicated by Gen 3:5, is a divine knowledge that neither the woman, nor the man yet possess, but is otherwise possessed by God (‫ )אלהים‬and by the divine beings (‫אלהים‬, and in 3:22, ‫)ה׳‬.94 The clear distinction between humans and the gods in the ANE is this boundary line consisting of divine knowledge (often portrayed as wisdom) and immortality.95 Pederson concludes that in several ancient Near Eastern myths, the attainment of wisdom represents a semi-deification; a kinship between humans and the gods. Within this framework, the final step toward full deification would be the acquisition of immortality (divine life).96 It is not difficult to see the thematic similarities between the demarcation in the myths and the EN, i. e., humans do not have inherent divine knowledge or divine life. There is one ancient Near Eastern myth important for our study that narrates this tension quite well, namely, the Adapa myth.97 a) The Adapa Myth There are six fragments of the Adapa myth that remain to this day, and for my purposes, I will focus on Fragment B, which is part of the El-Amarna archive and is dated to the 14th century BCE.98 The main character, Adapa, is known as one of the first antediluvian sages, renowned throughout ancient Mesopotamia for his wisdom and for his unique connection with Ea, the god of wisdom.99 In 92 Speiser, Genesis, 23; cf. Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 236, n. 183. 93 For Machinist’s interpretation of this passage, see § 2.3.3.1 above. 94 See Bauks, “Erkenntnis und Leben,” 37–38, and her erudite reflections there. 95 Shlomo Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death, MC 10 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001), esp. 126 ff–129. 96 Pedersen, “Wisdom and Immortality,” 238–246 (244); cf. Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 125, n. 38. 97 For the comparison of other ANE myths with the EN, see Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 26–28. 98 See Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 5–8. 99 According to Fragment A, he is the servant of Ea, and it was Ea who gave to him wisdom but not immortality (lines 3'–4'), see Ibid., Adapa and the South Wind, 4.

128

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

this particular myth, Adapa is in distress in the wide sea due to a confrontation with the South Wind. As the South Wind seeks to drown him, Adapa threatens (in rage)  to break the wing of the South Wind. As soon as he spoke this, the wing of the South Wind broke and the South Wind did not blow for seven days (lines B:5’–7’). When Anu, the supreme god of the pantheon, learns that the South Wind is not blowing, and upon learning that Adapa, a human, has broken the wing of the South Wind, he summons Adapa to heaven for an interrogation (lines B:12’–14’). When questioned by Anu, Adapa retells the story of his confrontation with the South Wind, sharing how he broke the wing of the South Wind by the power of a curse (Fragment B:54’, at-ta-za-ar).100 Then, Anu questions Ea’s motives in endowing a human with the sort of knowledge that is described by Anu as, lā banīta ša šamê u erṣeti, “what is bad in heaven and on earth.”101 In light of Adapa’s ability to curse and break the wing of the South Wind (i. e., to control natural forces), Anu decides it is best to offer Adapa food and water for life (i. e., divine life), clothing and anointing. Adapa rejects the food and water (i. e., rejects divine life in obedience to the instruction of the god of wisdom, Ea), but he is clothed and anointed. Anu mocks Adapa’s obedience to Ea (the god of Wisdom) and his refusal of divine life, sending Adapa back to his earth (lines B:61’–71’). It is obvious that divine knowledge and divine life are present here in this story of Adapa. Interestingly, Anu is not curious in Adapa’s wisdom until Adapa has used the power of speech to curse the South Wind.102 Shlomo Izre’el refers to Adapa’s curse as a speech act, that element of human speech which is not descriptive but performative.103 This phrase, lā bānīta, in the myth is referring to speech, and more specifically, to “detrimental words and acts.”104 This is also confirmed in line 5’ of Fragment B, where the use of šebēru is a D stem precative, representing Adapa’s will of doing something through performative speech, i. e., lū šebir, “I shall break.”105 Linguistically, Izre’el notes that the precative verbal forms are used in 3 sg. m. to invoke deities to action, but are otherwise in 1 sg. verbal forms denoting individual speech acts. This suggests that Adapa’s power of speech in breaking the wing of the South Wind is not the result of the curse of the gods.106 Rather, Adapa is indeed breaking the wing of the South Wind with a 100 Ibid., Adapa and the South Wind, 134. 101 See Ibid., Adapa and the South Wind, 19, 21 (Fragment B: 57’–58’), and 129. For the phrase, lā bānīta, “what is bad,” see CAD, B, 80b; Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 28–29 (n. 57). 102 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 462–463, and Müller, Mythos – Kerygma – Warheit, esp. 82, n. 84. 103 Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 130–131. 104 See e.g., CAD, B, 80b; Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 28–9, 131. See too, Daniel Bodi, “The Story of Samuel, Saul, and David,” in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, eds. Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 205, n. 35. 105 CAD, Š/2, 249–50; Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 23. 106 Ibid., Adapa and the South Wind, 131.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

129

commonly identified form of a speech act, that being the curse. Although Izre’el provides a thorough discussion regarding the ‘power of speech,’ he contends that his deed accomplished through a performative utterance is indication of human ‘intelligence.’107 I disagree with Izre’el that Adapa’s performative speech should be equated with human intelligence (generally speaking).108 If one is to be true to the myth as it stands, then Adapa’s speech and Anu’s perception of Adapa’s wisdom is directly related to Adapa’s successful cursing of the South Wind. There is no other speech act that takes place in Fragment B, nor is there any other indication that Adapa’s intelligence is what Anu found troubling. For Izre’el, “linguistic performance” is the divine knowledge given to Adapa through the gift of Ea, and it refers specifically to human ‘intelligence’ observable in and through intellectually astute and well-spoken, human speech. However, it is clear that Adapa’s ability is amalgamated to his manipulation of the natural forces through the specific speech act of the curse, not merely because of his intelligence. In ancient Mesopotamia, the gods were often depicted as creating and maintaining the created order through the spoken word.109 As Moriarty writes: “Both the creation of the world and the maintenance of an established order depended upon the divine and power-laden word.”110 Although a previous generation labeled this ancient Near Eastern belief in the power of spoken language as ‘magic,’ it nonetheless reveals that these texts affirmed a Weltanschauung in which words pronounced in the right context were believed to have “irresistible power for good or evil.”111 Clearly the ‘power’ believed to be inherent in language is a reference to blessing and cursing, and it is easily gleaned from various sources.112 In the case of Adapa, his curse from the rage of his heart (Fragment B:53’) caused the South Wind to stop blowing. Although there are some similarities (and even more departures) between the EN and the Adapa Myth, it is clear that divine knowledge and divine life are common juxtapositions in these ancient Near Eastern stories, and I suggest that the concept of the speech act through cursing is uniquely amalgamated in the Adapa myth with divine wisdom.113

107 Ibid., Adapa and the South Wind, 131. 108 Ibid., Adapa and the South Wind, 126–129, 147. 109 Ibid., Adapa and the South Wind, 133. 110 Moriarty, “Word as Power,” 354; Albrektson, History and the Gods, 53–67 (esp. 54–55). 111 Moriarty, “Word as Power,” 345. 112 See Moriarty’s reference to a Hittite Prayer to Lelwanis, wherein the ‘good words’ and ‘evil words’ refer respectively to the blessing and the curse of the gods (Ibid., “Word as Power,” 358); “Prayer of Pudu-hepas to the Sun-Goddess of Arinna and her Circle,” trans. Albrecht Goetze (ANET, 394). 113 To be clear, Izre’el does contend that through human intelligence, the power of life and death exists in language. However, he would disagree with my emphasis on the curse above. See his very helpful discussion regarding these motifs in the Adapa myth (Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, 126–149).

130

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

b) The Opening of the Eyes: Gen 3:5, 7 Now that it has been established that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is divine knowledge, i. e., knowledge that Yhwh possesses, and is a demarcation between divinity and humanity in the narrative, the motif of the opening of the eyes in Gen 3:5 must be considered. This particular phrase in Gen 3:5, ‫ונפקחו עיניכם‬, “And your eyes will be opened,” and its fulfillment in Gen 3:7aα, ‫ותפקחנה עיני שניהם‬, “Then the eyes of both of them were opened,” is a literary motif that alludes to the acquisition of knowledge that was unpossessed prior to said acquisition.114 Moreover, in Gen 3:6, the text states emphatically that the tree has the power to make one wise: ‫ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה הוא לעינים ונחמד העץ להשכיל ותקח מפריו ותאכל ותתן‬‎(3:6) ‫גם לאישה עמה ויאכל‬ (3:6) Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was attractive to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to become wise. And she took from its fruit, and she ate. Then she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

What is important for our purposes is to note that the woman already has the distinguishing power between that which is ‘good’ (‫ )טוב‬for food, and by deductive reasoning, that which is not.115 Furthermore, the tree has the power to impart knowledge to its consumers.116 Finally, it is essential that readers observe the self-autonomy of the woman (and so too, the man) before she partakes of the fruit and acquires ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. I suggest that this rules out the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬that suggests the knowledge itself is self-autonomy. It also rules out that the human pair is unable to discriminate between good and bad food. Thus, what is instructive from this passage is that the human consumers will indeed become wise, as noted in the previous section, they will acquire divine knowledge. Since a kind of divine wisdom is acquired from the fruit of the tree, and since the opening of the eyes is central to the acquisition itself in the narrative, it raises an important question: How might this particular motif of the opening of the eyes help to give further definition to the sort of knowledge that the tree bestows upon its consumers? Much of the literature bypasses this question entirely and immediately moves on to 3:7a (i. e., the knowledge of nakedness) with the intent to discuss the sort of knowledge that the tree bestows upon its consumers in light of said nakedness. However, I contend that the focus should be upon new knowledge, not in light of nakedness and shame, but in light of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬. Since I do agree that 3:7a is very important to this discussion, I have relegated that analysis until further below (§ 4.3.2.4).

114 Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 237. 115 E.g., Gen 6:5. See too, Arneth, Durch Adams Fall, 125, and his instructive comments there. 116 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 140, n. 97.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad / Evil   

131

Precisely because ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is divine knowledge, we should not overlook the occurrences in which the eyes of Yhwh and the words ‫ טוב‬or ‫ רעע‬are in tandem with one another in the HB.117 In his 1968 paper, Oppenheim compares the ancient Near Eastern concept of the eyes and ears of the king to the HB’s, ‫בעיני ה׳‬. He shows that in Egyptian texts from the mid second millennium BCE and in Persian texts from the end of the first millennium BCE, the eyes and ears of the king refer to secret spies of sort that report to the king those who have committed disloyal and unfaithful acts.118 In the Neo-Assyrian empire, the closest attestation to something similar is in the letters of the kings of the Sargonid dynasty in the early to mid first millennium BCE.119 The command to the the king’s vassals that is common in these letters is evident in ABL 831 r. 3 f.: mala tammara u tašemma’ šuprani, “write to me all that you see and hear!”120 Likewise, the loyal servants respond in oath of obedience affirming that they will tell their king their lord all that they see and hear.121 Oppenheim then verifies a connection between this specific use of seeing and hearing on behalf of the king and the eyes of Yhwh as the phrase is used in later portions of the HB. He notes a particular phrase from 2 Chr 16:9 in which Hanani the prophet gives a message to King Asa: ‫כי ה׳ עיניו משטטות בכל־הארץ להתחזק עם־לבבם שלם אליו נסכלת על־זאת כי מעתה יש עמך מלחמות‬ For the eyes of Yhwh go to and fro throughout the whole earth strengthening the hearts of those that are blameless toward him. You have failed in this; from now on, you will have wars.122

Oppenheim concludes from this passage that, ‫ה׳ עיני משטטות‬, is essentially the same phenomenon found in the Egyptian, Neo-Assyrian, and Persian documents. Thus, the eyes of Yhwh are similar to the eyes and ears of the spies who report to the king faithfulness and unfaithfulness in the kingdom. In this particular passage, Hanani gives a message to Asa that Yhwh has found him (Asa) to have been unfaithful to his covenantal demands, and therefore, wars are decreed as punishment against him.123 Oppenheim also sees a further development in this passage in that the 117 E.g., (not exhaustive) Gen 38:7, 10; Lev 10:19; Num 24:1; 32:13; Deut 4:25; 6:18; 9:18; 12:25, 28; 17:2; 31:29; Judg 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1; 1 Sam 12:17; 15:19; 2 Sam 11:27; 1 Kgs 11:6; 14:22; 15:26, 34; 16:7, 19, 25, 30; 21:20, 25; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:2; 8:18, 27; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:2, 17; 21:2, 6, 16, 20; 23:32, 37; 24:9, 19; Jer 52:2; Mal 2:17; 1 Chr 2:3; 2 Chr 14:1; 21:6; 22:4; 29:6; 33:2, 6, 22; 36:5, 9, 12. 118 See A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Eyes of the Lord,” JAOS 88 (1968): 173–74. See e.g., Ruth 3:10. 119 Ibid., “Eyes,” 174. 120 For this transliteration and translation, see Ibid., “Eyes,” 174. 121 Ibid., “Eyes,” 174. 122 “‫סכל‬,” HALOT 2:754. The nifal form of ‫ סכל‬with the preposition ‫ על‬in an assessment of wisdom has the connotation of failure. In essence, to act foolishly is to fail. See also “‫סכל‬,” BDB 698. 123 Note the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in this text, see § 3.2.2 above.

132

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

eyes of Yhwh do not only recognize unfaithfulness and administer retributive punishment, but in addition, the eyes of Yhwh also search out the blameless before him, reinvigorating the hearts of those who have been faithful to him.124 Finally, Oppenheim argues that this development in ancient Israelite religion can be understood as a transfer of ancient Near Eastern political norms to that of ancient Israelite mythology. Instead of a “royal secret service” having a place of fear in the minds of the king’s subjects, Yhwh’s subjects are to fear him directly because of his immanence and omniscience of every action for or against his will in Israel, which, says Oppenheim, is uniquely expressed in ‫ה׳ עיני משטטות‬. I agree with Oppenheim’s very interesting and informative thesis in his study. However, I disagree with him on one point. Must this phenomenon in the HB only be relegated to a comparison between Zechariah 4, 2 Chronicles, and the Neo-Assyrian texts?125 Obviously, it is clear that Oppenheim is making an ancient Near Eastern comparison between the letters of the kings of the Sargonid dynasty (721–627 BCE) and the later texts of the HB. Yet, there are many other passages in which the eyes of Yhwh are functioning in a similar way to Oppenheim’s main thesis. Nevertheless, no critical commentary (to my knowledge) has considered Oppenheim’s observations along side these other examples in the HB for the interpretation of Gen 3:5 and 3:7, where it is clear that a divine knowledge of ‘good and bad / evil’ is received from the eating of the fruit of a tree that has the power to open the eyes of humans.126 I suggest that the phrase, ‫ ונפקחו עיניכם‬of 3:5 and its result in 3:7 is to be interpreted in light of (1) the divine knowledge of ‘good and evil / bad’ (‫ טוב‬and ‫רע‬‎); (2) the eyes of Yhwh that often occur in the HB while in tandem with the Hebrew words ‫ טוב‬and ‫ ;רע‬and (3) the context of said occurrences being that of moral evaluation with the subsequent employment of divine retribution, that is to say, the divine blessings and curses. By employing a theocentric interpretation upon Gen 3:5, my analysis above and juxtaposed with Oppenheim’s thesis, suggests that the opening of the eyes of the humans in the EN is an indication that humans now have a ‘knowledge’ that functions similarly to Yhwh’s eyes in the HB with regard to ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬.127 124 Oppenheim, “Eyes,” 175. See e.g., Jer 24:6 [William L. Holladay, Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Hermeneia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 1:658] and Amos 9:4. 125 With regard to this discussion and the books of Zechariah and Ezekiel, see esp., Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “Zechariah’s Spies and Ezekiel’s Cherubim,” in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, eds. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, LHBOTS 475 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 115–116 (116), and her instructive comment there: “In particular, Zech 4:10 describes God’s patrols as ‘eyes,’ thus alluding to the ancient Near Eastern image of ‘roaming eyes’ that denoted the imperial network of espionage.” 126 E.g., 1 Sam 29:7–10 (also, v. 10 in the LXX) and the juxtaposition of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in those verses. Also, see my work below regarding ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1 Sam 24 and 25 (§ 6.3.3, § 6.3.4). 127 E.g., Prov 15:3.

Nakedness and Shame in the Eden Narrative   

133

c) Summary The knowledge attained by humans in the EN is considered by the text to be divine knowledge that is otherwise unpossessed by the human pair. This literary motif of divine knowledge as juxtaposed with divine life is common in ancient Near Eastern myths, as was demonstrated in the short analysis of the Adapa myth. However, what is instructive regarding the Adapa myth is that Adapa’s wisdom is amalgamated with his ability to control the forces of nature through the speech act of the curse, which is demonstrated in Adapa’s breaking of the wing of the South Wind through a curse that matched the power of the spoken word of the gods. Adapa, however, refused the offer of divine life, having been tricked by Ea not to accept the offer from Anu. What this text from the 14th c. BCE El-Amarna archive demonstrates is the demarcation line between the gods and humans (i. e., divine knowledge and divine life), which for our purposes, suggests that ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬is best understood as the divine knowledge of good and evil / bad.128 Then, the literary motif of the “opening of the eyes” (‫ונפקחו עיניכם‬, Gen 3:5) was interpreted in light of Oppenheim’s thesis that the eyes of Yhwh were similar to the eyes of spies in Neo-Assyrian and Persian political texts; eyes that kept watch on faithful and unfaithful actions toward the king, reporting said actions to the king who then responded with appropriate retribution (i. e., with ‘reward’ or with ‘punishment’). In light of a theocentric interpretation of the ‘opening of the eyes’ motif in Gen 3:5 and 3:7, I contend that the interpretive locus is better concentrated on the lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, rather than with the motif of nakedness and shame in 3:7a. Thus, by juxtaposing the eyes of Yhwh in tandem with ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the HB, we are able to interpret ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as divine knowledge in the context of the HB. Oppenheim’s thesis and the many occurrences of the eyes of Yhwh judging ‘good and bad’ actions in the HB, followed by the appropriate retributive response, suggests that the humans partake of a knowledge which opens their eyes to ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, serving a purpose and function similar to the eyes of Yhwh in the HB. It is now essential that the motifs of nakedness without shame and nakedness with shame be considered since the motif of nakedness with shame is the immediate result of having acquired ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in violation to the divine command.

4.3 Nakedness and Shame in the Eden Narrative The EN’s juxtaposition of nakedness and shame with the human couple’s acquisition of divine knowledge is an important element to consider in the pursuit of an interpretation for ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. These thematic elements reveal the narrative’s 128 Gen 3:5; 22 already confirms this notion of divine knowledge. Moreover, the humans by the end of the EN are forbid divine life and from taking of the other tree (‫)עץ החיים‬, thus giving further parallel to the Adapa myth.

134

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

comprehensive context in its ancient Near Eastern legal and covenantal tradition. I will begin by considering the work of C. McDowell and her thesis suggesting that the Mesopotamian mīs pî pīt pî and Egyptian wpt-r rituals are a backdrop for the EN, which will especially help elucidate the theme of investiture in the narrative (§ 4.3.1). Then, turning to nakedness and shame specifically, I will survey the work of Lyn Bechtel and Margaret Odell who both show that shame cultures are 1) group oriented, and 2) that they use shame as a form of social control (§ 4.3.2). Following this analysis, a survey of the Akkadian texts that confirm the group oriented nature of ancient Near Eastern cultures and their reliance upon covenant shaming as a form of social control will be considered (§ 4.3.2.3). Then, it will be demonstrated that shame and nakedness are amalgamated in ancient Near Eastern culture as a form of social punishment in various legal texts and traditions. Finally, I will suggest that the concept of nakedness and shame in the EN are to be interpreted in light of these ancient and contextual thematic elements (§ 4.3.2.4). Central to the movement of the EN are the plot points found in Gen 2:25 and 3:7. The first occurrence of the literary motif of nakedness without shame occurs in Gen 2:25: ‫ויהיו שניהם ערומים האדם ואשתו ולא יתבששו‬ And the two of them were naked, the man and his wife; they were not ashamed.129

Then, after the man and the woman eat from the forbidden tree, they immediately know that they are naked (3:7a): ‫ותפקחנה עיני שניהם וידעו כי עירמם הם‬ Then their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked.

Thus, the progression of the narrative in light of nakedness with / without shame is evident in the following chart:

129 Jack M. Sasson, “wᵉlō’ yitbōšāšû (Gen 2,25) and its Implications,” Bib 66 (1985): 420, offers two translations: “yet, they did not shame each other” and “yet, they did not embarrass each other.” His logic for these translations of ‫ יתבששו‬is that they fully articulate the factitive and reciprocal characteristics of the hitpolel. Moreover, he understands that the humans are lacking “the potential to find blemishes with each other because they did not perceive anatomical, sexual, or role distinctions within the species.” See too, Arneth, Durch Adams Fall, 126–127; Gunkel, Genesis, 11. Westermann understands the nakedness to be a development in human civilization since clothing became a standard norm in history (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 251; Stoebe, “Gut und Böse,” 200). Note too, “‫כלם‬,” HALOT 2:480. I maintain that nakedness in v. 25 is not related to a childlike state. So Ibn Ezra on Gen 2:17: “‫ כי השם לא יצוה לאשר אין לו דעת … והנה חכם גדול היה‬,‫ כי אדם מלא דעת היה‬,‫ודע‬.”

Nakedness and Shame in the Eden Narrative   

135

Nakedness without Shame (2:25) → Humans transgress the Command (3:6) / ​Humans acquire ‫ → הדעת טוב ורע‬Human Eyes are Opened (3:7a) → Nakedness with Shame (3:7b–8) Two questions will be pursued in this section: (1) How are we to understand nakedness without shame in 2:25; and (2) what causes nakedness and shame in 3:7? To these questions, I now turn.

4.3.1 Investiture in the ANE: Gen 2:25 Before considering the theme of shame in particular, the notion of investiture in the ANE must first be considered. C. McDowell argues that the role of gardener assigned to the man (‫ )האדם‬is an indication of his royal status in the EN. That gardens were associated with divinity and royalty in Mesopotamia and the ANE is well established in the literature.130 The main purpose of McDowell’s study is to demonstrate that the EN has affinities to the “installation of royal and divine images” in the Mesopotamian mīs pî pīt pî and Egyptian wpt-r rituals.131 In comparison to said rituals, McDowell suggests that the living human beings are the “image” (‫ דמות‬,‫ ;צלם‬Gen 1:26–27) of Yhwh in Gen 1–3. McDowell sees interesting parallels between these ancient Near Eastern ritual traditions and the creation of the man and the woman in the EN precisely because the cult statues throughout the ANE underwent a ritual animation process through which the cult statue was believed to come to life, serving as the representation of the deity in a dedicated temple.132 Thus, her thesis interprets the EN with Mesopotamian mīs pî pīt pî and Egyptian wpt-r rituals as the backdrop for the creation of the man and the woman of Gen 2:5–3:24.133 Those features—the animation of the man, the building of the 130 McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 142–152; Dexter E. Callender Jr., Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human, HSS 48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 59–65; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 81–183; A. Leo Oppenheim, “On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia,” JNES 24 (1965): 328–333; D. J. Wiseman, “Mesopotamian Gardens,” AnSt 33 (1983): 137–144. 131 McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 142. See too, Stephen L. Herring, Divine Substitution: Humanity as the Manifestation of Deity in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, FRLANT 247 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013); Christopher Walker and Michael B. Dick, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mīs pî Ritual,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the ancient Near East, SAALT 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 55–121. 132 For McDowell’s discussion regarding clothing of divine images, see McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 158–168; A. Leo Oppenheim, “Akkadian pul(u)ḫ (t)u and melammu,” JAOS 63/1 (1943): 31–34. Also, Herring, Divine Substitution, 105–127 133 McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 141–142.

136

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

woman, the installation and feeding in a sacred garden, the opening of the eyes as representation of divination, even the motif of nakedness without shame in 2:25—all indicate that the EN has possible affinities with said rituals. She writes: When viewed in their current context and as a whole, Gen  2:8–14, 15, 25 and Gen 3:5, 7 recall the rituals for the creation, animation and installation of a divine image from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The fact that we do not have an overt reference to the mouth-washing or mouth-opening ceremonies in Gen 2:5–3:24 should not prevent us from asserting the possibility, although not the certainty, of an historic relationship among the texts.134

The clothing of the statue was one of the most important moments in the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r rituals.135 What is most instructive for our purposes is McDowel’s interpretation of Gen 2:25. McDowel begins her discussion of nakedness without shame in the EN by focusing upon the clothing of the cult state in the Meso­ potamian mīs pî pīt pî ritual. The donning of clothes upon a cult-statue had social significance that symbolized the divine authority of the deity who was at that point in the ritual considered to be residing in the image.136 She contends that the “most significant element in a divine statue’s wardrobe,” was the divine tiara, most notable for its “brilliant splendor.”137 Thus, the tiara carries the function upon the statue as “a manifestation of divine glory”; a radiance (Akkadian, melammu) that could also be given to humans as a “sign of divine approval, royal status, and 134 Ibid., Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 242; Andreas Schüle, “Made in the ‘Image of God’: The Concept of Divine Images in Gen 1–3,” ZAW 117 (2005): 1–20 (3): “Although the term is never mentioned here, the different stages of the creation of Adam and Eve display some striking resemblances to the stages of the making of a divine image – however, with a critical overtone, as we shall see.” 135 See A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 183–198; Eiko Matsushima, “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: their Fashioning and Clothing and their Interaction with the Society,” in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East—The City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 20–22, 1992, ed. Eiko Matsushima (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1993), 209–219 (esp. 212–213, n. 15). For an introduction to clothing in the ANE, see Douglas R. Edwards, “Dress and Ornamentation,” ABD 2:2:232–38 (238): “Clothing and ornamentation played a significant role in the economic, social, political, and religious fabric of ancient society. It depicted one’s social standing, ethnic origin, sex, and political position. Clothing functioned as more than covering against the elements. What you wore conveyed who you were and the nature of your relationship to those around you. The biblical writers adeptly tapped the symbolic power of ancient dress to convey social, theological, or political messages.” 136 McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 158–177 (esp. 158–160); Michael B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the ancient Near East, WAWSup 3 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 199, n. 250: “Like anointing, donning the clothing appropriate to an office signals that the person is taking up the role appropriate to that office.” 137 McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 159–160.

Nakedness and Shame in the Eden Narrative   

137

legitimacy.”138 Such radiant language does not occur in the EN with regard to the creation of the man and the woman, and instead, both are described as naked and not ashamed (‫ ערומים‬and ‫)לא יתבששו‬. McDowell suggests that Psalm 8 may prove helpful with the interpretation of the nakedness of the human pair in the EN, proposing that the the crowning (‫ )עטר‬with glory and honor (‫ כבוד‬and ‫ )הדר‬of humankind in Ps 8:6, may indicate the radiance of something like melammu in the Mesopotamian ritual.139 That humans were clothed with the ‘glory’ of Yhwh in the EN, only to lose it in their act of disobedience, is not original to McDowell, as she notes. However, she has raised an important point within this framework: If the human pair are naked without shame in Gen 2:25, then it must be that their awareness of nakedness upon acquiring ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is the result of their disobedience (in 3:7) to the divine command (in 2:17), as opposed to being the result of the ‘knowledge’ itself. This stripping of authority and throne rights is similar to the Mesopotamian tradition, wherein a king could be stripped of melammu due to breaking the divine law.140 I agree with McDowell’s thesis and consider it to be the most reasonable in light of the contextual data. Therefore, I suggest that the interpretation of the nakedness motif in the EN cannot be excluded from the motif of shame and its absence in 2:25 and its unnamed but obvious presence in 3:7. Only within this interpretive lens should the subject of nakedness without shame (2:25) and nakedness with shame (3:7) be discussed.

4.3.2 Shame in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Gen 3:7–8 The discussion of shame and the EN is a difficult discussion because there are all sorts of presuppositions concerning what shame is and is not that are brought to the text by all interpreters. The interpreter must distinguish between the various layers of cultural shame unique to the interpreter’s worldview and that which is unique to the cultural worldview of the narrative. Thus, an emic perspective of the sort of social shame unique to ancient Near Eastern culture is required in order to move forward in this discussion.

138 Ibid., Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 160, and her bibliography there. 139 Ibid., Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 169–170. 140 Ibid., Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 170. Cf. Wilder, “Illumination and Investiture,” 51–69 (esp. 58 and 62), who concludes that the nakedness of 2:25 (without shame) still indicates a need for (royal) clothing.

138

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

4.3.2.1 Lyn Bechtel on Shame Lyn Bechtel offers a modern definition of shame according to modern psychoanalytic theory which understands shame to be a response to an individual’s perceived awareness of failure in the expected goals of self-identity and behavior within the framework of familial and societal norms.141 Moreover, social anthropological theorists expound on this definition by placing shame in a category of sanctioning social behavior.142 Accordingly, cultural systems are built around the concept of shame as imposed upon individuals externally by the greater governance of the community. This, as Bechtel demonstrates, was categorized in earlier social anthropological studies as ‘shame cultures’ and highly contrasted with the standard norm of western based societies labeled as ‘guilt cultures’. The difference between the two, at least as it was once thought, is in the method used to control social behavior.143 Guilt cultures are individualistically focused, and the loci of behavioral control is the conscience of the individual. Shame cultures are communally focused, and the loci of behavioral control is the ability of the community at large to shame individuals in public space. What is most important for any interpreter to understand about a shame culture is best summarized by Bechtel: Because of the importance of belonging to the group in a group-oriented shame culture, people’s standing in the community or status is important, making people status-conscious. These societies are usually layered by an ‘honor’ hierarchy which designates the amount of authority held: ruler over subject, parents over children, husband over wife, elder over younger. Only friends are equals.144

In addition to Bechtel’s study, it is important that I now turn to another scholar who has attempted a similar study on the concept of shame.

4.3.2.2 Margaret Odell on Shame Margaret Odell offers a brief survey of anthropological and psychological notions of shame. First, she begins by commenting on the 1946 work of anthropologist Ruth Benedict entitled, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, in which Benedict proposes the cultural categories of shame and guilt that Bechtel alluded to in her paper. One of Benedict’s most important observations is that “shame cultures rely on external sanctions for good behavior, not, as true guilt cultures do, on 141 Lyn M. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” JSOT 16 (1991): 48–49. 142 Ibid., “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control,” 50. 143 To differentiate cultures according to “shame” and “guilt” is already too simplistic. 144 Ibid., “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control,” 52.

Nakedness and Shame in the Eden Narrative   

139

an internalized conviction of sin.”145 For Benedict, shame was only experienced externally, not internally like the emotion of guilt. Thus, in her study of Japanese culture, Benedict writes that, “Shame has the same place of authority in Japanese ethics that ‘a clear conscience,’ ‘being right with God,’ and the avoidance of sin have in Western ethics.”146 Although Benedict’s observations have proven helpful in understanding how the emotions of guilt and shame are experienced in various cultures, her conclusions have often been labeled as far too simplistic.147 In a challenge to Benedict’s main thesis, Odell comments on a 1953 work by psychologist Gerhart Piers and the anthropologist Milton Singer entitled, Shame and Guilt. Piers and Singer both argue that shame and guilt are internalized emotions that arise in various contexts and situations and that they appear in both primitive and developed societies. Moreover, Piers progresses said logic to that of the individual entirely, defining 1) guilt as an internalized awareness of one’s transgression of “norms or rules,” and defining 2) shame as the emotion one feels when he or she has not “lived up to one’s ego ideal,” which is an internalization of “those characteristics of parents that the child most values and desires to emulate.”148 Odell finds Peirs’ dichotomy helpful in explaining the social situation of western society; however, she concludes that his definitions are less helpful in explaining the experience of shame and guilt in a social setting.149 Finally, in an attempt to explain just such an experience, Odell turns to Japanese psychiatrist, Takeo Doi, whose 1973 work entitled, The Anatomy of Dependence, traces the experience of shame “back to the infantile experience of mother-love.”150 This type of dependence in Japanese culture is known as amae and according to Doi, it refers to a “passive-love” that is experienced by all peoples in all cultures but is uniquely summed up in the various parts of speech similar to the Japanese noun amae.151 In this societal structure, one remains just as dependent on social bonds in adulthood as one does as an infant in relation to one’s own mother.152 If these social bonds are severed, the individual is left with a deep feeling of personal loss, which 145 Margaret S. Odell, “An Exploratory Study of Shame and Dependence in the Bible and Selected Near Eastern Parallels,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, eds. K. Lawson Younger, William W. Hallo and Bernard Frank Batto, Scripture in Context 4 (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1991), 218; Ruth Benedict, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1946), 223. 146 Ibid., The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, 224. 147 Odell, “Shame and Dependence,” 218; Gerhart Piers and Milton B. Singer, Shame and Guilt: A Psychoanalytic and a Cultural Study, American Lecture Series, 171 (New York: Norton, 1971), esp. 67–75. 148 Odell, “Shame and Dependence,” 219; Piers and Singer, Shame and Guilt, 13–17. 149 Odell, “Shame and Dependence,” 219. 150 Ibid., “Shame and Dependence,” 219; Takeo Doi, The Anatomy of Dependence, trans. John Bester (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1973), esp. 73–83. 151 Ibid., The Anatomy of Dependence, 72–73 152 Odell, “Shame and Dependence,” 219; Doi, The Anatomy of Dependence, 20.

140

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

is the loss of bond to the social sphere itself. According to Odell, this confirms Benedict’s original conclusions but adds to them by explaining the internalized nature of the individual when he or she is publicly shamed by the culture.153 For Odell, this example is the closest the modern human can come to understanding shame in its biblical and ancient Near Eastern parallels.154 I, too, agree that this is at least a starting point for any biblical interpreter who is considering shame in its biblical and ancient Near Eastern context.

4.3.2.3 ANE Cultures of Honor and Shame The evidence is voluminous that 1) ancient Near Eastern cultures were group oriented and that 2) the social status of honor and shame were the primary modes of social identification.155 The various expressions of honor and shame occurred in several categories such as “judicial, political, and public,” as well as in many discourses: “war, international diplomacy, marriage, the family, the penal system, and death and the afterlife.”156 In this particular ancient Near Eastern social setting, shame was used as a mechanism for punishment and sanction, whereas honor was a status owed to a superior within the social construct.157 One example of this social phenomenon that demonstrates a desire for restored status in a dependency based society is found in a letter written by Bel-Ibni to Sennacherib: Would that [Your Majesty consider me again] one of his servants, that an official acknowledgement of my status as a servant of Your Majesty come forth so that I will not be treated with contempt any more by my fellow Babylonians and will not have to [bow] my head in shame.158 153 For a short discussion by Doi on Benedict’s conclusions as they pertain to Japanese culture, see Ibid., The Anatomy of Dependence, 48–57. 154 Odell, “Shame and Dependence,” 220. 155 Saul M. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environ­ ment,” JBL 115 (1996): 203. For J. Hilber’s very helpful excursus on the notions of Honor and Shame in the ANE, see John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 5 of ZIBBCOT, ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 342. 156 Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control,” 55; Odell, “Shame and Dependence,” 203. 157 Hilber, “Psalms,” 5:342; Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant,” 204. Olyan’s categories include, “the young to the elderly”; “the worshiper to the deity”; “the child to the parent”; “the living to the dead”; “a dishonored or diminished person to an honored one” (Ibid., 204). 158 For this translation, see ABL 793 in A. Leo Oppenheim, Letters from Mesopotamia: Official Business, and Private Letters on Clay Tablets from Two Millennia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 152; For the transcription of the Akkadian, see Leroy Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire, UMS.H XVII-XX, 4 vols. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1930), 2:55–56 (56); David W. Baker, “Isaiah,” in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 4 of ZIBBCOT, ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 4:109.

Nakedness and Shame in the Eden Narrative   

141

Notice how Bel-ibni’s appeal to Sennacherib’s benevolent action of acceptance— rather than appealing to his own admission of guilt—demonstrates that Bel-ibni is seeking the removal of shame and the restoration of the social bond.159 In addition to this, Bel-Ibni continued his plea acknowledging that his restored status of honor would cause even his entire family to show a public display of humble subservience in bowing before Sennacherib. In another example, the royal cylinder seal of Bēl-tarṣi-ilumma—eunuch of Adad-nārāri in the year 797 BCE—in lines 6–7, demonstrates through his request to Nabu (the god of wisdom) the unique place that shame had in Assyrian ideology: (6) at-kal-ka (7) a-[a(?)-ba(?)]-áš dMUATI (6) I have trusted in you, (7) O Nabû, let me not be put to shame!160

In honor and shame based societies, the victory of war is seen as the acquisition of honor, whereas loss and defeat is perceived as a deep and heavy shame.161 Furthermore, as Olyan contends, covenantal relations have several points of contact with ancient Near Eastern notions of honor and shame.162 Some points of contact listed by Olyan are: 1) treaty partners must honor one another, even if they are unequals; 2) honor between treaty partners demonstrates to the public the strength of covenant bonds; 3) conferring honor or shame reinforces the importance of remaining loyal to covenant demands; 4) covenant honor is reciprocal between all parties involved.163 Olyan’s main point is to demonstrate that the ancient Near Eastern culture of honor and shame is uniquely tied to the (broadly speaking) ancient Near Eastern understanding of covenant. Not only is covenant loyalty expected from all parties, but covenant honor is as well. Thus, shame is a common literary motif in the covenantal context of the ANE, which may help to interpret the concept of shame in the EN.

159 Odell, “Shame and Dependence,” 222: “But what the letter reveals is the primary importance of his oath of fealty to the king and the protection that ensues from the king’s advocacy. Bel-ibni therefore must acknowledge his dependence on the king.” 160 For transliteration and translation, see Albert K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B. C. II, (858–745 BC), RIMA 3 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 228 (A.0.104.2003: 6–7). 161 Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant,” 204. 162 Ibid., “Honor, Shame, and Covenant,” 204. 163 Ibid., “Honor, Shame, and Covenant,” 204–205.

142

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

4.3.2.4 Nakedness with Shame and the Transgressed Command: Gen 3:7 ‫ותפקחנה עיני שניהם וידעו כי עירמם הם ויתפרו עלה תאנה ויעשו להם חגרת‬ Then their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked. So they stitched together fig leaves and made for themselves loincloths.

From the above survey, it is understood that shame in biblical and ancient Near Eastern parallels is: 1) imbedded in a shame and group oriented culture; 2) deeply rooted in one’s sense of dependence on the community; 3) used in a public way for the purpose of sanctioning behavior; and 4) uniquely ascribed to the covenantal tradition of the ANE. It is now pertinent in the study to consider nakedness in the EN. Shame and nakedness were often coupled together when sanctions of the most severe kind were imposed in the ANE. For example, stripping one’s defeated enemies of their clothing and carrying them off into exile, exposing their nakedness to all, is attested in various sources.164 This practice is also evident in the HB in such examples as Isa 20:1–5, 47:2; Hos 2:2; and Amos 2:16. One of the clearest examples of nakedness and shame as coupled with defeat and exile is found in Micah 1:11a. In this passage, Micah warns the inhabitants of Shapir of the impending threat that they face: ‫עברי לכם יושבת שפיר עריה־בשת‬ Pass on, inhabitants of Shapir, in nakedness and shame!165

B. Waltke states that, “Nakedness, an exposure that brings shame, is a marked feature of judgment on evildoers (Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:3; Lam. 4:21).”166 J. Magonet concludes—after his survey of the use of the two forms for nakedness, ‫ עירום‬and ‫ערום‬, throughout the HB—that the “primary significance of the Hebrew word ‫”ערום‬ is not sexuality, progress in human development, or nature; rather it denotes a “state of defenselessness and helplessness, without possessions or power.”167 It must

164 Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get it Right?,” 8, n. 19. Moberly sees the making of loincloths in 3:7 as “something positive” in response to the negative condition of naked awareness (Ibid., 8–9). 165 For the difficulty of the syntax in ‫עריה־בשת‬, see Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 24E (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 222. 166 Bruce Waltke, “Micah,” in Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, ed. Thomas E. McComiskey, vol. 2 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. Thomas E. McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 628; Hartman, “Sin in Paradise,” 34; Ronald B. Allen, “‫ערה‬,” TWOT 2:695. 167 Jonathan Magonet, “The Themes of Genesis 2–3,” in A Walk in the Garden. Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, eds. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer, JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 43; Edwards, “Dress and Ornamentation,” ABD 2:233; Walter

Nakedness and Shame in the Eden Narrative   

143

also be noted that the acquisition of throne rights and the donning of clothes, as noted by McDowell above, and conversely, the stripping off of one’s clothes by another denotes the loss of throne rights.168 Thus, the awareness of shameful nakedness of the man and the woman is not to be understood in the natural sense of the differences in sex, but it should be interpreted as a state of humiliation and powerlessness that culminates in a loss of throne rights. Nakedness with shame is clearly in line with the narrative whose center is a divine test (so Mettinger) and whose context is that of the human couple caught in the act of disobedience to the divine command.169 Therefore, it is best to understand the nakedness with shame alluded to in Gen 3:7 as a loss of investiture whereby shame is felt according to societal standards of the ANE. In other words, the humans have disobeyed the command of Yhwh, which results in nakedness and shame (see the immediate section to follow below), rather than obeying the command of Yhwh, which would have resulted in celebratory investiture. Thus, the humans are naked and foolish as opposed to being clothed and wise.170 For our purposes, this suggests that nakedness with shame in Gen 3:7 is the result of disobedience to the command, not the result of the acquisition of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. On that note, I contend that the illicit taking of the divine knowledge by the humans is the first example in the EN that could be described by the text using a permutation of ‫רעע‬, i. e., the humans have committed ‘‫ ’רעע‬in the eyes of Yhwh. In that sense, it would be an inference to human ‘evil,’ referring generally to human disobedience to the command Vogels, “Like One of Us, Knowing ‫ טוב‬and ‫( רע‬Gen 3:22),” Semeia 81 (1998): 153; Saul M. Olyan, “Theorizing Circumstantially Dependent Rites in and out of War Contexts,” in Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, eds. Brad E. Kelle, Frank R. Ames and Jacob L. Wright, AIL 18 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 16; John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, LBI (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 103; Seth D. Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 119; Michaela Bauks, “Text- and Reception-Historical Reflections on Transmissional and Hermeneutical Techniques in Genesis 2–3,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 151–155. See also, Karen Sonik, “Bad King, False King, True King: Apsû and His Heirs,” JAOS 128 (2008): 740: “Nakedness, correspondingly, is frequently associated with a state of powerlessness and with captivity and impending execution, not only in Mesopotamian literature but also in art.” 168 Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics ­Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi, VTSup 52 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 199; McDowell, Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 170. 169 Arnold, Genesis, 66; see too, Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil, 59–60. For a discussion on whether or not the serpent ‘got it right,’ see Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get it Right?,” 1–27; Ibid., review of The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, by James Barr, JTS 45 (1994): 172–175; James Barr, “Is God a Liar? (Genesis 2–3)—and Related Matters,” JTS 57 (2006): 1–22; Walter Moberly, “Did the Interpreters Get it Right? Genesis 2–3 Reconsidered,” JTS 59 (2008): 22–40; Gordon, “Ethics of Eden,” 11–14, 31.  170 Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 103; Postell, Adam as Israel, 119.

144

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

of Yhwh.171 Let us now consider how a locus of interpretive interest upon the actions of Yhwh in Gen 3:8–19 might help to provide a theocentric interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.

4.4 The Divine Curse as a Form of Punitive Action: Gen 3:8, 14–19 In the following section, the judgment scene of Gen 3:14–19 will be considered in light of the following question: Does Yhwh curse the serpent, the woman, and the man as a form of punitive action? By answering this question in the affirmative, I will propose that a locus upon Yhwh’s speech acts of the curse that appear in 3:14–19 will disclose a contrast to the already established notion of ‫ טוב‬as gifts / rewards / blessings in the EN (see § 4.2.1.1 above), by the inference of its opposite, ‫“( רעע‬misfortune / calamity / punishment”). It was shown in the previous section that the first act of human disobedience to the command is the first inference of what could be textually signified using a permutation of ‫ רעע‬as “evil / wickedness / disobedience.” What will become evident in the text is the function of the divine curse, whereby three characters (the ‫נחש‬, the woman, and the man) are assigned to an experience of misfortune / calamity as retributive punishment for their (i. e., the woman and the man) rebellious actions against the divine command and the serpent for its ‘trickery.’ Therefore, I contend that a theocentric interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN must consider ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ within this functional framework of blessing and cursing since that is indeed how ‫ טוב‬and ‫( רעע‬the latter inferred in the EN) function when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes. Gen 3:8–19 finds a movement of narrative that involves (1) an arrest, Gen 3:7–8; (2) an interrogation, 3:9–13; (3) a judgment with sanctions, 3:14–19; (4) an exile, Gen 3:23–24: Arrest of the Man and Woman (3:7–8) → Interrogation (3:9–13) → Judgment with Sanctions (3:14–19) → Exile (3:23–24)172

171 The same could be said of the actions and trickery (‫ )השיא‬of the ‫נחש‬. 172 For a translation of ‫ לרוח היום‬in Gen 3:8 as possibly meaning, “from the wind of the storm,” and therefore, giving further allusion to a judgment / theophany scene, see Jeffrey Niehaus, “In the Wind of the Storm: Another Look At Genesis 3:8,” VT 44 (1994): 263–267; CAD, U / W, “ūmu” (1e–2a), 153–154; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 209; Matthew D. Aernie and Donald E. Hartley, The Righteous & Merciful Judge: The Day of the Lord in the Life and Theology of Paul, SSBT (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2018), 27–31. I am thankful to Dr. Sandy Hipple for bringing Aernie’s and Hartley’s text to my attention. I contend that the translation above is sound. Furthermore, ‫ רוח‬does have precedent as being used in the HB as describing ‘wind of a storm’ (‫)רוח סערה‬, see Ezek 1:4; Ps 107:25. Cf. John H. Walton, “Genesis,” in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,

The Divine Curse as a Form of Punitive Action: Gen 3:8, 14–19   

145

In an ancient Near Eastern context, the divine curse could have been understood to be a form of divine sanction, especially within the ancient Near Eastern textual tradition of treaties, covenants, and oaths.173 It has already been established that the EN is replete with deuteronomistic resonances and deuteronomic theology (so Mettinger; see § 4.2.1.2 above). Thus, it is safe to conclude that disobedience to the divine command would incur the divine sanction of the curse within the logic of the EN for two reasons: 1) Similar theology to Deuteronomistic theology is present within the EN; said theology is grounded within the ‘treaty, covenantal, and oath’ tradition of the ANE, and 2) the EN is itself structured according to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. The reason for the divine curse enacted against the ‫נחש‬, the woman and the man, and the earth in 3:14–19, which results in disastrous (i. e., ‫ )רעע‬consequences for each party involved, is the illicit taking of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in disobedience to the command of 2:16–17; hence Deuteronomistic theology and the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. We are now ready to consider the curse of Yhwh in Gen 3:14–19 as divine punishment and sanctions against the ‫נחש‬, the woman, and the man.

4.4.1 Gen 3:14–19 and the Divine Knowledge In the following sub-sections, I will analyze the judgment scene of 3:14–19. One important question will be addressed in each section: (1) How might the actions of Yhwh in this scene elucidate the meaning of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN? Matthews suggests that the whole of the EN anticipates the judgment scene of 3:14–19, wherein Yhwh assigns punishments in the judgment oracles of this pericope.174 It must also be stressed that said punishments are retributive to and commensurate with the crime committed by the parties involved.175 Though it is not stated explicitly in the text, I contend that the results of the divine curse could very well be described by a permutation of ‫“( רעע‬bad / calamitous / disastrous”) as is often the case in the HB, which would infer the second example of ‫ רעע‬in the EN.176 Finally, it must be stated that in the following analysis, I will not provide comment on the meaning of the judgements and punishments themselves. The scholarly literature is replete in this discussion, and there is nothing new to add to it here. Numbers, Deuteronomy, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 1 of ZIBBCOT, ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 1:35; Christopher Grundke, “A Tempest in a Teapot? Genesis iii 8 Again,” VT 51 (2001): 548–551 (550). I am grateful to Nathan Eddy for bringing Grundke’s article to my attention. With regard to Gen 3:23–24 and the ‘human’ exile, cf. Raanan Eichler, “When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden: A Forgotten Reading of Genesis 3:24,” VT 65 (2015): 20–32. 173 See § 3.3, but esp. § 3.3.3 above. 174 Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 243, 193–197. 175 Arnold, Genesis, 68. 176 See § 4.2.1.2 above. Compare e.g., 2 Sam 12:11.

146

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

4.4.1.1 The Curse of the ‫נחש‬: Gen 3:14 ‫) ואיבה אשית בינך‬15( ‫ויאמר ה׳ אלהים אל־הנחש כי עשית זאת ארור אתה מכל־הבהמה ומכל חית השדה‬‎(14) ‫ובין האשה ובין זרעך ובין זרעה הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנו עקב‬ (14) And Yhwh said to the Serpent: “Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all of the beasts and more than all of the living creatures of the field! (15) I will set enmity between you and between the woman; between your seed and between her seed. They [her seed] will strike your head and you will strike at their heel.

The first part of Yhwh’s speech to the serpent offers a clue to the severity of the situation. The phrase, ‫כי עשית זאת‬, is a causal clause whose conjunction precedes the main clause, thus indicating that the action of the serpent was the sort of action that is not to be taken lightly.177 Furthermore, the phrase, ‫כי עשית זאת‬, “Why have you done this?” or its equivalent, often proceeds the curse in curse formulas in the HB.178 This understanding of the severity of the phrase ‫ כי עשית זאת‬is in stark contrast to Z. Zevit’s conclusions in his most recent study of Genesis 3, wherein he concludes that the ‫ נחש‬did nothing wrong per se.179 I find this claim difficult to accept. The curse formula that appears in Gen 3:14, ‫ארור אתה‬, “cursed are you,” is the standard Hebrew curse formula that includes the substantival phrase followed by the predicate ‫ארור‬, which is usually followed by its subject.180 Aitken argues that there are two possible ways to understand ‫ ארר‬in Gen 3:14. Either the serpent is exclusively cursed above all other animals and therefore, relegated to a state of suffering, or the serpent is banished from all other animals. Aitken is of the opinion that the former, i. e., that the serpent suffers is more likely.181 Furthermore, Aitken concludes that the verb, ‫א ַרר‬,ָ at least in some of its occurrences, denotes “the imposition of something evil, be it a ban or more generally the prevention of an 177 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 78; Joüon, § 170n. 178 Scharbert, “‫ארר‬,” TDOT 1:409. 179 Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? (London: Yale University Press, 2013), esp. 223–226; cf. John H. Walton, review of What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?, by Ziony Zevit, RBL 01 (2015): 1–6. 180 Scharbert, “‫ארר‬,” TDOT 1:408. 181 Aitken, The Semantics, 81. He also states that, “‫ ָא ַרר‬is frequently used of God declaring and thereby imposing a negative state upon someone or something … or consigning them to some form of evil.” See too, Scharbert, “‫ארר‬,” TDOT 1:405–18; Speiser, “Angelic Curse,” 198; Brichto, The Problem of Curse, 83–84; Cf. Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil, 37: “Divine judgment of disfavor is further expressed with other terms, such as divine anger (Judges 2:14, 20; 3:8; cf. 10:16), but no vocabulary of this sort appears in Genesis 3. And contrary to the the characterizations by some biblical scholars, neither the man nor the woman is said by the deity to be cursed or punished.” See too, Zevit, Garden of Eden, 194, and his very instructive statement regarding ‫ טוב ורע‬in relation to ‫ארור‬: “Consequently, ‫ ארור‬automatically suggests a distinction between ‫טוב‬, ‘good,’ and ‫רע‬, ‘bad.’”

The Divine Curse as a Form of Punitive Action: Gen 3:8, 14–19   

147

action.”182 Aitken’s observations are important, but I contend that Kitz’s interpretation of the use of ‫ ארר‬in Gen 3:14 is the most reasonable. She understands the curse to cause physical alteration to the serpent as well as a banishment from other creatures.183 For Kitz, the curse of 3:14 is not just a prohibition to deter behavior, nor is it only a status change in being, and neither is it only a separation from the other animals. Rather, it is all of these together that describe the result of the detrimental effect of Yhwh’s curse against the serpent.184 Scharbert aptly describes the expression of the ‫ ארור‬formula that applies, not least of which, to Gen 3:14: Thus the ’arur-formula is the most powerful “decree” expressed by an authority, and by means of it a man or a group that has committed a serious transgression against the community or against a legitimate authority (God, parents) is delivered over to misfortune.185

The curse as punishment against the ‫ נחש‬in the EN fits the crime of the serpent, wherein his craftiness (‫ )עָ רּום‬above all other creatures in 3:1 is contrasted with his superlative state of cursedness, more so than the cattle and the beasts of the field (3:14).186 Thus, Yhwh has imposed upon the serpent “something bad / evil,” to use the words of Aitken.187 It is only after the interrogation and the moral discrimination of the act of the serpent that this first retributive response of Yhwh proceeds forth in the narrative. Next, let us consider the punishment of the woman.

4.4.1.2 The Curse of the Woman: Gen 3:16 ‫אל האשה אמר הרבה ארבה עצבונך והרנך בעצב תלדי בנים ואל אישך תשוקתך והוא ימשל בך‬ To the woman, he said: “I will utterly magnify your pain in childbearing; in pain you will bear children, and for your husband shall your desire be, and he will rule over you.”

In what sense are we to understand the divine punishment and judgment against the woman to be a curse? Matthews stresses that the curse formula occurring in 3:14 and 3:17 (against the serpent and the man, respectively) is missing in 3:16. Although he does not state so explicitly, his comment implicitly suggests that the divine judgment / punishment against the woman is not a curse.188 Kitz passively

182 Aitken, The Semantics, 84 (A.4). 183 Kitz, Cursed are You, 138. 184 Ibid., Cursed are You, 139. 185 Scharbert, “‫ארר‬,” TDOT 1:411. 186 Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 244–245. 187 Aitken, The Semantics, 81. 188 Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 248; Arnold, Genesis, 68.

148

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

refers to the punishments against the woman and the man in 3:16–19 as a curse.189 I am in agreement with Kitz’s statement on the sole basis that a divine punishment must be assumed to be a divine curse in the ANE, whether the terminology is present or not in 3:16. Clearly, it is Yhwh who increases the woman’s pain in childbearing, as noted in the figura etymologica construction, ‫הרבה ארבה‬. Therefore, I suggest that just as in 3:14–15, regarding the curse against the ‫נחש‬, this negative pronouncement against the woman by Yhwh in 3:16 could just as easily be described using a permutation of ‫“( רעע‬bad / calamitous / disastrous”), as is often the case in the HB.190

4.4.1.3 The Curse of the Man: 3:17–19 ‫ולאדם אמר כי שמעת לקול אשתך ותאכל מן העץ אשר צויתיך לאמר לא תאכל ממנו ארורה האדמה‬‎(17) ‫) בזעת אפיך‬19( ‫) וקוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך ואכלת את עשב השדה‬18( ‫בעבורך בעצבון תאכלנה כל ימי חייך‬ ‫תאכל לחם עד שובך אל האדמה כי ממנה לקחת כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב‬ (17) To the man, he said: “Because you obeyed the voice of your wife, and ate from the tree from which I commanded you not to, saying, ‘Do not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on account of you! Through toil shall you eat from it, all the days of your life. (18) Thorns and thistles shall it grow for you, but you shall eat the grass of the field. (19) Through the sweat of your brow will you eat bread until you return to the ground, for from it your were taken; for dust you are and to the dust shall you return!”

The punishment and judgment against the man is multifaceted. What is instructive is the nature of the crime, namely, that the man did not obey the command of Yhwh in 2:17. As retributive punishment for that disobedience, Yhwh proclaims a malediction, not against the man nor the woman directly but against the earth itself: ‫ארורה האדמה בעבורך‬, “Cursed is the ground because of you!” Kitz demonstrates, however, that this sort of curse has a “primary and secondary target.”191 This dual purpose curse is well attested in the Akkadian literature and the primary purpose of said malediction is the secondary target, i. e., “the disobedient vassal.”192 For example, in an Akkadian Hittite treaty from the fourteenth c. BCE between King Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza of Mittanni, the imprecation reads: er-ṣe-tum lu-u šu-ri-pu-um-ma te-eḫ -le-eṣ-ṣa-a er-ṣe-tum ša KUR-ti-ku-nu lu-u sa3a-ḫ u ša ni-ib-’u5-u lu-u ta-ša-aṭ!(ar)-ma May the ground be ice so that you may slip. May the ground of your land become a marsh of swelling water so that you may sink.193

189 Kitz, Cursed are You, 238. 190 Though, to be clear, ‫ רעע‬does not occur here in the text. 191 Ibid., Cursed are You, 202–3; Arnold, Genesis, 71. 192 Kitz, Cursed are You, 203. 193 For this transcription and translation, see Ibid., Cursed are You, 203.

The Divine Curse as a Form of Punitive Action: Gen 3:8, 14–19   

149

What this reveals about the curse against the ground in Gen 3:17 is that its ultimate target is the man (and too, the woman), which is confirmed in 3:18–19, wherein the result of this negative situation is certain death for the humans (‫כי עפר אתה ואל‬ ‫)עפר תשוב‬.194 Although it is not described as such here in the EN, this ‘experience’ of the divine curse denotes the semantic range of ‫“( רעע‬bad / calamity / disaster”). Let us now consider the expulsion of the humans from ‫ גן עדן‬in light of having acquired ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in disobedience to Yhwh’s command.

4.4.1.4 The Expulsion of the Man and Woman from ‫גן עדן‬: Gen 3:22 ‫ויאמר ה׳ אלהים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים‬‎(3:22) ‫) וישלחהו ה׳ אלהים מגן עדן לעבד את האדמה אשר לקח משם‬3:23( ‫ואכל וחי לעלם‬ (3:22) Then Yhwh-Elohim said: “Now that the man (humanity) has become like one of us, knowing good and bad / evil, what if he were to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever!” (3:23) Therefore, Yhwh-Elohim drove him from the garden of Eden in order to work the land from which he was taken.195

It must briefly be stated that the syntax of Gen 3:22–23 suggests that Yhwh moves with swiftness to remove the human pair from gaining access to the tree of life.196 Within the logic of these verses, humanity has partly attained divinity (‫)כאחד ממנו‬ having acquired ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. That attainment becomes Yhwh’s reason to quickly remove humanity from ‫ גן עדן‬so that humanity does not also attain to ‫חי לעלם‬. It is important to note that humanity has already been cursed to die, which is the stated logic of Gen 3:19. However, these two verses provide further insight into the narrative logic of the human loss of immortality. Thus, the woman and the man are forbidden divine life for their 1) disobedience to the divine command (i. e., Gen 3:19), and 2) for their having acquired ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬through an illicit act of moral autonomy. If a loss of immortality were strictly for the sake of the divine test, then Gen 3:22 would have no reason to include ‫ לדעת טוב ורע‬as part of the two interdependent clauses of v. 22. In other words, if human exclusion from immortality was strictly the result of disobedience to the divine command and failure of the divine test (see § 4.2.2 above), then v. 22 serves no purpose in its explanation for the loss of human immortality as being the result of illicit acquisition of ‫הדעת‬ ‫טוב ורע‬. Therefore, I suggest that the human acquisition of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, in a state of disobedience to the divine command, is threatening to Yhwh and the divine

194 So Lohfink, Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer, 92. 195 For ‫ ועתה פן…הן‬as translated above, see Sarna, Genesis, 23, 24. 196 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 85; W. Hall Harris, The NET Bible Notes, 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Richardson: Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Gen 3:22, tn. 67.

150

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

beings, adding support to my proposal that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is reasonably forbidden (so P3) in the narrative on pain of death / loss of immortality.197

4.4.1.5 Summary In the above section, I suggested that the retributive punishments in Gen 3:14–19, meted out against the serpent, the woman, and the man, through the divine curse, are semantically equivalent to other permutations of ‫“( רעע‬bad / calamity / disaster”) in the HB (e.g., Josh 23:15; Deut 30:15). This experience of each character is in stark contrast to the ‫“( טוב‬good / benefits / blessings”) bestowed upon each through the gift of Yhwh in Gen 1–3.198 It is important to note that these punishments and these negative situations are not the result of mechanical retribution or natural law according to the logic of the narrative. Rather, in each case (3:14–19), the text indicates Yhwh’s will as the originator of said judgments and negative experiences for these three characters; judgments that are commensurate retribution for their crimes in the narrative. By focusing upon these actions of Yhwh in the EN, it is possible to contrast the benefits / blessings (‫ )טוב‬with the experience of the curse / retributive punishment (‫)רעע‬, both extremes of experience which originate with Yhwh. Finally, Gen 3:22–23 show that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is reasonably forbidden on pain of death because human acquisition of it, in a state of disobedience to the divine command, is threatening to Yhwh and the divine beings. Thus, we are now able to offer a definitive interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬based solely upon the EN and its surrounding context, having employed an analysis upon ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬while remaining within the aforementioned parameters (P1, P2, P3; see § 2.4).

4.5 A Theocentric Interpretation of ‫עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬ It is now possible to offer my interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬based upon the EN and its surrounding context. As it was stated in section § 4.2.1.4 above, the most literal translation possible (so I contend) for ‫ עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬in Gen 2:9 is, “The Tree of the Knowledge [of] knowing good and bad / evil.” However, in light of the above analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes (P2), and due to the motif of divine knowledge inherent in this phrase (P1), I suggest that the most reasonable interpretation for ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬within these parameters, is, the knowledge for administering reward and punishment; a divine knowledge that enables humans to become ‘judges’ and actively employ retribution in human society, similar to Yhwh in the EN. Precisely because ‫הדעת‬ 197 One could argue that Yhwh’s swift actions are strictly for the benefit of the humans in their state of rebellion. Both suggestions can be held together in tension. 198 See my section above, § 4.2.1.1.

A Theocentric Interpretation of ‫  ערו בוט תעדה ץע‬

151

‫ טוב ורע‬refers to divine knowledge—a knowledge that is to be implemented in the world by Yhwh, the divine beings, and after acquisition, by the humans (Gen 3:6; so Machinist, § 2.3.3.1)—and since a theocentric interpretation necessitates that an interpreter observe the actions of Yhwh in this narrative—I contend that the permutation of ‫ טוב‬in our phrase (§ 4.2.1.1) must refer to that which enhances and sustains life through divine agency, i. e., the benefits (blessings) of creation in accordance with the immediate context of Gen 1–3.199 In addition to benefits, Yhwh’s evaluation of ‫ טוב‬refers to divine pleasure, to divine will and obedience to divine command, and to moral goodness in nature. Furthermore, a theocentric interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, in light of this analysis of ‫רעע‬, suggests a judicial function that spans the whole of the retributive process (§ 4.2.1.2), wherein divine evaluation of immoral and unethical behavior—that which is described as ‫“( רעע‬evil / contrary to the divine will”)—results in the retributive response of Yhwh’s curse (‫ )רעע‬that works to reestablish order in the earth (e.g., Gen 3:14–19; Gen 6–8). In this way, the divine knowledge of the EN (‫ )הדעת טוב ורע‬is the divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment, understanding that ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function (literarily speaking) as indication of divine discrimination and to the results of divine blessing and cursing.200 Consequently, due to the structuring element of Hebrew historiography as being the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution (so Bodi), I contend that the knowledge of good and bad / evil as the knowledge for administering reward and punishment could further collapse into an even more simple description, namely, the divine knowledge for administering retribution, rejecting (of course) the diminished connotation that the word ‘retribution’ has in modern English, opting rather for an understanding of retribution that encompasses the whole of the process of reward and punishment.201 The purpose of said process, at least in the logic of the HB and in the ANE, is for the reestablishment of order within the body politic.202 To be clear: I am not suggesting that the knowledge of good and bad / evil is human knowledge of the fact that Yhwh and the divine beings are themselves able to administer ‘reward and punishment’ (so Gen 2:16–17), nor am I suggesting that it is the process of interpreting what is and is not divine retribution itself. Rather, I am suggesting that the humans, in having obtained ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, become 199 Both ideas, i. e., the divinely commanded and resultative ‫טוב‬/benefits of creation along side the divinely commanded and resultative ‫טוב‬/blessings of the covenant, carry (semantically speaking) the same function in its Sitz im Leben. Moreover, I contend that the blessing of the seventh day in Gen 2:3 is qualitatively different than what is meant by ‫ טוב‬as ‘benefits / gifts /  rewards.’ 200 The same is true even if initiated through the basic malediction of a human character (e.g., Gen 9:24–26) in response to “knowledge” (‫ )ידע‬of moral and immoral actions (i. e., Noah’s two sons; see § 4.2.1.3.b above). 201 For ‘structuring element’ of Hebrew historiography, see § 3.2.2 above. 202 Mafico, “Just, Justice,” ABD 3:1,128: “In the OT, God’s justice is manifested in his retribution to all people and nations according to their just deserts.” Cf. Eccl 12:14.

152

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

like Yhwh and the divine beings in that they too have divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment (retribution). Thus, humans are enabled, through the acquisition of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, to employ the whole process of retribution in human society and in the world, i. e., the doing of justice in the earth. In essence, they become ‘judges,’ like Yhwh and the divine beings, who employ multiple levels of discrimination of acts of ‫( טוב ורע‬not only moral) leading to the carrying out of reward and punishment (‫)טוב ורע‬, thus having the knowledge of ultimate power. This interpretation answers the question as to why the knowledge for administering reward and punishment is prohibited by Yhwh in the EN (see § 4.2.2.1 above); ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is the knowledge of ultimate power. Both Hill and Herion bring this fundamental point to the fore in their 1986 article, when they write: “Reward and punishment are of course in turn related to the question of ultimate power: Who has the power to deliver rewards and inflict punishment?”203 Obviously, the knowledge for reward and punishment is potentially dangerous under the control of the one who wills it. Clearly, Yhwh has ultimate power in the EN: Who can match his gifted ‫ טוב‬in creation (Gen 1) and who can challenge his curse (‫ )רעע‬in Gen 3:14–19?204 However, the divine beings of Gen 3:5 and 22 also have ‫( הדעת טוב ורע‬see § 4.2.3.1 above). Therefore, I suggest that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is a greater metaphor for ‘power’ in and through the discrimination of ‫ טוב ורע‬followed by the delivering of rewards (‫ )טוב‬and the inflicting of punishments (‫)רעע‬, i. e., the whole process of retribution (‫)טוב ורע‬. This divine knowledge is reasonably forbidden (so P3) precisely because it is knowledge for administering retribution, observed through the actions of Yhwh that lead to his ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the EN and its surrounding context (so P1 and P2). Thus, within the logic of the EN, humans would be permitted to acquire ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬upon the successful show of obedience to the divine command and prohibition in order to be, in essence, Yhwh’s judges in the earth. However, what transpires in the EN is the human acquisition of ‫הדעת‬ ‫ טוב ורע‬through an illicit act of moral autonomy; an act of disobedience to Yhwh’s command that leads to a loss of immortality and exile (3:24) from ‫גן עדן‬.

4.6 Conclusion  In this chapter, it was demonstrated that ‫ עץ הדעת טוב ורע‬is best translated contextually as, “The Tree of the Knowledge of Knowing Good and Bad / Evil.” By providing a lexical accounting for ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of 203 Andrew E. Hill and Gary A. Herion, “Functional Yahwism and Social Control in the Early Israelite Monarchy,” JETS 29 (1986): 281–282 (281). 204 Compare Gunkel’s similar comment: “Jahve bleibt in seiner Ueberlegenheit; als ein armer Sünder steht der Mensch vor dem durchdringenden Scharfblick Gottes, der ihm fluchen und ihn austreiben kann, wie er will” (25).

Conclusion   

153

these extremes, especially in the immediate and surrounding context of the EN, it was demonstrated that these lexemes infer a conflation that must be parsed into 1) human ‘moral and immoral actions’ as evaluated by the eyes of Yhwh, and 2) Yhwh’s generous gifting (blessing/‫ )טוב‬in creation and his retributive response of the curse (‫ )רעע‬to said actions. Thus, from the perspective of the humans, ‫טוב‬ refers to the benefits / rewards / blessings and life to its fullest in creation and in the covenant as emanating from Yhwh, while ‫ רעע‬refers to its opposite, punishments / sanctions / curses that promulgates misfortune upon actors who have disobeyed the divine command. However, from the perspective of Yhwh, the moral evaluation of human actions could be either ‫“( טוב‬righteous / obedient”) or ‫“( רעע‬evil / wicked / rebellious”). By focusing upon the literary motif of the opening of the eyes in Gen 3:5–7, I suggested that after the acquisition of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, the eyes of the humans function in relation to ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬similarly to how the eyes of Yhwh function in the HB in relation to ‫ טוב‬and ‫( רעע‬respectively), inferring the whole of the retributive process of moral evaluation followed by reward and punishment. In this way, the humans become like the divine beings in the acquisition of divine knowledge (3:5, 3:22), resulting in “knowing retribution (reward and punishment)”; a knowledge that functions in a similar fashion to Yhwh’s generous blessing in the EN and his judgment with sanctions through the divine curse in Gen 3:8–19. I then concluded that ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is forbidden, not only to serve the divine test of obedience / disobedience to the command (Gen 2:16–17; § 4.2.2), but also because ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is a greater metaphor for ultimate power of reward and punishment (Gen 3:22; § 4.4.1.4); a dangerous knowledge (reasonably assumed) if employed unwisely at the political, familial, and individual levels.205 Thus, the humans are exiled (3:23–24) and forbidden divine life on account of their illicit act of acquiring divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment (3:22); a knowledge that was forbidden to human acquisition on pain of death through divine retribution. Finally, in the history of research, several commentators make the claim that there is not enough data in the EN to provide an interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬with certainty, and therefore, one must consider texts from other places in the HB.206 Those other examples are often varied depending upon the proposed interpretation and the methodology of any one interpreter. In light of the suggestion that there is deuteronomistic theology and that there are other deuteronomistic / deuteronomic resonances observable in the EN (§ 4.2.2), and likewise, since the EN is narrative like much of the DtrH, and too, since seven of the most oft-cited passages used as support in the history of research come from Genesis and the DtrH, I contend that we should turn to the rest of the book of Genesis and to the DtrH

205 For the whole of the EN as political allegory, see Rosenberg, King and Kin. 206 See § 2.1, n. 10.

154

Divine Knowledge and the Eden Narrative   

to supply the lacuna of data missing from the EN. Thus, it begs the question: Do ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, in narrative segments of the DtrH, function similarly to the EN and its surrounding context (Genesis) with regard to ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’ and Yhwh? In the following chapter, I will seek to answer this question.

5. The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh ‫מפי עליון לא תצא הרעות והטוב‬ Do not the bad and the good come from the mouth of the Most High? — Lam 3:381

5.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will seek to add to the history of interpretation of the EN’s ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬by providing exegetical work that is focused upon Yhwh in certain narrative segments of Genesis and the DtrH. What will become overwhelmingly clear in this work is that ‘good and bad’ in these texts, when Yhwh is the subject or originator of those extremes, refer to the whole process of divine retribution. If these texts are indeed structured according to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution (so Bodi), then it should not be surprising that these lexemes would refer to such in correlation to Yhwh and his actions in these narratives.2 This chapter will focus primarily upon 1–2 Kings, however, I will at times refer to other books that support my argument. Finally, it must be stated that this chapter serves as a preliminary to the remaining exegetical chapters to follow (chapters 6 and 7), and so, it does not include every example relevant to ‘good and evil’ and Yhwh in the DtrH.

5.2 Setting the Stage To begin, I will consider a few key texts from the books of Genesis, Deuteronomy, and the DtrH. These examples show clearly how good and evil function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in these narratives and will help set the stage in order to elucidate the argument before considering the bulk of the exegesis, which concerns 1–2 Kings.

1 See e.g., Fredrik Lindström, God and the Origin of Evil: A Contextual Analysis of Alleged Monistic Evidence in the Old Testament, trans. Frederick H. Cryer, ConBOT 21 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983), esp. 214–229. See also, Mafico, “Just, Justice,” ABD 3:1,128; Marzal, “The Provincial Governor,” 190, 196–97, who contends that “the notion of ‘judging’ precedes that of ‘governing,’” as stated and cited by Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 289, n. 15. Cf. Job 2:10. 2 For ‘structuring element’ of Hebrew historiography, see e.g., Bodi, Warlord, 195, 208; Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 285–300 and § 3.2.2 above..

156

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

5.2.1 Josh 23:14b and 23:15 One of the clearest examples of how good and bad function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, is found in Josh 23:14b and 23:15: ‫) והיה כאשר־בא‬23:15( ‫לא־נפל דבר אחד מכל הדברים הטובים אשר ִד ֵּבר ה׳ אלהיכם עליכם‬‎(23:14b) ‫עליכם כל־הדבר הטוב אשר ִד ֵּבר ה׳ אלהיכם אליכם כן יביא ה׳ עליכם את כל הדבר הרע עד־השמידו‬ ‫אותכם מעל האדמה הטובה הזאת אשר נתן לכם ה׳ אלהיכם‬ (23:14b) Not one word has fallen from all of the good words which Yhwh your God has spoken over you. (23:15) But just like every good word / thing which Yhwh your God has spoken to you will come upon you, so will Yhwh bring upon you every evil word / thing until it destroys you from this good land which Yhwh has given to you.

There are three permutations of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫ טוב‬and one permutation of ‫רעע‬.3 What is most important is the short phrase in 23:14b, ‫הדברים‬ ‫הטובים‬, “the good words,” and the short phrases in 23:15, ‫כל־הדבר הטוב‬, “every good word / thing,” and, ‫כל־הדבר הרע‬, “every evil word / thing.” These phrases appear in Joshua’s final speech before his death. The significance of Yhwh’s speech act of promise / declaration in v. 14b and v. 15 must not be neglected in the translation and interpretation of these two verses. In v. 14b, the text clearly states that not one word (‫ )דבר אחד‬has fallen from all of the good words (‫ )דברים טובים‬which Yhwh had declared (‫ ִ)ד ֵּבר ה׳‬over Israel.4 Since the emphasis of the verbal action regarding Yhwh in these two passages is a speech act (‫)ד ֵּבר ה׳‬, ִ then it must be assumed that, within the context of Joshua, ‫ דברים טובים‬and ‫ דבר אחד‬of 23:14b refer specifically to the promises / blessings of Yhwh; the divine reward for obedience to Yhwh’s covenantal obligations.5 This suggestion is further corroborated by the following verse, v. 15, wherein the text declares emphatically that Yhwh’s retribution works both ways; he will bring the ‫דבר טוב‬, “good word,” upon Israel for faithfulness, and the ‫דבר רע‬, “evil word,” for unfaithfulness, which, as I suggest, is simply the literary motif of the blessing and the curse in its extreme; a comment that Boling has made in his commentary.6 Furthermore, Butler suggests that the ‫ דבר רע‬refers specifically to the covenantal threats of Deuteronomy and the covenantal curses found in

3 I will discuss the meaning of the phrase, ‫ האדמה הטובה הזאת‬further below (§ 5.3.4.4). 4 Notice the difference in the standard translations: ‫דבר טוב‬, “good thing” (NRSV; JPS); ‫דבר‬ ‫טוב‬, “faithful promise” (NET; cf. REB). 5 See, for example, Deut 28, and my section § 3.3 above. 6 Robert G. Boling, Joshua: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 9 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), 525: “The former summarizes the blessings, and the latter the curses, of the covenant.”

Setting the Stage   

157

Deut 28:15–68.7 What this demonstrates is that the Hebrew root lexemes ‫טוב‬ and ‫רעע‬, in an adjectival permutation, refer specifically to the blessing and the curse of the covenantal legal code when modifying the Hebrew ‫דבר‬. Other than Yhwh’s speech act (‫ ִ)ד ֵּבר ה׳‬and the result of expulsion from the land spoken of in vv. 14b–15, there are no other textual characteristics that would suggest blessing and cursing such as common vocabulary and the other highly specialized root lexemes that are often used to refer to both (i. e., ‫ברך‬, ‫קלל‬, ‫)ארר‬. Be that as it may, the correlation of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬to divine blessing and cursing is sound and highlights the semantic function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬to refer to the notions of blessing and cursing. Let us now turn to a passage from Deuteronomy.

5.2.2 Deut 30:15 ‫ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב ואת המות ואת הרע‬ See, I have set before you this day, life and the blessing (lit., good), death and the curse (lit., evil).

In light of the above passage from Joshua, this second example helps to demonstrate the extremes of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as the blessing and the curse, respectively, in these texts. With Moses as the speaker, the Israelites are charged with a choice between the extremes of life and death that are generally interpreted by our author to be the extremes of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ That is to be expected within a text that employs the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution.8 However, when we consider the covenantal and legal context of this passage, along with the fact that this chapter is devoted to blessing and cursing, then these two permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬take on the semantic range of the ‘blessing’ and the ‘curse.’9 Furthermore, on one level of this particular narrative, the threatened extremes of ‘good and bad,’ as resulting from the choices of the people, assumes the divine agency of Yhwh with whom the people are in covenant (e.g., v. 19). However, in the narrative, it is the human character, Moses, who has ‘set before’ (‫ )נתתי לפניך‬the people of the covenant these extremes of blessing and cursing; a further indication that the human character plays a central role in Yhwh’s covenantal retribution.10 In other words, Moses’ proclamation is backed by divine

7 Trent C. Butler, Joshua 13–24, WBC 7B, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 284. 8 See § 3.2.2 above. 9 J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, TOTC 5 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 267; Kitz, Cursed are You, 199. See too, Shane Berg, “Ben Sira, the Genesis Creation Accounts, and the Knowledge of God’s Will,” JBL 132 (2013): 149. 10 T. Raymond Hobbs, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, WBC 6B (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 747; Barrett, Disloyalty and Destruction, 67 and n. 24.

158

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

sanction which is determined by the people’s choosing of ‘life’ or ‘death.’11 Suffice it to say, this passage demonstrates clearly how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬refer to the blessing and the curse of Yhwh.

5.2.3 Gen 50:20 Shifting focus away from Deuteronomy and the DtrH, the third example is taken from Gen 50:20. In this particular passage, the retribution principle is not only observable apropos the permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as functioning with Yhwh as subject and originator of those extremes, but also, the human characters are charged with having influence over the extremes of good and bad in the same context of retributive justice.12 In this particular narrative segment, Joseph reassures his brothers that he will not seek retribution against them for all the ‫ רעה‬that they had done to him (Gen 50:15, 17). In Gen 50:20, Joseph responds: ‫ואתם חשבתם עלי רעה אלהים חשבה לטובה למען עשה כיום הזה להחית עם־רב‬ Although you intended for me evil, God devised for me good, in order to create a moment like this present day, to bring to life a numerous people.13

Most important to note in this passage is that the humans and Yhwh are able to devise good and evil with regard to the destiny of humans (e.g., the destiny of Joseph). However, the previous verse to Gen 50:20 describes the right of retribution, at least in the opinion of Joseph, as solely belonging to ‫אלהים‬: ‫ויאמר אלהם יוסף אל תיראו כי התחת אלהים אני‬ And Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God?”

Sarna suggests that Joseph’s theology assumes the “right of punitive vindication (cf. Lev. 19:18)” as belonging to God alone.14 By all intents and purposes, this is a narrative context of retribution. On one level, it is so according to the narrative action itself with regard to the characters of Joseph’s brothers fearing the harm (‫ )רעה‬their brother might bring upon them (human retribution), and 2) it is the employment of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution by the author, 11 Consider Gen 2:16–17 in light of this passage. 12 See e.g., the permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Gen 37:2, 20, 33; 40:7, 14, 16; 41:3–5, 19–22, 24, 26, 35, 37; 43:6; 44:4–5, 29, 34; 45:16, 18, 20, 23; and 47:9 in light of this particular narrative ending. 13 For my translation regarding the prepositions ‫ על‬and ‫ ל‬with regard to ‫ רעה‬and ‫טובה‬, see “‫חשב‬,” HALOT 1:360; cf. Gen 6:5. 14 See, Sarna, Genesis, 350. The same is true of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN in Gen 2:16–17.

Setting the Stage   

159

who has structured this historiographical narrative to reveal God’s (‫ )אלהים‬actions of bringing ‫( טובה‬a blessing) to Israel.15 Thus, the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is provided expression through Joseph’s own admission that the ‫טובה‬ for Israel, which includes Joseph’s brothers, has come from ‫אלהים‬. Finally, it must be noted that the brothers’ intention of bringing ‫ רעה‬upon Joseph, as stated in 50:20, is best understood in the sense of ‘harm,’ since in contradistinction to their actions, ‫ אלהים‬reckons to Joseph and his brothers, ‫טובה‬, “well being”; Joseph’s interpretation of the events that had transpired.16

5.2.4 Gen 32:10 ‫ויאמר יעקב אלהי אבי אברהם ואלהי אבי יצחק ה׳ האמר אלי שוב לארצך ולמולדתך ואיטיבה עמך‬ Then Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Yhwh who said to me, ‘Return to your land and to your kindred, and I will cause good [for] you.”

In another pertinent example of Yhwh affecting good or bad, Jacob is petitioning Yhwh to keep his promise to cause good for him since he has returned to his native land (cf. Gen 28:13–15 and 31:3). This petition of Jacob is made in the context of narrative action in which Jacob fears for his life at the hands of his brother, Esau, with whom he is meeting for the first time since he took Esau’s blessing (Gen  27:35,‎ ‫ )ויקח ברכתך‬and fled from him. Moreover, it must be reiterated that after the taking of Esau’s blessing in the Gen 27 pericope, Esau declares to himself that he will kill Jacob for his actions (Gen 27:41,‎‫)ואהרגה את יעקב אחי‬. Returning to Gen 32, it is no wonder why Jacob is fearing for his life, after having returned to the land and being moments before meeting Esau, face to face. In 32:12, Jacob petitions Yhwh to deliver him, his wives, and his children from the hand of Esau. Then, Jacob emphasizes Yhwh’s control once again over the extremes of good and bad in 32:13: ‫ואתה אמרת היטב איטיב עמך ושמתי את זרעך כחול הים אשר לא יספר מרב‬ Yet, you have said, “I will surely cause [for] you good, and I will make your seed as the sand of the sea, which are too great to be counted.”

Here again, Jacob states that Yhwh has promised to do good for him, as expressed in the figura etymologica construction, ‫היטב איטיב‬, “I will surely cause / do good.”17 These verbal hifil permutations of ‫ יטב‬in 32:10 and in 32:13 refer specifically to 15 See § 3.2.2 above. 16 Cf. Joseph’s actions in Gen 44:4. See too, e.g., Exod 18:9. 17 Note too, Exod 1:20; Judg 17:13.

160

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

the promises made to Jacob in Gen 28:13–15 and 31:3. It must be noted that the Hebrew lexeme ‫ טוב‬does not appear in Gen 28:13–15 and 31:3. Thus, our author has employed a permutation of ‫ טוב‬to refer to the divine promise / blessing (i. e., to the benefits from Yhwh) in those passages. More importantly, however, is to note that the character, Jacob, is interpreting his own situation as one of potential calamity and harm at the hands of his brother, as retribution against him for his earlier actions in taking Esau’s blessing. In response to that fear, he petitions Yhwh to remember that he had promised him, good (‫ איטיבה‬,‫)היטב איטיב‬. Clearly, Jacob’s petition assumes that the feared calamity at the hands of Esau, if materialized, would be indication that Yhwh had rescinded his promise of ‫ טוב‬by allowing the retributive calamity of Esau to overtake him. Point in case, the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is often employed in these texts through the eyes of the characters themselves. Finally, these short examples demonstrate that within this particular narrative, Yhwh and Esau could bring either good (‫)טוב‬ or calamity (‫ ;רעע‬inferred) upon Jacob, affecting his destiny; all within a context of human and divine retribution.

5.2.5 Gen 31:24, 29 Two of the most oft-cited passages in the history of research regarding the knowledge of good and evil are found in the pericope concerned with the escape of Jacob from Laban. The narrative begins by emphasizing the stealthy actions of Jacob as he escapes from Laban without his awareness of his intentions (Gen 31:20). When Laban finally learns of Jacob’s flight from Haran, he gathers some of his kinsmen and pursues after Jacob (Gen 31:23,‎‫)וירדף אחריו‬.18 In 31:24, the text states that Laban is warned in a dream to refrain from speaking with Jacob from good to bad: ‫ויבא אלהים אל־לבן האמרי בחלם הלילה ויאמר לו השמר לך פן־תדבר עם־יקעב מטוב עד־רע‬ Then God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night, and he said to him: “Keep yourself from pressing matters with Jacob from good to bad.”19

This particular phrase, ‫מטוב עד־רע‬, is difficult to translate. Speiser contends that one should understand ‫ ִד ֵּבר‬in a juridical sense and offers a translation in agreement with such a reading, as I have stressed in my translation above. Others have suggested that this phrase is simply a way of saying that Laban is warned to speak nothing with Jacob, for good or bad.20 McCarter, in citing Hoftijzer, suggests that 18 Cf. Buchanan, “OT Meaning,” 119 (also § 2.2.7.1 above). 19 For the translation, “pressing matters with Jacob,” see Speiser, Genesis, 246. 20 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 123.

Setting the Stage   

161

this phrase does not simply mean to say nothing; rather, it means that Laban is to refrain from any hostile action toward Jacob.21 Clark contends something similar, arguing that Laban is “not allowed to prosecute” Jacob for the “legitimate grievance” that he has against him on account of his actions in fleeing.22 Moreover, Gen 31:29—an oft cited passage in the history of research for interpreting ‫—הדעת טוב ורע‬provides support for this very notion regarding the punitive actions of Laban: ‫יש לאל ידי לעשות עמכם רע ואלהי אביכם אמש אמר אלי לאמר השמר לך מדבר עם יעקב מטוב עד רע‬ There is to me the power to do harm to you. However, the God of your fathers, last night, said to me, “Keep yourself from pressing matters with Jacob from good to bad.”

Laban explains to Jacob that he had the power to harm him, but was forbidden to do so by the God of Jacob’s fathers. Most important to note is that Laban states unequivocally that he has the power (lit., “there is to my hand to do with you evil / harm”).23 Although Wallace contends that such a phrase, “from good to evil,” is best understand as a merism meaning nothing, he does suggest that one could see in this example a reference to blessing and cursing, with good and evil representing the alternatives for those extremes.24 I suggest that in light of this study, Wallace’s erudite statement is correct: The author of this narrative is indicating that Laban was not to take any action of reward or punishment (blessing and cursing) against Jacob, even if he were justified (in his own eyes) in doing so. Laban is warned by ‫‘( אלהי אביכם‬God of your fathers’) to refrain from taking retributive action that would take Jacob from ‫ טוב‬to ‫רע‬. Furthermore, I suggest that this is assumed by the author of Gen 31:24 and 31:29 in using the verbal root ‫ ִד ֶּבר‬in its piel stem to refer to ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as the extremes of the punitive action spoken by an authority against a subject (e.g., Josh 23:14b, 15). It is evident from the context that retribution is central to this particular story, and one could surmise that the text employs the Hebrew lexeme for pursuing retribution (i. e., Gen 31:23,‎‫וירדף‬ ‫ )אחריו‬as describing Laban’s response to learning that Jacob had fled. Therefore, when placed within the contexts of retribution as well as in contexts of blessing and cursing, this passage demonstrates how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function as the extremes of reward and punishment, particularly with the emphasis upon ‫רעע‬. Most important

21 P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 9 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 326–27, n. 22; Jacob Hoftijzer, “Absalom and Tamar: A Case of Fratriarchy?,” in Schrift en Uitleg. Studies … aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. W. H. Gispen (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1970), 55; Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 18, n. 6. 22 Clark, “Legal Background,” 269, following Speiser. 23 See too, Gen 31:7; 31:52. 24 Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 123.

162

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

to note is that both the human and Yhwh in this narrative have the authority (at least in theory) to do ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in a context of retribution.25

5.2.6 1 Kings 8: Solomon’s Blessing Continuing with the DtrH and with Solomon as a final example to this introductory section, 1 Kings 8 concerns the dedication of the temple in Jerusalem and the placing of the ark in said temple. Within this chapter, there are three prayers given by Solomon that “constitute a pastiche of blessing promises from the Torah.”26 It follows then that Dtr has shaped this chapter to be understood in the context of covenantal faithfulness on the part of Yhwh, who has kept his promises to give Israel rest and a place in which his name may dwell.27 In accordance with this research, one would expect that the Hebrew root ‫ טוב‬would appear within a chapter devoted to blessing and to the fulfillment of covenantal promises. Accordingly, the Hebrew root ‫ טוב‬appears 5 times in this chapter, suggesting that the emphasis is upon the blessing of Yhwh and not upon the curse; a fact confirmed by the absence of any permutation of ‫ רעע‬in this chapter.

5.2.6.1 1 Kgs 8:18 The Hebrew root ‫ טוב‬appears once in 1 Kgs 8:18, which reads: ‫ויאמר ה׳ אל־דוד אבי יען אשר היה עם־לבבך לבנות בית לשמי הטיבת כי היה עם־לבבך‬ And Yhwh said to David, my father, “Because it was with your heart to build a house for my name, you have done well that it was with your heart.”

This occurrence of ‫ טוב‬is a 2ms qatal hifil conjugation with David as the subject that designates a meaning of doing well. In this instance, the text places David in the realm of doing ‘well / good’ in desiring to build a house for Yhwh, but that such building would not be undertaken by David and instead, said building would be accomplished by his son.28 Although this phrase refers simply to a proper action or motive having been accomplished by David, it is, nonetheless, an indication of Yhwh’s approval of the building of the temple; a divine evaluation which results in a blessing for Solomon, as will be seen in the following verses.

25 For other passages in Genesis with the emphasis upon Yhwh, see Gen 4:7; 6:5; 13:13; 24:50; 31:7; 39:9; 48:16. 26 Anderson, The Blessing and the Curse, 207. 27 E.g. Deut 12:11. 28 1 Kgs 8:19.

Setting the Stage   

163

5.2.6.2 Excursus: ‫ הדרך הרעה‬in‎2 Kgs 17:13 and 1 Kgs 13:33 Before turning to 1 Kgs 8:36, and the phrase therein, ‫הדרך הטובה‬, “the good way,” it would behoove us to consider the phrase, ‫דרכיכם הרעים‬, “your evil ways,” in 2 Kgs 17:13, as well as the phrase, ‫בדרכו הרעה‬, “his evil way,” in‎1 Kgs 13:33. By beginning with 2 Kgs 17:13, one can see that ‫ רעע‬in these texts refers to that which is contrary to the Deuteronomic teaching: ‫ויעד ה׳ בישראל וביהודה ביד כל־נביאו כל־חזה לאמר שבו מדרכיכם הרעים ושמרו מצותי חקותי‬ ‫ככל־התורה אשר צויתי את־אבתיכם ואשר שלחתי אליכם ביד עבדי הנביאים‬ But Yhwh admonished Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commands, my statutes, according to all of the law that I commanded your fathers and that I sent to you through my servants, the prophets.”

This one permutation of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫ רעע‬appears as an adjectival modifier in the phrase ‫מדרכיכם הרעים‬, “from your evil ways.” The surrounding vocabulary is evidence enough of the covenantal / legal framework of this particular passage and its immediate context; vocabulary such as, ‫מצוה‬,‎ ‫חק‬, and ‫תורה‬.29 The phrase, ‫מדרכיכם הרעים‬, can be compared with the similar phrase in 1 Kgs 13:33, wherein Jeroboam is condemned by Dtr for his countercultus: ‫אחר הדבר הזה לא־שב ירבעם בדרכו הרעה וישב ויעש מקצות העם כהני במות החפץ ימלא את־ידו‬ ‫ויהי כהני במות‬ After this thing, Jeroboam did not repent from his evil way, but he continued appointing from the ranks of the people priests to the high places. Anyone who desired to be a priest, he would appoint as priests at the high places.

It is clear that the phrase ‫ בדרכו הרעה‬is Dtr’s indictment against Jeroboam for his disobedience to Dtn teaching through which Dtr understands the temple cultus in Jerusalem to be Yhwh’s chosen place to put his name. As it will be demonstrated in my exegesis of 1 Kgs 8:36 (see § 5.2.6.3 below), the phrase ‫הדרך הטובה‬, “the good way,” is a reference by Dtr to the Dtn law code, whatever that may mean in its historical context.30 Moreover, the presumed retributive result of one who followed the good way would be the covenantal blessing, which is evident in the text’s use of ‫ טוב‬as the adjectival modifier to ‫הדרך‬. Likewise, I suggest that Dtr assumes the same for its opposite ‫הדרך הרעה‬, “the evil way,” which appears here in 29 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 336–337; T. Raymond Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC 13 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 233. 30 It is Dtr phraseology, so Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 351. Cf. 1 Sam 12:23.

164

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

1 Kgs 13:33, i. e., ‫בדרכו הרעה‬. That the phrase ‫ בדרכו הרעה‬is to be juxtaposed against Dtr’s interpretation of the Dtn law code is corroborated by the contextual concern of obedience to Yhwh within the narrative, generally speaking, of 1 Kgs 13.31 The ‫ דרך רעה‬of Jeroboam, according to our text, is his countercultus at Bethel that is in contradistinction to the temple cultus at Jerusalem, and therefore, to the will of Yhwh. The occurrence of ‫ רעע‬at this juncture indicates that Jeroboam’s refusal to turn from his evil way to proper Dtn teaching—as it pertains to worship at the temple cultus in Jerusalem—results in the covenantal curse against him, according to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution employed by our author.32 Clearly, in this context, the threat of divine retribution is a form of ‘social control’ in order to keep the order in society according to Dtr teaching and to the will of Yhwh.33 That the ‫ דרך רעה‬of Jeroboam in 13:33 leads to the curse of the covenant is confirmed in the following verse (13:34b), wherein the house of Jeroboam is threatened with being cut off (‫ )להכחיד‬and destroyed (‫ )להשמיד‬from the face of the earth.34 Thus, the purpose of 1 Kgs 13:34 supports my overall thesis that the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 13:33 refers specifically to Yhwh’s evaluation of covenantal unfaithfulness, and therefore, leads to the covenantal curse in its ancient Near Eastern legal setting. The phrase ‫ בדרכו הרעה‬inherently suggests opposition to the ‫ הדרך הטובה‬of 1 Kgs 8:36, which if followed, would lead to the result of the blessing (‫)טוב‬. That being said, Jeroboam’s ‫דרך רעה‬, as a countercultus to the Jerusalem cult (so Dtr), helps to interpret this similar phrase in 2 Kgs 17:13, ‫דרכיכם הרעים‬, “your evil ways.” Most important to remember is that the subject of this passage is both Israel and Judah; a simple reminder that improper cultic worship (‫)דרך רעה‬, according to Dtr, will lead to the covenantal curse for both Israel and Judah.35 The verses following 2 Kgs 17:13 confirm that Israel’s and Judah’s ‫ דרכיכם הרעים‬are cultic in nature and considered by Dtr to be infractions against covenantal obligations (17:14–17).

31 Remember that the placement of 13:33 comes after a narrative segment, i. e., 1 Kgs 13:1–32, whose central theme is obedience to ‫דבר ה׳‬. See Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, WBC 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 171–174. 32 That is precisely what happens to the prophet who disobeyed ‫ דבר ה׳‬in the narrative segment of 1 Kgs 13:1–32, i. e., the divine curse is unleashed against him, which is confirmed by the lion’s actions in the story, see Kitz, Cursed are You, 191; Hillers, Treaty Curses, 54–58. For hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, see § 3.2.2 above. 33 See my work (§ 2.3.3) regarding Machinist’s interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. 34 See e.g., Deut  4:26; 6:15; 11:17; 28:21, 63; 29:27. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 346–347, no. 10. 35 Some postulate that this is not Dtr and is rather, a later editor. For more on this, see specifically Hartmut N. Rösel, “Why 2 Kings 17 Does Not Constitute a Chapter of Reflection in the ‘Deuteronomistic History’,” JBL 128 (2009): 86–90, esp. 89; cf. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 233.

Setting the Stage   

165

5.2.6.3 1 Kgs 8:36 Returning now to 1 Kgs 8:36, there is one occurrence of the Hebrew root ‫טוב‬, and it appears as an adjective. This particular passage comes after a plea from Solomon as it pertains to Israel’s disobedience to their covenantal obligations to Yhwh; obligations that would result in an absence of rain, if they were disobeyed. 1 Kgs 8:35a reads: ‫בהעצר שמים ולא־יהיה מטר כי יחטאו־לך‬ “When the skies are shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against you…”

The author of this passage, having employed the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, interprets a drought to be the result of the sin of the people against their covenantal obligations to Yhwh.36 Compare, e.g., Deut 11:17a: ‫וחרה אף־ה׳ בכם ועצר את־השמים ולא־יהיה מטר והאדמה לא תתן את־יבולה‬ “Then the anger of Yhwh will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens and it will not rain and the land will not give its produce.”

Notice that both 1 Kgs 8:35a and Deut 11:17a use the same root ‫ עצר‬as denoting the loss of rain as punishment for disobedience to covenantal obligations.37 Following this plea from Solomon, 1 Kgs 8:36 reads: ‫ואתה תשמע השמים וסלחת לחטאת עבדיך ועמך ישראל כי תורם את־הדרך הטובה אשר ילכו־בה ונתתה‬ ‫מטר על־ארצך אשר־נתתה לעמך לנחלה‬ “And you will hear [from] the heavens, and you will forgive the sin of your servants, your people Israel. Surely you will teach them the good way in which they should walk, and you will give rain upon their land which you gave to your people as an inheritance.”

Most important for this research is to note that Israel’s infringement against their obligations will be forgiven by Yhwh (‫)וסלחת לחטאת עבדיך ועמך ישראל‬, and that Yhwh will surely teach them ‫הדרך הטובה‬, “the good way,” which if adhered to, results in the giving of rain upon the land stated in 8:36b. The short phrase ‫ הדרך הטובה‬clearly refers to the covenantal law code, whatever that may mean historically in this particular context of 1 Kgs 8.38 Thus, the retributive result of 36 See Höver-Johag, “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:305, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:325. 37 Ola Wikander, Drought, Death, and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel: A Philological and Comparative Study, ConBOT 61 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 140 and n. 325. 38 See e.g., Deut 5:33; cf. 1 Sam 12:23.

166

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

walking in ‫ הדרך הטובה‬is the blessing and in this case, is regarded as rain for the land. Thus, the use of ‫ טוב‬as an adjective in 1 Kgs 8:36, so I suggest, places the semantic range of this particular permutation within the realm of retributive reward, regarded clearly in this specific occurrence as the blessing, i. e., the giving of rain. Obedience to Yhwh’s covenantal obligations, referred to explicitly in the text with the phrase, ‫הדרך הטובה‬, produces the ‫ טוב‬given by the authoritative agent of retribution as it pertains to the covenantal legal code. To sum up: The permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 8:36 (‫הדרך הטובה‬‎), 1 Kgs 13:3 (‫)דרכו הרעה‬, and 2 Kgs 17:13 (‫ )דרכיכם הרעים‬demonstrate how these lexemes assume “the way” that leads to the blessing (‫ )טוב‬of Yhwh’s covenant or to the curse (‫ )רעע‬of the same.

5.2.6.4 1 Kgs 8:56 ‫ברוך ה׳ אשר נתן מנוחה לעמו ישראל ככל אשר ִד ֵּבר לא־נפל דבר אחד מכל דברו הטוב אשר ִד ֵּבר ביד‬ ‫משה עבדו‬ Blessed be Yhwh who has given rest to his people, Israel, according to all that he spoke. Not one word has fallen from all of his good word which he spoke by the hand of Moses his servant.

This passage suggests a connection between the fulfillment of promises made by Yhwh and those same promises referred to as ‫דבר טוב‬.39 This particular text has affinities with Joshua 23:14b–15. As already demonstrated, the juxtaposition of ‫ דבר טוב‬with its opposite ‫ דבר רע‬refers to both extremes of the blessing and the curse of the covenant.40 According to Dtr in 1 Kgs 8:56, Yhwh has poured out his blessing upon his faithful vassal, Israel, which is described in the text using the Hebrew root lexeme ‫טוב‬. The events that are happening in Solomon’s day, interpreted by both Solomon and Dtr as fulfillment of Yhwh’s promises according 39 McAffee also agrees to the covenantal context of this passage and its importance for understanding ‫דבר טוב‬, see McAffee, “The Good Word,” 399, n. 68: “On this point we should note the close affinity between ‘the good word’ and the more general theme of blessing throughout the Old Testament. This particular example shows that ‫ טוב‬functions as a rough equivalent to Yhwh’s acts of ‘blessing’ (√‫ ברך‬and its permutations) toward the created order in general (e.g. Gen. 1.4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) and his covenant people Israel in particular (e.g. Josh. 23.14–15). What distinguishes ‫ דבר טוב‬as ‘good word’ from ‫ טוב‬as ‘good’ = ‘blessing’ is that it concerns the pronouncement of blessing (i. e. a spoken blessing), in this case from within the context of Yhwh’s covenant with Israel. Or even further, the particular blessing pronounced to Israel is couched in terms of Yhwh’s promised blessing / favor should they obey the terms of the covenant, contrasted with the warned curses should they not obey.” Although I am in agreement with McAffee, I suggest that the scope within which the blessing and the curse can be derived from the permutations of the Hebrew root lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬is much wider in the HB than McAffee has argued for in his article. 40 So Boling, Joshua, 525. See my work above on Josh 23:14b–15 (§ 5.2.1).

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

167

to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, are referred to as ‫דבר טוב‬, confirming once again that ‫טוב‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of this extreme, refers to an act of divine retribution.41

5.2.6.5 Summary What these examples demonstrate is that the permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or the originator of said extremes, refer specifically to divine retribution as a form of social control in ancient Israel.42 I contend that a functional awareness of how these lexemes are employed in these surveyed texts, especially with a focus upon Yhwh, can only point toward Yhwh’s retribution. Thus, it is only reasonable to conclude, in a pursuit of interpreting the EN’s, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, that such divine knowledge would have a primary meaning of retribution precisely because that is how those lexemes function in these narratives, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes. What remains in this chapter is my exegetical work on the many permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ (when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes) in the books of 1–2 Kings, which will show that this particular function of these lexemes is consistent throughout these books with regard to divine retribution.

5.3 Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings In this section, I will show how permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, in 1 and 2 Kings, function when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes. What will become overwhelmingly evident is that said permutations of both lexemes that have Yhwh as the subject or the originator of their materialized referent in the narrative, mostly refer to either 1) the divine evaluation of covenantal faithfulness / unfaithfulness as determined through the eyes of Yhwh, or 2) to the resulting divine blessing / curse. Precisely because the DtrH is a narrative of decline, the primary occurrence of any one of these lexemes is a permutation of ‫רעע‬, bad / evil. In light of this fact, it is essential to remember that these texts have been structured according to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution that seeks to interpret history in accordance with said hermeneutic.43 The main point of this exegesis is to suggest that in the pursuit of an interpretation of the 41 See too, 1 Kgs 8:66, wherein ‫ הטובה‬refers specifically to Yhwh’s blessing upon Israel; 1 Kgs 10:7 (cf. 2 Chron 9:6), where ‫ טוב‬refers to all the prosperity / blessing of Solomon (e.g., Deut 28:11); and Isa 63:7bα, where ‫ טּוב‬refers to all the favors of Yhwh. Cf. ‫ וכל־טּוב‬in‎ 2 Kgs 8:9. 42 Such a conclusion is consistent with what we know regarding the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution employed in these texts of the ANE, see § 3.2.2 above. 43 See e.g., Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 285, and Ibid., Warlord, 208.

168

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

EN’s divine knowledge of good and bad / evil, one should consider how the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in the DtrH (so P2; see § 2.4).

5.3.1 1 Kings 5 The first passage to be surveyed concerns the permutation of the Hebrew lexeme, ‫רעע‬, in an adjectival form in 1 Kgs 5:18.44 Solomon’s request to Hiram is for wood from Phoenicia to help him build the temple for Yhwh in Jerusalem. The one occurrence of ‫ רעע‬that appears in 1 Kgs 5:18 [5:4 ET] does so in the midst of a narrative focused upon Solomon’s wisdom given to him by Yhwh and upon the time of peace and order that settles upon the early years of Solomon’s reign.

5.3.1.1 1 Kgs 5:18 ‫ועתה הניח ה׳ אלהי לי מסביב אין שטן ואין פגע רע‬ “But now, Yhwh my God has caused for me rest from all around. There is no adversary, and there is no occurrence of evil.”

As can be seen from the context of this passage, Solomon is describing his current situation as king, one that boasts of having freedom from any ‫שטן‬, “military adversary,” and from having no occurrences of evil within his kingdom.45 This short phrase in Hebrew, ‫פגע רע‬, “occurrence of evil” is a difficult phrase to translate. Most translations simply read, “misfortune.” Cogan suggests that the word ‫פגע‬ denotes an “unplanned meeting” by chance.46 The only other appearance of ‫פגע‬ in a nominal form is in Eccl 9:11, and it clearly denotes the meaning “chance,” but it does so as subject to the verb ‫קרה‬, “to befall, happen,” which is in a qal 3ms yiqtol form. I suggest that in 1 Kgs 5:18, it is better to understand the phrase ‫ פגע רע‬as simply an “occurrence of evil.” Furthermore, it must be noted that the Hebrew root ‫ פגע‬in a verbal qal form can be shown to mean “to execute,” in certain legal contexts.47 This interpretation of ‫ פגע‬would give further precision to this particular phrase because of its parallelism to the short phrase ‫אין שטן‬, “There is no military adversary,” in the same verse. Stokes has shown that a more technical translation of ‫ שטן‬should denote the meaning of “physical attack,” with special

44 For 1 Kgs 3:10, see § 3.2.3.2.b above. 45 Ryan E. Stokes, “Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner,” JBL 133 (2014): 253. 46 Cogan, I Kings, 227. Cf. “‫פגע‬,” BDB 803, which translates this instance of ‫ פגע‬as “evil occurrence.” So too, “‫פגע‬,” HALOT 3:910. 47 See § 7.4.2.1 below.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

169

nuance in legal contexts that would imply the ‫ שטן‬to be an executioner.48 I find this important because in this present passage of 1 Kgs 5:18 [5:4 ET], both ‫ שטן‬and ‫ פגע רע‬are used as a sort of opposite extreme to the rest that Yhwh has granted to Solomon. This proposal is further clarified by 1 Kgs 11:14 in which Yhwh raises up a ‫ שטן‬to be against Solomon on account of his unfaithfulness to his covenantal obligations.49 Although the exegesis of 1 Kgs 11 will come below, I suggest that just as the raising up of a ‫ שטן‬is the result of unmet obligations to Yhwh, so too with a ‫פגע רע‬. Thus, in this particular passage, Dtr has juxtaposed two extremes, both of which are the result of covenantal obligations. On the one hand, rest has been caused by Yhwh due to Solomon’s fulfillment of his obligations to Yhwh; yet on the other hand, Yhwh has caused neither a ‫ שטן‬nor a ‫ פגע רע‬to rise against Solomon for failing to meet his covenantal obligations.50 What is more, both the author and the character, Solomon, have employed the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in their interpretation of events. Another passage in the HB exists in which the Hebrew roots ‫ פגע‬and ‫ רעע‬are found in a similar context with one another. Jeremiah 15:11 reads: ‫אמר ה׳ אם־לא שרותיך [שריתיך] לטוב אם־לוא הפגעתי בך בעת־רעה ובעת צרה את־האיב‬ Yhwh said, “[Jerusalem,] have I not loosed you from the good? Have I not struck you with a time of evil and have I not caused you to meet the enemy with a time of trouble?”51

This passage is not without its problems. There is no need to restate the issues that exist with the MT in Jer 15:11 for it has been discussed at great length elsewhere.52 Most important for this research is to focus upon the two phrases, 1) ]‫שרותיך [שריתיך‬ ‫לטוב‬, and 2) ‫הפגעתי בך בעת־רעה‬. In the first phrase, the difficult reading exists due to the ketib, ‫שרותיך‬. The qere’ is preferable, i. e., ‫שריתיך‬, but it is still difficult to understand in this passage. For all intents and purposes, I have accepted as being accurate the argument that the subject of this passage, Yhwh, does not speak to Jeremiah but to Jerusalem.53 Furthermore, there is an occurrence of ‫ שרה‬in Job 37:3 that is similar to this occurrence in Jer 15:11a. In Job 37:3, it is a qal 3ms yiqtol form, whereas most read the qere’ of Jer 15:11a as a piel 1cs qatal form.54 Most 48 Stokes, “Executioner,” 251. 49 See § 5.3.3.2 below. 50 E.g., Deut 12:10. 51 My translation is unique. For my translation in the state of a question, see Job 30:25; Miller, Sin and Judgment, 30.  52 Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:446–47, b–b; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 21A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1999), 733–34; Harris, NET Bible Notes, Jer 15:11. 53 Ibid., NET Bible Notes, Jer 15:11. 54 “‫שרה‬,” BDB 1,056.

170

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

interesting is the meaning of the verb in Job 37:3, which is “to loose,” referring to the deity’s voice of thunder. Similarly, I suggest that the meaning of the qere’ of the piel form ‫ שרה‬in Jer 15:11a, i. e., “I have released you [Jerusalem],” fits the context quite well. What is unfitting for the passage is the translation for ‫לטוב‬, which is usually understood as “for your good,” or even simply “for good,” i. e., “I have released you for your good.” The word ‫ טוב‬is to be understood nominally, but it is so without any pronominal suffix that would indicate that it is for the good of Jerusalem. Could it be that the vague value of the preposition ‫ ל‬is confusing the translation of this verse? What if we were to understand the preposition with the meaning of “from” instead of “to” or “for”? Although the force of the preposition in this argument is not standard to BH, it is, nonetheless, in the realm of possibility.55 Gordon shows the force of l as meaning, “from,” in Ugaritic: (ʿnt:IV:46) gršj. lksi. mlkh (ʿnt:IV:47) lnḫ t. drkth (ʿnt:IV:46) drive him from the seat of his rule, from the couch, (ʿnt:IV:47) from the throne of his sovereignty!56

If that is the semantic range in Jeremiah 15:11a, it would be similar to the value of the preposition ‫ ב‬in Exod 12:43: ‫ויאמר ה׳ אל־משה ואהרן זאת חקת הפסח כל־בן־נכר לא־יאכל בו‬ And Yhwh said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the statute of the Passover: a son of a foreigner shall not eat from it.”57

In any case, it is at least a possibility that the translation for the preposition ‫ ל‬in Jer 15:11a is to have the value of “from,” which makes more sense to the overall translation, i. e., “I have released you from the good.” Therefore, this passage in Jer 15:11 has contrasted two extremes enacted by Yhwh as it pertains to Jerusalem: He has released Jerusalem from the good (‫)שריתיך לטוב‬, i. e., the blessing, and he has met Jerusalem with a time of evil (‫)הפגעתי בך בעת־רעה‬, i. e., the curse; all of it in the midst of Jerusalem’s rebellion against covenantal obligations, which is very important to the context of Jeremiah 15. Most essential for this research is to note that the juxtaposition of both ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Jer 15:11 demonstrates the extremes in divine retribution that are consistent with this research, and too, it is important to note that the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬appears in 55 E.g. 1 Chr 9:27; Jouon § 133d. 56 For this transcription and translation, see Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr 38 (Rome: Pontificum Institute Biblicum, 1965), 98, § 10.11. 57 Joüon, § 133d; Gordon, UT, § 10.1,5. See also, Surls, Divine Name, 57–58. Cf. Dennis Pardee, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,” UF 8 (1976): 312, 320.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

171

Jer 15:11b as the adjectival description to the sort of ‘striking’ that Yhwh has brought against Jerusalem, i. e., he has accomplished it with an ‫עת־רעה‬. This similarity in meaning to the phrase ‫ פגע רע‬in 1 Kgs 5:18 helps to understand the full nuance of said occurrence. Both ‫ פגע רע‬and ‫ הפגעתי בך בעת־רעה‬refer to the same extremes of divine retribution carried out by Yhwh for failure to keep covenantal obligations.58 So to summarize: The Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬as it appears in 1 Kgs 5:18 suggests that its semantic range includes divine control over its extreme. In so doing, Yhwh has relinquished any such occurrence of ‫רעע‬, thus rendering a time of complete rest to Solomon and Israel.

5.3.2 1 Kings 9 1 Kings 9 begins with Solomon’s completion of the house of Yhwh, Solomon’s residence and all else that Solomon desired to build. In a second appearance to Solomon in 9:2–9, Yhwh confirms that he has granted (‫ )שמעתי את־תפלתך‬to Solomon all that he has requested as it pertains to the newly constructed Jerusalem Temple. In 9:4–5, Solomon is admonished by Yhwh to guard and to keep the commandments and the laws that he has commanded him (‫)חקי ומשפטי תשמור‬. In so doing, Solomon can expect that there will never cease to be a man sitting on David’s throne. Yet, in 9:6–8, Yhwh warns Solomon that if he or any of his children fail to keep Yhwh’s commandments and laws, serving and worshiping other gods (‫)אלהים אחרים‬, then Yhwh will destroy the temple (‫)הבית הזה יהיה עליון‬ and will cut Israel off from the land which he gave to them (‫והכרתי את־ישראל מעל פני‬ ‫)האדמה אשר נתתי להם‬. The only permutation of ‫ רעע‬in the narrative follows both an admonishment and a warning to keep Yhwh’s commandments and laws.

5.3.2.1 1 Kgs 9:9 ‫ואמרו על אשר עזבו את־ה׳ אלהיהם אשר הוציא את־אבתם מארץ מצרים ויחזקו באלהים אחרים וישתחו‬ ‫להם ויעבדם על־כן הביא ה׳ עליהם את כל־הרעה הזאת‬ And they will say, “Because they forsook Yhwh their God, who brought their fathers out from the land of Egypt, and because they embraced other gods, worshiping them and serving them, therefore, Yhwh has brought upon them all of this evil.”

This text perspicuously expresses my argument for the divine knowledge as the divine knowledge of retribution. The verbal forms in 9:6 become plural, referring

58 The hifil conjugation of ‫ פגע‬in 15:11b has the same force with the preposition ‫ ב‬as it does in Isa 53:6, i. e. “cause to light upon,” so “‫ ”פגע‬BDB 803, and Harris, NET Bible Notes, Jer 15:11 n. 32.

172

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

therefore to Israel and not to Solomon specifically.59 Moreover, not only does the nominal form ‫ רעה‬refer to Yhwh’s punishment in the destruction of the temple and the cutting off of Israel from the land spoken of in 9:7–8, but it also refers particularly to the curse of Yhwh’s covenant.60 Thus, 1 Kgs 9:9 is contrasted with the occurrences of ‫ טוב‬that appeared in 1 Kgs 8 regarding the blessing upon Yhwh’s obedient vassal, i. e., Solomon / Israel. DeVries summarizes succinctly the force of vv. 8–9, when he writes that they are a “kind of catechism in which the cause of such devastation and opprobrium is defined in terms of Israel’s apostasy.”61 The warning, then, in 1 Kgs 9:9 is of divine retribution for disobedience to covenantal obligations; a retribution described by the text using legal terminology, i. e., ‫הרעה הזאת‬, referring to the punishment / curse of Yhwh’s covenant. If one were to consider this text when interpreting the EN’s ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, one would have to conclude that said phrase refers to divine retribution, with a clear emphasis upon social control and the administration of justice.

5.3.3 1 Kings 11 In 1 Kings 11, there are two occurrences of the Hebrew root ‫רעע‬. One occurrence appears as a substantival adjective in 11:6, and also, a nominal form is found in 11:25. The context in which these two permutations of this Hebrew root emerge is one in which Solomon is accused of disobedience to his covenantal obligations to Yhwh. In the opening segment of 1 Kgs 11:1–2, Dtr states that Solomon’s love for many foreign women is in direct violation of Deut 7:3 and Josh 23:11–12.62 Following this statement by Dtr, Solomon is then indicted in 11:4 for not having remained true to Yhwh. In this context, the first occurrence of the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kings 11 appears.

59 DeVries, 1 Kings, 127. 60 So Cogan, I Kings, 296, n. 8. Cf. Deut 28:37; 29:23; Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul J. N. Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East—Part 1: The Texts, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 921, § 5/2 and § 5/11; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre, BibOr 19 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 15. 61 DeVries, 1 Kings, 127. 62 For a detailed analysis, see Gary N. Knoppers, “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. Lowell K. Handy, SHCANE 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 399–401; DeVries, 1 Kings, 142–144.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

173

5.3.3.1 1 Kgs 11:6 ‫ויעש שלמה הרע בעיני ה׳ ולא מלא אחרי ה׳ כדוד אביו‬ And Solomon did what was evil in the eyes of Yhwh, and was not fully loyal to Yhwh as his father David.63

In this passage, the eyes of Yhwh are said to judge the quality of actions committed by an inferior within the covenantal framework, namely, Solomon.64 That this phrase in 1 Kgs 11:6 refers to Solomon’s infringement to covenantal obligations is confirmed in 11:11, where Dtr has, in the mouth of Yhwh, indictments against Solomon that include such phrases as: ‫ולא שמרת בריתי וחקתי אשר צוית‬ And you did not keep my covenant nor did you keep my statutes which I commanded you.65

Therefore, this occurrence of the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 11:6 is consistent with my thesis, and it demonstrates once more how the eyes of one in legal authority are stated by the text to judge the good and the bad in a covenantal context. Likewise, in most contexts in which this specific phrase appears, i. e., in the eyes of Yhwh, it can be assumed that what will follow is the covenantal curse (legal retribution) that is often characterized by the text in the extreme through the Hebrew root ‫רעע‬.

5.3.3.2 1 Kgs 11:25 ‫ויהי שטן לישראל כל־ימי שלמה ואת־הרעה אשר הדד ויקץ בישראל וימלך על־ארם‬ And he [Rezon] was a military adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, and [like] the misfortune that Hadad [caused], he loathed Israel and reigned over Aram.66

The textual difficulties of 1 Kgs 11:25 make its translation an arduous process. In any case, of highest concern for this research is how to understand the phrase ‫ואת־הרעה אשר הדד‬. The difficulty in this expression is that the subject of the action, i. e., ‫ הדד‬has no verb in the MT. My translation follows the LXX, which does include

63 For the translation of ‫ מלא אחרי ה׳‬as “not fully loyal to Yhwh,” see Cogan, I Kings, 327; John Gray, I & II Kings, OTL, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press LTD, 1970), 278. 64 Consider all occurrences of the same phrase in the book of Judges: Judg 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1. 65 See Anderson, The Blessing and the Curse, 211. 66 For the textual difficulties of this passage, see Cogan, I Kings, 333; John R. Bartlett, “Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite,” ZAW 88 (1976): 214–215.

174

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

the missing verb that would be equivalent to the Hebrew ‫עשה‬, i. e., ἐποίησεν, “he caused,” thus rendering the MT as ‫ואת־הרעה אשר עשה הדד‬, “And the misfortune which Hadad had done.” This translation then contrasts Rezon with Hadad as a political adversary to Solomon. The reason that 11:25 is juxtaposing Rezon with Hadad is because of 11:14 in which Yhwh is said to have raised up a ‫שטן‬ against Solomon on account of his disobedience to his covenantal obligations to Yhwh, e.g., 1 Kgs 11:14a: ‫ויקם ה׳ שטן לשלמה את הדד האדמי‬ And Yhwh raised up a military adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite.

In my discussion regarding 1 Kgs 5:18 (see § 5.3.1.1 above), it was shown that Solomon’s boast about having neither a military adversary (‫)שטן‬, nor an occurrence of evil (‫)פגע רע‬, was indicative of Yhwh’s blessing upon Solomon for his faithfulness to his covenantal obligations. Here in 11:14a, just as in 5:18, Yhwh is considered the active agent through whom a military adversary (‫ )שטן‬would be raised up against Solomon for his disobedience to said obligations. In addition to the military adversary, 5:18 also suggests that a ‫ פגע רע‬against Solomon would be indicative of Yhwh’s curse, all in accordance with the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. Likewise then, in 1 Kgs 11:25, where Dtr suggests that Rezon has a similar purpose as a military adversary to Solomon like that of Hadad, Rezon is also said to have created ‫ רעה‬against Israel all the days of Solomon.67 Important to note is that both Hadad and Rezon are described by Dtr as 1) ‫שטן‬, and 2) as causing ‫ רעה‬against Israel. Therefore, I posit that 11:25 is a textual indication that Dtr assumes Solomon to be under Yhwh’s curse for his disobedience to his covenantal obligations to Yhwh. It can be inferred from this reading that the ‫ רעע‬that breaks forth against Solomon through two military adversaries that create said ‫ רעע‬is the result of Yhwh’s divine retributive justice, which Dtr situates in 11:6 with the legal evaluation, ‫ויעש שלמה הרע בעיני ה׳‬, “And Solomon did evil in the eyes of Yhwh.” Two important points, which are essential to my overall thesis can be taken from the exegesis of 11:25: 1) The active agent through whom the divine knowledge functions is Yhwh; and 2) the actions of Hadad described in the text as ‫ רעה‬are interpreted, according to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, by Dtr to be divine retribution against Solomon.

67 For an important discussion on this verse, see Baruch Halpern, “Sectionalism and the Schism,” JBL 93 (1974): 521.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

175

5.3.4 1 Kings 14 The context of 1 Kings 14 primarily concerns the condemnation of the house of Jeroboam by the prophet Ahijah for Jeroboam’s disobedience to his covenantal obligations (1 Kgs 14:1–20). The final segment of 1 Kings 14 covers the indictment of Dtr against Judah, also for their disobedience to covenantal obligations (1 Kgs 14:21–31).

5.3.4.1 1 Kgs 14:9 ‫ותרע לעשות מכל אשר־היו לפניך ותלך ותעשה־לך אלהים אחרים ומסכות להכעיסני ואתי השלכת אחרי גוך‬ And you [Jeroboam] have committed more evil than all who were before you; you have gone after and you have made for yourself other gods and molten images, provoking me to anger, and you have cast me out behind you.

In this particular passage, the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬appears as a verbal form in a hifil 2ms wayyiqtol conjugation with Jeroboam as its subject, and it has a very basic meaning of doing evil or acting wickedly. This phrase is the standard Deuteronomistic evaluation of the kings of Israel and Judah, in which disaster is accredited to Yhwh’s divine retribution against disobedience to his commands.68 Dtr’s indictment against Jeroboam is consistent with the same indictment in 12:28, wherein Jeroboam is condemned by Dtr for making the golden calves. In 14:9, Jeroboam is accused of going after other gods and making molten images, as condemned in such places as, e.g., Deut 9:12.69 Thus, this phrase as being in the mouth of Yhwh gives to the verbal phrase, ‫ותרע לעשות מכל אשר־היו לפניך‬, the connotation of disobedience to covenantal obligations.70 In consequence of Yhwh’s evaluation described by the text using the Hebrew root ‫רעע‬, it can be 68 That this superlative evaluation seen in the phrase ‫ מכל אשר היו לפניך‬is common in Mesopotamian and Phoenician royal inscriptions, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 358–359, no. 21; John Bright, “The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah,” JBL 70 (1951): 33, n. 34. For a similar ancient Near Eastern parallel, see the case of the Mesopotamian king from Akkad, Naram-Sin, whose demise is accredited to Enlil for Naram-Sin’s desecration of one of Enlil’s temples, [“The Curse of Agade: The Ekur Avenged,” trans. S. N. Kramer (ANET, 646–651), as referenced by John Monson, “1 Kings,” in 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 3 of ZIBBCOT, ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 61–62]. 69 Cf. Exod 32:4, 8.  70 That the adverbial idea of ‫ ותרע לעשות‬is expressed grammatically in this way, see Joüon, § 124n. For this standard judgement of Dtr, see Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 278–281; Helga Weippert, “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher,” Bib 53 (1972): 301–339.

176

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

assumed that the resulting curse will also be described by the text as ‫רעע‬, which is seen in the following verse, 1 Kgs 14:10.71

5.3.4.2 1 Kgs 14:10 ‫לכן הנני מביא רעה אל־בית ירבעם והכרתי לירבעם משתין בקיר עצור ועזוב בישראל ובערתי אחרי‬ ‫בית־ירבעם כאשר יבער הגלל עד־תמו‬ Therefore, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and I will cut off from Jeroboam every person who urinates on a wall, bond and free, in Israel. And I will utterly consume the house of Jeroboam, just as dung is consumed to its completion.72

In 1 Kgs 14:10, the curse against the house of Jeroboam is indicated in the text by the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in the opening phrase, ‫לכן הנני מביא רעה אל־בית ירבעם‬.73 Weinfeld states that these set curse forms in Dtr are derived “from the conventional descriptions of retributive punishments encountered in ancient Near Eastern treaties.”74 Furthermore, the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 14:10 is surrounded by vocabulary that alludes to the Dtn covenantal curse. For example, in the short phrase, ‫והכרתי לירבעם משתין בקיר עצור ועזוב בישראל‬, there are echoes of Deut 32:26 in which a result of the divine retributive punishment of the covenantal curse includes the extinguishing of one’s remembrance, i. e., ‫אשביתה מאנוש זכרם‬.75 In addition to this curse reference, there is another short phrase in 1 Kgs 14:10, which reads, ‫ובערתי אחרי בית־ירבעם‬. In this example, Dtr’s curse assumes the utter extermination of Jeroboam’s house as resulting from Yhwh’s retributive punishment.76 Finally, and without needing to give it full attention here, in the following passage of 1 Kgs 14:11, there are also allusions to the covenantal curse in reference to the corpses of those belonging to Jeroboam as being consumed by the birds of the air and by the dogs, whether in the city or in the open field.77 This curse clearly echoes Deut 28:26 in which the destruction of one’s corpse by “the birds of the sky” 71 For a listing of all permutations of ‫ רעע‬in the standard Dtr phrase of divine evaluation in 1–2 Kgs that are not provided exegetical work in this chapter, see: 1 Kgs 14:22; 15:26, 34; 16:7, 19, 25, 30; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:2; 8:18, 27; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:2, 11, 17; 21:2, 6, 9, 16, 20; 23:32, 37. I suggest that each one of these occurrences corroborates the thesis of this study, suggesting that ‫ רעע‬is an indication of divine evaluation, especially within the matrix of the covenantal framework. Cf. 1 Sam 15:19 and 16:14–16, 23; 18:10; 19:9. 72 For the translation of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬as “no one excepted,” see Paul Saydon, “Meaning of the Expression ‫עצור ועזוב‬,” VT 2 (1952): 374; DeVries, 1 Kings, 179. Regarding ‫רעה‬, see e.g., Gen 19:19. 73 For a categorization of this phrase in accordance with Dtr, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 350, Appendix A, no. 5. 74 Ibid., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 20.  75 Cf. Deut 4:26; 6:15; 11:17; 28:21, 63; 29:27. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 346, Appendix A, no. 10. 76 Cf. Deut 13:6; 17:7, 12; 19:13, 19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7. See Cogan, I Kings, 379. 77 Monson, “1 Kings,” 3:62: “No divine punishment in the ANE would be feared more than this one.”

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

177

(‫ )לכל־עוף השמים‬and “the wild beasts” (‫ )ולבהמת הארץ‬is considered the result of the covenantal curse.78 Therefore it is clear from the context of 1 Kgs 14:10 that divine retributive punishment serves as a threat to be carried out through the covenantal curse against the house of Jeroboam (i. e., ‫ ;)לכן הנני מביא רעה אל־בית ירבעם‬a form of social control that seeks to establish the norm of cultic worship at the Jerusalem temple with regard to the Northern Tribes.79

5.3.4.3 1 Kgs 14:13 ‫וספדו־לו כל־ישראל וקברו אתו כי־זה לבדו יבא לירבעם אל־קבר יען נמצא־בו דבר טוב אל־ה׳ אלהי ישראל‬ ‫בבית ירבעם‬ And all Israel shall mourn for him [Abijah]; for they will bury him because this child alone from Jeroboam’s [house] shall come to the grave because Yhwh, the God of Israel, finds in him a good thing, in the house of Jeroboam.

In this instance, ‫ טוב‬modifies ‫ דבר‬and is best translated as a “good thing.” It begs the question: To what does the ‫דבר טוב‬, according to Yhwh’s divine approval of Abijah, refer? In one sense, ‫— דבר טוב‬as it has been shown in this research—carries the connotation of “Yhwh’s promise of favor and fortune.”80 However, Cogan suggests that there is a sense in which this occurrence means something akin to “proper cultic behavior” in regards to the worshiper.81 Suffice it to say, ‫ דבר טוב‬does refer to an action committed by Abijah worthy of Yhwh’s divine approbation.82 McAffee suggests that this occurrence of ‫ דבר טוב‬is an expression that “enjoys a life all its own outside the parlance of covenant.”83 I disagree, however, suggesting 78 Mordechai Cogan, Bound for Exile (Jerusalem: Carta, 2013), 78. Cf. the curses of “Esarhaddon’s Succession and the Medes,” line 451: “šīrē-ku-nu kalbē uzīru le-e-ku-lu,” “may dogs (and) pig(s) eat your flesh.” For this transliteration and translation, see Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:988. 79 See my summary to this section below (§ 5.3.4.5). 80 Cogan, I Kings, 380; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 4 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1993), 316; Cf. Martin Noth, Könige, BKAT 9 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 317, who suggests that ‫דבר טוב‬ in 1 Kgs 14:13 is similar to its occurrence in Esth 5:4 and Neh 2:5. 81 Cf. 2 Chr 19:3; Cogan, I Kings, 380; Ibid., “For in Him Alone of All the House of Jeroboam Has Some Good Been Found by Yhwh, God of Israel (1 Kings 14:13): On the Odyssey of Interpretations,” in Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible, eds. S. Yonah, D. Sivan and Z. Talshir, [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2001), 272: “‫בהקשר זה משמעותו של ‘דבר טוב’ היא מעשה חיובי כלפי ה׳ ופולחנו‬.” 82 Cogan rightly notes that Abijah’s proper burial in 14:18 is in conflict with Dtr’s prophecy regarding the utter destruction of the house of Jeroboam, see Ibid., I Kings, 380; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 24. 83 McAffee, “The Good Word,” 386. He does does take note of Cogan’s scriptural examples of ‫ דבר טוב‬and the “covenantal” context of those examples. For example, Josh 21:45; 23:15; 1 Kgs 8:56; Jer 29:10; 33:14. See Ibid., “The Good Word,” 386, and Cogan, I Kings, 380.

178

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

rather that the context of the passage is covenantal, which can be inferred from the surrounding narrative content of 1 Kgs 14. Likewise, the divine approval of Abijah—if indeed one assumes cultic practice to be the action meriting said approval (so Cogan)—is in contradistinction to the cultic practice of Jeroboam and his house.84 In other words, Dtr suggests that cultic behavior existing outside the boundaries of Dtn law in Israel is condemned by divine sanction. Conversely, divine approval must be assumed by the text to reward actions in accordance with cultic practice at the Jerusalem temple. Nevertheless, the context requires the sole basis of divine approval and disapproval of cultic behavior as judged against the Dtn law code, whatever that means to our author. In conclusion, I posit that the occurrence of the Hebrew root ‫ טוב‬in 1 Kgs 14:13 refers to the act of covenantal faithfulness that resulted in the divine blessing that could also be described in the HB as ‫טוב‬. As such is the case, Abijah is assumed by Dtr, who has employed the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in this text, to be under Yhwh’s blessing, and not under his curse, thus receiving a proper burial; the divine retribution for his ‫דבר טוב‬.85

5.3.4.4 1 Kgs 14:15 ‫והכה ה׳ את־ישראל כאשר ינוח הקנה במים ונתש את־ישראל מעל האדמה הטובה הזאת אשר נתן לאבותיהם‬ ‫וזרם מעבר לנהר יען אשר עשו את־אשריהם מכעיסים את־ה׳‬ Yhwh will strike Israel until it shakes like a reed in water. He will uproot Israel from this good land which he gave to their fathers, and he will scatter them from beyond the Euphrates (‫)לנהר‬, because they constructed their Asherah poles provoking Yhwh to anger.

In 1 Kgs 14:15, there is one occurrence of the Hebrew root ‫טוב‬, which appears in the text as an adjective that modifies ‫האדמה‬, “the land.” It is clear from this passage that the making of Asherah poles (‫ )עשו את־אשריהם‬is a direct infringement against Dtn teaching, which calls for the destruction of sacred poles.86 Thus, Dtr has moved on from the condemnation of the house of Jeroboam to the Northern Tribes in general. Most important for this research is to inquire about the verbal phrase, ‫ונתש את־ישראל מעל האדמה הטובה הזאת‬, “He will uproot Israel from this good land.” The result of divine anger, according to 1 Kgs 14:15, is the uprooting of Israel from the “good land” (‫)האדמה הטובה‬.87 According to McAffee’s conclusions, 84 Ibid., I Kings, 380; Ibid., “An Odyssey of Interpretations,” 272. 85 E.g., Deut 21:23; Eugene Carpenter, “Deuteronomy,” in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 1 of ZIBBCOT, ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 492: “Improper burial was a catastrophe as far back as ancient Sumer. Improper burial could lead to baneful consequences involving ghosts, demons, and other evils.” 86 E.g., Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:21. 87 Cf. Deut 4:21.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

179

the ‫ דבר טוב‬for Israel is “almost always equated with the land of promise,” i. e., ‫האדמה‬ ‫הטובה‬.88 Likewise, Weinfeld shows that the grant of land and house are the “objects of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants respectively,” which has a long attestation in ancient Near Eastern treaty traditions. For example, in a 13th century BCE Hittite treaty between Tudkhalia (IV) and Ulmi-Tesub of Tarhuntassa, Tudkhalia (IV) promises to designate the land of Tarhuntassa, which he had given to Ulmi-Tesub, to his (Ulmi-Tesub’s) lineage: [8] [The land of Tarhuntassa] which I have given [to] you – that shall your son and grandson retain, (and) none shall take it from them. [9] If any son or grandson of yo[urs] is disloyal (“sins”), then the King of the Hatti-land shall judge him; and if he is tainted by a(ny) disloyalty, [10] then as he (himself) is inclined shall the King of Hatti duly deal with him. So if (t)he (man) is (deserving) of execution, then shall one execute him. But his house and [11] land shall not be taken from him, and shall not be assigned to (someone) of another family. Only to a descendant of Ulmi-Tesub shall it be given.89

This particular treaty shows how land could be considered a gift from the Hittite suzerain to his vassal. In any case, Weinfeld suggests that this widely attested phenomenon helps to explain the motif of the land as a “grant par excellence” that exhibits “royal benevolence arising from the king’s desire to reward his loyal servant.”90 However, in the case of 1 Kgs 14:15, the uprooting of Israel from ‫הטובה‬ ‫— האדמה‬the central gift (blessing) of Yhwh’s covenant—would be indication of the Northern Tribes receiving the diving retribution of Yhwh for disobedience to covenantal obligations, which is the very charge that Dtr brings against Israel. I posit that Yhwh’s uprooting of Israel from ‫ האדמה הטובה הזאת‬is a reversal of the blessing. Although this particular permutation of ‫ טוב‬is simply an adjectival permutation describing the land (it is good!), I nevertheless contend that in light of the structuring element of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, Yhwh’s removal of the ‫ טוב‬implies its opposite, the laying down of the ‫ רעע‬in the curse of the treaty.91

88 McAffee, “The Good Word,” 397. However, in accordance with Josh 23:14b–15, we can surmise that ‫ דבר טוב‬refers broadly to the covenantal blessings in every respect. For ‘good land’ in Deuteronomy, see § 4.2.1.1.b, n. 36. 89 For this transliteration and translation of the Hittite, see Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:632–633. For this treaty (among others as well) as an illustration of land as a gift from the greater party to the inferior, see Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 189. 90 Ibid., “The Covenant of Grant,” 188; Anne Marie Kitz, “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua,” JBL 119 (2000): 605. 91 The great disaster of exile from ‫ האדמה הטובה‬in Dtr is most often referred to as ‫רעה‬, “calamity / disaster / misfortune.” For ‘structuring element’ of Hebrew historiography, see § 3.2.2 above.

180

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

5.3.4.5 Summary In 1 Kings 14, I have shown that the occurrence of the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 14:9 represents Yhwh’s evaluation of Jeroboam’s covenantal obligations regarding cultic practice. Furthermore, the assumed result of Yhwh’s evaluation of ‫ רעע‬is the divine retributive punishment of the covenantal curse, which is evident in the following passage of 1 Kgs 14:10. In this particular verse, the Hebrew root ‫רעע‬ appears in the curse formula that has Yhwh as its subject: ‫לכן הנני מביא רעה אל־בית ירבעם‬ Therefore, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam.

Due to this curse formula, which is declared by Yhwh against the house of Jeroboam, Dtr had to reconcile in 1 Kgs 14:13 the fact that Abijah, Jeroboam’s son, received a proper burial in contradistinction to the result of Yhwh’s covenantal curse against all the men in the house of Jeroboam, i. e., ‫והכרתי לירבעם משתין בקיר‬ ‫עצור ועזוב בישראל‬. The textual marker of Abijah’s perceived covenantal faithfulness is seen in the short phrase ‫דבר טוב‬, “a good thing.” Because of both the divine approval according to Dtr cultic practice and the subsequent divine action of just retribution, i. e., the blessing of proper burial for Abijah, I posit that this passage demonstrates clearly the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution employed by the author of these texts. Furthermore, it was shown that in 1 Kgs 14:15, the phrase ‫ האדמה הטובה‬refers to Yhwh’s “royal benevolence” in rewarding his “loyal servant.”92 If that is assumed, then Yhwh’s uprooting of Israel from ‫האדמה הטובה‬ (so Dtr in 1 Kgs 14:15) represents the reversal of the central gift of Yhwh’s covenant (i. e., ‫הטובה‬ ‫ )האדמה‬due to the Northern Tribe’s disobedience to Dtr cultic practice (divine retribution as curse). The materialization of this reversal of the blessing is described in 2 Kgs 22:20 as the great calamity / disaster (‫ )רעה‬of exile from ‫האדמה הטובה‬.93

5.3.5 1 Kings 17 Another pertinent example is 1 Kgs 17:17–24. In this story, the widow of Zaraphath’s son becomes ill to the point of severe weakness and death.94 The woman confronts Elijah, for whom she had provided a meal in fulfillment of his request, 92 Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” 188. 93 Cf. Zech 1:15b, wherein ‫רעה‬, “disaster / calamity,” is said to have been accomplished through ‘the horns’ (‫ )הקרנות‬of Zech 2:2 but only as the materialization of the divine curse, see e.g., Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report, LHBOTS 605 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 95. 94 Cf. Gray, I & II Kings, 382–83.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

181

asking in 1 Kgs 17:18 why he had come to bring her guilt to remembrance (‫באת‬ ‫ )אלי להזכיר את־עוני‬and to cause the death of her son (‫)ולהמית את־בנו‬. Most important to note is that the woman character interprets the illness of her son as divine punishment emanating from Yhwh on account of her iniquity; a clear employment of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution by the author of this text. After Elijah takes the boy and lays him on his bed, he intercedes to Yhwh on behalf of the boy.95 Only within this framework of the woman’s admission of guilt as being the reason for the cause of the death of her son, which she claims is due to divine retribution, does the verbal permutation of the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 17:20 make any sense.

5.3.5.1 1 Kgs 17:20 ‫ויקרא אל־ה׳ ויאמר ה׳ אלהי הגם על־האלמנה אשר־אני מתגורר עמה הרעות להמית את־בנה‬ Then he cried out to Yhwh, and he said: “Yhwh, my God, will you bring upon this widow, whose guest I am, calamity (‫עות‬ ָ ‫)ה ֵר‬ ֲ to cause her son to die?”

In this particular passage, this one occurrence of ‫ רעע‬in a 2ms qatal hifil conjugation appears in the mouth of Elijah, and it denotes the very idea that the calamity that has befallen the widow and her son is the result of Yhwh’s divine curse.96 De Vries suggests that it is not the divine curse, arguing that Elijah considers the woman’s theology of divine judgment to be “erroneous” and so acts to refute her claims.97 However, Karel van der Toorn shows that the divine involvement can be assumed to be consistent with Mesopotamian and ancient Israelite thought—especially as it pertains to individual retribution—due to the “(impending) fatal outcome” in the case of the widow’s son.98 Furthermore, Elijah’s statement seems to corroborate the widow’s assumption that Yhwh has cursed her son due to her iniquity, of which specifics remain unmentioned in the text. Ola Wikander agrees with this assessment, stating that this episode is indication that the death involved is both “caused and negated by Yhwh himself.”99 Furthermore, the death of the child as 95 So Samuel E. Balentine, “The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment,” JBL 103 (1984): 166. 96 E.g., 1 Sam 6:9. 97 DeVries, 1 Kings, 221. 98 Toorn, Sin and Sanction, 84. 99 Wikander, Drought, Death and the Sun, 133, and 134, n. 307: “Note that Elijah states clearly in 17:20 that Yhwh is the cause of the death of the landlady’s son. Thus, this can hardly be described as a challenge by death against the divine power and a hypostasized Death ‘seizing’ the boy.” So too Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Vier Gestalten einer Totenerweckungserzählung (1 Kön 17,17–24; 2 Kön 4,8–37; Apg 9,36–42; Apg 20,7–12),” Bib 80 (1999): 64: “Dabei bestreitet auch er nicht das Recht der Züchtigung. Wie seine Redestrategie verrät, bleibt ihm nur, will er etwas für die Frau bewirken, ihre Schuld unerwähnt zu umgehen. Dafür hebt er behutsam ihre Verdienste

182

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

the result of Yhwh’s punitive action of the curse against the widow of Zaraphath is evidence of the employment of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in this text.100 What is not explicit in the text is the nature of the woman’s ‫עון‬. However, Elijah’s prophetic oracle against Ahab in 1 Kgs 17:1 assumes that the drought results from divine retribution for the “defection to the cult of Baal” and for the cultic practice of the Northern Tribes.101 Nevertheless, the widow is indicted for her actions described as ‫ ;עון‬a term that R. Knierim shows to be an indication of “the reality of the act and its consequences.”102 Due to the narrative’s interpretation of the son of the widow’s calamity as the result of the woman’s ‫עון‬, I suggest that the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬describes the causative action of Yhwh’s punitive decision, i. e., the divine curse for said widow’s iniquity (‫עון‬,‎ 1 Kgs 17:18) that resulted in the death of her son (‫)להמית את־בנה‬. This explains the hifil verbal permutation of ‫עות‬ ָ ‫ה ֵר‬.103 ֲ Thus, Yhwh is not being charged with committing moral evil; rather, the text suggests that Yhwh has meted out ‘misfortune / disaster’ upon the widow’s son as legal sanctions for a particular ‫עון‬. More interesting (theologically speaking) is Yhwh’s response to Elijah’s prayer that reverses the divine curse, bringing the child back to life again. Thus, the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is clearly employed in this text by the author, and once again, the Hebrew root lexeme, ‫רעע‬, in this particular verbal permutation has as its subject, Yhwh. By using such an example to help interpret the EN’s divine knowledge of good and evil (‫הדעת‬ ‫)טוב ורע‬, I contend that said knowledge is, knowledge for administering retribution (reward and punishment), which serves the purpose of establishing ‫ משפט‬in the land, evidenced in this particular narrative through Yhwh’s omnipotence over the extremes of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬.104

hervor (‘bei der ich mich als Gast aufhalte’), so dass die Strafe rhetorisch nicht wegen ihrer Schuld, sondern trotz ihrer Meriten ergeht.” Also, Cogan, I Kings, 429: “The prophet’s words hint at the unfairness of taking the life of the widow’s son and echo the tone of the woman’s words (v. 18), which pointed an accusing finger at the prophet and his God.” 100 See § 3.2.2 above. 101 So Gray, I & II Kings, 377; Cogan, I Kings, 425. As it pertains to the widow directly, one would only be able to argue that the effect of Yhwh’s curse against the Northern Tribes had reached into non-covenantal territory. I am grateful to Cara Trier for her erudite reflections shared with me in discussing this particular text. 102 Similar to Koch’s mechanical retribution (see § 3.2.1 above). See e.g., R. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965), 186, esp. 236, 238, 242 as cited by “‫עון‬,” HALOT 2:800, and Walther Zimmerli, “Zur Vorgeschichte von Jes. LIII,” in Congress Volume: Rome 1968, eds. G. W. Anderson et al., VTSup XVII (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 239. 103 See too, Exod 5:19, 22–23; Num 11:10–11, 15. 104 Cf. Zeph 1:12.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

183

5.3.6 1 Kings 21 The narrative context of 1 Kings 21 concerns that of Naboth’s vineyard near Jezreel. Most important for this study is to note the covenantal legal context of the narrative, one in which Ahab requests that Naboth sell his vineyard to him for a reasonable exchange in land or money. This narrative is focused upon human and divine suzerainty and the vassal relationship. In the first part of the narrative, Naboth is falsely accused by Jezebel and Ahab for disobedience to his obligations as vassal to Yhwh and to the king. In the latter half of the narrative, Yhwh accuses Jezebel and Ahab for disobedience to their covenantal obligations as it pertains to their crimes against Naboth.105

5.3.6.1 1 Kgs 21:20 ‫ויאמר אחאב אל־אליהו המצאתני איבי ויאמר מצאתי יען התמכרך לעשות הרע בעיני ה׳‬ Then Ahab said to Elijah: “Have you found me, my enemy?” And he replied: “I have found you because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of Yhwh.”

In 1 Kings 21:20, the first appearance of the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬occurs and it does so in a statement of divine evaluation in the mouth of Elijah. Essential to note are the obvious allusions to the Dtn legal code as it pertains to Ahab’s crimes against Naboth. For example, Wiseman suggests that Ahab’s indictment by Elijah confirms Ahab’s infringement against the decalogue of Deut 5:17 and Deut 5:21. His suggestion is based upon the previous passage of 21:19 in which Ahab is said, within Elijah’s prophetic oracle, to have ‫ הרצחת‬and ‫ ;ירשת‬terminology that is clearly reminiscent of the Decalogue, e.g., ‫ לא תרצח‬and ‫לא תתאוה‬.106 Thus, the divine evaluation of Yhwh in this passage, i. e., ‫התמכרך לעשות הרע בעיני ה׳‬, shows ‫ הרע‬to be indication of Ahab’s breach of his covenantal obligations. What can be assumed is that following the divine evaluation of ‫הרע‬, regarding Ahab’s breach of covenantal unfaithfulness, will be the divine curse of Yhwh. This divine curse appears in the following passage of 21:21, and it is denoted in the text using the Hebrew lexeme ‫רעע‬.

105 So Anne Marie Kitz, “Naboth’s Vineyard after Mari and Amarna,” JBL 134 (2015): 545, esp. 536–537. For an analysis of the narrative on multiple levels, see Jerome T. Walsh, “Methods and Meanings: Multiple Studies of 1 Kings 21,” JBL 111 (1992): 193–211. 106 D. J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. D. J. Wiseman, TOTC 9 (Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 196.

184

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

5.3.6.2 1 Kgs 21:21 ‫הנני מבי [מביא] אליך רעה ובערתי אחריך והכרתי לאחאב משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב בישראל‬ “Behold, I [Yhwh] am bringing upon you evil! And I will consume you. Then, I will cut off from Israel every male, bond and free, in Israel.

In 1 Kings 21:21, the appearance of the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in its nominal form, ‫רעה‬, is an allusion to the covenantal curse of Yhwh. What is most interesting in this passage is to note that Yhwh’s curse (‫רעה‬, lit. “calamity / disaster”) extends not only to Ahab, but also to Ahab’s house and lineage in general (‫והכרתי לאחאב משתין בקיר‬ ‫)ועצור ועזוב בישראל‬.107 The Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 21:21 is the textual marker of Yhwh’s punishment against Ahab for his covenantal crimes against Yhwh, i. e., his judicial murder of Naboth. Here again, the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬is consistent with the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in the historiographical writing of the HB. In 1 Kgs 21:20, Yhwh’s evaluation of Ahab as having committed ‫הרע‬ (permutation of ‫ )רעע‬in his eyes, results in the divine retributive curse referred to as ‫רעה‬, “evil / calamity / disaster,” (permutation of ‫)רעע‬. Again, in the pursuit of an interpretation of divine knowledge of ‫ טוב ורע‬in the EN, I suggest that the function of good and evil in these texts, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, overwhelmingly points toward the notion of divine retribution.108

5.3.6.3 1 Kgs 21:29 ‫הראית כי־נכנע אחאב מלפני יען כי־נכנע מפני לא־אבי [אביא] הרעה בימיו בימי בנו אביא הרעה על־ביתו‬ Have you [Elijah] seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days; in the days of his son, I will bring the evil upon his house.

After Ahab’s repentance (21:27–29) in response to the words of Elijah (lit., ‫הדברים‬ ‫)האלה‬, Yhwh relents of his decree to bring the punishment (‫ )רעה‬in the days of Ahab, relegating said punishment (‫ )רעה‬to the days of his son, Joram (e.g., 2 Kings 9). Most noteworthy for this research is that 1) the divine agent through whom the ‫ רעה‬will emanate is Yhwh; and that 2) the punishment is retributive punishment against Ahab for his disobedience to covenantal obligations (1 Kgs 21:25). However, what is also important to note is that 21:27 suggests that Ahab only responds upon hearing the words of Elijah; words that were synonymous with the divine curse (so Josh 23:15, ‫)כל הדבר הרע‬. Thus, 1 Kgs 21:29 demonstrates the 107 Cogan, I Kings, 482. The phrase is verbatim to that which is found in 1 Kgs 14:10–11 (§ 5.3.4.2 above). 108 So too, 1 Kgs 21:25, 29.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

185

hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in that the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬refers to the divine evaluation of covenantal observance and to the covenantal curse of Yhwh as retributive punishment for infringements against covenantal obligations, at least in this context.

5.3.6.4 Summary In 1 Kings 21, there are three occurrences of the Hebrew root ‫ טוב‬and five occurrences of the Hebrew root ‫רעע‬. The greater context of 1 Kings 21 is concerned with proper actions within the matrix of the human and divine suzerainty and vassal relationship. In 1 Kgs 21:20, it was shown that the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬occurs in the divine evaluation of Yhwh, i. e., ‫התמכרך לעשות הרע בעיני ה׳‬, and is indication of Ahab’s breach of covenantal obligations that will inevitably result in the covenantal curse of Yhwh against Ahab for his crimes. The covenantal curse of Yhwh was demonstrated in the following passage of 21:21, wherein the Hebrew root ‫רעע‬ appears in the spoken adjudication of Yhwh against Ahab, i. e., ‫הנני מביא אליך‬ ‫רעה‬. Finally, it was demonstrated that in 1 Kgs 21:29, the two occurrences of the Hebrew root ‫רעע‬, refer to the divine retributive punishment of the curse. In both instances, ‫ רעה‬refers to Yhwh’s decreed punishment against the house of Ahab for his covenantal infractions.109

5.3.7 2 Kings 6 In 2 Kings 6, there is one occurrence of the Hebrew root ‫ רעע‬and it appears as a nominal form in 2 Kgs 6:33. The context of this narrative concerns the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, king of Aram. As a result of the siege, Jehoram is faced with great famine and starvation within Israel, even to the point of cannibalism amongst his people. Due to his dire situation, Jehoram sends a messenger to Elisha with full intention of killing him.

5.3.7.1 2 Kgs 6:33 ‫עודנו מדבר עמם והנה ומלאך ירד אליו ויאמר הנה־זאת הרעה מאת ה׳ מה־אוחיל לה׳ עוד‬ While he was still speaking with them, behold, the messenger came down to him, and he said, “Behold, this disaster is from Yhwh! For what do I still hope from Yhwh?110

In 2 Kgs 6:33, the permutation of the Hebrew root ‫רעע‬, occurs as a nominal permutation, ‫הרעה‬, “the disaster / calamity / evil.” At first sight, it is difficult to ascertain 109 For my work on 1 Kings 22, see the following chapter (§ 6.3.8). 110 For a similar translation, see Gray, I & II Kings, 523–24.

186

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

the subject of the sentence. Some have postulated that the subject of ‫ ויאמר‬in 6:33b is king Jehoram.111 Also, some have understood the sentence to be reasonable as it stands, and so, the ‫מלאך‬, “messenger,” arrives while the king is speaking.112 And still, others have suggested that Elisha is the subject of 2 Kgs 6:33b.113 For our purposes, I will follow Cogan and assume that the subject of ‫ ויאמר‬in 2 Kgs 6:33b is Jehoram. If Jehoram is the subject of 6:33b, then it begs the question: To what does ‫ הרעה‬refer? According to the context of the narrative, there are really only two possibilities as to what the term could refer. The calamity (‫ )הרעה‬could be a reference to the siege upon Samaria by Ben-hadad of Aram (6:24–33), and by extension to the siege, it could also refer to the resulted famine. In addition to the siege, Jehoram’s mention of ‫ הרעה‬could be a reference to the cannibalism of the two women spoken of in 6:28–29. I posit that it is best to understand ‫ הרעה‬as the curse of Yhwh, and therefore, results in all of the above. If we first consider the cannibalism of the two women, then it is most reasonable to infer a reference by Dtr to the covenantal curse of Deuteronomy 28:53: ‫ואכלת פרי־בטנך בשר בניך ובנתיך אשר נתן־לך ה׳ אלהיך במצור ובמצוק אשר־יציק לך איבך‬ “And you shall eat the fruit of your womb; the flesh of your sons and daughters whom Yhwh, your God, has given to you, during the siege and distress by which your enemy will oppress you.”

Rashi was one of the earliest commentators to suggest that indeed this ‫ רעה‬was a reference to the curse spoken by Moses.114 Furthermore, this sort of cannibalism is also mentioned in Neo-Assyrian treaty curses.115 In the treaty between “Assur-nerari V of Assyria and Matiʾilu of Arpad,” (754 BCE) a similar phrase can be compared to that which is in 2 Kgs 6:33 in the curses spoken against Matiʾilu’s land in column iv, lines 10–11: 111 This suggestion rests on the emendation of ‫מלאך‬, “messenger,” to ‫מלך‬, “king.” See, e.g., Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 80–81. 112 See, e.g., Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 224. Although, he does suggest that ‫ מלך‬is a reasonable reading too. 113 Hobbs, 2 Kings, 80–81, who states that his argument is based upon the syntax of the sentence (Ibid., 81): “What he states is in reply to the arrival of the king’s messenger, which he sees as a threat to his life. Elisha understands that the crisis comes from Yhwh and he senses that it has served God’s purpose.” 114 Rashi, Rabbinic Bible, 2 Kgs 3:19: “‫זו מן הקללות שקילל על ידי משה “ואכלת פרי בטנך במצור ובמצוק וגו׳‬ (‫נג‬,‫)דב׳ כח‬. 115 John H. Walton, Mark W. Chavalas and Victor H. Matthews, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 203; Carpenter, “Deuteronomy,” 1:511, esp. n. 902; A. Leo Oppenheim, “Siege-Documents from Nippur,” Iraq 17 (1955): 69–89, esp. 79, n. 34; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 125–128; Hillers, Treaty Curses, 39–40; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, ed. R. K. Harrison, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 349–351, esp. 350, n. 33; cf. Lev 26:29.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

187

(iv:8) dAdad, gugal šamêe kaqquri, ina su-un-qi, (iv:9) bubūti, ḫ a-šaḫ -ḫ i, šá mMa-ti-iʾili māt-su, nīšē mātī-šu le-ku-lu-ma, (iv:10) liq-qat-ti-ma, šīr mārē-šú-nu, mārātē-šú-nu le-ku-lu-ma, (iv:11) kima šir ḫ urāpi, ḫ urāpti muḫ ḫ i-šú-nu li-ṭib. (iv:8) May Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth, through hunger, (iv:9) want, (and) famine, consume and (iv:10) put an end to Matiʾilu’s land, and the people of his land; may they eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, (iv:11) and may it be as good to them as the flesh of male and female spring lambs.116

Similar phraseology and curses appear in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (672 BCE), col. vi, line 449: (vi:449) ina bu-ri-ku-nu šīrī mārē-ku-nu ak-la. ina bu-b[u-ti] (vi:450) ḫ u-šaḫ -ḫ u amēlu šīr amēli le-e-kul. (vi:449) In your hunger eath the flesh of your sons! In want (vi:450) (and) famine may one man eat the flesh of another.117

What is clearly demonstrated in these passages is that cannibalism during a time of military occupation and siege could have been interpreted in the ANE to be a result of the divine curse for disobedience to covenantal / treaty obligations on the part of the vassal. Clearly, such an employment for the ultimate cause of such horrific situations in these texts is the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. Moreover, if we also consider the siege of Ben-hadad as a curse of Deuteronomy, then one might consider Deut 28:49a, wherein the text states explicitly: “Yhwh will raise up against you a nation from far away, from the ends of the earth, to dive down upon you like an eagle.”118 Thus, the narrative context is firmly dependent upon the covenantal / treaty curse tradition, which, in this case, is set forth by Dtr. The nominal permutation ‫ ָרעָ ה‬is the textual marker that describes the totality of the result of Yhwh’s curse for disobedience to covenantal obligations. In 2 Kgs 3:2,

116 For this transliteration and translation, see Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:944–45; cf. “Treaty Between Ashurnirari V of Assyria and Mati’ilu of Arpad,” trans. Erica Reiner (ANET, 533): “May Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth, put an end to Mati’ilu, his land and the people of his land through hunger, want, and famine, so that they eat the flesh of their sons and daughters and it taste as good to them as the flesh of spring lambs.” Also, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 127. 117 For transliteration and translation, see Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:986–87; cf. D. J. Wiseman, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” Iraq 20 (1958): 61–62: (vi:449) “In your extremity may you eat the flesh of your sons [ .. .. .. ].” (vi:450) “(In) hunger may one man eat the flesh of another.”; See too column vii, lines 547–550 (Ibid., “VTE,” 69–70; Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:992–993), and column vii, lines 568–69 (Wiseman, “VTE,” 71–72; Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:994–95). 118 So the MT: ‫ישא ה׳ עליך גוי מרחוק מקצה הארץ כאשר ידאה הנשר‬.

188

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

the text employs the typical phrase of evaluation regarding the reign of Jehoram, namely, ‫ויעשה הרע בעיני ה׳‬.119 The hermeneutical principle of divine retribution— employed in this narrative—assumes that the divine curse has descended upon Jehoram in military siege, which has resulted in famine, the starvation of his people and cannibalism; all of which are attested in the greater ancient Near Eastern tradition of divine curses with regard to the treaty and covenantal sources. Most important to note for this study is that 1) Yhwh is interpreted by the speaker in 2 Kgs 6:33 to be the originator of a punishment that results in a situation of ‫רעָ ה‬,ָ and 2) this particular nominal permutation of ‫ רעע‬in 2 Kgs 6:33 is the textual description, in its extreme, of the divine curse for disobedience to covenantal obligations required in Israel’s covenant with Yhwh. Once again, the writer of this narrative has employed the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution as an interpretation of historical events. Furthermore, the permutations of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ רעע‬for the divine evaluation of Jehoram (2 Kgs 3:2) and the cause of the experience of the divine curse, namely, a horrific misfortune / calamity / disaster (‫)רעה‬, further stresses the point that ‫רעע‬, with Yhwh as the subject, continues to point toward the notion of divine retribution.120

5.3.8 2 Kgs 10:30 ‫ויאמר אל־יהוא יען אשר־הטיבת לעשות הישר בעיני ככל אשר בלבבי עשית לבית אחאב בני רבעים ישבו‬ ‫לך על־כסא ישראל‬ Then Yhwh said to Jehu: “Because you have done well to do what is upright in my eyes, according to all that is in my heart, so you did to the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation will sit upon the throne of Israel.”

119 See Weinfeld’s comment juxtaposing the Dtn conception of retribution with its Dtr counterpart, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 319: “The deuteronomic turning-point in the conception of retribution is most evident in the Ahab pericope. According to the pre-deuteronomic narrative God transferred the punishment for Naboth’s murder from Ahab to his son, who was eventually executed by Jehu. The Deuteronomist, however, who professes the idea of individual retribution, cannot accept the earlier tradition of the transference of Ahab’s personal punishment to another, and therefore interprets Ahab’s fall in battle as his punishment for shedding the innocent blood of Naboth. The death of his son Jehoram is interpreted as the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the destruction of the dynasty; but Jehoram, needless to say, is also described as doing evil in the sight of the Lord and propagating the sins of his father (2 Kgs. 3:1–3).” See too, Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 42: “This partial rooting out of foreign influence won for Jehoram a tempering of the editorial criticism leveled by Dtr.” Cf. E. Theodore Mullen, “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings,” JBL 107 (1988): 198, n. 23. 120 Cf. ‫ רעה‬in 2 Kgs 8:12.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

189

In 2 Kgs 10:30, there is one occurrence of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫טוב‬, and it appears as a 2ms qatal hifil verbal permutation, ‫הטיבת‬, “you have done well.”121 In this particular passage, Jehu is admonished for having done what was right (‫)הישר‬ in the eyes of Yhwh, as it pertains to the annihilation of Ahab’s lineage in Israel.122 As a result of Jehu’s faithfulness as vassal to Yhwh and to his prophetic commission (so Wray Beal), which appears in the text through a verbal permutation of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫טוב‬, he is guaranteed to have a son on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.123 In other words, Jehu has received ‫( טוב‬blessing) from Yhwh for his obedience. Accordingly, the longevity to the fourth generation of Jehu’s descendant upon the throne is a “blessing / reward” for his covenantal faithfulness to Yhwh’s command to bring forth the divine curse upon Ahab’s line.124 Furthermore, it must be remembered that in 1 Kgs 21:21, Jehu’s retributive actions against the lineage of Ahab find narrative description as ‫רעה‬, the curse / ​ punishment of Yhwh against his disobedient vassal for his disobedience to covenantal obligations. That Jehu is the active agent by which this particular ‫ רעה‬is meted out against Ahab’s descendants helps to confirm my argument in that Jehu materializes Yhwh’s curse against the line of Ahab. This suggestion is confirmed by Dtr in 2 Kgs 10:30. Interesting to note is the covenantal language of 10:30, such as, ‫ככל אשר בלבבי אשית לבית אחאב‬.125 Only then does the blessing of longevity come to Jehu and his descendants to the fourth generation.126 However, Jehu 121 See too, 2 Kgs 11:18 and Wiseman’s suggestion that ‫ ֵה ֵיטב‬could refer to the “commendation of a godly ruler ‘doing the right’” (Wiseman, “VTE,”, 249). 122 Cf. ‫ יטב‬and its permutation in 2 Kgs 9:30: ‫ותיטב את־ראשה‬, “She (Jezebel) adorned her hair.” It could be argued that Jezebel’s attempt at seducing Jehu with her adorned hair (‫)ותיטב את־ראשה‬ is another way of saying that the narrative is contrasting Jezebel’s false ‘blessed’ image in the window with her truly cursed state of existence that is fully seen in the 9:35–37 scene. But this is highly speculative. See e.g., Deut 28:26 and Hillers, Treaty Curses, 54–56. That Jezebel’s actions were designed to shift her allegiance to Jehu through a proposition of marriage and sexual seduction, see Simon B. Parker, “Jezebel’s Reception of Jehu,” Maarav 1 (1978): 73–74; Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, NIBC (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 210–211; Robert L. Cohn, 2 Kings, ed. David W. Cotter, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000), 69–71; Eleanor F. Beach, “The Samaria Ivories, Marzeaḥ, and Biblical Text,” BA 56 (1993): 101; so too, Rashi, “Rabbinic Bible,” 2 Kgs 9:30; cf. Yossi Leshem, “‘She Painted Her Eyes with Kohl and Dressed Her Hair’,” [Hebrew] HUCA 76 (2005): esp. 6. 123 See Lissa M. Wray Beal, The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10), LHBOTS 478 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 173–175. 124 E.g., 2 Kgs 15:12. 125 See Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93 (1973): 198, n. 104. For a general overview of Jehu’s acts in 2 Kgs 9–10, see Michael S. Moore, “Jehu’s Coronation and Purge of Israel,” VT 53 (2003): 97–114. 126 For more on this phrase regarding sons to the fourth generation, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 25, n. 1; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 116; Abraham

190

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

did not do away with the sin of Jeroboam (2 Kgs 10:29, 31), which leads, as Dtr continues to remind his readers / hearers, to the divinely orchestrated disaster of destruction / exile (‫ )רעה‬of the Northern Tribes.127 Thus, in 2 Kgs 10:30, the Hebrew root lexeme ‫טוב‬, in its verbal permutation of ‫הטיבת‬, connotes covenantal obedience of a vassal to his overlord, in this case, Jehu’s obedience to Yhwh’s will; said obedience (‫ )טוב‬results in a blessing / reward meted out by Yhwh upon Jehu in the form of longevity to the fourth generation.128

5.3.9 2 Kgs 14:10 ‫הכה הכית את־אדום ונשאך לבך הכבד ושב בביתך ולמה תתגרה ברעה ונפלתה אתה ויהודה עמך‬ “You have utterly smitten Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Be honored and return to your palace. For why would you provoke a calamity, causing you to fall; you and Judah with you?”

This chapter opens with an introduction to the reign of Amaziah son of Joash of Judah. Most important to note is that Dtr gives both a positive and negative evaluation of Amaziah’s reign; a positive evaluation (‫ )ויעש הישר בעיני ה׳‬in 14:3aα, and a negative evaluation in 14:4, wherein Dtr states that the people continued to sacrifice and make offerings on the high places (‫)בבמות‬. Furthermore, Dtr seems to give further positive evaluation of Amaziah in 14:6 stating that in the putting to death of his servants who had murdered his father, Amaziah was sure to follow the book of the law of Moses (‫ )ספר תורת־משה‬by sparing the children of said servants.129 Finally, the narrative episode that concerns us follows 14:7 wherein it is recorded that Amaziah had defeated the Edomites in the Valley of Salt. In 2 Kgs 14:10, after a successful defeat of Edom, King Amaziah of Judah is challenged by King Jehoash of Israel (14:8–9) to be honored in his military victory, but to remain home so as not to provoke calamity upon himself, nor upon Judah in a battle against Israel.130 What is most important for this research is how to understand the phrase ‫ תתגרה ברעה‬within the context of this episode wherein the nominal permutation ‫ ָרעָ ה‬appears. Although most variations in translation are slight, there are some major differences. For example, the NRSV translates this short phrase Malamat, History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues, CHANE 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 392–395. 127 So Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 216: “Evidently the eradication of Baal-worship is so significant that, for the moment, participation in the sins of Jeroboam pales into insignificance. What Jehu has done that is right (v. 30) far outweighs what he continues to do that is wrong (vv. 29, 31).” 128 Cf. Exod 34:7. 129 So Deut 24:16. 130 Concerning honor and military victory, see Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant,” 209, n. 22.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

191

as, “why should you provoke trouble,” while the JPS translation reads, “rather than provoke disaster.” Clearly, in these two translations, ‫ ָרעָ ה‬carries a more pragmatic connotation. Contra to this nuance, R. Cohn translates the phrase as, “Why flirt with evil?”, suggesting an ethical / moral distinction in the translation.131 It may be helpful to try to understand the verb ‫ תתגרה‬in a more technical sense before giving a definitive translation of this phrase. This 2ms yiqtol hitpael form from the verbal root lexeme ‫ גרה‬often carries a meaning synonymous with, “to get involved in strife,” (Deut 2:5; Prov 28:25), or even “to go to court,” (Prov 15:18).132 Moreover, the Akkadian cognate gerû is often used as a technical legal term, especially in contexts relative to lawsuits, wars, and quarrels.133 E. Kutscher suggests that in the HB, one can discern both a technical legal and military term in the Hebrew root lexeme ‫ גרה‬similar to that which is found in the Akkadian cognate.134 It seems obvious in the context of 2 Kgs 14 that this term would in fact be a military term or even quite possibly a technical legal term, and I am convinced that the latter is more in line with the context of 2 Kgs 14, which will be demonstrated in the following paragraph below. To sum up: the verb ‫ תתגרה‬does carry a connotation of “to provoke, to incite,” albeit, as a legal term, and I suggest that the translation of ‫ ְּב ָרעָ ה‬as the object of ‫ תתגרה‬should also be considered within said legal context. If indeed ‫ ְּב ָרעָ ה‬refers to a calamity, the question then to be raised is whether it refers textually on a narrative level to a calamity (‫ )רעה‬as retribution from Yhwh. The text of 2 Kgs 14 does not say explicitly, which is unusual in Dtr’s style. However, we may be able to deduce that indeed this particular occurrence of ‫רעה‬ may have been interpreted to be the divine curse of Yhwh by seeing this story through the lens of the Chronicler, who indeed does proscribe this particular disaster (‫ )רעה‬that is to befall Amaziah and Judah in the narrative as the divine curse of Yhwh. In 2 Chr 25:14, the Chronicler reveals that after Amaziah defeated Edom, he brought the gods of Seir and presumably placed them in the temple in Jerusalem, serving them and making offering to them. Notice that in 2 Kgs 14:7, where Amaziah’s defeat of Edom is recorded, there is no mention of the gods of Seir being placed in the Jerusalem temple. However, the following passage of 14:8 is the introduction to Jehoash’s warning to Amaziah and his offer of a marriage alliance between the two (2 Kgs 14:9; cf. 2 Chr 25:18). Due to Amaziah’s refusal,

131 Cohn, 2 Kings, 101. 132 “‫גרה‬,” HALOT 1:202; cf. Gray, I & II Kings, 607. 133 See, CAD, G, 62–3. 134 E. Y. Kutscher, “New Aramaic Texts,” JAOS 74 (1954): 238, § 3: “It appears in later Palestinian Hebrew and Aramaic sources denoting legal action. And even if we concede that, as a legal term in BH it may be due to foreign (Aram.) influence (since it occurs only in Prov.), the other meaning still remains to be accounted for.” Cf. all occurrences: Deut 2:5, 9, 19, 24; Jer 50:24; Prov 15:18; 28:4; 28:25; 29:22; Dan 11:10; 11:25; 2 Chr 25:19.

192

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

a battle ensues and Amaziah is defeated by Jehoash, who plunders the Jerusalem temple where the gods of Seir would have been placed. For the Chronicler, this helps to explain Amaziah’s defeat in battle against Jehoash and the plundering of the Temple in Jerusalem (2 Chr 25:23–24; cf. 2 Kgs 14:14). In fact, Jehoash’s warning that Amaziah should not provoke a calamity is shown to have been ignored by Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:11; 2 Chr 25:20), but it is only in the Chronicler’s interpretation of the sources that Amaziah’s defiance is said to have been God’s doing (‫)מהאלהים‬ in order that Amaziah and Judah should be handed over because of idolatry. Both Dtr’s and the Chronicler’s context suggests that Jehoash’s warning of ‫ ברעה‬assumes the divine will of Yhwh in the blessing of military victory of Israel over Judah because of Amaziah’s and Judah’s idolatry at the Jerusalem temple.135 Thus, the occurrence of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫ רעע‬in 2 Kgs 14:10 could be interpreted as referring to the divine curse of Yhwh as punishment against Amaziah and Judah for disobedience to covenantal obligations as it pertains to proper Dtn worship; a result that Jehoash warns Amaziah against.

5.3.10 2 Kgs 20:3 ‫אנה ה׳ זכר־נא את אשר התהלכתי לפניך באמת ובלבב שלם והטוב בעיניך עשיתי ויבך חזקיהו בכי גדול‬ “Please, Yhwh; remember now, how I have walked before you in faithfulness and in loyal-heartedness, and how I have done what is good in your eyes!” Then, Hezekiah wept bitterly.

The entirety of Hezekiah’s prayer is said to have been “composed entirely of Dtr phraseology.”136 Certain phrases surrounding the one permutation of ‫ טוב‬in 20:3, ‫והטוב בעיניך עשיתי‬, “I have done what is good in your eyes,” are indication of the Dtn and therefore, covenantal / legal context of the prayer.137 For example, such phrases as ‫התהלכתי לפניך באמת ובלבב שלם‬, “how I have walked before you in faithfulness and in whole-heartedness,” have Akkadian equivalents connoting the idea of loyal and faithful service to kings as well as service to temples.138 For example, J. Muffs demonstrates an Akkadian counterpart in certain phrases taken from ARU 16:14–16:

135 Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 261; Martin J. Selman, 2 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. D. J. Wiseman, TCOT 11 (Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 483. 136 Cogan makes this statement while referencing Weinfeld’s helpful appendix showing this very observation, see Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 254, and Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 333–335, esp. 335. 137 See e.g., Deut 7:15; 28:59. 138 Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 254; Yochanan Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, HdO 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 203–204.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

193

(14) ina maḫ -ri-y[a i-na ki-na-a-ti i-zi-z]u-ma (15) it-tal-l[a-ku šal-me-iš] (16) qi[-rib ekalli-ya ‥] (14) who served me faithfully (15) and who loyally performed (16) his duties in my palace* …139

For Muffs, the verb alālku in its tn-stem form—with its iterative and habitative nuance—is an “expression of continued service and performance of duty.”140 This is further clarified by Muffs when he suggests that the complement ina kīnāti, “in truth,” when it is used with uzzuzu maḫar, “faithfully before,” is identical to the Hebrew ‫ באמת‬when used with ‫הלך לפני‬.141 Furthermore, the use of šalmeš in line 15 must denote the idea of loyalty and corresponds nicely to the Hebrew ‫שלם‬. In this way, 2 Kgs 20:3 clearly denotes the faithful loyal service and duty of Hezekiah to Yhwh as king and representative of Judah: ‫ התהלכתי לפניך‬corresponds with the tn-stem of alālku in ARU 16 (so Speiser), followed by ‫באמת ובלבב שלם‬, “in faithfulness and loyal heartedness,” which corresponds with ina kīnāti and uzzuzu maḫar and the use of šalmeš in line 15.142 Thus, the two phrases are quite similar: 1) ‫התהלכתי לפניך באמת ובלבב שלם‬, and 2) ina maḫar PN ittanallaku šalmeš, “to walk constantly before PN loyally.”143 Furthermore, Cogan points to Muffs’ conclusion that somebody in “service loyally performed,” could expect a return of reward from the king through land-grants and from the gods through “grants of blessing and long life.”144 However, even if the Akkadian example(s) did not exist, the observation that the phraseology of 20:3 is “typical of Kings and Deuteronomy,” would be enough to substantiate the idea of faithful loyal service regarding this particular passage.145 In light of this brief contextual study, I suggest that the semantic range of ‫ טוב‬in 2 Kgs 20:3 denotes covenantal obedience to Yhwh and by extension, it necessitates the resultative blessing as reward, which in this case, is healing for Hezekiah, bestowed upon him by Yhwh in 20:5–6.146

139 For this transcription and translation, see Ibid., Studies from Elphantine, 134–135. 140 Ibid., Studies from Elphantine, 203. 141 Ibid., Studies from Elphantine, 203; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 76. 142 E. A. Speiser, “The Durative Hithpa’el: A tan-Form,” JAOS 75 (1955): esp. 119–120. 143 See Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 254. 144 Ibid., II Kings, 254; Muffs, Studies from Elphantine, 203, who writes in comment to the CAD I-A, 326a’s rendering of RA 19:86: “‘Properly’ in this context means: without the type of faults which precipitate royal anger and shorten the days of imperfect courtiers.” 145 Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 305. 146 Also, Isa 38:3, 8. For longevity of life as a blessing / reward in the treaty documents, see Laws of Lipit-Ishtar, B/1 in Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:81; e.g., Deut  12:28; van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction, 202, n. 389.

194

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

5.3.11 2 Kgs 20:19 ‫ויאמר חזקיהו אל־ישעיהו טוב דבר־ה׳ אשר דברת ויאמר הלוא אם־שלום ואמת יהיה בימי‬ And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of Yhwh, which you have proclaimed, is good.” For he thought, “Is it not so that peace and safety will be for my remaining days?”147

In 2 Kgs 20:19, the permutation of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫ טוב‬appears in the response of Hezekiah to Isaiah regarding Isaiah’s prophecy of the Babylonian exile of Judah and his descendants declared to Hezekiah in 20:14–18. In this passage, the literal translation of ‫ טוב דבר־ה׳‬reads, “good is the word of Yhwh.” In this instance, Hezekiah interpret’s Isaiah’s ‫ דבר‬to be one of auspiciousness or blessing for himself, even though the content of Yhwh’s ‫ דבר‬is one of judgment and disaster for Judah and Hezekiah’s descendants. In other words, this spoken ‫דבר‬ of Yhwh is a “favorable word” for Hezekiah, one that results in “‫ ”שלום ואמת‬for the remainder of his days.148 Clearly, this phenomenon of spoken favor, namely, ‫טוב‬ ‫דבר־ה׳‬, must result in the subsequent and resultative blessing, which is continued longevity of life for Hezekiah.149 Therefore, Hezekiah’s interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy is a positive one since the reported disaster was to take place after his reign and lifetime. It could also be that Hezekiah is simply acknowledging the spoken decision of Yhwh, submitting to his will.150 Finally, it must be noted that Isaiah’s prophetic judgment in vv. 14–18 is in response to Hezekiah’s seeming alliance with Babylon (20:12–13). In any case, I suggest that the occurrence of ‫טוב‬ in 20:19 shows how Yhwh’s spoken word results in the blessing. Although the covenantal context of this passage is quite obscure, it is possible to suggest such a context in light of the alliance between Babylon and Hezekiah as an infraction to the covenant between Yhwh and Judah.151

147 So Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 260. For an interesting discussion regarding internal discourse and the royal conscience, see Keith Bodner, “The Royal Conscience According to 4QSam(a),” DSD 11 (2004): 158–166, esp. 162–163. 148 So McAffee, “The Good Word,” 386–387; cf. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 259–260; Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 307–308; Gray, I & II Kings, 702–703; Cohn, 2 Kings, 142–143. 149 McAffee, “The Good Word,” 388. 150 Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 307–308. 151 See Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 307, and his comment regarding Isaiah: “The Babylonians were already challenging their Assyrian overlords and Isaiah was consistently against alliance with any world-powers of the day.”

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

195

5.3.12 2 Kings 21 In 2 Kgs 21, the permutations of ‫ רעע‬are found in v. 11, wherein there is a hifil qatal 3ms form, and in v. 12, wherein there occurs a nominal form (‫)רעָ ה‬. ָ Contextually, this chapter concerns the reigns of Manasseh and his son Amon in Judah.152

5.3.12.1 2 Kgs 21:10–12, 15 ‫) יען אשר עשה מנשה מלך־יהודה התעבות האלה ֵה ַרע‬11( ‫וידבר ה׳ ביד־עבדיו הנביאים לאמר‬‎ (10) ‫) לכן כה־אמר ה׳ אלהי ישראל הנני מביא‬12( ‫מכל אשר־עשו האמרי אשר לפניו ויחטא גם־את־יהודה בגלוליו‬ ‫רעה על־ירושלם ויהודה אשר כל שמעיו תצלנה שתי אזניו‬ (10) Then Yhwh spoke, through his servants the prophets, saying: (11) “Because Manasseh, king of Judah has done these abominable things—doing more evil than all of that which the Amorites had done before him, having caused Judah to sin with his worthless idols. (12) Therefore, thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel: ‘Behold, I am bringing calamity upon Jerusalem and upon Judah, which will ring in the ears of all who hear it.’”

In 2 Kgs 21:11–12, and 21:15, there are three permutations of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫רעע‬. The first permutation in 21:11, ‫ה ַרע‬,ֵ is a verbal hifil qatal 3ms form that is best translated as “he did evil.” The immediate context of the passage would suggest that the acts of ‫ רעע‬to which the text refers are Manasseh’s acts of 1) following the practices of the peoples that Yhwh drove out “before the people of Israel” (v. 2); 2) rebuilt the high places and altars to Baal, constructed an Asherah, and worshipped the host of heaven (v. 3); 3) he caused Judah to sin with idol-statues (vv. 4–5, 11b); and 4) he practiced divination and child sacrifice.153 The greater act of ‫ רעע‬must certainly be the setting up of a statue of Asherah in the Jerusalem temple (v. 7) by Manasseh, along with the shedding of innocent blood in Jerusalem (v. 16).154 It is clear from the context that the acts of ‫ רעע‬refer to disobedience to covenantal obligations, which will be shown in the following passage (v. 12) to culminate in the divine curse of calamity for Judah and Jerusalem. That being said, the great disaster decreed by Yhwh to come against Judah and Jerusalem (v. 12) is said to be the result of Manasseh’s ‘evil’ (‫הרע‬, v. 11) by which ‘he caused Judah to sin with his worthless idols’ (‫)ויחטא גם־את־יהודה בגלוליו‬.155 152 For the divine evaluation of Manasseh, see 2 Kgs 21:2, 6. 153 So Hobbs, 2 Kings, 307. 154 See, e.g., Jer. 19:3. 155 Regarding Dtr’s condemnation of Manasseh and the historical question of 2 Kgs 21–25, see Lester L. Grabbe, “The Kingdom of Judah from Sennacherib’s Invasion to the Fall of Jerusalem: If We had Only the Bible…,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE, ed. Lester L. Grabbe (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), esp. 101–104. Cf. Brad E. Kelle, “Judah in the Seventh Century: From the Aftermath of Sennacherib’s Invasion to the Beginning

196

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

The second permutation in 21:12 is a nominal permutation, ‫רעָ ה‬.ָ This particular phrase, ‫הנני מביא רעה על־ירושלם ויהודה‬, has already been seen in passages such as 1 Kgs 21:21.156 Here in 2 Kgs 21:12, this occurrence is helpful in elucidating Dtr’s larger narrative of decline in that the evaluation of Judah as having persisted in doing evil (‫)ה ַרע‬ ֵ in the eyes of Yhwh, culminates in ‫ ָרעָ ה‬as divine retribution for disobedience to covenantal obligations. Most important for this research is in identifying to what ‫ ָרעָ ה‬refers specifically. The immediate context of the verse states clearly that this particular divine curse / punishment is the threatened destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which is then followed by the threat of what will be the Babylonian exile (vv. 13–14).157 Dtr reiterates the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in 21:15 by ensuring the reader that the disaster / calamity / evil of 21:12 is 1) sent at the behest of Yhwh, and 2) is the result of covenantal unfaithfulness: ‫יען אשר עשו את־הרע בעיני ויהיו מכעסים אתי מן־היום אשר יצאו אבותם ממצרים ועד היום הזה‬ Because they did what was evil in my eyes, provoking me to anger, from the very day that their fathers came out of Egypt until this very day.

The major difference between 21:15 and 21:11 is simply the subject of the characters indicted for covenantal unfaithfulness. In 21:15, all of Judah is indicted for an act of unfaithfulness much like the Northern monarchy, which in any case, culminates in the divine threat of the curse / punishment of exile, namely, ‫רעָ ה‬,ָ in 21:12. However, the guilt of this coming disaster (‫ )רעה‬is still placed by Dtr at the feet of Manasseh.158 If we consider that within the DtrH, the evaluation of covenantal obedience / disobedience is expressed in the text through a permutation of the Hebrew root lexemes ‫טוב‬‎ (also ‫ )ישר‬and ‫רעע‬, according to the eyes of Yhwh (‫)בעיני ה׳‬, then we should consider it significant in this particular quest that the divine curse / punishment for continued covenantal infractions (‫ לעשות הרע בעיני ה׳‬PN) would be expressed in the text using a permutation of the same root of the evaluation, i. e., ‫רעע‬. In other of Jehoiakim’s Rebellion,” in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, eds. Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 350–382; Peter van der Veen, “Sixth-Century Issues: The Fall of Jerusalem, the Exile, and the Return,” in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, eds. Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 383–405. 156 Note too, Judg 2:15; 20:34–35, 41. 157 So Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 311. See e.g., Jer 19:3. 158 For an interesting discussion of what the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah in the DtrH may mean for Yhwh’s promise to David in 2 Sam 7, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “King Manasseh of Judah and the Problem of Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE, ed. Lester L. Grabbe (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 264–276.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

197

words, the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution shows itself practically in the text in that the eyes of Yhwh determine covenantal faithfulness / unfaithfulness (‫רעע‬/‫)טוב‬, which results in narrative segments of retribution in the divine blessing or curse of the covenant, the latter being clearly expressed in 2 Kgs 21:12 as an “evil / misfortune / disaster” (‫)רעָ ה‬. ָ

5.3.12.2 2 Kgs 22:16 and 20159 In 2 Kgs 22:16 and 20, the nominal permutation of ‫ רעה‬clearly refers to the covenantal curses, i. e., ‫הדבר הרע‬: ‫כה אמר ה׳ הנני מביא רעה אל־המקום הזה ועל־ישביו את כל־דברי הספר אשר קרא מלך יהודה‬ Thus says Yhwh: “Behold, I am bringing evil upon this place and upon its inhabitants according to all the words of this scroll, which the King of Judah has read.”

The nominal form ‫ ָרעָ ה‬occurs in a phrase similar to that which was seen in 21:12, ‫הנני מביא ָרעָ ה אל־המקום הזה ועל־ישביו‬.160 Most significant for this passage is the juxtaposition of ‫ ָרעָ ה‬with the phrase, ‫כל־דברי הספר‬, “all the words of this scroll.” This latter phrase indicates that the ‫ רעה‬that Yhwh will bring upon Jerusalem and its inhabitants, within the scope of a canonical reading, is a reference to the curses of Leviticus 26:14–46 and Deuteronomy 28.161 Furthermore, Markl has emphasized that the phrase ‫מביא על‬, “bring upon,” is reminiscent of Deut 30:1aα when juxtaposed with ‫דברים‬, “words”: ‫והיה כי־יבאו עליך כל־הדברים האלה הברכה הקללה‬. And it will be that all of these words of the blessing and the curse will come upon you.162

159 For an overview of the place that 2 Kgs 22–23 may have in the editorial process of the DtrH, see Christoph Uehlinger, “Was there a Cult Reform under King Josiah? The Case for a Well-Grounded Minimum,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE, ed. Lester L. Grabbe (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 279–316; Lester L. Grabbe, “Reflections on the Discussion,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE, ed. Lester L. Grabbe (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 342–344. Cf. Kelle, “Judah in the Seventh Century,” 350–382. 160 Consider the same phenomenon regarding this nominal permutation, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in the book of Jeremiah: Jer 1:14; 2:3; 5:12; 11:11, 12, 17; 16:10; 18:11; 19:3; 19:15; 21:10; 23:12, 17; 25:32; 26:13, 19; 29:11; 32:42 (‫ רעה‬and ‫;)טובה‬‎ 35:17; 39:16; 40:2; 44:2, 11, 23, 29; 45:5; 49:37. See too, Joel 2:13; Amos 3:6; 5:13; 6:3; 9:10; Jonah 3:10; 4:2; Mic 2:3; 3:11. 161 So Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 318; Hobbs, 2 Kings, 327. See also, 2 Chr 34:24. 162 Dominik Markl, “No Future without Moses: The Disastrous End of 2 Kings 22–25 and the Chance of the Moab Covenant (Deuteronomy 29–30),” JBL 133 (2014): 720.

198

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

Thus, at this juncture in the DtrH, the phrase, “words of this scroll” in 2 Kgs 22:16, functions similarly to the blessings and curses of Deut 27–28 as corroborated in Deut 30:1 (‫ )הברכה והקללה‬and in Joshua 23:14b–15.163 In addition to this overlap with Deut 27–28, 2 Kgs 21:17 expresses that the divine curse / punishment (‫ָ)רעָ ה‬ is the result of Judah’s cultic worship as proscribed by Manasseh, which is condemned by Yhwh as a violation of covenantal obligations. Therefore, 2 Kgs 22:16 demonstrates that the nominal form ‫ רעה‬is a reference to the divine curse. The disaster / calamity / evil spoken of by the prophetess Huldah is said to be the result of Yhwh’s divine punishment for Judah’s covenantal crimes of not being compliant with the legal code (‫ )כל־דברי הספר‬discovered by Josiah, King of Judah. Once again, Dtr has clearly employed the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, which is further corroborated in 2 Kgs 22:20.

5.3.12.3 2 Kgs 22:20 ‫לכן הנני אספך על־אבתיך ונאספת אל־קברתיך בשלום ולא־תראינה עיניך בכל הרעה אשר אני מביא‬ ‫על־המקום הזה וישיבו את־המלך דבר‬ “Therefore, I will gather you to your fathers and you will be buried in your grave in peace. You will not see with your eyes any of the evil that I am bringing upon this place.” They returned the word to the king.

In 2 Kgs 22:20, the nominal form ‫ רעה‬appears in a similar phrase to 22:16, namely, ‫בכל הרעה אשר אני מביא על־המקום הזה‬.164 It has already been established in 22:16 that this particular ‫ רעה‬refers to the divine curse that Yhwh is bringing upon Jerusalem as retribution for covenantal crimes committed by Manasseh and by Judah. What is important to note is the juxtaposition of the promise made to Josiah in this passage, namely, that he will be buried in his grave in peace (‫)בשלום‬. Wiseman suggests that this idiom does not simply mean that Josiah would die “unscathed” (e.g., 23:29–30; cf. 2 Chr 35:20–24); rather, it suggests that he would meet his death “in covenant accord with God and man.”165 Likewise, Wiseman points out that the gathering of Josiah to his fathers is an act carried out by Yhwh (v. 20,‎ ‫)לכן הנני אספך על אבתיך‬. Thus, I posit that the juxtaposition that happens in this verse is the difference between the blessing and the curse. Josiah will not himself witness the ‫“( רעה‬divine curse”) that will befall Jerusalem, but will instead be gathered to his fathers ‫“( בשלום‬divine blessing”).166 The contrast is sound for it is a contrast between two acts of Yhwh in accordance with the retributive process. 163 Ibid., “No Future without Moses,” 720. 164 Cf. Ezek 7:5; 14:21–22. 165 Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 83; cf. Gray, I & II Kings, 727 and Rashi, Rabbinic Bible, 2 Kgs 22:20; e.g., Gen 15:15. 166 Regarding ‫שלום‬, see too, Isa 45:7 and my discussion below (§ 7.3.8.4).

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

199

The one permutation of ‫ רעה‬in 22:20 is clearly an indication of the divine curse that will come upon Jerusalem as retribution from Yhwh for Judah’s disobedience to their covenantal obligations as caused by Manasseh’s leadership.

5.3.13 ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ in Jeremiah 18:7–12 Finally, in light of the above discussion from the DtrH, I will now provide one example in this section that demonstrates intelligibly how the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬refer to blessing and cursing in one particular pericope from the book of Jeremiah. This example adequately captures the essence of both divine retribution as well as its mediation through blessing and cursing, in what is a context of divine judgment. This particular passage comes from the larger pericope of Jer 18:1–19:15 that concerns the Potter and the Pot. The passages that require our attention are Jer 18:7–12: ‫) ושב הגוי ההוא מרעתו אשר‬18:8( ‫רגע אדבר על־גוי ועל־ממלכה לנתוׁש ולנתוץ ולהאביד‬‎ (18:7) ‫) ורגע אדבר על גוי ועל ממלכה לבנת ולנטע‬18:9( ‫דברתי עליו ונחמתי על הרעה אשר חשבתי לעשות לו‬ )18:11( ‫) ועשה הרעה בעיני לבלתי שמע בקולי ונחמתי על הטובה אשר אמרתי להיטיב אותו‬18:10( ‫ועתה אמר נא אל איש יהודה ועל יושבי ירושלם לאמר כה אמר ה׳ הנה אנכי יוצר עליכם רעה וחשב עליכם‬ ‫) ואמרו נואש כי אחרי מחשבותינו‬18:12( ‫מחשבה שובו נא איש מדרכו הרעה והיטיבו דרכיכם ומעלליכם‬ ‫נלך ואיש שררות לבו הרע נעשה‬ (18:7) At a moment I may command concerning a nation or a kingdom, to pluck it up, to break it down, and to destroy it. (18:8) But if that nation, against which I have commanded, turns from its evil, then I will change my mind regarding the evil which I planned to do to it. (18:9) And at another moment, I may command concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom, to build it up and to plant it. (18:10) But if it does evil in my eyes, disobeying my voice, then I will change my mind regarding the good which I spoke in order to benefit it (lit., make it good). (18:11) Now therefore, say to the men of Judah and to all who dwell in Jerusalem, saying: “Thus says Yhwh: ‘Behold, I am creating evil for you and devising a plan for you. Return now every man from his evil way, and make your ways and actions good!’” (18:12) But they will respond: “It is no use. For we will continue to follow after our own ways; and each of us will do according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.”167

In this lengthy passage in Jeremiah, there is an obvious emphasis upon the notions of ‘good’ (‫ )טוב‬and ‘bad / evil’ (‫)רעע‬. In four of the verses listed here (18:8, 10–12), there are ten permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬combined. Notice 167 For my translation of ‫נחם‬, see Anthony Gelston, “The Repentance of God,” in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, eds. James K. Aitken, Katherine J. Dell and Brian A. Mastin, BZAW 420 (Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2011), 195–209; John T. Willis, “The ‘Repentance’ of God in the Books of Samuel, Jeremiah, and Jonah,” HBT 16 (1994): 156–175; cf. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 815.

200

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

that 18:7 begins by emphasizing the speech act (‫ ִ)ד ֶּבר‬of Yhwh, which pertains to the judgment of a nation or kingdom, with the intent to destroy it (,‫לנתוש‬ ‫לנתוץ‬, and ‫)להאביד‬. Furthermore, in 18:8a, the first permutation of ‫ רעע‬appears in a nominal form (‫ )רעה‬and it refers specifically to the ‘evil’ actions of said nation / kingdom against which Yhwh commanded his judgment. However, the second permutation of ‫ רעע‬occurs also in a nominal form (‫ )רעה‬in 18:8b, and it refers specifically to the ‘disaster / misfortune’ (lit., ‘bad / evil’) which Yhwh has decreed and planned against it. Some suggest that this is merely a play on words.168 However, I contend that this is less of an example of literary artistry and more of an indication of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution being employed by the author, even though it is in the realm of the ‘hypothetical’.169 The evaluation of Yhwh regarding said nation / kingdom is that the people are committing ‘evil’ (‫)רעה‬, and therefore, the subsequent punishment from Yhwh, for said ‘evil’ (‫)רעה‬ is ‘disaster / misfortune’ (‫)רעה‬.170 If Yhwh is going to bring ‫‘( רעה‬misfortune /  disaster’, lit. ‘bad / evil’) against a nation / kingdom, and if an ancient Near Easterner would have interpreted said ‘evil’ (e.g., ‫ )רעה‬as being sent by Yhwh, then no doubt it would have been thought to be the divine curse. Yet our author is only beginning the discussion with a focus upon the divine curse, only to juxtapose the divine curse with the divine blessing. In Jer 18:9, there is another reference to the speech act (‫ )דבר‬of Yhwh, which focuses upon the opposite notions stated in 18:7, namely, the building up and the planting of a nation / kingdom (‫ לבנת‬and ‫)לנטע‬. In 18:10, Yhwh proposes that if that same kingdom of which he has built and planted commits evil in his eyes (lit., ‫)עשה הרעה בעיני‬, disobeying his voice, then he will change his mind regarding the good (‫ )הטובה‬which he had declared over said kingdom / nation in order to benefit it (‫ ;להיטיב אותו‬lit., to cause good for it). Clearly, the two permutations (one verbal and one nominal) of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ טוב‬are in contradistinction to the permutations of ‫ רעע‬in 18:8. I suggest that these two permutations refer to the divine blessing and convey the sense of divine retribution in that Yhwh will ‘change his mind’ (‫ )ונחמתי‬regarding his planned ‫ טובה‬for said nation / kingdom, if indeed said nation / kingdom commits evil (‫ )רעה‬in his eyes. The reverse is obviously true, namely, that if said kingdom / nation does what is ‫ טוב‬in the eyes of Yhwh, then it can be assumed (generally speaking), according to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution employed by this author, that the kingdom /  nation will receive the consequent blessing (‫)טובה‬. What is more, in 18:10, not only does the spoken word of Yhwh have the power over retribution, but so does Jeremiah the prophet.171 It is this interplay between the divine and human realm 168 E.g., Harris, NET Bible Notes, Jer 18:8 (sn). 169 See § 3.2.2 above. 170 E.g., Isa 13:11; 31:2; Amos 3:6. 171 So Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 815.

Yhwh and Permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1–2 Kings

201

with regard to retribution (reward and punishment) in these texts that I suggest elucidates what the author of the EN means by ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.172 Clearly, ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ (‘good and bad / evil’) in this pericope are 1) referring to the divine action of ‘good’ (reward) or ‘bad’ (punishment) with regard to a particular nation, and 2) being interpreted with regard to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution.173 In this way, Yhwh, through the phenomenon of blessing and cursing, is thought to have full and absolute influence and authority over the “destiny” of nations and kingdoms.174 Furthermore, in Jer 18:11–12, we have three permutations of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ רעע‬and one permutation of ‫טוב‬. In 18:11, the first permutation is a nominal form that is found in a short phrase with Yhwh (and so too, Jeremiah) as the subject: ‫אנכי יוצר עליכם רעה‬, “I am creating concerning you an evil.” The second permutation is found in an admonishment given by Yhwh and the prophet to the people, warning them to amend their “evil ways” (‫ )דרכו הרעה‬by making their ways good (‫)והיטיבו דרכיכם‬. Because 18:11 is addressed to Jerusalem and to the people of Judah, we must assume that the people are being admonished to return to the teaching of the Deuteronomic law code, whatever that may have meant to our author. That is precisely how they would “make” their way good. I suggest that the knowledge of good and evil is not this ability to do good or evil in the matrix of human ethical and moral will. This is to say, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is not free will to do good or bad, and it is not something akin to the semantic notion of being morally or ethically good or evil. Rather, I am suggesting that if we focus upon Yhwh in the whole of Jer 18:7–12 pericope, and presently, upon 18:11, then we can surmise that in v. 11, Yhwh is actually threatening the human community with retribution (reward and punishment). In this instance, he is threatening the community with “misfortune” (‫)רעה‬, as a form of social control against said community who is committing “evil” (‫ )רעע‬in the eyes of Yhwh. In using this text in Jeremiah to help interpret ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN, we can safely reason that the divine knowledge of good and bad / evil is best interpreted as the knowledge (necessary) for administering retribution (reward and punishment). Furthermore, the human character in this passage, Jeremiah the prophet, is assumed in our text to have the same authority as Yhwh to speak forth the “good” and the “evil” in this literary context of retribution.175 Even if we bring the final permutation of evil that occurs in v. 12 to the fore, namely, ‫לבו־הרע‬, “evil heart / will,” we still must acknowledge that even

172 Note too, Josh 24:20: ‫כי תעזבו את ה׳ ועבדתם אלהי נכר ושב ֵוה ַרע לכם וכלה אתכם אחרי אשר ֵה ִיטיב לכם‬. 173 Although, in this instance, Jeremiah stands in the place of Yhwh as prophet. For successful human retribution that is interpreted by ancient Near Easterners as the materialization of divine retribution, see § 3.2.2 above. 174 So Urbrock, “Blessings and Curses,” ABD 1:755; Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:515. 175 See e.g., Exod 32:12, 14; Deut 28:63 (‫להיטיב אתכם‬‎); 29:20;‎ 30:9; Zech 8:14–15.

202

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to Yhwh

to label the heart / will as an “evil heart / will,” in this context, already assumes the moral evaluation of “evil” given by the divine and human characters.176 Clearly, what we have here is the literary phenomenon of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution in this text, which is part of the greater Weltanschauung of not only the Northwest Semitic world, but also of the wider area of the cultures that surrounded the Mediterranean shoreline.177 That is not to say that the interpretive process is only relegated to texts, as Kitz shows in her survey of the phenomenon of cursing in the ANE. Rather, this hermeneutical principle of divine retribution employed in these texts is an indication of the ‘lived experience’ of these peoples in their respective cultures and is the lens through which they interpreted their experiences, especially with regard to the organization of the body politic.178

5.4 Conclusion As a preliminary chapter to my remaining exegetical work, I have demonstrated how permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the DtrH, with Yhwh as the subject / originator, refer specifically to divine evaluation and to the subsequent divine retribution. Due to the fact that the DtrH is mostly a narrative of decline, the most commonly employed lexeme in these texts is a permutation of ‫רעע‬, “bad / evil.” For example, as divine evaluation in 1 Kgs 21:20, Ahab is said to have “sold himself to do evil in the eyes of Yhwh” (‫)התמכרך לעשות הרע בעיני ה׳‬. In my exegesis, I demonstrated that this evaluation of ‫ הרע‬refers to his covenantal infringement against Yhwh as stated by Dtr. What follows said divine evaluation in 1 Kgs 21:21 is a nominal permutation of ‫ רעע‬spoken as the retributive divine curse of Yhwh in 1 Kgs 21:21: ‫הנני מבי [מביא] אליך רעה ובערתי אחריך והכרתי לאחאב משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב בישראל‬ “Behold, I [Yhwh] am bringing upon you evil, and I will consume you! Then, I will cut off from Israel every male, bond and free, in Israel.

In light of the fact that these occurrences of ‫ טוב‬or ‫ רעע‬in correlation to Yhwh denote actions of divine evaluation and divine retribution, I suggest that these examples elucidate the interpretive pursuit of the EN’s ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬suggesting 176 See § 4.2.1.2.b and my discussion there regarding Gen 8:21. 177 For this literary phenomenon, see § 3.2.2 above. 178 Kitz, Cursed are You, 2: “The structuring of life according to who or what is cursed by the deities is one of the most fundamental organizational principles of ancient Near Eastern societies.” See too, Hill and Herion, “Functional Yahwism and Social Control in the Early Israelite Monarchy,” 277–284 (esp. 281–284); Anderson, “Social Function,” esp. 229–230. For my discussion of this topic, see chapter 3 above.

Conclusion   

203

that the divine knowledge of good and bad / evil is the divine knowledge for administering retribution (reward and punishment), i. e., such knowledge that prior to Gen 3 belonged only to Yhwh and the divine beings, but after Gen 3:6 belonged also to humanity. Having provided an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Genesis and the DtrH and having confirmed that these lexemes do function as textual referents to the whole process of divine retribution, what requires attention now is to ask, do these lexemes function similarly in relation to the human characters as they do when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes in Genesis and the DtrH? I will seek to answer this question in the following chapter.

6. The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ in Relation to the Human Characters

6.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will demonstrate how certain permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬or ‫ רעע‬refer generally to the extremes of reward and punishment in a narrative context of human retribution. I will begin by considering a few examples that clearly demonstrate how these lexemes function, when human characters are the subject or causation of these extremes, similarly to how they function in relation to Yhwh. Then, I will turn to the suggestion by P. Kyle McCarter that ‘good and bad’ in certain contexts refer generally to the treatment of partners toward one another in a “formal political relationship,” which is attested in extra-biblical sources, such as the Aramaic inscriptions of Sefîre.1 Following these correlations with the treaty of Sefîre, I will demonstrate that this understanding of general treatment toward partners in a formal relationship is similar to how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function in narrative contexts of retribution in the HB. The majority of the exegesis in this chapter will be employed upon examples from 1 Samuel. However, there will also be several examples from 1 and 2 Kings. Finally, after completing my exegetical work, I will consider the Wisdom of Solomon motif that occurs in 1 Kings 3, one of the most oft-cited passages in the scholarly literature regarding the interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.

6.2 Setting the Stage    To begin, I will consider several texts from the books of Genesis, Numbers, and Judges. These texts will begin to show how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function when the human characters are the originator or subject of said extremes in narrative contexts of retribution.

1 P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 8 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 322.

206

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

6.2.1 Gen 26:28–29 ‫) אם‬29( ‫ויאמרו ראו ראינו כי היה ה׳ עמך ונאמר תהי נא אלה בינותינו בינינו ובינך ונכרתה ברית עמך‬‎(28) ‫תעשה עמנו רעה כאשר לא נגענוך וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב ונשלחך בשלום אתה עתה ברוך ה׳‬ (28) They said, “We see plainly that Yhwh is with you; thus, we say, let there be an oath between us, between us and between you; let us cut a covenant with you, (29) in order that you will not do us harm, just as we have not struck you and have done with you only good; and we have sent you away in peace. You are now the blessed of Yhwh.

The first example of how both Hebrew root lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function in relation to the human characters is found in Gen 26:28–29. In these two passages, Isaac enters into diplomatic discussions with Abimelech (king of Gerar), Ahuzzath, his advisor, and Phicol, his commander, with regard to the disputes over ownership of particular wells. In v. 27, Isaac is perplexed that Abimelech has come to him, for he (Isaac) was certain that they hated (‫ )ואתם שנאתם אתי‬him, having forced Isaac to leave on account of the quarrel over the wells. Abimelech then proposes that the two should make an oath (‫ )אלה‬and cut a covenant (‫ )ברית‬between their two peoples.2 The stated reason for the agreement appears in v. 29 wherein the two permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬that concern this research are employed. The first permutation is the nominal form, ‫רעה‬, and it appears in the standard oath formula that I have translated as, “in order that you will not do us harm,” referring to Isaac and his people as not doing harm to Abimelech and his clan.3 To what sort of harm is Abimelech referring? One could surmise that it is a general harm that can be expected when two different peoples are dwelling side by side in close proximity. However, the text suggests that it refers to retribution more specifically, for in the same verse, Abimelech juxtaposes with ‫( רעה‬lit., evil, harm) the phrase, ‫כאשר לא נגענוך‬, “just as we have not struck you.” The human causation of harm (‫ )רעה‬in this episode is synonymous with human striking (Hebrew ‫)נגע‬, as stated by Abimelech. This diplomatic agreement is obviously an attempt by the characters to curb any need for further retribution between these two peoples, who prior to this meeting were involved in a dispute (vv. 18–21: ‫שטן‬, ‫ריב‬, ‫)עשק‬. Furthermore, Abimelech makes an audacious remark that he and his people had only done good to Isaac (‫)וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב‬.4 What is clear in this text is that both ‫רעה‬ and ‫ טוב‬are juxtaposed in this narrative as the extremes of how two neighbors have treated one another in human experience. Abimelech seems worried at the prospect of a prospering Isaac (‫ )ראו ראינו כי היה ה׳ עמך‬and seeks to restrain any possibility for retribution between these two clans, especially in light of how Isaac

2 See esp., Kitz, Cursed are You, 111, n. 44. 3 See e.g., Joüon, § 165d. 4 Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 193, who suggests that this is “somewhat of a euphemism.”

Setting the Stage        

207

was treated by the servants of Abimelech (cf. vv. 18–21). Isaac relinquishes any need for retribution against Abimelech, entering into a sworn oath (26:31, ‫)וישבעו‬ on pain of the divine curse.5 The narrative reports that on the same day that this agreement was made (v. 32), Isaac’s servants found water in the wells; an indication of the continued divine blessing for Isaac. The hermeneutical principle of divine retribution would suggest that Isaac’s servants have interpreted the discovery of water in the wells as ‫ טוב‬from the divine realm, having furthered peace and security on all fronts.6 Thus, this passage demonstrates how the human characters have the capacity for retribution, both for ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬.

6.2.2 Num 22–24 Our second example is taken from Numbers 22–24, which demonstrates how human characters influence ‫ טובה‬and ‫ רעה‬in a context of blessing and cursing. In this particular narrative segment, Balak, king of Moab, petitions Balaam to curse Israel. In Num 23:13, Balak leads Balaam to a place from which Balaam could see the people of Israel in order to curse them: ‫ויאמר אליו בלק לך־נא אתי אל־מקום אחר תראנו משם אפס קצהו תראה וכלו לא תראה וקבנו־לי משם‬ Then Balak said to him, ‘Come with me to a place from which you will see them. From there, you will only see part of them and not all of them. Then curse them for me from there.’

In this passage, as in the narrative as a whole, Balaam is only able to curse or bless Israel when he can see them; a literary motif that several have suggested is reminiscent of the opening of the eyes of the humans in the EN upon the acquisition of divine knowledge.7 Likewise, Savran convincingly demonstrates that Numbers 22–24 and Genesis 2:4b–4:1 are narratives that have as one of their main themes a unique perspective on the notions of blessing and cursing.8 In light of this research, we must consider Balaam’s response to Balak in Num 24:13, wherein the permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬are semantically equivalent to the extremes of blessing and cursing: 5 See, e.g., Kitz, Cursed are You, 112, n. 49. 6 So Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 196; also § 3.2.2 above. 7 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 462; Müller, Mythos – Kerygma – Warheit, 78. Cf. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, Hermeneia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 1:182–83, who suggests a similar comparison with that of the ‫ שים פניך‬construction in Ezekiel. 8 George Savran, “Beastly Speech: Intertextuality, Balaam’s Ass and the Garden of Eden,” in The Pentateuch: A Sheffield Reader, ed. Johns W. Rogerson, BibSem 39 (Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, 1996), 299.

208

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

‫אם־יתן־לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב לא אוכל לעבר את־פי ה׳ לעשות טובה או רעה מלבי אשר־ידבר ה׳‬ ‫אתו אדבר‬ Even if Balak gave to me his full house of silver and gold, I am unable to go beyond the command of Yhwh to do good or bad from my own heart; that which Yhwh speaks, I must speak.

Savran understands Balaam’s main objection to Balak as similar to ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN by suggesting that, ‫לעשות טובה או רעה מלבי‬, means that Balaam has refused to make an autonomous decision apart from Yhwh’s command.9 I agree with Savran that the main force of Balaam’s response is the subjugation of his autonomy to the will of Yhwh in this instance regarding the cursing of Israel. However, I disagree with Savran and contend that the phrase, ‫לעשות טובה או רעה מלבי‬, is not a way of describing autonomy; rather, it is a direct reference to blessing and cursing, the speaking / doing of ‫ טובה‬or ‫ רעה‬as is consistent with this narrative and with this research. Balaam is unable to curse Israel, i. e., ‫לעשות…רעה מלבי‬, if Yhwh has decreed ‫ טובה‬for Israel (‫)אשר ידבר ה׳ אתו אדבר‬.10 In this way, the speech acts of declaring ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬of both Balaam and Yhwh are juxtaposed, and Balaam reveals that his own ability to speak ‫ טוב‬or ‫ רעע‬is subordinate to the will of Yhwh, at last in this matter. Thus, in the Balaam pericope—a narrative shown to have affinities with the EN (so Savran)—the permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫טוב‬ and ‫רעע‬, along with visual contact for the act itself (e.g., Gen 3:6), are uniquely amalgamated with the notions of blessing and cursing in these texts.11

6.2.3 Judges 11:27 ‫ואנכי לא חטאתי לך ואתה עשה אתי רעה להלחם בי ישפט ה׳ השפט היום בין בני ישראל ובין בני עמון‬ I did not sin against you, but you are doing me harm, making war with me. May Yhwh, who judges, surely judge this day between the sons of Israel and the sons of Ammon! 9 Ibid., “Beastly Speech,” 312. For ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬defined as “moral autonomy,” see e.g., Dohmen, Schöpfung und Tod, 54–56; Dohmen and Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:581, and Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:604–605. 10 Yhwh’s blessing and curse is the source of Balaam’s. See too, Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 462; Müller, Mythos – Kerygma – Warheit, 78. 11 Contrast Joshua’s curse of Jericho in Josh 6:26 with Dtr’s interpretation of its fulfillment in 1 Kgs 16:34 and the death of Hiel’s two sons. Furthermore, consider 2 Kgs 2:19, where the ‘position of the city, Jericho, is good / blessed’ (‫)מושב העיר טוב‬, but its waters are ‘bad / cursed’ (‫והמים‬ ‫)רעים‬. That the ‫ מים רעים‬are considered by some to be a literary allusion to Joshua’s curse, see, Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 209; Richard S. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. D. J. Wiseman, TCOC 6 (Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 1996), 148–49; cf. Aitken, The Semantics, 81: “…but not in this case with any covenantal implications.” For an earlier interpretation of 2 Kgs 2:19 as remembering Joshua’s curse, see Kimhi, Rabbinic Bible, 2 Kgs 2:19.

Setting the Stage        

209

The third example to help set the stage is taken from the book of Judges. In this particular passage, Jephthah continues to lay out his argument to the king of Ammon regarding the diplomatic dispute between Israel and Ammon that has led to physical conflict between the two peoples (vv. 1–28). The Hebrew lexeme ‫ רעע‬appears in a nominal permutation of ‫ רעה‬in v. 27. There are diverging translations of said permutation. Some translate ‫ רעה‬in the moral sense, i. e., “but you are committing wickedness against me,” while others translate ‫ רעה‬in the sense of “harm,” i. e., “but you are doing me harm.”12 I agree with the latter translation. Clearly, ‫ רעה‬is functioning in an independent clause that follows the opening statement of Jephthah, who using the language of diplomacy in the treaty tradition of the ANE, declares emphatically, “I have not sinned (‫ )חטאתי‬against you.”13 Following that statement is Jephthah’s declaration of the wrong committed against him, “But you are doing me harm (‫)רעה‬, making war with me.” I propose that the author’s employment of ‫ רעה‬refers to the retributive action of Ammon against Israel / Jephthah for having ‘sinned’ (‫ )חטאתי‬against them. The retributive action of Ammon in bringing ‫“( רעה‬harm”) upon Israel is undeserved in this dispute, according to Jephthah. Thus, the text is not employing ‫ רעה‬to refer to the ‘wrong’ action of Ammon but to the so-called unwarranted ‘retributive action’ (i. e., ‫ )להלחם בי‬itself as the consequent to a perceived ‫ חטא‬committed by Israel against Ammon. This leads logically into Jephthah’s final statement of v. 27, wherein he calls upon Yhwh, the judge and “suzerain of the world” (so Boling), to administer ‫ משפט‬in this situation (v. 27b, ‫)ישפט ה׳ השפט היום בין בני ישראל ובין בני עמון‬. Thus, the ‘harm’ (‫ )רעה‬committed by Ammon is an attempt at restoring justice in a perceived taking of land by the Israelites (v. 13) through human retribution. In light of our study, this example shows how ‫ רעה‬functions in the context of human and divine retribution (‫ישפט ה׳ השפט‬, v. 27bα).

6.2.4 Gen 21:11–12 ‫) ויאמר אלהים אל אברהם אל ירע בעיניך על הנער‬12( ‫וירע הדבר מאד בעיני אברהם על אודת בנו‬‎ (11) ‫ועל אמתך כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקלה כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע‬ (11) And this thing regarding his son was very wrong in the eyes of Abraham. (12) Then God said to Abraham, “Do not let this thing concerning the boy and your maidservant be evil in your eyes. Call that your wife Sarah has said to you, obey her voice, for in Isaac shall an heir be called to you.”

12 For the former, see NET, NRSV, and Trent C. Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009), 273; for the latter, see JPS and Robert G. Boling, Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, ed. David Noel Freedman, AB 6A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975), 201. 13 Butler, Judges, 286.

210

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

Turning again to the book of Genesis, this fourth example helps to demonstrate how the moral and legal aspects of a permutation of ‫ רעע‬may function in the context of human and divine will. In both of these passages, the Hebrew lexeme ‫ רעע‬appears as indication of Abraham’s moral outrage. The question to be answered is whether or not these two phrases in vv. 11–12 should be translated with an emphasis upon moral infraction or with the more simple translation of displeasure, as they are usually translated. I contend that the most reasonable explanation is that Abraham considers the driving out (‫גרש‬, v. 9) of Hagar and his son as being tantamount to an egregious action and crime. It would be difficult to argue that this situation is merely displeasing to Abraham. Sprinkle has suggested that Sarah’s actions and Abraham’s consent, solidified by the admonishment of ‫( אלהים‬v. 12), alludes to a possible anachronism of the law of divorce found in Covenant Code (Exod 21:10–11).14 Whether that is true or not, the permutations of ‫ רעע‬in vv. 11–12 refer to the moral and ethical evaluation of what is a difficult legal situation for Abraham, who is having to drive his son, Ishmael, out of his life. Thus, Abraham is being admonished in v. 12 by ‫ אלהים‬not to let this thing be ‘evil’ in his eyes, in the sense that by obeying the voice of Sarah, he would be committing a great sin against ‫( אלהים‬cf. Gen 39:9), thereby incurring the divine curse upon himself.15 Obviously, this is the meaning of this permutation of ‫ רעע‬in this passage since it seems far too basic to assume that the divine admonishment means something akin to forgoing the emotions of ‘displeasure.’ According to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, the phrase, “This thing was very evil in the eyes of Abraham,” (‫)וירע הדבר מאד בעיני אברהם‬, assumes the potential for divine retribution regarding this legal situation, not to mention Abraham’s own potential retribution to the ‘driving out’ (‫ )גרש‬of his son and his ‫אמה‬. In order to assure Abraham that the divine curse will not be incurred in the fulfillment of Sarah’s decision, ‫ אלהים‬assures Abraham in v. 12 that the thing is in accordance with his will, and too, Abraham is reassured by ‫ אלהים‬that the destiny of the ‫ נער‬is secure.

6.2.5 Gen 24:50 ‫ויען לבן ובתואל ויאמרו מה׳ יצא הדבר לא נוכל דבר אליך רע או טוב‬ Then Laban and Bethuel answered, saying, “This thing is from Yhwh. We cannot speak to you evil or good.”

Our final example for setting the stage is a short passage taken from Genesis 24, and although it does not refer to a situation of retribution per se, it does indicate 14 Joe M. Sprinkle, “Law and Narrative in Exodus 19–24,” JETS 47 (2004): 248–249. 15 See too, Sarna, Genesis, 147, esp. with regard to the laws of Lipit-Ishtar and the stipulation that allows for the father to “grant freedom to the slave woman and the children she has borne,” thus forfeiting all rights to the father’s inheritance (Ibid., 147).

Setting the Stage        

211

how the will of both the human characters and Yhwh is also expressed through the permutations of these lexemes. This passage is often referenced in the history of research regarding ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. The context of the narrative concerns the giving of Rachel to the servant of Abraham, who has made his case to Laban and Bethuel regarding the ‘divinely’ orchestrated events that had just transpired. In commenting upon this passage, Clark suggests that the Hebrew words ‫ רע‬and ‫ טוב‬refer specifically to “no” and “yes” decisions in an authoritative declarative statement; a suggestion that Clark contends is already oversimplified.16 At the most basic level, this passage alludes to the ceding of the will of Laban and Bethuel to the request of Abraham’s servant. But why the employment of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רע‬by the author of this text? Clark contends that this phrase in 24:50 (and elsewhere) is not “an idiom of everyday conversation,” but carries a more technical use specific to the “authoritative word spoken by an authorized person.”17 I suggest that the text indicates Laban’s and Bethuel’s inability to make a moral claim in contradistinction to Yhwh’s declared will on the matter (e.g., vv. 48–49); at least, not without certainly incurring the (potential) divine response for ‫ טוב‬or ‫רע‬.18 Laban’s retort may indicate his reluctance in the matter, and thus his cunning answer that neither agrees (‫ )טוב‬nor disagrees (‫ )רע‬with Abraham’s servant’s interpretation of Yhwh’s will in the ordering of events. Even so, Laban consents to the marriage agreement, capitulating his will to the spoken will of Yhwh in v. 51 (‫)כאשר ִד ֵּבר ה׳‬.

6.2.6 Summary These passages (Gen 21:11–12; 24:50; 26:28–29; Num 24:13; Judg 11:27) help to set the stage for how the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function in certain narrative segments with regard to human retribution. What will come in the following two sections (6.3 and 6.4) is a thorough showing of how these permutated lexemes function in several examples from 1 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, with a primary focus upon the human characters and the whole process of human and divine retribution.

16 Clark, “Legal Background,” 274 (see § 2.3.1.1). 17 Ibid., “Legal Background,” 275. 18 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 151. Wenham cites Sternberg regarding this passage, who suggests that a refusal would be “an offense against morality.” See Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, ISBL (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 151.

212

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

6.3 Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships in the ANE and the HB 6.3.1 Good and Bad in the Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre Before turning to several examples from 1 Samuel that will elucidate how ‫טוב‬ and ‫ רעע‬function in relation to human retribution, it is essential to consider an extrabiblical example of the retribution principle in relation to ‘good and evil.’ Commenting upon 1 Sam 19:4, McCarter suggests that ‫טובה‬/‫טוב‬, in light of certain studies of the HB and other ancient Near Eastern texts, “describes the proper treatment of one another by partners in a formal political relationship.”19 In this political framework, the doing of ‘good’ refers generally to the proper treatment of “one’s lord, vassal, or ally.”20 The studies to which McCarter is referring are those done by Moran, Hillers, and Malamat.21 Moran suggests that in the stelae of the 8th c. BCE Aramaic treaty of Sefîre, the Aramaic term ṭbtʾ is best translated as “friendship, good relations, with specific reference to the amity established by treaty.”22 Through his article, he sought to clarify the Aramaic term ṭbtʾ since it had been, for the most part, left undefined. Hillers, who in light of Moran’s suggestion regarding Aramaic ṭbtʾ as meaning “to make friendship by treaty,” contends that Deut 23:7 and 2 Sam 2:6 employ ‫ טובה‬in a similar way to mean “make a treaty of friendship.”23 For example, Deut 23:7 reads as follows:

19 McCarter, I Samuel, 322. Cf. Gen 34:18–31 (esp. vv. 18, 30); 40:14; Num 11:1; 14:27, 37; 16:15; 20:15; Deut 26:6. 20 McCarter, I Samuel, 322. 21 William L. Moran, “A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefîre Stelas,” JNES 22 (1963): 173–76; Delbert R. Hillers, “A Note on some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament,” BASOR 176 (1964): 46–47; Abraham Malamat, “Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy,” in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, eds. Edward Fay Campbell and David Noel Freedman, BAR 3 (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1970), esp. 195–98. See also, Michael Fox, “ṭôḇ as Covenant Terminology,” BASOR 209 (2003): 41–42, and, Ingeborg Johag, “ṭôḇ  – Terminus technicus in Vertrags- und Bündnisformularen des alten Orients und des alten Testaments,” in Bausteine biblischer Theologie: Festgabe für G. Johannes Botterweck zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schülern, ed. Heinz-Josef Fabry, BBB 50 (Bonn; Cologne: Hanstein, 1977), 3–23, esp. 3–7; William Morrow, “The Sefire Treaty Stipulations and the Mesopotamian Treaty Tradition,” in The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Language and Literature in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, eds. P. M. Michèle Daviau et al., JSOTSup 326 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 83–99; Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:917–928. For an excellent overview of these studies and their contribution to this discussion, see McAffee, “The Good Word,” 378–81, and Fitzmyer, Aramaic Inscriptions, 74. 22 For the Akkadian examples, see Moran, “Sefîre Stelas,” 174. 23 McAffee is in agreement with this suggestion (McAffee, “The Good Word,” 379). See my discussion on 2 Sam 2:6 below (§ 6.3.5).

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

213

‫לא תדרש שלמם וטבתם כל ימיך לעולם‬ You shall not seek their peace or their welfare (‫ )טבתם‬all of your days.

Due to the exact parallel to ‫ שלמם וטבתם‬appearing in Akkadian, i. e., ṭūbtu usulummû, “friendship and peace,” Hillers contends that Deut 23:7 should be translated as follows: “You shall never, as long as you live, seek (a treaty of) friendship and peace with them.”24 Malamat also contends for a similar understanding suggesting that ‫ טובה‬in 2 Chr 24:16bα—a passage describing the proper burial of Jehoiada as reward for having done ‘good’ (‫ )טובה‬in Israel—is a particular reference to the covenant “effected between God and the people of Israel.”25 Thus, according to these studies, the Aramaic ṭbtʾ in the Sefîre stelae refers, in essence, to the treaty itself, or at least to the ‘friendly relations’ that exist in any agreement. This nuanced interpretation suggested by these studies helps to inform several occurrences of ‫ טובה‬in the HB as meaning something similar. The latest interlocutor to advance this discussion is McAffee, who contends that the Aramaic ṭby, as it appears in the Sefîre stelae, is similar to the HB’s employment of ‫ דבר טוב‬as a reference to the ‘favors’ of covenant membership within certain contexts.26 As an example, he references KAI 222 B:6–7 and translates it as follows: ‫) [בר גאיה לעל]מן מלך רב ומע[די]א אל[ן…] ושמין‬7( ‫טבי מלך‬ The good (things) of the reign of Bar Gaʾyah, a great king, and from this [X] treaty and heaven.27

McAffee also draws attention to how Fitzmyer understands ‫ טבי‬in this particular line as ‘blessing’: “Blessed(?) forever be the reign of [Bar-gaʾyah], a great king.”28 In another line from Sefîre (KAI 222 C:4–5), McAffee suggests that faithfulness to the agreement made (ṭbtʾ, “i. e. the friendly relations outlined in the treaty”) could expect the consequent favor of the agreement (ṭby).29 Clearly, we are already discussing the retribution principle in that adherence to the stipulations of the agreement (ṭbtʾ) can expect the consequent favors (ṭby). Yet, there is considerable disagreement as to how these two permutations should be understood.

24 Hillers, “A Note on some Treaty Terminology,” 46. 25 Malamat, “Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy,” 197. 26 McAffee, “The Good Word,” 381. 27 Ibid., “The Good Word,” 381. 28 See, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Inscriptions of Bar-Gaʾyah and Matiʿel from Sefîre,” 2 (2002): 2.82B:214. Although, cf. his earlier translation: “Happy forever be the reign of (7) [BirGaʾyah]” (Ibid., Aramaic Inscriptions, 17); Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:922–923. 29 McAffee, “The Good Word,” 381, esp. n. 19.

214

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

Theo Bauer was one of the first to suggest that the Aramaic ṭbtʾ refers not to the treaty itself, but to the blessings of the treaty.30 Prior to Moran’s article, concerning this particular term, Bauer suggests a reading of ṭbtʾ as the “good things in terms of the blessings for obedience,” a suggestion with which Moran disagrees.31 Of course, Moran alludes in his own article to Bauer’s stated difficulties with this text, which are the result of a particular lacuna of ‫ טבת‬in KAI 222 A and the appearance of ‫ לחית‬therein, that is to say, the appearance of the curses in the treaty but not the blessings (‫)טבת‬.32 The phrase in the Sefîre stela to which Bauer is referring is KAI 222 A3:19–20: ‫) [ל]לחית‬20( ‫ה או אהפך טבתא ואשם‬ Or, “I shall overturn the ‘good’ and set down the ‘evil.’”

I have offered a very literal translation of this line. Moran translates ‫ טבתא‬in this line as “good relations,” suggesting that its opposite (i. e., ‫לחית‬, “evil relations”?), is a play on ‫ טבתא‬and must mean something opposite to ‘good relations,’ but otherwise carries “no difficulty against the specific meaning we attach to ‫טבתא‬.”33 The question must be posed, however: To what does ‫ לחית‬refer? Are we to suggest that this text simply means a kind of breaking of the agreement, especially when ‫ לחיה‬appears elsewhere in this treaty as the curse of Hadad (‫כל מה לחיה‬, “every sort of evil,” KAI 222 A:26)? I agree with Moran that the warning in this hypothetical carries the general sense of a particular party overturning the agreement by putting forth ‘disobedience’ (evil) to the accord, i. e., he will set forth “evil acts” of which he agreed not to do, acts that are contrary to the agreed upon stipulations. However, this does not fully answer Bauer’s difficulty with regard to the consequent ‘good and evil’ (blessing and curse) of the agreement, nor does it satisfy the use of the Aramaic ‫ הפך‬in this passage to mean ‘overturn.’ If we consider one of the passages from the HB (i. e., Deut 23:6aβ) that Bauer contends is similar to KAI 222 A3:19–20 with regard to the use of ‫הפך‬, then it would demonstrate Bauer’s reasoning regarding blessing and cursing in this particular line of the Aramaic treaty: ‫ויהפך ה׳ אלהיך לך את הקללה לברכה‬ But Yhwh your God on your behalf transformed the curse into a blessing.

Here, ‫ הפך‬is employed as the action of Yhwh transforming the curse of Balaam into a blessing for Israel. That explains why it is that in Deut 23:7, the Israelites are 30 Hans Bauer, “Ein aramäischer Staatsvertrag aus dem 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Die Inschrift der Stele von Sudschīn,” AfO 8 (1932): 15.  31 Moran, “Sefîre Stelas,” 173. 32 Bauer, “Ein aramäischer Staatsvertrag,” 15. Contra Bauer, see Moran, “Sefîre Stelas,” 173. 33 Ibid., “Sefîre Stelas,” 173; Fitzmyer, Aramaic Inscriptions, 76.

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

215

admonished not to seek the ‫ שלמם וטבתם‬of the Ammonites and the Moabites; said peoples remain under the curse of Yhwh materialized through his covenanted people.34 Thus, in this line from Deuteronomy, ‫ קלל‬and ‫ ברך‬are not employed as literary artistry, but for the purpose of specific reference to Balaam’s curse and blessing, a reference to the ‘possible’ promotion (‫ )טוב‬and diminishment (‫ )רעע‬of a people at the word of Balaam. Although not explicitly stated, Bauer intimates the same regarding KAI 222 A3:19–20. The employment of ‫ טבתא‬and ‫ לחית‬is not merely a ‘play’ on words; rather, it is a highly specialized accounting for the retribution principle and its extremes employed literarily using permutated lexemes that generally carry the connotation of ‘good’ and ‘bad / evil.’ For Bauer, this explains the occurrence of ‫ טבת‬and ‫ לחיה‬in lines 1–9 from this same tablet (KAI 222 A:1–9): Thus have we spoken [and thus have we writ]ten. What (2) I, [Matîʿ]el, have written (is to act) as a reminder (3) for my son [and] my [grand]son who (4) will come a[fter] me. May they (5) make good relations (‫[ )טבת‬beneath] the sun (6)[for (the sake of) my] ro[yal hou]se that no ev[il (‫ )לחיה‬may (7) be done against] the house of Mat[îʿel (8) and his son and] his [grand]son for[ever].35

Notice that if the descendants of Matîʿel do not uphold the agreement in their actions (‫)טבת‬, then they can expect evil (‫)לחיה‬, presumably from the curse of the gods, which was thought at times to be materialized through the retributive acts of the other party. Clearly, ‘good and evil’ function with specific nuance and specialization in these texts, but oscillate between a meaning of ‘good and bad actions’ according to the agreement and the consequent results of ‘blessing and cursing.’ In a similar fashion, Weinfeld contends that in the Neo Assyrian context, the Akkadian form ṭābtu refers to the favors of Assurbanipal (i. e., ṭābtu ēpussunūti imšûma), and that said favors “were aimed to strengthen the loyalty of the vassals.”36 Thus, for Weinfeld and Moran, ‫ טבתא‬and its Akkadian cognate, ṭābtu, carry various nuances depending upon the context in which they are found.37 It seems to me that ‫ טבתא‬may indeed be a reference to the agreement itself (so Moran) as a way of encapsulating all of the ‘blessings / favors’ (so Weinfeld) that are contained 34 Even if ‫ שלמם וטבתם‬is to be understood as specialized terminology with regard to treaties and formal political correspondence (so Hillers), it does not change the fact that the line literally states that the Israelites are not to seek the ‫שלום‬, “peace” and the ‫טובה‬, “good,” of the Ammonites and Moabites. However, cf. Baruch A. Levine, prolegomenon to Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, by Yochanan Muffs, HdO 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), xxiv. 35 Fitzmyer, Aramaic Inscriptions, 19. 36 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 193; McAffee, “The Good Word,” 381, n. 20, where he suggests that Weinfeld seems to understand ṭbtʾ as the “favors bestowed upon covenant members.” 37 See Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 193, and Ibid., “The Counsel of the ‘Elders’ to Rehoboam and its Implications,” Maarav 3 (1982): 46–47; McAffee, “The Good Word,” 381, n. 20.

216

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

therein since that is the point of the agreement in the first place, i. e., the benefits to both parties. Could it be that in a later time of the covenantal and treaty tradition in the ANE the blessings were dropped and the curses included in these textual documents precisely because the agreement itself became synonymous with the ‘benefits / blessings?’ Put another way, Moran suggests that ṭbtʾ means the “amity established by treaty,” contra Weinfeld who seems to suggest that ṭbtʾ refers to the “favors bestowed on covenant members.” Both may be correct in their estimation on this usage. However, the nuance does not wholly depart from the consistent use of lexemes connoting ‘good and bad’ in these literary contexts of human and divine retribution throughout the ANE. Suffice it to say, it is evident from this particular example from Sefîre that the text employs the lexemes of ‘good and evil’ to refer to forms of social control, both for the present generation of the agreement and the generations to come. Let us now consider a particular passage in 1 Kings 12 that is pertinent to this discussion of KAI 222 and our overall work regarding human retribution in the HB, before turning to 1 Samuel.

6.3.2 Speaking Good Words in 1 Kings 12 There is one occurrence of ‫ טוב‬in 1 Kgs 12:7. In this particular context, Rehoboam, who has succeeded his father as king, has come to Shechem in order for the Northern Tribes to make him king. The assembly requests of Rehoboam that he would lighten the hard service and the heavy yoke that was placed upon them by Solomon (v. 4). If Rehoboam accepts their request, then they will agree to serve him. Then Rehoboam took counsel with the elders of the Northern Tribes in order to make a decision regarding the assembly’s request. In 12:7, the elders respond to Rehoboam with their advice: ‫וידבר אליו לאמר אם־היום תהיה־עבד לעם הזה ועבדתם ועניתם ודברת אליהם דברים טובים והיו לך עבדים‬ ‫על־הימים‬ And they said to him [Rehoboam] saying: “If today you will be a servant to this people and serve them, and answer them and pronounce over them good words, then they will be for you servants forever.”

To begin, Weinfeld has shown that the particular verb, ‫ועניתם‬, “to answer,” has a particular nuance of “to be responsive” as it pertains to the relationship between a king and his subjects.38 More important for this study is to ask to what ‫דברים טובים‬ refers specifically in this passage. Weinfeld suggests that the phrase ‫דברים טובים‬ 38 Weinfeld, “The Counsel of the Elders,” 42: “In any case, we have learned that the verb ‘answer’ in Akkadian has the sense ‘be responsive,’ particularly in regard to relationships between a king and his subjects.”

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

217

refers to a “legal arrangement” or a “business agreement” in which the Northern Tribes asked to be released from the corvée work and the heavy taxation placed upon them by Solomon (v. 4).39 He sees a similar usage found in 2 Kgs 25:28, i. e., ‫וידבר אתו טובת‬. In this short passage, King Evil-merodach of Babylon released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison and spoke well with him (‫)וידבר אתו טובת‬, and he set Jehoiachin’s throne above the thrones of the other kings of Babylon. Thus, for Weinfeld, the ‫ דברים טובים‬of 1 Kgs 12:7 are similar to the sort of meaning implied in 2 Kgs 25:28, i. e., a legal arrangement of sorts.40 On the other hand (contra Weinfeld), Cogan suggests that the appearance of this occurrence of ‫ דברים טובים‬in 1 Kgs 12:7 is better understood generally, in the sense of appeasement, and that the occurrence of ‫ טוב‬does not require in all cases a covenantal context or meaning. Thus, for Cogan, Rehoboam is advised simply to speak “kind words” to the Northern Tribes.41 Similarly, McAffee agrees with Cogan regarding both his translation of ‫ דברים טובים‬and Cogan’s critique of Weinfeld’s argument. His advancement in the discussion, however, comes with his “hypothetical” meaning of ‫דברים טובים‬, if indeed it were shown that 1 Kgs 12:7 was situated in a covenantal context.42 If said context were applicable in this verse, McAfee would suggest that ‫ דברים טובים‬do not refer “to the establishment of the covenant itself ” as Weinfeld argues. Rather, ‫ דברים טובים‬would refer to the “benefits that are enjoyed by covenant members.”43 In other words, ‫ דברים טובים‬refers to the blessing (reward) bestowed by the authoritative agent, hypothetically speaking, or in a more general sense, to the ‘good things’ that result from an accord between two parties and their actions toward one another therein. In this sense, I agree with McAffee. However, I disagree with both McAffee and Cogan concerning the context of the passage. There is no reason to suggest that Dtr has suddenly stepped outside of the covenantal or even the legal context from this highly political passage.44 Rehoboam is advised to bestow the good words / things—i. e., their request to have Solomon’s burden removed—upon his subordinates according to his legal obligations as king. Likewise, in the sense of an authority pronouncing legal judgment (2 Kgs 25:28), King Evil-merodach ‘rewards’ Jehoiachin the promotion of his throne above the kings of Babylon.45 39 Ibid., “The Counsel of the Elders,” 44, 51; Ibid., “The King-People Relationship in the Light of 1 Kings 12:7,” [Hebrew] Leshonenu 36 (1971): 3–13 (esp. 8); cf. McCarter, I Samuel, 399. 40 I suggest the same for 1 Kgs 2:38 and 2:42 with regard to Shimei, who agrees to terms set by Solomon, placing Shimei under Solomon’s ‘blessing or curse.’ Also, I contend the same for 1 Kgs 18:24, cf. McAffee, “The Good Word,” 385. 41 Cogan, I Kings, 348. 42 McAffee, “The Good Word,” 395. 43 Ibid., “The Good Word,” 395. 44 Consider EA 7:37 in which the “good relations” have been inherited from earlier kings. See William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 13; CAD B, 82, n. 4. 45 Cf. Zech 1:13.

218

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

Weinfeld then contrasts the “good words” of 1 Kgs 12:7 with the “good words” of the El Amarna archive (EA 11:rev. 22) that mean broadly, “friendly relations” in a treaty / covenantal context.46 He contends, in agreement with Moran, that the translation of amātu banātu in Akkadian as “nice / proper words” refers to friendly political relations.47 However, he then contrasts the opposite of this phrase in the EA letters by offering a translation of amāta la panīta, (literally) “bad words,” in EA 17:13 (Tušratta to Amenopis III) as a reference to ‘rebellious deeds’: [13] amata la pa-ni-ta ana mātija ītepuš [13] He did hostile acts against my country.48

We can notice that the translation in the CAD refers to hostile actions and not simply to words. Of course, the translation is dependent upon the verb epēšum, which has the connotation of action. But either way, the point remains: ‘good’ or ‘bad’ words, in a political sense, refer to either 1) ‘good’ or ‘bad’ actions within a legal and moral framework, or 2) the subsequent action of retribution from the other party, i. e., the implementation of the ‘good or bad’ words. Thus, the reward of the greater in authority is described by the text of 2 Kgs 25:28 as ‫וידבר אתו טובת‬. The text literally states that King Evil-merodach of Babylon spoke with Jehoiachin “good [words / things],” but in truth, it means he pronounced and enacted a ‘good thing’, in a legal sense, on behalf of an inferior to him. I suggest that the same is true of 1 Kgs 12:7 in which Rehoboam is admonished by the elders to pronounce, in a legal sense, good things for his subjects, i. e., to relinquish the harsh labor placed upon the Northern Tribes by Solomon. The point to be stressed is that speaking ‘good or bad’ requires attention to actions of ‘good or bad’ as much as it does to the establishment of relations between any two parties. In light of my research, and because I consider McAffee’s reasoning to be sound, I agree that the ‫דברים טובים‬, as benefits of covenantal membership, are an indication that ‫ טוב‬in 1 Kgs 12:7 is in the semantic range of the ‘blessing’ in an ancient Near Eastern context. The proviso being that within this text, the employment of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ טוב‬has less to do with ‘covenant’ (so Cogan), and more to do with divine retribution and human retribution in general. The actions of one in legal authority over another are quite similar to how the text understands the actions of Yhwh in relation to his covenant members throughout the HB. Thus, ‫ טוב‬is functioning in a similar fashion to its value, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, throughout the DtrH. Now that we have established the ‘studies’ to which McCarter was referring, let us now consider several similar

46 Weinfeld, “The Counsel of the Elders,” 47–48; Moran, “Sefîre Stelas,” 175, n. 20. 47 Weinfeld, “The Counsel of the Elders,” 48. 48 For this transliteration and translation, see CAD B, 82, n. 4.

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

219

examples from 1 Samuel that will help to elucidate how good and evil function in relation to the human characters.

6.3.2.1 1 Sam 20:7, 13 In 1 Samuel 20, David has fled from the pursuit of Saul in order to plead his innocence before Jonathan. In 20:1, David seeks an answer from Jonathan regarding the actions for which Saul is seeking retribution against his life: ‫מה עשיתי מה עוני ומה חטאתי לפני אביך כי מבקש את נפשי‬ “What have I done? What is my crime? How I have sinned against your father that he is seeking my life?”

The vocabulary of this passage is one of human retribution in light of sin, guilt, and crime (‫ מה חטאתי‬,‫ מה עוני‬,‫)מה עשיתי‬, wherein David seeks to know for what crime it is that would merit his death (v. 3).49 The two devise a plan to test Saul and his intentions regarding David. In 20:7, both ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעה‬are employed in the text: ‫אם כה יאמר טוב שלום לעבדך ואם חרה יחרה לו דע כי כלתה הרעה מעמו‬ If he [Saul] says, “Good!” It will be well for your servant. But if he is exceedingly angered, then know that evil / harm has been determined by him.

Here, if Saul offers a response of “good” (‫ )טוב‬to the knowledge that David is missing from the celebration and observance of the new moon in order to sacrifice with his family in Bethlehem, then it means that it will be well (‫ )שלום‬with David. Clearly, ‫ טוב‬is functioning here as one side of human retribution, in that if Saul says, “Good,” (‫)יאמר טוב‬, then the result will be for David, wellness (‫)שלום‬. However, if Saul’s response is one of anger (‫)אם חרה יחרה לו‬, then Jonathan is to “know” (‫)דע‬ that “the calamity / evil / harm” (‫ )הרעה‬is already determined by Saul for David. McCarter suggests that the permutation of ‫ הרעה‬here is indication of “unfavorable treatment of a partner in a formal relationship.”50 I contend that the same is true of the employment of ‫ טוב‬earlier in this verse, which would refer to the ‘favorable’ treatment of another party in the relationship. However, it must be remembered that this pericope opens with David seeking to know specifically what his ‫ עון‬and ‫ חטא‬is with regard to said relationship with Saul. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not stress that this passage includes the Hebrew lexeme ‫ ידע‬in an imperatival permutation, suggesting that the test is to know whether Saul will be faithful or unfaithful to David in this accord; a subtle, yet notable association to ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. 49 See e.g., Mark E. Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization,” JBL 121 (2002): 625. 50 McCarter, I Samuel, 341.

220

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

Both ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬appear in 20:13 as well to refer to human retribution, i. e., Saul’s actions toward David: ‫כה יעשה ה׳ ליהונתן וכה יסיף כי ייטב אל אבי את הרעה עליך וגליתי את אזנך ושלחתיך והלכת לשלום ויהי‬ ‫ה׳ עמך כאשר היה עם אבי‬ So may Yhwh do to Jonathan and even more, if it pleases my father to harm you, and I do not reveal it to your ears, sending you off to go in peace! May Yhwh be with you as he was with my father.

In this passage, Jonathan swears an oath to inform David and to help him escape if indeed Saul is pleased (‫ )ייטב‬to bring ‫ הרעה‬upon David. This passage, in similar fashion to 20:7, suggests that ‫ הרעה‬is functioning in the sense of harm for David from Saul. Thus, these two short passages (20:7, 13) demonstrate how the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in these permutations refer generally to human retribution that seeks to promote or reduce another person’s welfare.51

6.3.2.2 1 Sam 23:9 This narrative segment opens with David and his few men defeating the Philistines in Keilah (Khirbet Qîlā) at the behest of Yhwh, thus delivering the inhabitants of the city. When Saul learns that David is in Keilah, he interprets the moment as vindication from Yhwh that David will be delivered into his hand (v. 7); he summons his troops to go down to Keilah in order to wage war against David and his men (v. 8). In v. 9, the permutation of ‫ הרעה‬is employed by the text to refer to Saul’s retributive act of war against David: ‫וידע דוד כי עליו שאול מחריש הרעה ויאמר אל אביתר הכהן הגישה האפוד‬ When David knew that Saul was plotting the calamity / harm / evil upon him, he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring forward the Ephod.”

Clearly, ‫ הרעה‬is a reference to the retributive act of violence (‫ )מלחמה‬that is devised (‫ )מחריש‬by Saul, which if successful, will be calamitous for David. Moreover, Saul is not simply interpreting this ‘calamity’ for David as his own doing; rather, and in accordance with the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, he is interpreting it as divine retribution from Yhwh against David. What is peculiar in this pericope is that David seeks confirmation from Yhwh in vv. 2 and 4 to go out against the Philistines at Keilah; an act, no doubt, that could textually be described as ‫ מחריש הרעה‬to refer to the machinations of David that lead to the ‘successful’ attack against the Philistines. Furthermore, this text has also employed the Hebrew lexeme, ‫ ידע‬to refer to David’s learning of the calamity that is about to befall him 51 Ibid., I Samuel, 384.

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

221

via the intentions of Saul. This text demonstrates how ‘evil’ functions in the context of human and divine retribution in the HB. Put another way, the knowledge of good and evil (i. e., ‫ )וידע דוד כי עליו שאול מחריש הרעה‬in this short narrative segment is concentrated upon human and divine retribution.

6.3.3 1 Samuel 24 Turning to the next chapter of 1 Samuel, there are five verses that demonstrate how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function in the text with regard to divine retribution through human acts of retribution.52 In this particular narrative, Saul has set out with three thousand of his men to pursue David, who, so he has learned, is at En-Gedi. When Saul turns aside to relieve himself in a cave, unbeknownst to him, David and his men are hiding in the cave. In v. 5, David’s men interpret the situation as a moment of divine retribution in which Yhwh has delivered Saul into David’s hand so that David may do with Saul that which is pleasing (‫ )יטב‬in his eyes. David then cuts off a corner of Saul’s cloak, only to regret his actions and therefore, refuses to allow his men to kill Saul. Once Saul exits the cave, David then reveals himself to Saul (v. 9), falling at his feet in obeisance.

6.3.3.1 1 Sam 24:10 In 24:10, David lays out his case before Saul: ‫ויאמר דוד לשאול למה תשמע את דברי אדם לאמר הנה דוד מבקש רעתך‬ And David said to Saul, “Why did you listen to the words of men, who said, ‘Behold, David is seeking your harm / disaster / evil.’”

Once again, this text is employing ‫ רעה‬to refer to the intention (‫ )מבקש‬of retribution against Saul by David that is patently false, according to David. We must recall McCarter’s comment on this verse: “More generally, then, one who ‘seeks the good / evil’ of someone else is formally and deliberately involved in the promotion or reduction of that person’s welfare.”53 Here, David’s case begins with his admission to Saul that he is not seeking Saul’s harm / calamity (‫ )רעה‬with evidential proof, i. e., the corner of Saul’s cloak. Interestingly, the act of potential ‫ רעה‬for Saul, at the hands of David and his men, is interpreted by David’s men in v. 4 of the narrative to be divinely orchestrated, and too, it is confirmed to have been interpreted that way by David himself in v. 11. In 24:12, David exonerates himself regarding Saul’s unjustified pursuit of David. 52 See e.g., Rosenberg, King and Kin, 182. 53 McCarter, I Samuel, 384.

222

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

6.3.3.2 1 Sam 24:12 ‫ואבי ראה גם ראה את כנף מעילך בידי כי בכרתי את כנף מעילך ולא הרגתיך דע וראה כי אין בידי רעה ופשע ולא‬ ‫חטאתי לך ואתה צדה את נפשי לקחתה‬ Now, my father, see the corner of your cloak in my hand! For with the cutting off of the corner of your cloak and having not killed you, know and see that there is no evil (‫)הער‬, nor transgression in my hands! I have not sinned against you, and yet, you are hunting my life to take it.

There are several literary motifs that could be considered in light of our study regarding ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. Take, for example, David’s evidential defense in this case, namely, the corner of Saul’s cloak: ‫( דע וראה‬cf. Gen 3:7). Both the Hebrew lexeme ‫ ידע‬and the imperative “to see” have similarities to the acquisition of knowledge and the opening of the eyes in the EN. Saul is instructed by David to “know and see” that “there is neither evil nor treason in my hand” (‫)אין בידי רעה ופשע‬. Here, ‫רעה‬ refers not to an act of harm per se, but to the evaluation of an ‘evil’ act, i. e., the raising of one’s hand against Yhwh’s anointed. Furthermore, David claims that he has not sinned / wronged Saul (‫)לא חטאתי לך‬, yet Saul is seeking to take David’s life. It has already been established in 23:9 that this “seeking to take David’s life” is referred to textually as ‫רעה‬, meaning “harm / calamity,” even if it too happens to be a moral ‘evil’ on Saul’s part. Thus, this passage clearly demonstrates how the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is functioning apropos the Hebrew lexeme ‫רעע‬. On one level, this permutated lexeme refers to ‘unfaithful’ acts against Saul, who is due David’s submission on account of Saul being the anointed of Yhwh (vv. 7–8). Yet, on another level, the consequential retributive act resulting from ‘knowing and seeing’ (‫ )דע וראה‬that just such an act has been committed—let us say in this case by David—would be the retributive act of the taking of David’s life at the behest of Saul. This ‘retributive’ act is referred to in 23:9 as the conspiring by Saul to bring ‫ רעה‬upon David. Since the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is employed in these texts, then it is only logical that the lexeme meaning ‘evil / bad’ (‫)רעע‬, generally speaking, would oscillate between these two semantic nuances of the evil act itself and the act of retributive misfortune as punishment.54 Case in point, this narrative is one of litigation, for in the following verse (v. 13), David calls upon Yhwh to judge between him and Saul: ‫ישפט ה׳ ביני ובינך ונקמני ה׳ ממך וידי לא תהיה בך‬ May Yhwh judge between me and you, and may Yhwh take vengeance on you on my behalf; but my hand will not be on you!

54 See my section above, § 4.2.1.2.

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

223

Here, David calls upon Yhwh to judge in this case, relinquishing any act of retribution and vengeance to Yhwh (‫ )ונקמני ה׳ ממך‬as it pertains to this matter with Saul. Thus, David refuses to harm Saul calling upon Yhwh to render appropriate retribution (‫)משפט‬. In response to David’s case against Saul, he weeps (v. 17), admitting in vv. 18–20 that his seeking of retribution against David is unfounded.

6.3.3.3 1 Sam 24:18–20 ‫) ואת הגדת היום את אשר‬19( ‫ויאמר אל דוד צדיק אתה ממני כי אתה גמלתני הטובה ואני גמלתיך הרעה‬‎(18) ‫) וכי ימצא איש את איבו ושלחו בדרך טובה וה׳ ישלמך‬20( ‫עשיתה אתי טובה את אשר סגרני ה׳ בידך ולא הרגתני‬ ‫טובה תחת היום הזה אשר עשיתה לי‬ (18) Then he said to David, “You are more righteous than I, for you have rendered to me good, and I have returned to you evil.” (19) Now you have explained this day how you have made [for] me good (‫)טובה‬. Yhwh delivered me into your hands, and you did not kill me. (20) If a man finds his enemy, does he send him off on a path safely (lit., on a good path, ‫ ?)בדרך טובה‬Certainly, Yhwh will repay you good on account of what you have done to me this day.

In v. 18 of this passage, Saul claims that David has rendered to Saul “the good” (‫)הטובה‬, whereas he (Saul) has rendered to David “the evil” (‫)הרעה‬. McCarter’s comment on this verse is instructive: “David has rendered to Saul ‘goodness’ (haṭtộ bâ), that is, favorable treatment consistent with their relationship, whereas Saul has rendered David ‘evil’ (hārāʿâ), ill treatment.”55 However, in light of this study, I contend that what is meant by ‫ הטובה‬and ‫ הרעה‬is more uniform to blessing and cursing and the giving and taking of life (e.g., Deut 30:15). That is true of the meaning of ‫ הטובה‬in v. 19, where Saul admits that David has ‘dealt kindly’ with him (‫ ;עשיתה אתי טובה‬lit., done with me good) by not killing me (‫ )לא הרגתני‬even though Yhwh had delivered Saul into his (David’s) hand. In this way, I suggest that ‫לא‬ ‫ הרגתני‬is equivalent to the human retributive rendering of ‫הרעה‬, the very act that Saul is seeking to bring upon David. This is true especially because Yhwh is said to have delivered Saul into David’s hand (‫ )סגרני ה׳ בידך‬and David refused to bring calamity upon Saul, choosing instead ‫הטובה‬. Put another way, divine retribution is being interpreted apropos the successful materialization of said retributive acts by the human characters, which explains why David relegates his action of retribution against Saul back to Yhwh in the narrative (v. 13). Finally, in v. 20, Saul claims wisdom in this situation suggesting that a man who finds his enemy would certainly not send him away on a ‘good path’ (‫)בדרך טובה‬, as David has done for Saul. In light of David’s act of allowing Saul to live (v. 19, ‫)ושלחו בדרך טובה‬, he (Saul) petitions Yhwh to repay (‫ )ישלמך‬David ‘good’ (‫ )טובה‬on account of allowing

55 Ibid., I Samuel, 385.

224

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

Saul to live.56 Klein suggests that this action of petitioning Yhwh to repay David ‫ טובה‬is tantamount to blessing David, thus lending corroboration to the overall thesis of this study.57 These examples elucidate this pursuit of an interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN suggesting that the divine knowledge of good and bad / evil is the divine knowledge of retribution as demonstrated and defined by this study. This section shows how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function similarly to the human characters as to Yhwh throughout the DtrH. In the following section, the narrative movement leads away from the conflict between Saul and David and turns to a conflict between David and Nabal.

6.3.4 1 Samuel 25 In this particular section, David threatens retributive action against Nabal—a man from Maon who owned land in Carmel—on account of the way that Nabal treats David’s messengers. In 25:3, the text describes the wife of Nabal, Abigail, as being a woman of “good understanding,” ‫טובת־שכל‬, while Nabal himself is described as a man of “harsh and violent acts,” ‫קשה ורע מעללים‬. The adjectival phrase, ‫קשה‬ ‫( ורע מעללים‬lit., harsh and evil deeds), is best understood as signifying as it does elsewhere, “violent acts.”58 The important point to stress is that the narrative opens with contrasting ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as the adjectival descriptors of two individuals in the household of Nabal; descriptions that subtly refer to the wise or unwise retributive qualities of each character, as the narrative will demonstrate through its progression. In v. 4, David learns that Nabal is shearing his sheep and sends forth his servants to greet Nabal with “peace,” ‫ ;שלום‬an indication, according to Wiseman, that David sought “to enter into a regulated covenant” with him.59 More importantly, however, is that the narrative suggests David as neither seeking harm nor diminishment of Nabal and his household.60 In v. 7, David claims that Nabal’s shepherds under his protection received neither harm / humiliation (‫ )הכלמנום‬and lacked nothing (‫ )מאומה‬while in Carmel, and therefore, is seeking the same in

56 Regarding the Akkadian cognate of ‫( שלם‬šâlum) used in a similar context, see Sasson, “War Declaration,” 242; Bodi, “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 288, n. 14. Note a similar use of ‫ שלם‬in Judg 1:7. 57 Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 241. 58 E.g., 2 Sam 3:39. See John Dekker, “Characterization in the Hebrew Bible: Nabal as a Test Case,” BBR 26 (2016): 315. Compare the same semantic usage of ‫ רעע‬in Nahum 3:19, i. e., “cruel” acts. 59 D. J. Wiseman, “Is it Peace?—Covenant and Diplomacy,” VT 32 (1982): 318; Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. D. J. Wiseman, TCOT 8 (Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 158. 60 Klein, 1 Samuel, 248.

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

225

kind.61 In v. 8, the messengers are instructed to request from Nabal a gift for David as a show of agreement and friendship, especially since they have come on a ‫יום טוב‬, “feast day,” a “day of plenty.”62 Regarding the phrase ‫יום טוב‬, Geoghegan suggests that the literary motif of the sheep-shearing festival in ancient Israel was a “significant celebration, characterized by feasting, drunkenness and the settling of old scores.”63 Because of these associations of the sheep shearing festival with “revelry and revenge,” Geoghegan contends that said festival appears as a day of “repayment of debts and the righting of wrongs.”64 I suggest that such is the case regarding the employment of ‫ יום טוב‬in this narrative.65 In vv. 10–11, Nabal scorns David by refusing his messengers and by stating that he has never heard of the “son of Jesse” (v. 11). David’s response (v. 13) is to lead 400 of his men out with the intention to destroy Nabal and all that he has.66 In v. 14, a messenger of Nabal hurries to Abigail to tell her of the impending disaster (‫ )הרעה‬and that Nabal had “angrily responded” (‫ )ויעט‬to David’s messengers, who had come “to bless” (‫)לברך‬ Nabal and his household on David’s behalf (cf. v. 4).67 In v. 15, the messenger testifies of David’s messengers’ “good deeds” toward Nabal.

6.3.4.1 1 Sam 25:15 ‫והאנשים טבים לנו מאד ולא הכלמנו ולא פקדנו מאומה כל ימי התהלכנו אתם בהיותנו בשדה‬ But the men were very good to us, and we were never humiliated / shamed / harmed and we never missed anything all the days that we walked with them while we were in the field.

In this testimony to Abigail, the messenger confirms David’s own message sent to Nabal, that is, Nabal’s own shepherds were treated “very well” (‫ )טבים‬by David, never being humiliated / shamed (‫ )לא הכלמנו‬and never going without (‫לא פקדנו‬ ‫)מאומה‬. In this particular verse, ‫ טוב‬does appear as the literary marker of David’s very proper actions toward Nabal and his shepherds; an indication of David’s “proper treatment” of another in a “formal political relationship” and his expectation of the same in return.68 61 See too, Baldwin, 1 Samuel, 158, who states that David is essentially asking for payment for prior protection. Cf. Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 624. 62 McCarter, I Samuel, 397. 63 Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, “Israelite Sheepshearing and David’s Rise to Power,” Bib 87 (2006): 55–56. 64 Ibid., “Israelite Sheepshearing,” 55. 65 For further comment on this phrase, ‫יום טוב‬, see my comment on 2 Sam 13:23 in the following chapter (§ 7.3.3.3). 66 Bodi, “The Story of Samuel, Saul, and David,” 225 and 207. 67 “‫עיט‬,” HALOT 2:816. 68 McCarter, I Samuel, 322.

226

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

6.3.4.2 1 Sam 25:17 ‫ועתה דעי וראי מה תעשי כי כלתה הרעה אל אדנינו ועל כל ביתו והוא בן בליעל מדבר אליו‬ And now, know and see what you [Abigail] should do; for evil / calamity / disaster has been determined against our master, and for his house, because he is a son of worthlessness, no one can speak to him.

In this passage, the servant of Nabal urges Abigail to “know and see” (‫ )דעי וראי‬what her actions must be in order to curtail the “calamity / disaster / evil” (‫ )הרעה‬that has been determined against Nabal and his house by David.69 McCarter suggests that this permutation is best understood as “the unfavorable treatment of a partner in a formal relationship.”70 To provide further nuance, I suggest that this example is not the “unfavorable” treatment of another in an agreement in the sense that one party has trespassed the stipulations of the agreement; rather, ‫ הרעה‬is signifying the determined consequent result of the “unfavorable” treatment of another in an agreement (i. e., Nabal’s treatment of David). Thus, David is determined to bring ‫ הרעה‬upon Nabal and his house as retribution for Nabal’s ‘unfavorable’ treatment of David and his men. Abigail must find a way to thwart the impending calamity (‫ )רעה‬wrought at the hands of David against her “good for nothing” (v. 17, ‫הוא בן‬ ‫ )בליעל‬husband, Nabal. Abigail hurries, with gifts sent before her (vv. 18–20), to meet David in order to settle the score. Before Abigail arrives, the text recounts in v. 21 a statement that David had made earlier that accuses Nabal as having returned “evil” (‫ )רעה‬for “good” (‫)טובה‬.

6.3.4.3 1 Sam 25:21 ‫ודוד אמר אך לשקר שמרתי את כל אשר לזה במדבר ולא נפקד מכל אשר לו מאומה וישב לי רעה תחת טובה‬ Now David had been saying, “It was all in vain that I guarded all which belonged to this [person] in the wilderness, and nothing was lacking from all that he owned. But he has returned to me evil in place of good.”

In this instance, ‫ טובה‬and ‫ רעה‬refer specifically to Nabal’s actions of ‘payment’ to David for services rendered. Instead of giving proper and formal payment of ‫טובה‬ for David’s own ‫טובה‬, that is to say, ‫( שמרתי את כל אשר לזה במדבר‬v. 21aβγ), Nabal returned to David ‫רעה‬, “evil,” by refusing payment and spurning his (David’s) messengers. This firmly establishes that these permutated lexemes refer to the retributive act specifically. Does that mean that they do not refer to an ethical / ​ unethical or moral / immoral response by Nabal? It would be difficult here to

69 Note too, Exod 10:10. 70 McCarter, I Samuel, 341.

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

227

suggest that these lexemes do not refer to moral and ethical behavior at all.71 Obviously, Nabal’s actions are a breach of the ethical and moral norms assumed in this text. McCarter comments that David’s actions in protecting Nabal’s men and providing for them, “constituted ‘goodness,’ i. e. honorable and favorable behavior toward another,” which, for McCarter, places these permutated lexemes back into a specialized literary use of mutual dealings in formal relationships specific to the ANE.72 However, I contend that these narratives demonstrate how these lexemes account for the whole of the retributive process in the ANE, not just to ‘favorable and unfavorable’ behavior in formal relationships.73 Point in case, David is not going to return ‫ טובה‬for ‫רעה‬‎ (v. 18) as he did with Saul; rather, he is determined to bring disaster (‫הרעה‬, v. 17) upon Nabal as punishment for Nabal’s ethical breach between the two parties.74 Thus, ‫ הרעה‬refers generally to the oath he swears in v. 22 not to leave one male (‫משתין בקיר‬, “those who urinate on a wall”) alive to Nabal. Important to note is the sworn oath formula of v. 22a (‫כה יעשה אלהים לאיבי דוד וכה‬ ‫)יסיף‬, suggesting, so I contend, that David is determined to be the materialization of the divine curse against Nabal by returning ‫ רעה‬upon his (Nabal’s) own head.75 In vv. 22–25, Abigail lays out her case having fallen before the feet of David and asking that Nabal’s ‫עון‬, “guilt,” be her own.76 Then, in v. 27, she presents David with the gift that she brought to appease David and to relinquish the payment. That gift is referred to in the text as a “blessing” (‫ועתה הברכה הזאת אשר הביא שפחתך‬ ‫ ;)לאדני‬an appropriate response to David’s act of “blessing” Nabal (‫ )לברך‬as reported by Nabal’s messenger to Abigail in v. 14.77 Again, the language of cursing and blessing appears in this narrative context of retribution, and it is employed as a phenomenon happening between human parties. Then, in v. 28, Abigail states that no “evil” (‫ )רעה‬will ever be found in David.

6.3.4.4 1 Sam 25:28, 30–31 ‫ שא נא לפשע אמתך כי עשה יעשה־ה׳ לאדני בית נאמן כי־מלחמות ה׳ אדני נלחם ורעה לא־תמצא בך‬‎(28) ‫מימיך‬ ‫) ולא תהיה זאת לך‬31( ‫והיה כי־יעשה ה׳ לאדני ככל אשר־דבר את־הטובה עליך וצוך לנגיד על ישראל‬‎(30) ‫לפוקה ולמכשול לב לאדני ולשפך־דם חנם ולהושיע אדני לו והיטב ה׳ לאדני וזכרת את־אמתך‬ 71 This example explains why Wellhausen (§ 2.2.5.1) contends for the semantics of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as only being relegated to the beneficial and the harmful. However, the same is true of Budde’s suggestion (§ 2.2.8.1) that ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬do retain an ethical range, semantically speaking. 72 McCarter, I Samuel, 394. 73 Rosenberg makes a similar comment regarding ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1 Sam 24–25 (Rosenberg, King and Kin, 182). 74 Note too, Judg 15:3. 75 Cf. the MT’s, ‫לאיבי דוד‬, “to the enemies of David” in v. 22 with that of the LXX’s, τάδε ποιήσαι ὁ θεὸς τῷ Δαυιδ, “Thus God do to David.” 76 For v. 26, see § 6.3.4.7 below. 77 McCarter, I Samuel, 397.

228

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

(28) Please forgive your maiden’s trespass, for with certainty, Yhwh will establish a sure house for my Lord, because my Lord fights the battles of Yhwh, and no evil will be found in you all of your days. (30) When Yhwh has done to my lord all of the good which he spoke concerning you, and has appointed you prince over Israel, (31) then my lord will have no grief, nor an offended heart caused by the shedding of innocent blood or by my lord saving himself. And when Yhwh causes good for my lord, remember your servant.

In these particular verses, Abigail states that Yhwh will establish a true house for David (v. 28) suggesting that no ‫ רעה‬will be found in him all of his days. Abigail is trying to convince David that if he were to follow through with his intentions in bringing ‫ רעה‬upon Nabal, he would be found to have committed a moral ‘evil’ (‫)רעה‬, thus incurring the divine curse upon himself. This permutation is clearly a reference to ‘potential’ bloodguilt and to David’s ‘delivering’ of himself with his own hand (v. 31, ‫)ולשפך דם חנם ולהושיע אדני לו‬, and it demonstrates once again how it is that these permuted lexemes in this narrative oscillate between the evaluation of behavior and the consequent retributive results of said behavior.78 In vv. 30–31, Abigail requests of David that he remember her when Yhwh has brought upon David all the “good” (‫ )הטובה‬that Yhwh has promised (‫ ִ)ד ֵּבר‬him (v. 30) and too, when Yhwh has “caused good” (‫ )היטב‬for David.79 In this way, Abigail has reminded him that vengeance belongs to Yhwh alone (e.g., Lev 19:18), especially in this matter with Nabal and his household. David’s response in v. 32 is one of satisfaction in which he declares Abigail’s prudence and Abigail herself as “blessed” (‫)ברוך טעמך וברוכה‬. In v. 34, David states that Abigail’s actions are evidence of Yhwh having restrained David from bringing disaster upon Nabal and his house.

6.3.4.5 1 Sam 25:34 ‫ואולם חי־ה׳ אלהי ישראל אשר מנעני מהרע אתך כי לולי מהרת ותבאתי לקראתי כי אם־נותר לנבל עד־אור‬ ‫הבקר משתין בקיר‬ For surely as Yhwh, the God of Israel, lives, who has restrained me from harming you, for if it had not been that you came quickly to meet me, there would not have remained to Nabal even one male by the light of morning.

In this passage, David claims that Yhwh has restrained him from bringing “harm” (‫ )מהרע אתך‬upon Abigail and upon Nabal’s men. Clearly, this permutation refers to the retributive act itself and not to any ethical or moral infraction. In v. 35, David states that Abigail may return to her house in peace (‫)שלום‬, upon which, she finds Nabal “good of heart” (‫ )לב נבל טוב‬and having a kingly feast (v. 36).80 The 78 See e.g., Pedersen, Life and Culture, 423–424; McCarter, I Samuel, 323. Cf. 1 Kgs 8:66. 79 See also, Num 10:29 and 32; Deut 26:11; 30:5. 80 See my comment on 2 Sam 13 in the following chapter (§ 7.3.3).

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

229

next morning, Abigail shared with Nabal all that had happened (‫)הדברים האלה‬ and Nabal’s heart died within him (‫וימת לבו בקרבו‬, v. 37). Ten days later, Yhwh struck (‫ )ויגף‬Nabal and he died (‫וימת‬, v. 38). Clearly, the entirety of the narrative is structured according to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, with Nabal receiving his just deserts during a ‫יום טוב‬, which is indication that Yhwh has brought forth justice in this situation. Furthermore, the character David also interprets Nabal’s death as retribution from Yhwh in v. 39.81

6.3.4.6 1 Sam 25:39 ‫וישמע דוד כי מת נבל ויאמר ברוך ה׳ אשר רב את־ריב חרפתי מיד נבל ואת־עבדו חשך מרעה ואת רעת נבל‬ ‫השיב ה׳ בראשו וישלח דוד וידבר באביגיל לקחתה לו לאשה‬ When David heard that Nabal had died, he said, “Blessed be Yhwh, who has avenged the shame inflicted upon me from the hand of Nabal, and restrained his servant from [inflicting] punishment (‫)הער‬, for Yhwh has returned the evil (‫ )הער‬of Nabal upon his head!” Then, David sent and spoke with Abigail in order to take her to be his wife.

The two nominal permutations of ‫ רעע‬in this verse clearly demonstrate the retribution principle. On the one hand, David suggests that Yhwh has kept him from inflicting “evil,” (‫ )רעה‬by contending (‫ )רב‬on David’s behalf in this ‫ ריב‬with Nabal. Regarding the analysis so far, I suggest that this permutation of ‫ רעה‬refers to both 1) the act of administering “punishment,” i. e., retributive harm (‫)רעה‬, but also 2) the act of bringing bloodguilt upon himself (a moral ‘evil’). Moreover, David then suggests that Yhwh has returned Nabal’s “evil” (‫ )רעה‬upon his own head (‫)רעת נבל השיב ה׳ בראשו‬, which is a reference to vv. 37–38; a “calamity” (‫)רעה‬ for Nabal, but not by human hands.82 Finally, it must be stressed that Nabal’s “evil actions,” as stated by David, were the actions of shaming him and his men (‫)רב את־ריב חרפתי מיד נבל ואת־עבדו‬. David then proposes to Abigail in order to make her his wife (v. 40), which is indubitably a blessing from Yhwh.

81 For ‘structuring element’ of Hebrew historiography, see § 3.2.2 above. 82 See too, Judg 9:56–57, wherein divine retribution is accomplished through human hands and curse (e.g., v. 57, ‫)קללת יותם בן־ירבעל‬. Cf. 1 Kgs 2:44, wherein Yhwh’s returning of ‫ רעה‬upon Shimei’s head is materialized through the hands of a human, i. e., Benaiah son of Jehoiada (1 Kgs 2:46). Regarding blessing and cursing in 1 Kgs 2:44–45, compare 2:44b with 2:45a: (2:44b) ‫והשיב‬ ‫ה׳ את־רעתך בראשך‬, “Now Yhwh is bringing your unfaithfulness (‫רעה‬, “evil,”) upon your head,” and, (2:45a) ‫והמלך שלמה ברוך‬, “But King Solomon is blessed (‫ברוך‬, “blessed”). Compare Jer 23:2.

230

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

6.3.4.7 1 Sam 25:26 ‫ועתה אדני חי ה׳ וחי נפשך אשר מנעך ה׳ מבוא בדמים והושע ידך לך ועתה יהיו כנבל איביך והמבקשים אל‬ ‫אדני רעה‬ Now, my Lord, as Yhwh lives and as you live, because Yhwh has withheld you from coming into bloodguilt and has delivered you from your hand gaining the victory for yourself. Now, may your enemies and all those who seek calamity / harm / evil against my Lord be as Nabal.83

McCarter has proposed that v. 26 is out of place in the narrative. He contends that it is more logical to be placed between vv. 41 and 42, during Abigail’s response to the marriage proposal of David. Without giving any sure agreement on the matter, I am following McCarter’s suggestion. In any case, this permutation is quite straightforward, but it does show how ‫ רעה‬functions here to refer to “harm / calamity,” while at the same time, it demonstrates the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution active in the lives of the characters. Abigail wishes that the enemies of David and all those who seek his harm (‫ )רעה‬would become like Nabal, that is to say, become as her husband who received “evil” (‫ )רעה‬upon his own head in the retribution of Yhwh (v. 39).

6.3.4.8 Summary The permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1 Samuel 25 corroborate the overwhelming evidence that they are often employed in these narratives to refer to the extremes of human and divine retribution as defined in this work and as observed throughout these narratives. In considering 1 Samuel 25 as support for interpreting ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN, the obvious interpretation is the divine knowledge for administering retribution as discussed and shown through this exegetical work.

6.3.5 2 Sam 2:6 ‫ועתה יעש ה׳ עמכם חסד ואמת וגם אנכי אעשה אתכם הטובה הזאת אשר עשיתם הדבר הזה‬ “May Yhwh treat you with covenant-love and faithfulness, and also, I will reward (‫ )הבוטה‬you greatly for this thing that you have done.”

As a similar example to how ‫ טובה‬may be functioning, we must consider 2 Sam 2:6. This passage was cited by Hillers (see § 6.3.1 above) regarding ‫ הטובה‬as referring to “a treaty of friendship.” There is difficulty in understanding the translation and 83 McCarter, I Samuel, 399–400 (n. to v. 33).

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

231

function of ‫ הטובה הזאת‬in this passage. On the one hand, it could refer to the making of a formal treaty by David with the men of Jabesh-Gildead due to the death of Saul, to whom they were loyal (‫ )חסד‬even after his death.84 Yet, on the other hand, it may prove difficult to understand how such a “political treaty would have been practicable in the existing situation.”85 I suggest that there is a more reasonable solution as to why the text has employed ‫ טובה‬here and that is because it refers both to the ‘friendship’ and to the consequent ‘favors’ of the friendship, which is the most straightforward reason as to why an agreement is ever established in the first place. In this instance, it is better to understand ‫ טובה‬as functioning in the sense of David ‘rewarding’ the men of Jabesh-Gilead with the same sort of ‫ חסד‬that they have shown to Saul. Put another way, David is returning the ‘good’ thing that they did in showing ‫ חסד‬to Saul in kindness (‫ )אשר עשיתם הדבר הזה‬calling it ‫ ;הטובה הזאת‬a reference to the ‘goodness’ in showing covenant-faithful love to Saul even after his death.86 Yet, for David to show ‫ חסד‬in kind to the men of Jabesh-Gilead assumes the formation of an agreement and formal relationship at the most basic of levels. Thus, this permutation of ‫ טובה‬here in 2 Sam 2:6 demonstrates clearly how the retribution principle functions in the midst of formal political relationships, and more importantly, it shows how ‫ טובה‬functions in relation to the human character in a similar way to how it functions when Yhwh is the subject or causation of this extreme.

6.3.6 1 Kgs 20:7 ‫ויקרא מלך־ישראל לכל־זקני הארץ ויאמר דעו־נא וראו כי רעה זה מבקש כי־שלח אלי לנשי ולבני ולכספי‬ ‫ולזהבי מנעתי ממנו‬ Then the King of Israel called for all of the elders of the land, and he said to them: “Know and see that this [man] is seeking punishment [against us]. For he sent to me for my wives and my sons, for my silver and my gold; I did not withhold [any of his request] from him!”

In 1 Kgs 20:7, Ahab calls an assembly of the elders of Israel to seek advice in regards to his present predicament with Ben-Hadad. Ahab retells the situation, stating at the very end that he did not withhold any of Ben-Hadad’s request (‫)מנעתי ממנו‬, thus indicating his compliance to the vassal relationship (i. e., v. 4).87 In this way, Ahab perceives Ben-Hadad to be seeking ‫רעה‬, presumably against him and Israel. 84 Hillers, “A Note on some Treaty Terminology,” 47; McCarter, II Samuel, 85. 85 Arnold A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 29. 86 See too, Judg 8:35: ‫ולא עשו חסד עם בית ירבעל גדעון ככל הטובה אשר עשה עם ישראל‬. 87 For v. 4 as indication of a vassal relationship with Ahab as the subordinate, see Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 188; cf. Cogan, I Kings, 463.

232

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

The translations vary regarding the noun ‫ רעה‬in this verse. Some simply translate the phrase as “seeking trouble”; others try to employ a moral quality to the noun, i. e., “the evil this man wants to do”; and even one translation reads, “picking a quarrel.”88 I suggest that the idea behind the use of ‫ רעה‬in this passage is more in line with punishment due to the context of the human suzerainty and vassal relationship.89 I posit that this interpretation is correct precisely because the other translations—although quite in line with the semantic meaning of this particular noun—do not give a full accounting of the narrative action. Ahab’s defense to the elders is that he has not withheld Ben-Hadad’s formal request in 20:3; however, the subsequent request by Ben-Hadad in 20:5–6 forces Ahab and Israel to be in a state of disobedience to the vassal relationship, thus the subsequent ‫ רעה‬to come. In other words, Ben-Hadad is seeking legal retribution against Ahab, even though he is intent either way on plundering Samaria.90 The elders’ response to Ahab in 20:8 is that he is not to obey or to comply (‫ )אל־תשמע ולוא תאבה‬to Ben-Hadad’s second demand. In so doing, the response of Ben-Hadad in 20:10 confirms my argument in that he swears an oath declaring his military might as retribution from the gods against Ahab for disobedience to the vassal relationship: ‫וישלח אליו בן־הדד ויאמר כה־יעשון לי אלהים וכה יוספו אם־ישפק עפר שמרון לשעלים לכל־העם אשר‬ ‫ברגלי‬ Then Ben-Hadad sent to him [Ahab], and he said: “Thus will the gods do to me and so multiply it even more, if the dust of Samaria does [not] provide a handful for all the army who is at my feet.”

Notice that Ben-Hadad’s statement discloses the force of “oath and curse” for disobedience to covenantal obligations and that it was assumed to be “supervised by the gods.”91 Thus, my suggestion that the noun ‫ רעה‬in 1 Kgs 20:7 is to be interpreted as legal retribution is sound. Furthermore, the covenantal curse is also within the semantic range of ‫ רעה‬due to Ben-Hadad’s oath in 20:10, which is a response to Ahab’s disobedience to the vassal relationship.92

88 For “trouble,” see NRSV, NET; for “evil,” see JPS, CEB; for “picking a quarrel,” see REB. 89 See Gray, I & II Kings, 422, n. 3 f. 90 See also, Ps 38:13, 20. 91 See e.g., van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction, 49. 92 So Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 188. Note too that in 20:7, ‫דעו־נא ּוראו‬, “Know and see!” is literarily reminiscent of the opening of the eyes motif in the EN.

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

233

6.3.7 2 Kgs 10:5 ‫וישלח אשר־על־הבית ואשר על־העיר והזקנים והאמנים אל־יהוא לאמר עבדך אנחנו וכל אשר־תאמר אלינו‬ ‫נעשה לא־נמליך איש הטוב בעיניך עשה‬ Then, the chief steward of the palace, the ruler of the city, the elders and the faithful ones, sent to Jehu, saying: “We are your servants; and everything that you command us, we will do. We will not make any man king; do whatever is good in your eyes.”93

The immediate context of this phrase, ‫טוב בעיניך עשה‬, suggests that it is situated within a legal situation. In his article entitled, “The History of a Legal Formula: kōl ʾašer-ḥāp̱ēṣ ʿāśāh,” Avi Hurvitz suggests that the phrase, ‫הטוב בעיניך עשה‬, is legal terminology that “constitutes a binding contract.”94 His suggestion is based upon the phrase, ‫כל אשר־חפץ עשה‬, “he does whatever he pleases,” which, according to Hurvitz, is a “legal formula whose Sitz im Leben is to be sought in the domain of jurisprudence.”95 Moreover, this same phrase appears as technical terminology in Aramaic legal documents, holding the connotation of ceding one’s volitional will over to another, especially in the context of legal agreement.96 The ceding of one’s will to another is the agreement to receive the obligations of the newly constituted vassal-ship. So it is then that in 2 Kgs 10:5, the rulers of Jezreel have expressed “their obsequiousness,” making Jehu king by submission to his will.97 Accordingly, they have now become obligated partners in a covenantal relationship to Jehu and are obligated to do all that he commands.98 Therefore, in 2 Kgs 10:5, the Hebrew root lexeme ‫ טוב‬is employed in the speech of covenantal agreement between two parties, wherein one party has agreed to doing the will of another, which is described in the text by the legal phrase, ‫הטוב בעיניך עשה‬. Most important for this study is to note 93 For the phrase, ‫אשר על הבית‬, see Scott C. Layton, “The Steward in Ancient Israel: A Study of Hebrew (’ăšer) ‘al-habbayit in Its near Eastern Setting,” JBL 109 (1990): 633–649; Donald T. Ariel and Joseph Naveh, “Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in the Upper Galilee,” BASOR 329 (2003): esp. 62–64. 94 E.g., Ps 115:3; Avi Hurvitz, “The History of a Legal Formula: kōl ʾᵃšer-ḥāp̱ēṣ ʿāśāh,” VT 32 (1982): 265; Jonas C. Greenfield, “Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty Insciptions,” in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, eds. Shalom M. Paul, Michael E. Stones and Avital Pinnick (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:4, n. 9, who suggests that a similar phrase in Josh 9:25 is an example of “vassals surrendering to their sovereign.” Regarding the Gibeonite covenant and treaty and its legal background, see I. M. Grintz, “The Treaty with the Gibeonites,” [Hebrew] Zion 26 (1961): 69–84, and F. Charles Fensham, “The Treaty Between Israel and the Gibeonites,” BA 27 (1964): 96–100. Cf. Gen 20:15; 28:8. 95 Hurvitz, “The History of a Legal Formula,” 258. 96 Ibid., “The History of a Legal Formula,” 264–265. 97 Cohn, 2 Kings, 71. 98 Ibid., 2 Kings, 72.

234

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

the obvious, namely, that within the ancient Near Eastern context, if the agreed to party in this agreement is disobedient to Jehu’s command, then said party can expect Jehu’s retributive act of ‫רעע‬, for said party would have committed an act that was “evil,” ‫רעע‬, in the eyes of Jehu.99 Obviously, such a statement regarding Jehu and his eyes is hypothetical and not based in the textual data. Nevertheless, it helps to reinforce the greater phenomenon of reward and punishment (retribution) in its ancient Near Eastern legal context, especially as it pertains to the Hebrew root lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in these specific examples.

6.3.8 1 Kings 22 As a closing example to this section, I will now turn to 1 Kings 22 and the permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as examples of both human and divine influence over the prophetic pronouncements made in this narrative. The context of the narrative concerns the end of the reign of Ahab at the Battle of Ramoth Gilead. What will transpire in the narrative of 1 Kings 22 is the covenantal curse against Ahab, which finds fulfillment in 1 Kgs 22:38.100 Of greatest concern for this research is to note that the narrative segment of 1 Kings 22 is the fulfillment of Yhwh’s curse against Ahab for his covenantal crimes (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:20, ‫)התמכרך לעשות הרע בעיני ה׳‬.

6.3.8.1 1 Kgs 22:8 ‫ויאמר מלך־ישראל אל־יהושפט עוד איש־אחד לדרש את־ה׳ מאתו ואני שנאתיו כי־לא־יתנבא עלי טוב כי‬ ‫אם־רע מיכיהו בן־ימלה ויאמר יהושפט אל־יאמר המלך כן‬ And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat: “There is still one man through whom [we can] enquire of Yhwh. But I hate him because he never prophesies over me good, only evil; Micaiah son of Imlah.” Then Jehoshaphat said: “O King, do not say such a thing!”

99 See too, 2 Kgs 10:3: ‫וראיתם הטוב והישר‬, “See for yourselves who is the most faithful (good and upright) from the sons of your master.” This short phrase ‫ הטוב והישר‬only appears in Deut 6:18, 12:28, 2 Kgs 10:3 and 2 Chr 14:1; 31:20. Weinfeld suggests that “‫ ”טוב‬was added to the phrase ‫ והישר בעיני ה׳‬for stylistic purposes, “in order to create measure for measure: do good (ṭwb) in order that it may go well (yyṭb) with you” [Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 347]. Jehu’s sarcasm continues from 10:2, suggesting that they should “see” who it is from Ahab’s sons that is most obedient to Yhwh’s covenantal obligations, ceding their will to this obedient son of Ahab by putting him on the throne of Israel. Dtr is stressing that no son of Ahab can ensure that it will go well with Samaria regarding this coming conflict with Jehu (so Deut 4:40; 5:16, 29, 33; 6:3, 18, 24‎ (‫;)לטוב לנו‬‎ 10:13 (‫טוב לך‬‎); 12:25,‎ 28bα (‫)למען ייטב לך‬‎; 19:13; 22:7. See too, the phrase, ‫ויטב‬ ‫לכם‬, “and it will go well with you,” given on oath by Gedaliah in 2 Kgs 25:24. Cf. 1 Sam 12:25. 100 See Cogan’s comment on this chapter (Cogan, I Kings, 496–498).

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

235

In this passage, there is one occurrence of each of the Hebrew roots ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬. The context in which the two words under investigation appear are in a narrative that is contrasting the prophetic oracles of “nationalistic prophets” with that of Yhwh’s prophetic oracle.101 When Jehoshaphat requests for a prophet of Yhwh, in order to ascertain his will, Ahab responds that there is one prophet, Micaiah son of Imlah. The prophetic oracle is assumed by Ahab and Jehoshaphat to report the will of Yhwh as it pertains to the coming battle. Within that framework, the permutated Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬are employed by the text to signify Yhwh’s legislated outcome revealed through the prophetic oracle. In this way, the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 22:8 clearly represent the extremes of the blessing and the curse of Yhwh because Ahab and Jehoshaphat are seeking knowledge of the future outcome of their military campaign against Aram, i. e., Deut 28:7 (the blessing) and Deut 28:25 (the curse). The following exegesis of the narrative will show that the blessing and the curse is precisely to what the text is referring by employing the words ‘good and bad.’

6.3.8.2 1 Kgs 22:13 ‫והמלאך אשר־הלך לקרא מיכיהו דבר אליו לאמר הנה־נא דברי הנביאים פה־אחד טוב אל־המלך יהי־נא דבריך‬ ‫כדבר אחד מהם ודברת טוב‬ Then the messenger who had gone to call Micaiah, spoke to him, saying: “Behold, the words of the prophets are of one good declaration to the king. Please let your words be as one word with them. Thus, you will speak a blessing [‫]טוב‬.102

In 1 Kgs 22:13, Micaiah is commanded by the messenger, who had been sent to call for him, to recognize that the prophetic oracle of the prophets is ‘favorable’ (‫ )פה־אחד טוב‬to the king, which means that the words of the prophets are in one accord and should be understood as an announcement of Yhwh’s legislation that will result, for Ahab, in the blessing of military victory.103 In order to corroborate 101 It is safe to say that Jehoshaphat is seeking a prophet that can seek (‫ )דרש‬the will of Yhwh, so Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 198. For a similar tradition of prophetic oracles, see Abraham Malamat, “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, eds. S. Dean McBride, Paul D. Hanson and Patrick D. Miller (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 33–52, esp. 42: “The crisis factor was certainly one of the principal forces engendering prophetic manifestations both in Mari and in Israel. However, in contrast to the Bible with its prophecies of doom and words of admonition against the king and the people, the messages at Mari were usually optimistic and sought to please the king rather than rebuke and alert him.” So Monson, “1 Kings,” 3:92–93. 102 For my translation of ‫ פה־אחד‬as “one declaration,” see “‫פה‬,” HALOT 3:915, no. 8; cf. Cogan, I Kings, 491, and his translation of “unanimous” or literally, “one mouth.” He references the cognate pû ištēn in Akkadian which “connotes action in unison and common cause,” citing CAD Š/1, 140b–141a. 103 E.g., Deut 28:7.

236

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

their prophetic oracle, Micaiah is instructed also to speak a ‘favorable’ word (‫ודברת‬ ‫)טוב‬, thus assuring Ahab that Yhwh’s enacted legislation will be ‫( טוב‬Yhwh’s blessing of military victory [Deut 28:7]) and not ‫( רע‬Yhwh’s curse of military defeat [Deut 28:25]). Micaiah’s sworn oath (‫ )שבע‬in 22:14 is a declaration that he will only speak Yhwh’s word of adjudication when he is made privy to it.104 These two permutations of the Hebrew root lexeme ‫ טוב‬in 1 Kgs 22:13 are textual signifiers of the blessing of Yhwh, revealed through the prophetic oracle.

6.3.8.3 1 Kgs 22:18 ‫ויאמר מלך־ישראל אל־יהשפט הלוא אמרתי אליך לוא־יתנבא עלי טוב כי אם־רע‬ Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat: “Did I not tell say to you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?”

In 1 Kgs 22:18, the same phrase that appears in 22:8 occurs here as well (‫לוא־יתנבא‬ ‫)עלי טוב כי אם־רע‬. Ahab’s response to Jehoshaphat is a reaction to the prophetic oracle of Micaiah in which Ahab’s outcome is revealed to be one of military defeat. In his vision, Micaiah reports (22:17) that he sees Israel as “sheep that do not have a shepherd” (‫ ;)כצאן אשר אין־להם רעה‬indication that king Ahab will be killed during the battle.105 This prophetic oracle is interpreted by Ahab to mean that Yhwh’s adjudication against him will be ‫( רע‬the curse) and not ‫( טוב‬the blessing); a clear example of the author’s employment of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution.106

6.3.8.4 1 Kgs 22:23 ‫ועתה הנה נתן ה׳ רוח שקר בפי כל־נביאיך אלה וה׳ ִד ֶּבר עליך רעה‬ And now, behold: Yhwh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; for Yhwh has declared upon you evil.

In 1 Kgs 22:23, the permutation of ‫ רעע‬appears in a nominal form, i. e., ‫רעה‬, and signifies Yhwh’s divine pronouncement / punishment against Ahab.107 Likewise, 1 Kgs 22:23a contrasts the divine oracle of Ahab’s prophets (‫ )פה־אחד טוב‬with that of Micaiah (‫)וה׳ ִד ֶּבר עליך רעה‬, thus demonstrating that the originator of the blessing

104 So Gray, I & II Kings, 451; Brichto, The Problem of Curse, 48; cf. Aitken, The Semantics, 50. 105 That the Hebrew word ‫ רֹעֶ ה‬is referring to the king and is integral to BH, see Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40–55, VTSup 139 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 90. 106 See too, 1 Sam 16:14–17, 23; 18:10. 107 Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 200: “The Lord in truth decrees not only good but evil.”

Good and Bad as Technical Language in Formal Relationships    

237

and the curse is Yhwh. The curse in Micaiah’s prophetic oracle is corroborated by Ahab’s death in the battle at Ramoth Gilead. More specifically, the curse of Yhwh is confirmed in 1 Kgs 22:35, wherein Ahab’s blood begins to fill his chariot, and too, it is given further expression in 1 Kgs 22:38: ‫וישטף את־הרכב על ברכת שמרון וילקו הכלבים את־דמו והזנות רחצו כדבר ה׳ אשר ִּד ֶּבר‬ And they rinsed out the chariot at the pool of Samaria. Then the dogs licked up his blood and the prostitutes bathed in it as Yhwh had spoken.108

This reference to dogs licking up the blood of Ahab is an indication of the covenantal curse against Ahab, which is an expression of the shared motifs in this ancient Near Eastern Weltanschauung that interprets this sort of death as being experienced by those who are “cursed” by the gods.109 For example, in VTE, II. lines 612–15, there is a similar curse relevant to our passage here in 1 Kgs 22:38: (612) [šum-ma at-tu-nu ina libbi a-d]e-e an-nu-ti šá mAš-šur-aḫ u-iddina, šar māt Aš-šur, [u mārē]-šú, mār mārē-šú [ta-ḫ a]-ṭa-a-ni, KI.MIN ki-i šá iṣmugirru an-ni-tu a-di sa-si-šá (613) ina dāmē ra-aḫ -ṣa-tu-u-ni, ki-i ḫ a-an-ni-e (614) ina qabli nakrī-ku-nu iṣmudirrī-ku-nu (615) ina (libbi) dāmē šá ra-me-ni-ku-nu li-ra-aḫ -ṣa. (612) ([If you should sin against] this [treaty] of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria, [and of] his sons and grandsons), ditto; just as this chariot is spattered (613) with blood up to its base-board, so (614) may your chariots in the midst of your enemy (615) be spattered with your own blood.110

Clearly, the reference to Ahab’s death in 1 Kgs 22:35 and 22:38 is to be understood as Yhwh’s curse against him for his disobedience to covenantal obligations. I suggest that ‫ רעה‬in this passage is best understood as the textual marker of divine punishment as retribution for covenantal infractions. Most important to note is the influence that both the human characters and Yhwh are thought to have over the extremes of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in a context of divine retribution, and too, that the 108 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 134, n. 1: “The phrase ‫ שטף‬does not refer to the washing of the chariot, as is generally asserted, but refers to the blood which flooded … the chariot in which Ahab stood, hence the use of the verb in singular.” See too, Wiseman, “VTE,” 89, n. 613 and Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 134, n. 3, in regards to the meaning of Akkadian raḫāṣu, “flooding, rinsing,” and its equivalent to ‫שטף‬. 109 See, e.g., Cogan, I Kings, 495: “Yet this alternate tradition on the demise of Ahab remains just that: a description of the king’s disgraceful end that was not harmonized with the Elijah tales.” See too, Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 202; cf. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction, 36; Othniel Margalith, “The kelābīm of Ahab,” VT 34 (1984): 228–232; Michael H. Floyd, “The ‫( ַמ ָשּׂא‬Maśśāʾ) as a Type of Prophetic,” JBL 121 (2002): esp., 410–411. Cf. Elijah’s prophecy at 1 Kgs 21:19. 110 For this transliteration and translation, see Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:998–999; cf. Weinfeld’s translation: “Just as this chariot with its baseboard is flooded with blood, just so, in battle with your enemy, may they flood your chariots with your own blood” (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 134); Wiseman, “VTE,” 76.

238

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

military defeat of Ahab is interpreted by this text as divine retribution as spoken by Micaiah.

6.3.8.5 Summary These permutated lexemes of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬demonstrate how the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is central to the employment of these lexemes in these narratives. Therefore, I contend that by considering this text in the interpretation of the EN’s ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, the obvious interpretation is the divine knowledge for administering retribution.

6.4 The Wisdom of Solomon in 1 Kings 3 In the previous sections, the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬were shown to carry the semantic function of the process of retribution in the technical language of formal relationships, both in the inscriptions from Sefîre and in the HB. In the following section, I will consider Solomon’s request for wisdom from Yhwh that occurs in 1 Kings 3, which as a chapter, holds one of the most oft-cited passages by commentators regarding our term, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬.

6.4.1 1 Kgs 3 Solomon’s request for wisdom from Yhwh as described in 1 Kgs 3:7–9 has often been assumed to be of prime importance for any discussion regarding ‫הדעת טוב‬ ‫ ורע‬in the EN.111 The reason that this is so is because of the apposition ‫ טוב לרע‬that appears in 1 Kgs 3:9a. Before we turn to my exegesis regarding the two occurrences of ‫ טוב‬in this chapter, I must consider the category to which the wisdom of Solomon, spoken of in 1 Kgs 3:9, belongs. In so doing, I will suggest that the narrative’s use of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬is consistent with my claim that these words are employed in a context of human and divine retribution.

6.4.1.1 Solomon’s Wisdom: Judicial or General? To begin, I must first highlight one verse that is part of Solomon’s request for discernment in order to orient the overview of the commentators that is to follow. The text of 1 Kgs 3:9 reads:

111 See e.g., Davies, “Discerning Between Good and Evil,” 53.

The Wisdom of Solomon in 1 Kings 3    

239

‫ונתת לעבדך לב שמע לשפט את־עמך להבין בין טוב לרע כי מי יוכל לשפט את־עמך הכבד הזה‬ “And give to your servant a hearing heart to judge your people, to discern between good and bad. For who is able to judge this your great people?”

In 1955, Porteous suggested that the divine wisdom of Solomon in 1 Kgs 3:9 should be interpreted by contrasting it with that of Egyptian political thought, which understood Pharaoh as a divine being who “maintains the harmonious order of nature and human life.”112 For Porteous, the king of Israel, who was not considered divine like in Egypt, was to be given the special task of “ensuring the obedience of his people” to the stipulations of the covenant with the God of Israel, while at the same time obeying said stipulations himself and striving “to help his people to meet their covenanted obligations.”113 He goes on to argue that despite the democratization of wisdom as it pertained to the governance of life in general in ancient Israel and the ANE, wisdom continued to be assumed as a required essential for the offices of government. In this way, Porteous suggests that the divine wisdom granted to Solomon was precisely for ‫משפט‬, similar to the same concept in Egyptian (Maat), yet different in that it centered upon the judicial control through discriminating discernment and subsequent retribution to the people’s obligations to Yhwh’s covenant. For our purposes, I suggest that Porteous has raised an important point as it pertains to Israel’s covenantal obligations to Yhwh and this narrative episode regarding Solomon’s request for wisdom. During the same year as Porteous, Scott argued that the translation of ‫ לשפט‬in 3:9 as, “to govern,” is far too broad, suggesting a more precise translation in line with a “particular capacity to judge justly.”114 He adds further that it is peculiar that this “aspect of royal wisdom,” i. e., judicial wisdom, is absent from later chapters in Kings. Less specific is Martin Noth, who argues that the wisdom alluded to in the 1 Kgs 3 narrative, although having a judicial function, is a knowledge that encompasses the whole field of royal decisions. Noth sees the ‫לב שמע‬, “hearing heart,” as a motif of Egyptian origin and so affixes the wisdom of Solomon to the

112 Norman W. Porteous, “Royal Wisdom,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley, eds. Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas, VTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 251. He quotes Ivan Engnell: “The king is identical with the high god and hereby with the universal order, with Cosmos, that he upholds by virtue of his functioning ritual…. His chief task is not to be executive king-earthly king, but law-king-sky-god,” see Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967), 15. 113 Porteous, “Royal Wisdom,” 251. 114 Robert B. Y. Scott, “Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley, eds. Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas, VTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 270–271.

240

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

complex notion of the power of order in Egypt, that is to say, Maat, “Justice” (die Ordnungsmacht der Maat).115 Over a decade later, Clark suggested that the context of the narrative in 1 Kings 3 is of fundamental consequence when approaching the topic of Solomon’s “divine” wisdom. For Clark, Solomon’s “divine characteristic” (his wisdom) defined by most commentators of his day as the “more general power of human discernment,” is imprecise when considered against the narrative context of the story. According to Clark, and contrary to said consensus of his day, the divine wisdom is to be interpreted as a judicial knowledge since that is precisely the context of the narrative. Clark suggests that Solomon demonstrates this wisdom on a practical level through the administration of justice on behalf of two prostitutes in the latter part of the narrative (e.g., 1 Kgs 3:16–28).116 In addition to this interpretation of wisdom, Clark found it peculiar that the Hebrew roots ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬appear juxtaposed to the legal terminology of ‫בין‬,‎ ‫שפט‬, and ‫ ;שמע‬thus, he argues, discernment between good and bad must be of a judicial quality. I agree with Clark. Yet, I suggest that his conclusion has not been weighed within the framework of divine retribution in the ANE. Discernment between ‘good and bad’ is only one part of the process in carrying forth ‫ משפט‬in ancient Israel. Gray argues that the hearing heart motif, i. e., ‫לב שמע‬, is best accepted as judgement rather than as ruling. He bases his argument on the assumption that the root ‫שפט‬, similar in meaning in the HB to its cognate in Ugaritic (tpṭ), can have both the meaning of “to rule,” as in the sense of protecting Yhwh’s community from the “menace of the political forces of disorder,” as well as the meaning of “to judge,” in the sense of hearing cases in order to make a judgment.117 Simply because the narrative moves in this direction with Solomon hearing a case, Gray argues for the latter, which is to say, a kind of wisdom to hear cases and to make a judgment. I am in agreement with Gray’s conclusions. In 1972, Weinfeld commented concerning 1 Kgs 3:9 that to Dtr, true wisdom “is the intellectual faculty which enables man to distinguish between good and evil in the judicial sphere.”118 Likewise, Mendenhall stated that Solomon’s wisdom was at least accepted by the people as a divinely inspired “verdict of power.”119 Different than Mendenhall is Mettinger who sees in the divine endowment of wisdom an explicit judicial category, one that he describes as a “judicial charisma.”120 He 115 Noth, Könige, 51. For good and evil in ancient Egyptian and its relation to Maat, see esp., Schipper, “Gut und Böse,” 8–16, 26. 116 Clark, “Legal Background,” 268. He bases this argument on the people’s response in 3:28. 117 Gray, I & II Kings, 126; Marzal, “The Provincial Governor,” 186–217. 118 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 246–47. 119 Mendenhall, “The Shady Side of Wisdom,” 324. 120 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, ConBOT 8 (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 240. Porteous uses charisma as a description as well, see Porteous, “Royal Wisdom,” 248.

The Wisdom of Solomon in 1 Kings 3    

241

suggests that this definition is best suited for the narrative based upon the appearance of the motif of the ‫לב שמע‬, “hearing heart.” Mettinger’s discussion regarding the construction ‫ שמע בין‬will prove helpful for my argument (see § 6.4.1.2.a below).121 In 1985, DeVries suggested that the wisdom that Solomon received from Yhwh is unquestionably of a judicious nature, one that permits Solomon to “identify good and evil” amongst the people in order “to adjudicate among them.”122 Likewise, Cogan sees the faculty of “listening” (uznu in Akkadian) as the “source of wisdom” in ancient Near Eastern thought.123 He suggests that to distinguish between good and bad is synonymous with the “godlike quality” of sound judgment. For Cogan, this passage is similar to the Tekoite’s description of David in 2 Sam 14:17, i. e., that David is like the angel of Yhwh (see § 7.3.4.2 below).124 In any case, Cogan does argue that in this particular context, the wisdom spoken of is of a judicial category; an interpretation that finds support in 1 Kgs 3:16–28 and the judgment therein rendered by Solomon. Although this is not an exhaustive analysis of the scholarly literature, I conclude that the request of Solomon is to be interpreted within a judicial category. Moreover, and most important for my study, is to note that 1) Porteous understands that the purpose of the king’s divine wisdom is to ensure that the people remain within their covenantal obligations to Yhwh (so Machinist’s “societal rules and social conventions” [§ 2.3.3.1]); that 2) Clark suggests that the appearance of the Hebrew roots ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬within the judicial context of 1 Kgs 3:9 is significant for the interpretation of the knowledge of good and evil in the EN (§ 2.3.1.1); and that 3) Mettinger and DeVries both perceive the request of Solomon as wisdom for the purpose of adjudication and arbitration. Let us now turn to ‫טוב‬ and ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 3:9.

121 Mettinger, King and Messiah, 240; cf. Keith W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 12 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979), 158–63, who suggests that the divine wisdom of Solomon is tantamount to the ‘general skills of leadership’ (158–159). 122 DeVries, 1 Kings, 53–55. David Carr suggests Solomon’s wisdom to be godlike and possibly possessed by some humans, see Carr, “The Politics of Textual Subversion,” 589. Whatever Knoppers perceived the wisdom of Solomon to be, he most ardently recognizes that the divine wisdom will authorize him “to rule effectively without recourse to war,” see Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam, ed. Frank Moore Cross, HSM 52, 2 vols. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 1:82, n. 46. 123 Cogan, I Kings, 1:187; CAD Š/2, 46a. 124 Ibid., I Kings, 1:187.

242

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

6.4.1.2 1 Kgs 3:9 ‫ונתת לעבדך לב שמע לשפט את־עמך להבין בין טוב לרע כי מי יוכל לשפט את־עמך הכבד הזה‬ “And give to your servant a hearing heart to judge your people, to understand between good and bad. For who is able to judge this your great people?”

In this passage, the phrase ‫לב שמע לשפט‬, “a hearing heart to judge,” is the object of Solomon’s request. Following Hoftijzer’s comment upon 2 Sam 14:5–17 (see § 7.3.4.2 below), I suggest that the Hebrew root lexeme, ‫שמע‬, could be understood with the connotation of “hearing in order to grant.”125 The act of hearing includes the reaction to the hearing (so Hoftijzer), which results in ‫ ;משפט‬a clear reference to the retribution principle. Could it be that a similar connotation is present in this occurrence of ‫ ?שמע‬Certainly in 1 Kgs 3:9, the legal context is of significance and is one in which Solomon is required to make a judgment in a specific case in order to render ‫משפט‬. The phrase ‫ לב שמע‬only appears this one time in the HB.126 At the very basic level, ‫ שמע‬is a qal masculine participle, rendering the translation of the phrase, ‫לב שמע‬, as, “a heart that hears” or “a hearing heart.” However, the idea behind the hearing is qualified contextually by the connotation of hearing in order to grant, as has been stressed above. Clearly, that is the reason for what follows the short phrase ‫לב שמע‬, that being an infinitive form of the Hebrew root ‫שפט‬, i. e. ‫לב שמע לשפט‬, “a hearing heart to judge.”127 Thus, Solomon’s request is for wisdom in order to grant justice as Yhwh grants justice. Before considering the short phrase ‫ טוב לרע‬in this passage, we must consider the substantival form ‫משפט‬, which appears in Yhwh’s response in 3:11. At its earliest stage, the Hebrew word ‫ משפט‬probably had a meaning closer to “custom” than it did to “law.” In time, however, it became “hardened into law” and was assumed to be of divine origin.128 In the Northwest Semitic world, generally speaking, the root ‫“ שפט‬denotes judicial activity, specifically ‘to judge.’”129 Thus, the substantival form ‫ משפט‬carries a primary meaning of justice. Mafico moves the 125 Jacob Hoftijzer, “David and the Tekoite Woman,” VT 20 (1970): 441: “As is well known ‫ שמע‬may have the meaning to hear as such, but also to hear and at the same time to react on this: to grant.” 126 However, ‫ לב‬does appear in close proximity to varying permutations of ‫ שמע‬in other places of the HB, which gives the sense of a heart that does or does not listen, e.g. Exod 7:22; Job 34:10. 127 It has already been established above that the meaning of ‫ לשפט‬should be rendered as “to judge” as opposed to the translation of “to govern.” See Scott, “Beginnings of Wisdom,” 270–71. Cf. Deut 1:13. 128 Osborne Booth, “The Semantic Development of the Term mišpāṭ in the Old Testament,” JBL 61 (1942): 109. 129 Marzal, “The Provincial Governor,” 189; Temba L. J. Mafico, “Judge, Judging,” ABD 3:1,104–06; Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul J. N. Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East—Part 2: Texts, Notes and Chronograms, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 241.

The Wisdom of Solomon in 1 Kings 3    

243

discussion forward by suggesting that ‫ משפט‬originally alluded to the “restoration of a situation or environment” that sought to reestablish the norm of ‫ שלום‬within the community, which in the HB is manifested through Yhwh’s “retribution to all people and nations according to their just deserts.”130 Furthering this definition is Larue, who writes: “‫ משפט‬used in a concrete sense was the decision of a judge who tried a case and passed sentence … rendering ‫ משפט‬as that due everyman.”131 I am in agreement with this more nuanced definition of ‫משפט‬. a) ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 1 Kgs 3:9 We are now in a place to consider the phrase ‫להבין בין טוב לרע‬, “to understand / discern between good and bad.” At first glance, this phrase is quite straight forward. The verbal form ‫להבין‬, although clearly a hifil conjugation, is usually translated with the simple qal meaning of the root ‫בין‬, “to understand.”132 1 Kgs 3:9 is the only place in the Hebrew bible where a form in any stem of the Hebrew root lexeme, ‫בין‬, takes the preposition, ‫ּביִ ן‬,ַ which in this case is followed by the preposition ‫ל‬. Mafico suggests that when the root ‫ שפט‬is used with the Hebrew prepositional phrase “‫”ּביִ ן … ַּוּביִ ן‬, ַ it refers to the “restoration of ‫ ”שלום‬that was in force prior to the legal dispute.133 Although such a construction is not found here, it is, nevertheless, instructive since the following narrative episode will require that Solomon adjudicate a case between two prostitutes. Similarly, Mettinger demonstrates that in Deut 1:16 and Judg 11:10 the Hebrew root ‫שמע‬, when followed by the preposition ‫ּביִ ן‬,ַ carries the meaning “to arbitrate.”134 It stands to reason, so I suggest, that a similar judicial meaning is evident here by way of the same grammatical construction in 1 Kgs 3:9a, i. e., ‫להבין … ל‬, only in this case with the Hebrew root lexeme, ‫בין‬, instead of ‫שמע‬, even if ‫ שמע‬is already in close contextual proximity to our construction. On another level, this phrase has a moral quality about it, i. e., to discern right from wrong; a human faculty that should be assumed either way in a judicial context. However, I suggest that the entire phrase ‫ להבין בין טוב לרע‬should be understood in parallel to the previous phrase ‫לב שמע לשפט את־עמך‬. The immediate context of the phrase, ‫ להבין בין טוב לרע‬in 3:9 is hearing in order to render ‫משפט‬ (see definition above). The simple qal sense of ‫ להבין‬stands and is grammatically sound. Yet contextually speaking, the discernment is for the ensuing result of ‫ משפט‬that would be expected in any legal decision given by the king in matters of dispute. Thus, to discern between ‫ טוב לרע‬in a judicial sense is better described 130 Mafico, “Just, Justice,” ABD 3:1,128. 131 Gerald A. Larue, introduction to Ḥesed in the Bible, by Nelson Glueck (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 10. He makes this statement while discussing the work of H. Wheeler Robinson, see H. Wheeler Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), 57–58. 132 “‫בין‬,” HALOT 1:122. 133 Mafico, “Judge,” ABD 3:1,105. He references Gen 16:5 and Judg 16:27 as an example. 134 Mettinger, King and Messiah, 240.

244

The Function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Relation to the Human Characters

and defined as one part of the whole process of retribution, i. e., the rendering of ‫משפט‬. I suggest that just as in the same manner in which the former phrase of 3:9, i. e., ‫לב שמע לשפט את־עמך‬, carries within it the sense of hearing in order to act / grant, so too should the following phrase in 3:9, i. e., ‫להבין בין טוב לרע‬, be understood in context with a meaning of “to discern good and bad.” The purpose being to render the appropriate reward (‫ טוב‬or ‫ )רע‬due said parties, in accordance to whichever legal and ethical code is the contextual referent. In v. 11, it is confirmed that the emphasis is upon the rendering of ‫ משפט‬in Yhwh’s response to Solomon: ‫ויאמר אלהים אליו יען אשר שאלת את־הדבר הזה ולא־שאלת לך ימים רבים ולא־שאלת לך עשר ולא שאלת‬ ‫נפש איביך ושאלת לך הבין לשמע משפט‬ And God said to him: “Because you have asked this thing, and you have not asked for yourself many days, nor have you asked for yourself riches, nor have you asked for the life of your enemies, but you have asked for understanding to pronounce justice.

Thus, 1 Kgs 3:11 corroborates my argument that Solomon has requested understanding to grant justice in the context of the legal tradition of the ANE. It really does not make sense to translate the final phrase of Yhwh’s response in 3:11, i. e., ‫הבין לשמע משפט‬, as “discernment to understand / hear justice.” Rather, it is better to translate the passage as, “discernment to pronounce justice.” Therefore, Mettinger and DeVries were correct in summarizing Solomon’s divine wisdom as a kind of wisdom to “arbitrate” and a kind of wisdom to “adjudicate.”135 Moreover, Clark was correct to interpret the appearance of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬within the legal context of 1 Kgs 3. It has already been demonstrated in this research that central to said legal tradition is the divine blessing and the curse. Furthermore, this argument confirms that Porteous was correct in summarizing Solomon’s wisdom as the special task of “ensuring the obedience of his people” to the stipulations of the covenant with the God of Israel through the rendering of ‫משפט‬.136 In closing, it must be said that just as the wisdom of Solomon spoken of in 1 Kgs 3:9 is not to be interpreted as a general wisdom for the governance of life but as a judicial wisdom on account of its context (Clark), so too is the short phrase, ‫טוב לרע‬, to be interpreted in light of the retribution principle. I suggest that the rendering of justice is the best explanation as to why the apposition ‫ טוב לרע‬appears in 1 Kgs 3:9a. Thus, rendering justice brings creational and covenantal order through the blessing and the curse as result of discerning the ‫ טוב‬and the ‫ רעע‬in its legal and judicial sense. Finally, Solomon demonstrates this divine charisma in the pericope to follow (1 Kgs 3:16–28) by rendering a judgement that reestablishes ‫ שלום‬to the covenanted community, and moreover, to the lives of the two prostitutes engulfed by conflict and tragedy. 135 DeVries, 1 Kings, 53–55; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 240. 136 Porteous, “Royal Wisdom,” 251.

Conclusion    

245

6.5 Conclusion In this chapter, I have shown how the permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫טוב‬ and ‫ רעע‬function as the extreme results of human retribution. By first considering McCarter’s suggestion that ‘good and bad’ in some of these narrative contexts refer specifically to the treatment that parties have toward one another in a “formal political” arrangement, I then demonstrated how said treatment functions in a few narrative contexts of 1 Samuel and 1 Kings.137 Following these examples, I then considered how Solomon’s request for divine wisdom in 1 Kgs 3:9 is best understood as a request for wisdom in order to pronounce justice, by discerning what is ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬for the purpose of bringing forth the subsequent retributive act that brings order and ‫ משפט‬to the covenanted community. This chapter confirms that certain permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function similarly in relation to the human characters in Genesis and the DtrH as they function when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes in the EN, the rest of Genesis, and the DtrH. I contend that such an accounting shows that within these narrative texts of the HB, humans are considered to have acquired divine knowledge of ‫טוב ורע‬. We can now consider a longer running narrative within the DtrH that will provide an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬and how said lexemes function in relation to humans and to Yhwh. Within the history of research, three of the most oft-cited passages for any interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬came from the Throne Succession Narrative of 2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2. In the following chapter, I will survey every permutation of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬within the TSN, employing the same analysis that I employed in these previous three chapters. Since the TSN proves to be essential to almost every interpretation proposed in the history of research, it is imperative that an analysis of every permutation of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬be surveyed in this longer running narrative to add to the data for interpreting ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. Thus, in the final chapter, we will seek to answer this question: Does an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ in the TSN confirm our proposed interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN? To this discussion, I now turn.

137 McCarter, I Samuel, 322.

7. Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative (2 Sam 11–20 & 1 Kgs 1–2)  

7.1 Introduction There is no doubt that central to the Throne Succession Narrative (TSN) is a literary juxtaposition of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬.1 In this chapter, I will add to this discussion by suggesting that this literary topos finds specialized nuance only when the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is brought to the fore.2 Therefore, 1 See e.g., Miller, Sin and Judgment, 81–84; Rosenberg, King and Kin, 182–199. For a general bibliography regarding the TSN see, Bodi, “The Story of Samuel, Saul, and David,” 202–204; Ibid., Warlord; Nadav Na’aman, “Game of Thrones: Solomon’s ‘Succession Narrative’ and Esarhaddon’s Accession to the Throne,” Tel Aviv 45 (2018): 89–113; James E. Patrick, “The Prophetic Structure of 1–2 Samuel,” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2016), esp. 175–200; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Another Contribution to the Succession Narrative Debate (2  Samuel 11–20; 1 Kings 1–2),” JSOT 38 (2013): 35–58; Jonathan P. Burnside, “Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical Law (Exodus 21:12–14) and the Davidic Succession Narrative (1 Kings 1–2),” JBL 129 (2010): 418–431; Jonathan Grossman, “The Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle in the Narrative of Absalom’s Rebellion,” Bib 88 (2007): 558–566; Serge Frolov, “Succession Narrative: A “Document” or a Phantom?,” JBL 121 (2002): 81–104; Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil,” 41–60; J. W. Wesselius, “Joab’s Death and the Central Theme of the Succession Narrative (2  Samuel IX-1 Kings II),” VT 40 (1990): 336–351; Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, HTIBS 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1982); Timo Veijola, “Salomo–der Erstgeborene Bathsebas,” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 230–250; David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1978); Ibid., “Traditional Composition in the ‘Succession Narrative’,” VT 26 (1976): 214–229; Ibid., “David and the Gift of the Kingdom (2 Sam 2–4, 9–20, 1 Kgs 1–2),” Semeia 25 (1975): 14–45; James W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2,” JBL 91 (1972): 172–181; Roger N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1 and 2, SBT 9 (London: S. C.M. Press, 1968); Walter Brueggemann, David and His Theologian: Literary, Social, and Theological Investigations of the Early Monarchy, ed. K. C. Hanson (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011) 156–181; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2  Sam. XII 2 ff) and the Yahwist Corpus,” in Volume du congrès: Genève 1965, VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 44–57; Rolf A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel, trans. Erick J. Scharpe and Stanley Rudman (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964); Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 1:308–318, and Ibid., Theologie des Alten Testaments, EETh 1, 2 vols. (München: C. Kaiser, 1958), 1:306–317. 2 It is not a new suggestion that divine retribution is the central concern of the David story. See e.g., von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:314; Ibid., Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1:312. I am grateful to Miller, Rosenberg, and Ackerman for their insightful work regarding ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬

248

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

the final chapter to this research will display a narrative reading of the TSN with a nuanced analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, thus displaying how these lexemes are functioning in light of the structuring element of divine retribution in this historiographical work regarding Solomon’s ascension to the throne.3 The analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬ in the TSN, divided into four sections in this final chapter, will confirm my proposed interpretation regarding ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. The first section (§ 7.2) will consider the sort of crime that David commits against Uriah the Hittite, a resident alien in David’s court. The second section (§ 7.3) will provide the bulk of the exegetical analysis in this chapter, showing how Yhwh’s retribution, meted out upon David, progresses to remove David’s four sons as heirs apparent to his throne, leading to Solomon’s succession. The final section (§ 7.4) will provide exegetical work upon 1 Kgs 1–2, displaying how Solomon’s succession is solidified through the final act of divine retribution meted out upon Adonijah, David’s remaining heir apparent to the throne before Solomon. Within this chapter, my exegetical work will confirm that ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, in relation to both Yhwh and the human characters, function in the same way to how they function in the EN and in the rest of Genesis, and of course, in the DtrH.

7.2 David’s Crimes Against a Resident Alien In 2 Samuel 11, David commits a series of crimes against Uriah the Hittite whose status in the Davidic monarchy could be interpreted as a ‘resident alien’ (‫)גר־תושב‬.4 In following this interpretation, Bodi suggests that Uriah’s status as a ‫ גר‬in David’s monarchy is similar to the same status of the ubārum; a term denoting a special class of people widely attested in texts dating from the early second millennium BCE to the middle of the first millennium BCE. The Akkadian term, ubārum, typically refers to a class of people that can best be defined as a “stranger, foreign guest, resident alien, or guest friend.”5 Indecent treatment and mockery of this class of people was considered a breach of international law in the ANE, which was in the TSN (Miller, Sin and Judgment, 81–84; Rosenberg, King and Kin, 182–199; Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil,” 41–60). 3 For ‘structuring element’ of Hebrew historiography, see § 3.2.2 above, but esp., Bodi, Warlord, 195, 208; Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 285–300; also, Grossman, “Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle,” 558–566. Cf. Friedrike SchückingJungblut, “Political Reasons for the Success and Failure of Absalom’s Rebellion (2 Sam 15–19),” VT 68 (2018): 1–12 (esp. 2, 10–11). 4 Daniel Bodi, “Outraging the Resident Alien: King David, Uriah the Hittite and an El-Amarna Parallel,” UF 35 (2006): 29–56 (29); Ibid., Warlord, 167–191 and his careful overview of the ANE texts. For the uncertainty of this interpretation in the Rabbinic literature, see Bodi’s analysis (Ibid., 182–184). 5 CAD U / W, 10–11 (10); Bodi, Warlord, 157–181.

David’s Crimes Against a Resident Alien    

249

met with punitive action.6 This common practice of hospitality is well known and attested through legislated protections for the ‫ גרים‬of the HB in Covenant Code and Deuteronomy.7 In my analysis to come, I am in agreement with Bodi that Uriah the Hittite, as described within the TSN, is considered to be a resident-alien (ubāru; ‫ )גר‬in David’s court. According to the texts of 2 Samuel 11–12, David neglected and scorned Uriah by taking his wife, Bathsheba, and subsequently, by having Uriah murdered by the sword of the Ammonites.

7.2.1 David and his Crime: The Eradication of Uriah’s Name in Israel To begin, we must examine whether or not the illicit union between David and Bathsheba should be interpreted as adultery in which both parties are complicit, or should it be interpreted as adultery committed only by David.8 In my estimation, the most reasonable conclusion concerning Bathsheba’s complicity in her sexual union with David, at least according to the legal framework of the TSN, is to suggest that she had nobody to whom she could cry for defense in the act itself. Thus, Bathsheba is presented by the TSN in such a way to suggest that she is unable to protect herself against the sexual aggression of the tribal chieftain, David.9 The narrative’s silence in condemning Bathsheba in the crime of adultery may have echoes to common ancient Near Eastern laws pertaining to family relations and sexual behavior.10 An early 18th c. BCE attestation in the Law Code of Hammurabi (LH; Law § 131) promotes a legal principle that absolves a woman of any guilt in

6 Bodi’s comment pertains to EA 162, see e.g., Moran, The Amarna Letters, 251, n. 13; Bodi, Warlord, 157: “Disrespect of this law brought the death sentence on the perpetrator of such an outrage.” Cf. J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, VAB (Liepzig: Hinrichs, 1915), 658. 7 See e.g., Exod 22:21–24; 23:9 and Deut 27:19. 8 See Alexander I. Abasili, “Was it Rape? The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-examined,” VT 61 (2011): 1–15, who concludes that David’s action cannot be considered “Hebrew-biblical-rape” (15); Ellen van Wolde, “Does ‘innâ’ Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word,” VT 52 (2010): 528–544; George G. Nicol, “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations On Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative,” JSOT 22 (1997): 43–54; cf. Wesselius, “Joab’s Death,” 347. 9 For ‫ מלך‬as ‘tribal chieftain,’ see Bodi, “The Story of Samuel, Saul, and David,” 208–214. Bathsheba could be complicit in the sexual union. My point is, however, that the TSN does not condemn Bathsheba explicitly. 10 Regarding adultery in the HB, see Hess, The Old Testament, 112: “There is, of course, a view that adultery was a crime that only the female could commit. This is thought to be the case because the female was considered the property of the male, and thus adultery was a kind of theft, a conclusion drawn from the study of the Mesopotamian legal collections and decisions. However, this is nowhere explicit in the biblical text.”

250

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

the matter, if no evidence is found.11 Similarly, in the Middle Assyrian Law (MAL) A § 12 (11th c. BCE), a woman who is unable to protect herself against a sexual aggressor is exonerated from any complicity in the sexual misconduct.12 Likewise, Deut 22:25–27 also relinquishes any responsibility on the part of the woman, if the act takes place in an open field where no one can hear a woman’s cry for help.13 In both Deut 22:27 and in MAL Law A § 12, the man who committed the crime is to be put to death. Deuteronomy’s legal principle for said penalty is clear in 22:26–27, wherein the woman is the victim and not complicit in the crime. This legal principle would suggest that Bathsheba had no defense against David as tribal chieftain. Thus, I suggest that David’s crime is one of taking another’s man’s wife in an act of sexual aggression. Let us now consider the fullness of the crime committed by David against Uriah in this episode by analyzing the retributive actions of Yhwh in the TSN. Would this focus help to interpret the fullness of the crime committed by David against Uriah the Hittite? In the 2 Samuel 12–19 and 1 Kgs 1–2 narrative(s), David’s lineage of potential successors to the throne are eliminated by Yhwh’s curse, save for Solomon; the son born to David through his marriage to Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.14 It is David’s four sons—1) the child born to him through his illicit taking of Bathsheba, 2) Amnon, 3) Absalom and 4) Adonijah—who bear David’s penalty of death and lose all rights to be his successor; making way for Yhwh’s choice of Solomon.15 I suggest that David’s crime is a crime committed against Uriah and his potential future lineage. This suggestion begins to explain the sort of legal motivation behind the divine retribution which befalls David in the 2 Samuel 12–19 and 1 Kings 1–2 narrative(s).16 11 For transcription and translation, see Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul J. N. Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East—Part 3: Overall Historical Survery, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 1:142–143; “The Laws of Hammurabi,” trans. Martha Roth (COS 2.131:344); “The Code of Hammurabi,” trans. Theophile J. Meek (ANET, 171). Cf. LH § 130. 12 For transliteration and translation, see Martha Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, ed. Piotr Michalowski, WAW 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 159; “The Middle Assyrian Laws (Tablet A),” trans. Martha Roth (COS 2.132:354); Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:659; Raymond Westbrook, “Prolegomenon: The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, eds. Raymond Westbrook and Gary M. Beckman, HdO 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1:80–81. 13 See e.g., Samuel Greengus, Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the ancient Near East (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011), 60–66. 14 Following Rost, Succession, 65–114 (68), and Whybray, Succession Narrative, 21–23 (22). Contra Gunn, King David, 82–84. Gunn does not dismiss the theme altogether. Rather, he contends that it is simply one theme among many (Ibid., 84). 15 Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil,” 50: “This child [Bathsheba’s unnamed newborn child] and the other three sons are thus depicted as sacrificial lambs-part of the divine judgment on David for his sins.” See too, Wesselius, “Joab’s Death,” 346–347, n. 15. 16 2 Sam12:24bγ: ‫וה׳ אהבו‬, “and Yhwh loved him”; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:315; Ibid., Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1:313.

David’s Crimes Against a Resident Alien    

251

This narrative movement helps to explain the discussion regarding the meaning of the name, ‫שלמה‬. Some scholars contend that the name, ‫שלמה‬, is derived from its piel stem, ‫שלֵ ם‬, ִ “to make restitution, to compensate, to reward.”17 Thus, ‫שלמה‬ would mean, “his replacement, substitute.” J. Stamm is the first to contend that the name is part of a group of names that generally refer to “replacement” names (so Anderson), for a “lost sibling or parent” (so McCarter).18 His contention is that Solomon is the replacement for the first lost child and named so by the characters in the narrative.19 T. Veijola disagrees with Stamm and Gerleman contending that the death of the first child is a later addition and that the name, ‫שלמה‬, “his replacement / substitute,” refers to Uriah and not to the deceased child.20 Within this framework, the name, ‫שלמה‬, given to the son born to David and Bathsheba after their marriage, must be a narrative indication referring either to the death of the first child born through their illicit union or to the deceased husband of Bathsheba, Uriah the Hittite. Clearly, ambiguity exists within the larger narrative itself. However, I see no reason as to why the death of the first child must be considered an addition in order to perceive an allusion to Uriah the Hittite in the name, ‫שלמה‬. Both suggestions could be held in tension together. On one level, the human characters are naming the child to mean, “his substitute,” as consolation for the death of the first child. Yet, on another level, the naming of the first child of the marriage between David and Bathsheba, i. e., ‫שלמה‬, provides uncanny allusion to Uriah the Hittite, who is left without progeny in Israel. In light of the name ‫ שלמה‬as meaning, “his replacement,” and partly referring to Uriah the Hittite, I suggest that the legal principle of the levirate comes to the fore, albeit, within a rather obtuse historical situation and narrative retelling. It can be argued (so S. Bar-Efrat and Bodi) that David’s assimilation of Bathsheba into his house, after the death of her husband, is indication of his (David’s) “prerogative to provide for the widow and the orphan” as the tribal chieftain.21 Thus, as C. Davis and others have already proposed, Solomon is “more truly the child of Uriah than of David.”22 Such a 17 “‫שלם‬,” HALOT 4:1,534; McCarter, II Samuel, 303. See too, “‫שלמה‬,” HALOT 4:1,540–41, no. 1–4, esp. no. 4. 18 J. Stamm, “Der Name des Königs Salomo,” TZ 16 (1960): 288–289; McCarter, II Samuel, 303, and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 164–165. 19 Gillis Gerleman, “Die Wurzel šlm,” ZAW 85 (1973): 13, who translates ‫ שלמה‬as, “his substitute,” referring to the deceased child. 20 Veijola, “Salomo–der Erstgeborene Bathsebas,” esp. 248. 21 Shimon Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buch Samuel: ein narratologisch-philologischer Kommentar, BWA(N)T 181 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009), 113; Bodi, Warlord, 224, n. 38, and his discussion apropos this topic (212–224). 22 Charles T. Davis, “Fulfillment of Creation: A Study of Matthew’s Genealogy,” JAAR 41 (1973): 529, n. 41: “The child of David’s passion dies (2  Sam  12:18) but the child conceived at its death (2 Sam 12:24) as a comfort to Bathsheba is more truly the child of Uriah than of David under the outlook of the rabbinic theory of retribution.” For his mention of the “rabbinic theory of retribution,” see O. S. Rankin, Israel’s Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on Theology and

252

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

suggestion is in tension, however, with the genealogical lists of 2 Sam 5:13–16, 1 Chr 3:5–9, and 1 Chr 14:3–7, which have Solomon as the fourth (last) born to David through Bathsheba in Jerusalem.23 That being said, the TSN presents Solomon as the firstborn of the marriage in 2 Sam 12 and 1 Kgs 1, but not of the union.24 In light of this discussion, I contend that the central tension of the TSN is that of Yhwh’s promise to David and his dynasty (2 Sam 7:28,‎‫ )הטובה הזאת‬to have a son sitting upon David’s throne forever and that of Yhwh remaining true in his actions of retributive justice on behalf of Uriah the Hittite; an officer of David’s court, who, being murdered by David, was left without progeny in Israel.25 The child, Solomon, and his mother, Bathsheba, hold that tension together throughout the whole of the TSN precisely because they only appear as characters at the beginning and at the end of this longer running narrative. In light of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution as the structuring element of these historiographical texts in the HB, Solomon’s ascension to the place of David’s successor is presented by the TSN as the divine retributive act of justice on behalf of Uriah the Hittite.26 In the following exegetical work, I will demonstrate both 1) this present thesis regarding Solomon and the TSN, and 2) how the many permutations of the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function as the literary extremes of the hermeneutical principle of divine (and human) retribution. Finally, I contend that an analysis of how ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬function, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in the TSN informs the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN indicating that said knowledge is the divine knowledge for administering retribution (reward and punishment). In what follows, every permutation of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the TSN will be examined in accordance with the progression of the narrative, beginning with 2 Sam 11.

the History of Religion (New York: Schocken, 1969), 98 ff, esp. 53–97. Consider too Matthew 1:6, who also names Bathsheba in his genealogy as “the wife of Uriah”: Δαυὶδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σολομῶνα ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου, so Bodi, Warlord, 51. That the Rabbis later interpreted Uriah as having provided a divorce letter to Bathsheba, so as to relinquish David from the guilt of adultery, see Ibid., Warlord, 212–224 and b. Šabb. 56a. 23 David M. Howard Jr., “David, Sons Of,” ABD 2:67–69. For an erudite explanation of this genealogy in light of levirate marriage and these ‘four’ sons, see Patrick, “The Prophetic Structure of 1–2 Samuel,” 177. 24 Howard, “David,” ABD 2:68. 25 So too, 1 Chr 17:26. 26 See e.g., Deut 25:6. For a discussion of levirate marriage and its implications for dynastic claims, see Matitiahu Tsevat, “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel,” JSS 3 (1958): 237–243; Cyrus H. Gordon, “Observations of the Akkadian Tablets from Ugarit,” RA 50 (1956): 132 and Greengus, Laws in the Bible, 24–26; contra Tsevat’s translation of RS 16.144, lines 4–9, see Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt, Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, eds. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt, HdO 39 (Boston: Brill, 1999), 637–638; Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, JSOTSup 113 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), esp. 70–87. Also, see § 7.3.4 below.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

253

7.3 Divine Retribution and ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬ in the 2 Samuel 11–19 and 1 Kgs 1–2 Narrative(s) 7.3.1 2 Samuel 11: David and Uriah There are two passages in 2 Samuel 11 that begin the movement of narrative action toward David’s full immersion into the effects of divine retribution. These two passages concern both divine and human evaluation of David’s act in both 1) the taking of Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, impregnating her (vv. 4–5), and 2) David’s crime of having Uriah put to death by the sword of the Ammonites through a written command to Joab to put Uriah at the front of the battle line in order that he might be struck down (vv. 14–17). After Joab obeys the command of David, he sends word back to David in Jerusalem.

7.3.1.1 2 Sam 11:25 ‫ויאמר דוד אל־המלאך כה־תאמר אל־יואב אל־ירע בעיניך את־הדבר הזה‬ David said to the messenger, “Thus you will say to Joab: Do not let this thing be evil in your eyes.”

In this passage, David tells Joab’s messenger, who was to return a report to Joab, that he is not to let this thing that David has done be evil in his eyes. This is an attempt by David to stand above the crime that he has committed.27 In his place of full authority as tribal chieftain, David is giving orders to his commander, Joab, not to press judgment any further on this action. What is instructive in this passage is that the human character, who could very well bring retribution against David in this crime, is commanded to relinquish his judgment on the matter.

7.3.1.2 2 Sam 11:27 ‫וירע הדבר אשר־עשה דוד בעיני ה׳‬ But the thing that he had done was evil in the eyes of Yhwh.

In v. 27, there is an alternative judgment made by Yhwh. Commenting on this verse, von Rad suggests that this statement “is to encourage the reader to associate God’s judgment on David with the developments which now ensue.”28 Most 27 Contra Jeremy Schipper, Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 49, who understands this to be David’s way of comforting Joab. 28 Gerhard von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958), 199; Ibid., Old Testament Theology, 1:315; Ibid., Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1:313; McCarter, II Samuel, 298.

254

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

important to note is how the root ‫ רעע‬is in tandem with the eyes of a human and with the eyes of Yhwh in both vv. 25 and 27.29 Moreover, it is instructive that Uriah’s ‘bad / evil’ experience is not thought to be, nor interpreted by the narrative as, divine retribution. Thus, all three characters stand in judgement regarding the actions of David and the thing that he did to Uriah the Hittite. What will become overwhelmingly clear is that the narrative casts the unfolding events to come in the TSN as divine retribution for David’s crimes committed against Uriah.30

7.3.2 2 Samuel 12: David and Nathan the Prophet In 2 Samuel 12, Nathan, on behalf of Yhwh, delivers to David a juridical parable that is intended by the prophet to elicit a judgment from David that will accuse him of his crimes. This prophetic indictment is a form of parabolic speech that is designed to be “judgment-eliciting” from its hearers.31 Nathan’s allusion to the poor man’s ewe lamb is a reference to Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba.32 Bodi makes a compelling argument for this by comparing the phrase, ‫ובחיקו תשכב‬, “And in his bosom it [the ewe lamb] would lie,” found in 12:6, with a similar phrase in 12:8 concerning Yhwh’s generosity in giving Saul’s wives to David: ‫ואתנה לך … את־נשי‬ ‫אדניך בחיקך‬, “And I put…your master’s wives into your bosom.”33 This indicates that Nathan’s parable is a juxtaposition of the poor man’s ewe lamb with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. After David hears Nathan’s parable, his judgment of the situation in 2 Sam 12:5–6 is given in extreme anger with a declaration of retributive punishment for the rich man, who stole and killed the poor man’s ewe lamb and showed no pity in doing so.34 David’s sentence for the rich man is that he deserves death

29 E.g., Gen 3:7. 30 McCarter, II Samuel, 298. 31 See Bodi, Warlord, 71; Stuart Lasine, “Melodrama as Parable: The Story of the Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb and the Unmasking of David’s Topsy-Turvy Emotions,” HAR 8 (1984): 101–124; David Janzen, “The Condemnation of David’s ‘Taking’ in 2 Samuel 12:1–14,” JBL 131 (2012): 209–220; Uriel Simon, “Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb,” Bib 48 (1967): 207–242. Something similar happens in 2  Sam  14:1–20, 1  Kgs 20:35–43, Isaiah 5:1–7, and Jer  3:1–5. Cf. Hugh S. Pyper, David as Reader: 2 Samuel 12:1–15 and the Poetics of Fatherhood, BibInt 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 101–110, and his helpful emphasis upon the “binding oath” of David as opposed to a juridical model based upon the “binding force of the law” (Ibid., 106–109). 32 However, cf. Ibid., David as Reader, 95–101, esp. 99. 33 Bodi shows that this exact phrase in Hebrew has a direct parallel in “Amoritized Akkadian” found in Mari documents (Bodi, Warlord, 79); Ibid., “The Story of Samuel, Saul, and David,” 220; Jack M. Sasson, “About ‘Mari and the Bible’,” RA 91 (1998): 107. 34 See Gillis Gerleman, “Schuld und Sühne: Erwägungen zu 2. Samuel 12,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Robert Hanhart, Herbert Donner and Rudolf Smend (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 133; Wright, “David Autem Remansit In Hierusalem,” 226 and n. 38.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

255

but should pay four-fold restitution for his crime.35 Nathan’s response to David in 2 Sam 12:7a equates David with the rich man: ‫ויאמר נתן אל־דוד אתה האיש‬ And Nathan said to David, “You are the man!”

Nathan then delivers his prophetic oracle against David and his household (vv. 9–11).

7.3.2.1 2 Sam 12:9–11 ‫מדוע בזית את־דבר ה׳ לעשות הרע בעיני את אוריה החתי הכית בחרב ואת־אשתו לקחת לך לאשה ואתו‬ ‫הרגת בחרב בני אמון‬ Why have you scorned (‫ )בזה‬the word of Yhwh to do evil in my eyes? You struck Uriah the Hittite with the sword and you took to yourself his wife as a wife and you killed him (Uriah) with the sword of the Ammonites.36

In v. 9aα, this permutation of ‫ רעע‬is in tandem with the eyes of Yhwh in the context of moral evaluation. Moreover, David’s crime against Uriah involved David’s use of the sword (‫ )בחרב‬to carry out the injustice; thus ‫ חרב‬will become part of the divine retribution in the kind of punishment that is to befall David in the TSN: ‫ועתה לא־תסור חרב מביתך עד־עולם עקב כי בזתני ותקח את־אשת אוריה החיתי להיות לך לאשה‬ Therefore, the sword (‫ )חרב‬will not depart from your house forever because you have despised (‫ )בזה‬me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife!

The verb ‫ בזה‬connotes a similar idea to ‫ רעע‬in formal relationships. It generally means to “despise, subjugate, or treat badly,” and so, refers to David’s bad treatment of Yhwh (covenantal context) in the Uriah matter.37 Aitken suggests that there is

35 Cf. Exodus 22:1. For a discussion about the difference between the LXX’s choice of ‫שבעתים‬ as opposed to the MT’s use of ‫ארבעתים‬, see Peter Coxon, “A Note on ‘Bathsheba’ in Samuel 12,1–6,” Bib 62 (1981): 247–250, esp. 250. See too, Pyper’s suggestion that David is bound by his oath (Pyper, David as Reader, 106–109). Regarding a god in the role of judge in the Neo-Assyrian period, see Karen Radner, “The Reciprocal Relationship Between Judge and Society in the Neo-Assyrian Period,” Maarav 12 (2005): 61: “It is quite possible that whenever we find a god in the role of judge, an oath and / or an ordeal was performed.” 36 4QSama (12:9) has ‫ בעינו‬as opposed to the MT’s ‫ביעני‬. Regarding ‫בזה‬, consider Bodi’s suggestion that in no way can this be a later addition by the Deuteronomist since Yhwh was ready to give David multiple wives (contra Deut. 17:17) and because of the verb ‫ בזה‬that appears in 12:9, which is not Deuteronomistic (Bodi, Warlord, 87). 37 “‫בזה‬,” HALOT 1:117.

256

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

evidence of association between curse words and the Hebrew verb, ‫בזה‬.38 I contend that this suggestion explains the nominal permutation of the Hebrew lexeme ‫רעע‬ to describe the “disaster” (‫ )רעה‬as the extreme of Yhwh’s curse that the writer alludes to in 12:11: ‫כה אמר ה׳ הנני מקים עליך רעה מביתך ולקחתי את־נשיך לעיניך ונתתי לרעיך ושכב עם־נשיך לעיני‬ ‫השמש הזאת‬ Thus says Yhwh, “Behold, I will bring upon you evil (‫ )הער‬from your own house. And I will take your wives from before your eyes and give them to your political rival, and he will sleep with your wives in the eyes of this sun!”39

This punishment decreed against David is indeed a prophetic indictment and a curse against him. Consider a similar reference to a curse in VTE § 42: “May Venus, the brightest of the stars, before your eyes make your wives lie in the lap of your enemy; may your sons not take possession of your house, may a strange enemy divine your goods.”40 I contend that this ‫ רעה‬to rise against David will culminate in the death of David’s four remaining heirs to the throne. Furthermore, the narrative depicts Yhwh as taking David’s wives and giving them to his political rival (‫)ונתתי לרעיך‬, and he (Absalom) will sleep with David’s wives in the eyes of this sun (‫ )ושכב עם־נשיך לעיני השמש הזאת‬‎(12:11; see too, 15:22). This last phrase, ‫לעיני‬ ‫השמש הזאת‬, “In the eyes of this sun,” is a “legal term signifying a legitimate act.”41 R. Westbrook states that this legal phrase is employed by the narrative to legitimize the sexual abuse of David’s wives as a justified form of punishment for David’s 38 Aitken, The Semantics, 216: “The preference of TgNeoMg for ‫ בזי‬Pa rather than ‫ חרף‬at Lv 24.16 is explicable by the association of Hebrew curse words with the verb ‫בזה‬.” See e.g., 1 Samuel 2:30b. 39 For this translation of “political rival” see Bodi, Warlord, 88–9 (89) and his reference to A. van Selms, “The Best Man and Bride-From Sumer to St. John with a New Interpretation of Judges, Chapters 14 and 15,” JNES 9 (1950): 65–75 (esp. 71, n. 45); Carlson, David, the Chosen King, 158: “This recurs as a motivation for the oracle which brings the curse into David’s own house: ‘Now therefore the sword shall never depart (lō-tāsūr) from your house.’” In addition to this, Carlson suggests that the Dtn oracle that Nathan speaks in 12:11 is similar to that which he speaks in 7:15: ‫וחסדי לא־יסור ממנו כאשר חסרתי מעם שאול אשר הסרתי מלפניך‬, “But I will not take my covenant loyal loyal love from you as I took it away from Saul, whom I put aside on your behalf.” Furthermore, Carlson notes that the sword is better understood as having a limited meaning, not as an aspect of generation (Ibid., David, the Chosen King, 158, n. 4), and too, Joseph Scharbert, Solidarität in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt, BBB 14 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1958), 136; cf. Miller, Sin and Judgment, 84. 40 So Ibid., Sin and Judgment, 83; V. Phillips Long, “2  Samuel,” in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1  & 2  Samuel, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 2 of ZIBBCOT, ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013) 460. For this translation, see Kitchen and Lawrence, TLCANE, 1:987; cf. ANET, 538, § 42. 41 Bodi, Warlord, 87. He references a land-sale document from 13th c. BCE Ugarit to confirm this phrase (PRU, III, 15.119 r 6’-11’, pp. 86–87), and Raymond Westbrook, “Adultery in Ancient Near Eastern Law,” RB 97 (1990): 569 and n. 99.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

257

sexual abuse of Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, which is further indication that Bathsheba is not considered to be complicit in the crime. Finally, 2 Samuel 12:14 confirms that the curse is referenced in the narrative: ‫אפס כי־נאץ נאצת את איבי ה׳ בדבר הזה עם הבן הילוד לי מות ימות‬ Nevertheless, because despising, you have despised the enemies of Yhwh by committing this deed, even the child born to you will die.42

The phrase, ‫איבי ה׳‬, is clearly an emendation used by later scribes to soften the political and theological implications of the writer’s denunciation of David’s actions.43 Instead of the MT’s, ‫נאצת את־איבי ה׳ בדבר הזה‬,‎ 4QSama reads: ‫נאצ[ת] את דבר ה׳ בדבר הזה‬ You have despised the word of Yhwh by this deed.

A similar construction to this appears in one other place in the HB, in Jer 23:17: ‫אמרים אמור לִ ְמנַ ֲאצַ י ִּד ֶּבר ה׳ שלום יהיה לכם וכל הלך בשררות לבו אמרו לא־תבוא עליכם רעה‬ They continue saying to those who have despised me: “Yhwh has said: ‘Peace shall be with you.’ And to all who follow their stubborn hearts, they say: ‘No disaster shall befall you.’”

In this passage, the LXX has a different pointing for the MT’s, ‫לִ ְמנַ ֲאצַ י ִּד ֶּבר ה׳‬, which reads in the LXX as: λέγουσιν τοῖς ἀπωθουμένοις τὸν λόγον κυρίου, “They say to those that reject the word of the LORD.” If this is to be preferred, then the pointing in the MT would be emended to read: ‫לִ ְמנַ ֲאצֵ י ְד ַבר ה׳‬, “To those who despise the word of Yhwh.”44 Thus, the Hebrew lexeme ‫ נאץ‬is employed to indicate a rejection and dishonoring of the ‫ דבר‬of Yhwh with the assumed result being the coming disaster described by the text in its extreme as ‫רעה‬, i. e., Jer 21:13, ‫לא־תבוא עליכם רעה‬, 42 For a discussion as to why v. 14 is only a ‘part’ of the whole retributive punishment to befall David and not the ‘only’ act of divine retribution, see Anderson, 2 Samuel, 182. The verb in v. 13, ‫העביר‬, refers to the ‘transference’ of David’s sin to another, so McCarter, II Samuel, 301: “The sin cannot simply be forgotten: It must be atoned for. Thus, if David himself is not to die, the sin must be transferred to someone who will.” See too, Gerleman, “Schuld und Sühne,” 133–134. For a similar episode in which a prophecy from Mari foretells the death of a royal infant because of adultery on the part of the monarch, see Abraham Malamat, Mari and the Bible, SHCANE 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 121–124 (124), as referenced by Long, “2 Samuel,” 2:460. Cf. Chapman, “Reading the Bible as Witness,” 184. 43 Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, OBO 36 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 185–87. 44 Aitken, The Semantics, 193–205 (198): “The Qumran evidence supports the case that the phrase is a later addition, even if as a euphemistic device it might have existed before the books of Samuel.”

258

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

and 2 Sam 12:11, ‫הנני מקים עליך רעה‬. Although the Hebrew root ‫ נאץ‬only appears at 2 Sam 12:14, it is still evident that 4QSama (12:14) has juxtaposed the coming disaster as a result of the curse (12:11) with David’s despising of the word (‫ )דבר‬of Yhwh (12:14). Suffice it to say, because the textual indicator of divine retribution is stated to be ‫ רעה‬emanating from David’s own house (‫ )מביתך‬in 2 Sam 12:11, it is essential to consider (narratively speaking) how it is that ‫ רעה‬will come upon David in the remainder of the TSN.45

7.3.2.2 The Child of the Illicit Sexual Union – 2 Sam 12:18 ‫ויהי ביום השביעי וימת הילד ויראו עבדי דוד להגיד לו כי מת הילד כי אמרו הנה בהיות הילד חי דברנו אליו‬ ‫ולא שמע בקולנו ואיך נאמר אליו מת הילד ועשה רעה‬ And it was that on the seventh day, the child died; but the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child had died, because they remembered that while the child was living, we spoke to him (David), but he would ignore us. Thus, how can we tell him that the child has died? He will do something harmful [to us or himself]!

In 2 Sam 12:18, the first permutation of ‫רעע‬, after Nathan’s prophetic indictment, is employed. I suggest that this occurrence of ‫ רעה‬is significant. The narrative’s result of Yhwh’s curse is that the child would die, i. e., 2 Sam 12:14b. Moreover, I contend that the appearance of ‫ רעה‬in 2 Sam 12:18 is indication of Yhwh’s retribution in that David’s servants express concern that he might harm them, or probably more reasonable to the context, himself in kind to the hearing of the news of the death of his child. Is this the harm (‫ )רעה‬that comes upon David from his own house? This permutation of ‫ רעע‬begins the narrative movement of divine retribution through the TSN, which turns to the first in line to be David’s successor, Amnon.46

7.3.3 2 Samuel 13: Amnon and Tamar In this chapter, Tamar—the daughter of David and Maacah, sister to Absalom, half-sister to Amnon—is tricked by her half-brother Amnon to make some food for him to eat while he feigned being sick on the advice of his friend Jonadab.47 Then David agrees to the request of his son (Amnon, v. 6), sending Tamar to him 45 McCarter, II Samuel, 301. 46 After the death of the child, David comforts his wife, Bathsheba, and she bears a son, whom he names, Solomon (‫שלמה‬, v. 24, and 12:24bγ: ‫וה׳ אהבו‬, “and Yhwh loved him”). For this latter phrase, see See Long, “2 Samuel,” 444–445; Susan Ackerman, “The Personal Is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (ʾĀHĒB, ʾAHĂBÂ) in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 52 (2002): 437–458; William L. Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. 47 Harold A. Forshey, “Court Narrative (2 Samuel 9–1 Kings 2),” ABD 1:1,175.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

259

in v. 7. Once all were put out of the room by Amnon except for Tamar, and after she had prepared the food before him, Amnon pleads with Tamar to sleep (‫)שכבי‬ with him. She pleads with him back asking him not to press her down (‫)אל־תענני‬ and not to commit such a foolish act (‫ )הנבלה‬in Israel.48 He forces himself upon his half-sister to rape her. He then casts her out of his presence in an act of expulsion that “reduces Tamar to a disposable object” since there was likely no marriage contracted for her after this event.49 Tamar returned to the care of her brother Absalom, who advised his sister to keep this incident quiet. This episode ends by stating that David was very angry upon hearing about the events, but he does not bring retribution / punishment upon his son, Amnon.

7.3.3.1 2 Sam 13:12–13, 16 Van Wolde describes how the verb ‫ ענה‬in 13:12 denotes more than the modern understanding of rape. Although referring to an act of sexual abuse against Tamar by Amnon, she contends that ‫ ענה‬is a juridical term to warn Amnon of the sort of crime that he would be committing against her, against himself, and against the entire society as a whole. Van Wolde writes: Thus, the physical lowering turns out to be much more than a temporary pushing downwards: the debasement concerns not only Tamar, but her brother Absalom and her father David as well. It affects the whole society indeed, which is founded on the legal arrangements of sexual and familial relationships.50

This suggestion is further corroborated by the word ‫ נבלה‬to describe the act that Amnon intends to commit. This word is often translated as “foolishness” and “folly.”51 It is a breach of deep societal norms that results in the dissolution of the social bond in the community.52 In its earlier uses, it was often connected with a “breach of the customary law,” but later came to be applied to the “total collapse in existing relationships.”53 Roth contends that ‫ נבלה‬is used in the HB to describe the worst form of covenant breach by persons committing sexual crimes.54 48 For this translation of “pressing down,” see van Wolde, “Controversial Word,” 539. 49 Forshey, “Court Narrative,” ABD 1:1,175. See too, Deut 22:29 for the legal implications of this act, van Wolde, “Controversial Word,” 540; Walton, Chavalas and Matthews, IVP: Bible Background Commentary, 341. 50 See van Wolde, “Controversial Word,” 540–41; cf. HALOT 2:853–54. 51 “‫נבלה‬,” HALOT 2:664; “‫נבלה‬,” BDB 615. 52 Anthony Phillips, “Nebalah: A Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct,” VT 25 (1975): 241: “Rather ‫ נבלה‬is a general expression for serious disorderly and unruly action resulting in the breakup of an existing relationship whether between tribes, within the family, in a business arrangement, in marriage or with God.” 53 Ibid., “Nebalah,” 241. Cf. Jer 29:23. 54 Wolfgang M. W. Roth, “NBL,” VT 10 (1960): 394–309 (405). See also, McCarter, II Samuel, 322–23; Gillis Gerleman, “Der Nicht-Mensch. Erwägungen zur hebräischen Wurzel NBL,” VT 24 (1974): 147–58.

260

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

Thus, this term indicates that the writer of 2 Sam 13 is explicitly arguing for the execution of Amnon, presumably by David, who is obliged to carry out said punishment in the case of sexual misconduct that is termed ‫נבלה‬.55 In addition to this, Roth references the appearance of the word ‫ נבלה‬in Judges 19–21 (19:23–24; 20:6, 10), which also involves sexual misconduct defined by the writer as an action of sacrilege in ancient Israel.56 In Judg 19:23, both the lexemes ‫ רעע‬and ‫ נבלה‬appear in tandem to refer to this breach of covenant: ‫ אל־תרעו‬and ‫אל־תעשו את־הנבלה הזאת‬. Both permutations of these lexemes refer to a major breach of proper behavior between two parties; a breach that is very similar to David’s crimes against Uriah the Hittite. Consider then ‫ רעה‬in 2 Sam 13:16 in the case of Amnon and Tamar: ‫ותאמר לו אל־אודת הרעה הגדולה הזאת מאחרת אשר־עשית עמי לשלחני ולא אבה לשמע לה‬ And she said to him: “Do not commit this greater evil (‫—)הרעה הגדולה‬from the one you have already committed against me—by now sending me away!” But he was unwilling to listen to her.

The phrase, ‫הרעה הגדולה הזאת‬, in Tamar’s speech of 13:16 is an allusion by implication to the previous occurrence of ‫ הנבלה‬in Tamar’s speech of 13:12. On a narrative level, this occurrence of ‫ רעה‬is indication of the crime committed by Amnon (i. e., ‫ הרעה הגדולה‬in 13:16). However, in light of this research, its employment is clearly the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution working itself out in this historiographical work; ‫ רעה‬has come forth from David’s own household, which, as it will be shown, will lead to the death of David’s son, Amnon.57

7.3.3.2 2 Sam 13:21–22 Then, David was angered by what Amnon had done to Tamar (13:21): ‫והמלך דוד שמע את כל־הדברים האלה ויחר לו מאד‬ When King David heard all of these things, he became very angry.

55 Roth, “NBL,” 406. 56 Ibid., “NBL,” 405. 57 Kitz, Cursed are You, 119–245: “Death, therefore, is the definitive goal of all curses against living beings. It is only the means of how it is to be achieved that differs” (201); Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil,” 48–51 (49): “Through structure and choice of language the narrator is indicating a punishment upon David in which the king is forced to reenact his earlier crimes. This time, however, rather than sending for the intended victims, David is manipulated into sending his own children as unintended victims—to have done to them what he had earlier done to Bathsheba and Uriah.” Also, Miller, Sin and Judgment, 25: “Even the sequence of evil things against wives / women, sons, and daughters is common in the curses.” Cf. Rosenberg, King and Kin, 183.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

261

This reading differs from the LXX and the DSS. The LXX reads in the second part of the verse: καὶ οὐκ ἐλύπησεν τὸ πνεῦμα Αμνων τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἠγάπα αὐτόν, ὅτι πρωτότοκος αὐτοῦ ἦν. And he did not grieve the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn son.

A similar phrase appears also in the fragments of 4QSama (13:21): […[‫ולא עצב את רוח אמנון בנו כי אה]בו כי בכור[ו] [הוא‬ And he did not rebuke the spirit of Amnon, his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn.

It is interesting that both the translators of the LXX and the scribe(s) of 4QSama (13:21) have a written tradition that indicates a variant reading in this particular narrative. Although the MT’s version is the shorter reading, the LXX and 4QSama (13:21) show a thematic element focused upon David’s unwillingness to use his judicial authority against his own son, Amnon. Both the MT and these two variant readings agree that Amnon was not punished by his father, David.58 This lacuna in the MT, but appearing in the LXX and 4QSama, elucidates the interpretation of the permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in 13:22: ‫ולא־דבר אבשלום עם־אמנון למרע ועד־טוב כי־שנא אבשלום את־אמנון על־דבר אשר ענה את תמר אחתו‬ Absalom did not speak with Amnon for bad or for good; but Absalom hated Amnon on account of the event by which he raped and humiliated, Tamar, his sister.

The phrase, ‫למרע ועד־טוב‬, which has already been discussed in my work on Gen 31:24, is best understood to mean that Absalom is refusing to take hostile action against his brother, Amnon.59 The employment of the verb ‫ ִד ֶּבר‬and its functional relation to ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רע‬as the extremes of the punitive action that could, hypothetically speaking, be spoken by Absalom against his brother, Amnon, must refer to the whole of the retributive process. Thus, Absalom has refused to take retributive action at that time against Amnon; however, the narrative will reverse that refusal soon enough (‫)כי־שנא אבשלום את־אמנון‬, in that Absalom will indeed speak with Amnon ‫ למרע עד־טוב‬at the most opportune time. 58 This is further developed when Absalom returns from exile and sets himself up as judge in the city gates. See also Ibid., King and Kin, 183. 59 McCarter, II Samuel, 326–27, n. 22; Hoftijzer, “A Case of Fratriarchy,” 55; Conroy, Absalom, Absalom, 18, n. 6; Clark, “Legal Background,” 269. See also, Gen 31:24 and my comment there (§ 5.2.5).

262

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

7.3.3.3 2 Sam 13:23 ‫ויהי לשנתים ימים ויהיו גזזים לאבשלום בבעל חצור אשר ים־אפרים ויקרא אבשלום לכל־בני המלך‬ After two years, Absalom had a sheepshearing festival (‫ )גזזים‬at Baal-Hazor, near Ephraim. Absalom called out to all of the king’s sons.

Sheepshearing was a springtime festival considered to be a joyous occasion, one that was accompanied by feasting and drinking (see § 6.3.4). It was also a time to settle any debts and to right any wrongs.60 Similar to the sheepshearing festival (‫ )גזזים‬in 2 Sam 13:23 is the sheepshearing festival already alluded to in 1 Sam 25:8 by which the writer describes the term ‫ גזזים‬of 1 Sam 25:7 as ‫יום טוב‬, “a good day.”61 Rosenthal argues that ‫ יום טוב‬refers simply to a day of “well being, plenty, and pleasure,” and that any reference to a festival or legal holiday in later Jewish writings must be “post-biblical,” arising sometime during the Maccabean period.62 However, Artzi suggests that the phrase ‫ יום טוב‬should be understood in light of the Middle-Babylonian phrase, ūma banītu epēšu, found in the El Amarna archive, which he demonstrates from EA 29, line 30: [“anumma aḫ ūja it]tadinši!” u ītepuš ūmu ammītu panītu itti mātīšuma ina muḫ ḫ i mār šiprīja

63‫ עם (כל) ארצו בנוכחות שליחי‬,‫”הנה אחי התן לי אותה!” ואת היום ההוא עשה יום טוב‬ For Artzi, the MB equivalent to the HB’s ‫—יום טוב‬as employed in 1 Sam 25:8 in place of ‫—גזזים‬is a “mantic-hemerologic term.”64 Artzi also stresses the covenantal 60 Geoghegan, “Israelite Sheepshearing,” 63. See also, John H. Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) 1:126: “Sheep-shearing time was payday, and the income windfall.” 61 This phrase only appears again in Esth 8:17; 9:19, 22. See McCarter, II Samuel, 332, who understands the sheepshearing festival of 2 Sam 13:23 to be a similar occasion to that of 1 Sam 25:8; McCarter, I Samuel, 397. For my work on 1 Sam 25, see § 6.3.4 above. Cf. Eccl 7:14. 62 See Franz Rosenthal, “yôm t ̣ôḇ,” HUCA 18 (1943): 157–176 (esp. 164 and 176); Geoghegan, “Israelite Sheepshearing,” 56. 63 Pinhas Artzi, “The ‘Good Day’ Festivity of Amenophis III,” [Hebrew] Beer-Sheva 3 (1988): 17–21 [17–18]. Cf. Moran, The Amarna Letters, 93: “[‘My brother g]ave [his daughter] in perfect fait[h].’ He made that day a festive occasion along, too, with his country.” Also, Anson F. Rainey, The El-Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna Based on Collations of all Extant Tablets, eds. William M. Schniedewind and Zipora Cochavi-Rainey, HdO 110, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1:305: “And my brother said, ‘With all of h[is] heart, [Tushratta, my brother, has g]iven her,’ and he made that day a celebration for his land, in honor of my envoy.” See too, Zipora Cochavi-Rainey, To the King, My Lord: Letters from El-Amarna, Kumidu, Taanach and Other Letters from the Fourteenth Century BCE, The Biblical Encyclopedia Library 20, [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 2005), 83 (line 30): “:‫ואחי אמר כך‬ ‫‏‬.‫”‘[אחי נ]תן [לבתו] באמונ[ה](?)’ אותו יום הוא חגג חג יחד עם ארצו‬. 64 Artzi, “Good Day,” 19–20 (19) and the English summary of his article in the same issue (7). Cf. P. Hulin, “A Hemerological Text from Nimrud,” Iraq 21 (1959): 42–53.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

263

and legal context in which EA 29 uses this MB phrase. The “good day” of which EA 29 references is not simply a day of good weather, pleasure, and abundance; rather, it is the day on which Tadu-ḫepa, daughter of Tušratta, king of Mitanni, was received by Napḫureya, Pharaoh of Egypt, as his new wife in a joyous celebration; indication that the marriage alliances between the two kingdoms, along with a continuation of good relations between Egypt and Mitanni, would proceed into the future.65 Furthermore, Artzi finds it important that the function of the word used in the context of EA 29:30 for “good”—that being the Akkadian word with the phonetic value panītu, i. e., banītu, “good, beautiful,”—was very common during the MB period.66 This is different from the expected Akkadian word, damqu, which is more commonly attested in similar contexts in the Mari archive.67 However, it seems that at least in the EA archive, and in this context of the marriage alliance between Egypt and Mitanni in this letter, the Akkadian word banītu has integrated with the same function of the Akkadian word “ṭābu,” which is attested in its West Semitic cognate, i. e., ‫טוב‬, in similar contexts of treaties and alliances.68 That the writer of EA 29 would use the idea of a “good day” in describing the marriage alliance between the two kingdoms is for Artzi the result of banītu being used in its nuanced legal form. I suggest the same regarding ‫יום‬ ‫ טוב‬in 1 Sam 25:8; a use that is consistent in its WS context of treaty alliances. Thus, Rosenthal’s conclusions are certainly well reasoned and stated, but I suggest that in light of Artzi’s discussion, juxtaposed with Geoghegan’s conclusions, the sheepshearing festival (‫ )גזזים‬of both 1 Sam 25:8 and 2 Sam 13:28 was to be a day of reckoning; a day on which reward and payment is expected in good faith (‫)יום טוב‬, but is otherwise in the Samuel narratives used as a literary feature for the righting of wrongs by David and Absalom, which “aided in their own ascents to power,” so described by Geoghegan.69 In accordance with the legal context of ūma banītu epēšu in EA 29:30, it is better to understand the ‫ יום טוב‬of 1 Sam 25:8 in a similar legal context, and so too, the ‫ גזזים‬of 2 Sam 13:23, as an expected time of joyous reward, but also one of unanticipated ‘evil’ through vengeance.70 That is certainly the movement of this narrative episode.

65 Artzi, “Good Day,” 18. 66 CAD, B, 80b. 67 Moran, “Sefîre Stelas,” 175. 68 Artzi cites Malamat, History of Biblical Israel, 272; Artzi, “Good Day,” 19 (30 ‫)שורה‬. See also, § 6.3 in the previous chapter. 69 Geoghegan, “Israelite Sheepshearing,” 55. 70 E.g., Eccl 7:14.

264

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

7.3.3.4 2 Sam 13:28 After David agrees to allow the attendance of Amnon at Absalom’s sheepshearing festival in Baal-Hazor, Absalom commands his young men to strike (‫ )הכו‬Amnon to kill him when they see him inebriated: ‫כטוב לב אמנון ביין‬, “When the heart of Amnon is good with wine.” This phrase ‫כטוב לב‬, as an infinitive construct, appears only two other times in the HB.71 Similar to 1 Sam 25:35, 2 Sam 13:28 has employed this literary phrase ‫ כטוב לב־אמנון ביין‬to further the contextual setting of retributive action in this story. The dramatic irony of the narrative is that Amnon is in a conscious state of joyous reward (inebriated) at his own unannounced execution.72 Absalom now speaks with Amnon, ‫למרע ועד־טוב‬.73 In v. 29, Absalom’s servants carry out his orders to strike down (‫ )הכו‬his brother Amnon, and when David learns of it in v. 36, he weeps bitterly.74 Amnon’s death at the spoken word of Absalom (v. 28, ‫ )ויצו אבשלום את נעריו‬in 13:29, was a direct result of ‫הרעה הגדולה‬ ‫( הזאת‬v. 16) he committed against his half-sister, Tamar; an act met with human retribution brought forth by the spoken command and the sword of Absalom. In accordance with the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution employed in the TSN, ‫ רעה‬has come forth from David’s own household, culminating in the death of David’s son, Amnon.

7.3.4 2 Sam 14: The Wise Woman of Tekoa Absalom then flees into exile to Geshur. It is not explicitly stated in the text whether or not David and his court were seeking retribution against Absalom. In 2 Sam 13:39a, there is a possible reference to David having become spent in seeking military action against his son.75 However, 13:39a could also be read as indication that David longed to see Absalom again.76 I suggest that the latter is 71 E.g., Esth 1:10. For Judg 16:25, see Boling, Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, 251. For further evidence of this verse and its use of a literary pun in its context of judgment, see Charles Halton, “Samson’s Last Laugh: The ‘Ś / ŠḤ Q’ Pun in Judges 16:25–27,” JBL 128 (2009): 61–64. Cf. Judg 19:6, 9, and 22. 72 For the command of being ‫ שמחים וטובי לב‬in response to Yhwh’s blessing upon Israel, see Deut 28:47 (cf. 1 Kgs 21:7); cf. 1 Kgs 8:66 for just such a response in obedience to Yhwh’s ‫טובה‬ for David and for Israel. 73 Hoftijzer, “A Case of Fratriarchy,” 58: “Absalom in particular was under the obligation to revenge the above mentioned outrage.” 74 Consider Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Sam 12:10. 75 McCarter, II Samuel, 344. Contra McCarter, see Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative, JSOTSup 255 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 162, n. 65. For a very helpful overview of the textual issues, see Pyper, David as Reader, 216–217. 76 Hoftijzer, “A Case of Fratriarchy,” 419. The MT is grammatically difficult here: ‫ותכל דוד‬ ‫המלך לצאת אל־אבשלום‬, “And David was spent going out to Absalom.” It is better to amend the MT

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

265

a better reading because of David’s response to the news of Absalom’s death in 2 Sam 18.77 The only problem with this reading is that it does not explain Joab’s scheme to bring Absalom back out of exile, which begins in 2 Sam 14:1: ‫וידע יואב בן־צריה כי־לב המלך על־אבשלום‬ And Joab knew that the heart of the king was upon Absalom.

The problem is this: If David is seeking to continue sanctions against Absalom, then it can be assumed that the coming ruse will be used by Joab to prevent David from retribution against Absalom for bloodguilt. However, if David is merely longing for Absalom to return, then why must Joab go to such lengths to provide the king reason to bring Absalom home? Clearly, this juridical parable concocted by Joab is meant to elicit a specific judgment from David, one that will presumably be binding in the case of Absalom just as the decision of David was binding in the juridical parable of Nathan the prophet in 2 Sam 12. I suggest that this coming narrative is one in which David is at a loss for what to do because he is seeking to save the life of Absalom, either through leaving him in exile by threat or through bringing him home.78 Will he succeed at saving his son? Is David’s binding oath (2 Sam 14:11) enough to save Absalom from retribution for his murder of Amnon? Joab seems to think so. It is not in the interest of this research to discuss at large the various readings of commentators in which this juridical parable is debated. These debates are mostly focused upon how the fictitious characters of the parable stand in place of the actual characters of the narrative, e.g., David, Absalom, etc. Rather, I am interested in one particular reading that understands the legal particulars of this juridical parable to be relevant not only to the case of Amnon and Absalom, but also to that of David and Uriah. This gives greater emphasis to the legal tradition encapsulated in the narrative in the various literary motifs of this juridical parable, which is to say that it is less about how the particulars of said parable refer verbatim to the characters of the TSN, and more about the legal problem and the legal principles that the TSN addresses. I suggest that the juridical parable of 2 Sam 14 is clearly addressing the legal situation of 2 Sam 11–12.79

from 4QSama (13:39): ‫ותכל רוח המלך לצאת אל־אבשלום‬, “And the spirit of the king was spent longing for Absalom.” 77 Cf. 2 Sam 18:5 (see § 7.3.8 below). 78 E.g., 2 Sam 17:14; 19:38. 79 See e.g., Pyper, David as Reader, 111–130 (127) who suggests convincingly that 2 Sam 14 is a parody of 2 Sam 12.

266

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

7.3.4.1 2 Sam 14:4–7 In 2 Sam 14:1–4, Joab sends for a wise woman from Tekoa. He then asks her to pretend that she is a mourner who has been mourning for the dead for many days. He places a juridical parable in her mouth that concerns two sons who quarrel in a field, one son having murdered the other, for there was nobody to come between them.80 It is clear how the two sons refer to Amnon and Absalom respectively. Secondly, this is a juridical parable about blood vengeance threatened by the ‫( משפחה‬similar to David and Uriah; Absalom and Amnon).81 Finally, and due to blood vengeance, this is a juridical parable about a deceased husband whose name is threatened of being blotted out of Israel (Uriah?).82 David’s legal decision would ensure the continuation of the name through the relinquishing of the punishment of the son of the deceased man’s widow. In so doing, David will have to rule against the ‫ משפחה‬and the blood avenger (‫)גאל הדם‬, offering safe asylum to the woman’s only remaining coal (‫)גחלתי‬, the son through whom the name of the deceased husband may continue.83 This segment of the 2 Sam 14 narrative begins to address the problem of Absalom in exile. The role of the blood avenger was the very “instrument for the administration of justice” within the clan.84 David then invokes the name of Yhwh 80 For a thorough discussion on this juridical parable and its significance in beginning with “two sons,” see Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa, 25–84. 81 See Elizabeth Bellefontaine, “Customary Law and Chieftainship: Judicial Aspects of 2 Samuel 14.4–21,” JSOT 12 (1987): 47–72 (64). 82 Interestingly enough, this has affinities with Deut 22:23–27 (‫)בשדה‬, the law regarding rape, and Deut 25:5–10 (‫)ולא־ימחה ְשמֹו מישראל‬, the law of the levirate. See too, Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa, 77–126 (91): “Therefore, the Tekoite’s claim that her family would wipe out her dead husband’s name ‘from the face of the earth’ finds considerable resonance with the central concern of the levirate texts.” 83 McCarter, II Samuel, 22. That the phrase, ‫וכבו את־גחלתי אשר נשארה‬, refers to the last of the line of progeny for her husband, see a similar phrase in OB (CT 6 27b:16), ālik idija ša kinūšu bi-lu-ú, “My assistant, whose brazier has gone out (i. e., who has no family).” CAD B, 73; CAD K, 394–95; Hoftijzer, “A Case of Fratriarchy,” 422 and n. 2; Karel van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Changes in the Forms of Religious Life, SHCANE 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 130. That David’s actions in 2 Sam 11 could be interpreted as narrative actions of succession to the Jebusite throne, see Z. Kallai, “Punishment and Guilt in Biblical Historiography,” in Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible, eds. S. Yonah, D. Sivan and Z. Talshir, [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2001), 376–381 (381); Nicolas Wyatt, “‘Araunah the Jebusite’ and the Throne of David,” ST 39 (2008): 39–53 (47); Shmuel Yeivin, “The Beginning of the House of David,” [Hebrew] Zion 9 (1944): 64; Bodi, Warlord, 191. 84 Donald A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament: with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth (Cherry Hill, N. J.: Mack Pub. Co., 1974), 118. This was often carried out by a member of the family clan, possibly the nearest of kin. See also Pamela Barmash, “Blood Feud and State Control: Differing Legal Institutions for the Remedy of Homicide During the Second and First Millennia B. C.E.,” JNES 63 (2004): 183–199 (195); Leggett, The Levirate and

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

267

(14:11) overruling the ‫ גאל הדם‬in her ‫ משפחה‬and preventing the punishment of her son, thus giving a continued name to her deceased husband.85 In this ruling, David has overturned one of the worst curses that could befall a man in the ANE, i. e., that he should be left without name on earth.86 This legal principle regarding the continuation of the name of the deceased man (2 Sam 14), so I contend, is the essential force behind the ‘interpretation’ of Solomon’s rise as David’s successor. Thus, it comes to the fore here in the parable told by the wise woman of Tekoa.

7.3.4.2 2 Sam 14:17 ‫ותאמר שפחתך יהיה־נא דבר־אדני המלך למנוחה כי כמלך האלהים כן אדני המלך לשמע הטוב והרע וה׳‬ ‫אלהיך יהי עמך‬ So your servant said: “May the word of the king my lord put me at rest because the king my lord is like the messenger of God, granting the good and the bad. May Yhwh your God be with you!”87

This brings us to two of the most oft quoted passages in the history of research regarding ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬‎(2 Sam 14:17, 20). The phrase ‫ דבר־אדני המלך‬is understood by Mettinger as a legal decision that will exonerate her son in this case.88 Similar to 1 Kgs 3, the infinitive construct ‫ לשמע‬is best translated in the sense of hearing in order to grant a request, which in this case involves directly legal retribution.89 Thus, David, like Yhwh, is the grantor of the extremes of the retributive process (‫ הטוב‬and ‫)הרעה‬.90 Furthermore, 2 Sam 14:17 is in parallel with 2 Sam 14:20b: ‫ואדני חכם כחכמת מלאך האלהים לדעת את־כל־אשר בארץ‬ But my Lord is wise like the wise messenger of God, to know all that is in the land.

Whitelam emphasizes the judicial characteristics expressed in the phrase ‫כחכמת‬ ‫ מאלך האלהים‬in that David is representative of Yhwh in judicial matters.91 Mettinger Goel, 112. That vengeance was a right enforced by the court, see Raymond Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, CahRB 26 (Paris: Gabalda, 1988), 77, n. 157. 85 See e.g., Jonathan P. Burnside, The Signs of Sin: Seriousness of Offence in Biblical Law, JSOTSup 364 (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 79–120 (101–104). 86 Hoftijzer, “A Case of Fratriarchy,” 422 and n. 1; Fensham, “Common Trends,” 159. 87 Regarding the placement of this verse in the narrative, see McCarter, II Samuel, 345–346; cf. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), 131; Pyper, David as Reader, 218–219. 88 Mettinger, King and Messiah, 242. 89 See § 6.4.1.1 above. Also, Hoftijzer, “A Case of Fratriarchy,” 441; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 241; cf. McCarter, II Samuel, 347; contra totality, see Mettinger, King and Messiah, 242. 90 Cf. Rosenberg, King and Kin, 184. 91 Whitelam, The Just King, 135.

268

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

goes as far as to call this wisdom a divine gift in the judging of lawsuits.92 Clearly, the phrase, “to know all that is in the land,” (‫ )לדעת את־כל־אשר בארץ‬is a phrase that alludes to the king’s omniscience. I contend that similar to ‫מלאך האלהים‬, David has omniscience for the purpose of rendering justice in the land, and so, for Absalom.93 Thus, the parallel between 2 Sam 14:17 and 14:20 is contrasting David as the judge who stands in the place of Yhwh, the divine judge.94 After David inquires from the woman to know if Joab is behind the ruse, he then instructs Joab to bring the boy (‫ )הנער‬home (v. 21). Will the bringing of Absalom out of exile be ‫ טוב‬or ‫ רעע‬for Absalom? What will it be for David? Does the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution as the structuring element of the TSN have anything to add to this discussion? Indeed, Absalom gives us a glimpse of what his homecoming means in his dialogue with Joab in 14:32.95

7.3.4.3 2 Sam 14:32 In this short episode, Absalom has set fire to Joab’s field in order to force Joab to speak on his behalf to David: ‫ויאמר אבשלום אל־יואב הנה שלחתי אליך לאמר בא הנה ואשלחה אתך אל־המלך לאמר למה באתי‬ ‫מגשור טוב לי עד אני־שם ועתה אראה פני המלך ואם־יש־בי עון והמתני‬ And Absalom said to Joab: “Look, I sent word to you saying, ‘Come. I want to send a message by you to the king saying: Why have you brought me from Geshur? It would have been better for me if I were still there! Now, I will appear before the face of the king, and if I have guilt, then he can put me to death!’”

The phrase ‫טוב לי‬, “good for me,” is simple and to the point, but should be contrasted with the final phrase of the narrative: ‫ואם־יש־בי עון והמתני‬.96 For Absalom, his return from exile did not clear him of guilt in the eyes of David.97 Absalom is accusing his father of trafficking in duplicity. His request is that David either 92 Mettinger, King and Messiah, 242; cf. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 238. 93 Whitelam, The Just King, 135; For a similar judicial motif, see, e.g., Ps 139:2–4 (Walton, Chavalas and Matthews, IVP: Bible Background Commentary, 557). On a more general ancient Near Eastern level, the hymn to Šamaš lauds the omniscience of the god of justice by using imagery that characterizes the sun-god “as the luminary who sees all,” [W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, Mesopotamian Civilizations (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 126–27; John Boardman and I. E.S. Edwards, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East: From the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC, CAH 3, pt. 2, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 307; Jonathan Ben-Dov, “The Poor Man’s Curse: Exodus XXII 20–26 and Curse Literature in the Ancient World,” VT 56 (2006): esp. 445–47]. 94 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 186–90; Whitelam, The Just King, 140–41. 95 So Pyper, David as Reader, 122, and Gunn, King David, 158. 96 Cf. Num 14:3. 97 Leroy Waterman, “The Curse in the ‘Paradise Epic’,” JAOS 39 (1919): 324.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

269

abolishes this curse by restoring him to his rightful place in the court or that David puts him to death for his crimes against Amnon. Thus, David has yet to lift the sanction of exile in the fullest sense possible regarding this ‘bad’ experience for Absalom. Knowing where the narrative leads, Absalom was speaking the truth in saying, “‫טוב לי‬,” with regard to his exile.

7.3.5 2 Sam 15: Absalom’s Rebellion 2 Samuel 15 opens with an indication of the coup d’état to come; Absalom has provided for himself a military unit.98 This is then followed by an important element of the narrative in 2 Sam 15:2: ‫והשכים אבשלום ועמד על־יד דרך השער ויהי כל־האיש אשר־יהיה־לו־ריב לבוא אל־המלך למשפט ויקרא‬ ‫אבשלום אליו ויאמר אי־מזה עיר אתה ויאמר מאחר שבטי־ישראל עבדך‬ And Absalom woke early in the morning and he stood by the way of the gate. And it was that every man who had a lawsuit to bring to the king for judgment, Absalom would cry out to that man, saying, “From which city are you?” When the man would reply, “Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.”

Absalom’s rebellion begins within a legal framework apparent in the phrase, ‫דרך‬ ‫השער‬, which in this context represents a gate complex where judicial matters were heard and decided by the tribal chiefs and elders in particular cities.99 Furthermore, the word ‫ריב‬, “lawsuit, legal case,” indicates for what reason persons were coming to the gates for ‫משפט‬.100 This leads logically into the discussion of 15:3, which presents the first use of ‫ טוב‬in this narrative segment. 98 This is “‘royal’ behavior.” See Long, “2  Samuel,”, 2:464; Whitelam, The Just King, 141; McCarter, II Samuel, 357; V. Phillips Long, “1 Samuel,” in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 2 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 310, and his observation of a “loose” parallel of 1 Sam 8:11 to a Hittite text in which a similar royal description is given. 99 Daniel A. Frese, “A Land of Gates: Covenant Communities in the Book of Deuteronomy,” VT 65 (2015): 51–52; Hans W. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (London: SCM Press LTD, 1964), 336. For a Neo-Babylonian example of the gate as a place of argument, see BIN 1 34:26: [anā]ku u atta ina pani ili [ina] KÁ KUR nidabbub, “You and I will argue before the gods image at the Gate of the Country,” (CAD, M-I, “mātu 2b,” 419); Simon B. Parker, Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 13–14. 100 “‫ריב‬,” HALOT 3:1225–26; Berend Gemser, “The RÎB-* or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley, eds. Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas, VTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1955) 247–61; James Limburg, “Root ‫ ריב‬and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” JBL 88 (1969): 297; Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East, trans. Jeremy Moiser (London: SPCK, 1980), 46–7; Whitelam, The Just King, 138–9 and Georg

270

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

7.3.5.1 2 Sam 15:3 ‫ויאמר אליו אבשלום ראה דברך טובים ונכחים ושמע אין־לך מאת המלך‬ And Absalom said to them, “See, your words are good and justified. However, you do not have a judge appointed by the king.”101

In its most basic translation, the phrase, ‫דברך טובים‬, is simply “your good words.”102 Most translations understand this verse to mean that the claims of those who have come to Absalom are sound or reasonable.103 I suggest that this employment of ‫ טוב‬connotes a nuanced meaning within this present legal framework.104 Thus, ­Absalom is stating his verdict as it pertains to their cases; indication of the expected ruling that renders the blessing on behalf of the claimant’s case.105 Furthermore, by the end of 2 Sam 15:3, Absalom states that there is no one appointed by David to hear (‫)שמע אין־לך מאת המלך‬, which implies that nobody is able to grant ‘the good or bad’ expected in the adjudication of a ‫ריב‬.‎Moreover, v. 4 adds to said suggestion by indicating Absalom’s intentions as it pertains to justifying all of those who came to him with a ‫ריב‬: ‫ויאמר אבשלום מי־ישמני שפט בארץ ועלי יבוא כל־איש אשר־יהיה־לו־ריב ומשפט והצדקתיו‬ And Absalom said: “If only somebody would make me judge in the land. Then everyone who had a lawsuit could come to me for justice, and I would declare those persons to be in the right (‫)והצדקתיו‬.”

Consider that the words, ‫דברך טובים ונכחים‬, of 2 Sam 15:3 do not need to be (within the setting of the story!) true to form.106 These people coming to Absalom with a ‫ ריב‬could be in the wrong and their lawsuits could bring about an undesirable verdict by another judge. Instead, Absalom’s cunning action of justifying the lawsuits of all who came to the king, with his initial indication of said justification

C. Macholz, “Die Stellung des Königs in der israelitischen Gerichtsverfassung,” ZAW 84 (1972): 169. Contra Whitelam and Macholz, Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (Sheffield: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961), 152. 101 For, ‫ושמע אין לך‬, as ‘a judge,’ see Pietro Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts, and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 105 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 187; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 241. 102 It is better to amend MT’s ‫ דברך‬to the expected ‫דבריך‬. 103 See e.g., McAffee, “The Good Word,” 384. 104 Others have stressed the legal context as well, see Johag, “Terminus technicus,” 21; Höver-Johag, “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:313, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:333; D. Winton Thomas, “A Note on ‫ דעת‬in Proverbs 22:12,” JTS 14 (1963): 94. 105 Contra McAffee, “The Good Word,” 384; Cf. Johag, “Terminus technicus,” 22. 106 Compare e.g., Pedersen, Life and Culture, 346.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

271

(‫)דברך טובים ונכחים‬, resulted in his own growing popularity amongst the people.107 Absalom’s response in 15:3, coupled with his deeds in 15:4, serves to give him the momentum he needs in order to steal the hearts of the people.

7.3.5.2 2 Sam 15:14 ‫ויאמר דוד לכל־עבדיו אשר־אתו בירושלם קומו ונברחה כי לא־תהיה־לנו פליטה מפני אבשלום מהרו ללכת‬ ‫פן־ימהר והשגנו והדיח עלינו את־הרעה והכה העיר לפי־חרב‬ And David said to all of his servants who were with him in Jerusalem: “Get up! We must escape because there will be no survival from before Absalom. Hurry! Lest he quickly overtake us and wield against us disaster (‫ )הרעה‬and strike the city with the edge of the sword.

After David is informed by a messenger in 15:13 that the hearts of the men of Israel have gone after Absalom, David quickly devises a plan to escape from the city in 15:14. David has an inclination of what to expect as the result of Absalom’s actions, which is evidenced by the narrative’s contrast of ‫חרב‬, “sword,” with ‫רעה‬, “disaster.” Both ‫ רעה‬and ‫ חרב‬are a narrative reference to Yhwh’s curse against David in 2 Sam 12:10–11: ‫ועתה לא־תסור חרב מביתך עד־עולם‬‎ (10)

108 ‫כה אמר ה׳ הנני מקים עליך רעה מביתך‬.‎ (11) Consider the active participation of the human (Absalom) in the divine curse against David (‫)מביתך‬. Absalom is willfully mounting a rebellion against David but is so as the materialization of the divine curse of Yhwh against David for his crimes against Uriah the Hittite. David begins his exile from Jerusalem and from his throne. These literary nuances will continue to be evident in the following chapters.

7.3.5.3 2 Sam 15:26 After David commands Zadok to return the Ark of God back to the city, he states: ‫ואם כה יאמר לא חפצתי בך הנני יעשה־לי כאשר טוב בעיניו‬ And if he [Yhwh] says, “I take no pleasure in him.” Then let him do to me what is good in his eyes.

107 A cognate of ‫ נכח‬is ‫יכח‬, which has a basic meaning of “setting right” or “showing what is right,” and in some forms, especially in a hifil conjugation in legal contexts, it has the sense of “to reproach, to punish, to decide,” see “‫יכח‬,” HALOT 2:410; G. Mayer, “‫יכח‬,” TDOT 5:65. 108 Brueggemann, David and His Theologian, 13–15; Carlson, David, the Chosen King, 141.

272

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

The phrase, ‫יעשה־לי כאשר טוב בעיניו‬, has a particular meaning in certain legal contexts (e.g., see § 6.3.7 above and § 7.3.8.1 below). Bovati surveys several examples in which this formula is 1) a satisfaction formula in the mouth of the accuser, and 2) a formula that signifies that the accused has relinquished their will to the accuser as it pertains to retributive action. Bovati goes on to suggest that the expression ‫טוב‬ ‫יטב‬/‫ בעיניו‬is indication of a proposed agreement by at least one party and that said agreement is to be used “to resolve a particular question.”109 I suggest that this is the meaning of the legal statement made by David in 2 Sam 15:26, i. e., ‫הנני יעשה־לי‬ ‫כאשר טוב בעיניו‬, which is to say that David has given himself over fully to Yhwh’s retributive action in this matter.110

7.3.6 2 Sam 16: David’s Exile The context of the 2 Sam 16 narrative begins with David approaching Bahurim. He was then met by Shimei of Saul’s family, who is cursing and throwing stones at David.111

7.3.6.1 2 Sam 16:7–8 ‫) השיב עליך ה׳ כל דמי בית־שאול‬16:8( ‫וכה־אמר שמעי בקקלו צא צא איש הדמים ואיש הבליעל‬‎(16:7) ‫אשר מלכת תחתו ויתן ה׳ את־המלוכה ביד אבשלום בנך והנך ברעתך כי איש דמים אתה‬ (16:7) And so he said: “Leave! Leave, you man of blood! Lawbreaker! (16:8) Yhwh has returned upon you all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead you rule. And Yhwh has given your kingdom into the hand of Absalom. Behold! Calamity / Misfortune is upon you because you are a man of blood.

Shimei perceives David’s ‫( רעה‬disaster) and calls attention to the interpretation for which he contends David is indeed under the curse, i. e., due to David’s bloodguilt committed against the house of Saul.112 However, this interpretation 109 Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, 162, n. 89, and his corresponding bibliography. He also cites as an example, Lev 10:19–20. The satisfaction phrase ‫ וייטב בעיניו‬indicates that Moses’ accusation against Aaron was rescinded, clearing Aaron (and his sons) of any wrong doing, and therefore, from any harm by way of retributive action. See too, Höver-Johag, “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:308, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:328–329. 110 For a similar use, see Josh 22:30 and 22:33. Also, consider Josh 24:15 and the phrase, ‫ואם‬ ‫רע בעיניכם‬, “But if serving Yhwh is evil in your eyes….” I do not agree with Schmitt’s conclusion regarding a paucity of divine threat in the charge of Joshua (24:15) against the people who choose to remain loyal to other gods as opposed to Yhwh [Götz Schmitt, Der Landtag von Sichem (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964), 37], cf. Josh 24:20. 111 McCarter, II Samuel, 375–77; Anderson, The Blessing and the Curse, 203–04. 112 Walton, Chavalas and Matthews, IVP: Bible Background Commentary, 345; Walter Bruegge­mann, “On Coping with Curse: A Study of 2 Sam 16:5–14,” CBQ 36 (1974): 175–92; Kitz, Cursed are You, 160–61.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

273

of the events that have befallen David is incorrect. The kingdom had passed into the hand of Absalom on account of David’s actions against the house of Uriah (cf. 2 Sam 12:10–14).113 Most instructive is Shimei’s assumed participation in Yhwh’s punitive action against David through blessing and cursing.114 Furthermore, Shimei’s interpretation of said events is indication of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. The narrative’s employment of ‫ ברעתך‬as the descriptor of the extreme result of Yhwh’s punitive retribution against David is evidenced by Shimei’s interpretation of said calamity. Thus, the character, Shimei, is interpreting David’s “misfortune / evil” as Yhwh’s retribution and presuming to participate in said misfortune with his spoken curse (v. 7, ‫)וכה־אמר שמעי בקקלו‬. Thus, ‫ רעה‬in this narrative is undoubtedly synonymous with the divine curse and its result in the extreme. However, in accordance with the TSN thus far, this particular ‘disaster’ for David is clearly Yhwh’s retribution for his crimes against Uriah the Hittite (e.g., 2 Sam 12:11, ‫)כה אמר ה׳ הנני מקים עליך רעה מביתך‬.

7.3.6.2 2 Sam 16:12 This suggestion is further clarified by David’s reply in 2 Sam 16:12 to Abishai, who requested of the tribal chieftain permission to kill Shimei for his belligerent acts against David: ‫אולי יראה ה׳ בעוני והשיב ה׳ לי טובה תחת קללתו היום הזה‬ Maybe Yhwh will look on my humiliation and change for me his curse into good this day.115

The juxtaposition of ‫ טובה‬with ‫קללתו‬, “his curse,” immediately places ‫ טובה‬in a semantic equivalent to blessing, and therefore, ‫ רעה‬as being synonymous with ‫קללה‬. Furthermore, this stage in the legal dispute between Yhwh and David suggests that David’s statement, ‫והשיב ה׳ לי טובה תחת קללתו היום הזה‬, is a continued capitulation to Yhwh, the one behind the punitive action of the curse.116 Thus, in 2 Sam 16:12, ‫ טובה‬is a reference to the blessing of Yhwh. 113 As Kitz states: “Eventually, one learns that Šimei’s curse fell utterly flat and that he was never acting under Yhwh’s directive as David had feared” (Ibid., Cursed are You, 161), contra James C. Vanderkam, “Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study,” JBL 99 (1980): 536. 114 Brueggemann, “On Coping,” 179. 115 It is best to amend MT’s ‫ בעוני‬to ‫בעניי‬. Cf. 4QSama (16:12). 116 Some also read this as ‫קללתי‬, cf. BHS. For a discussion of the noun form derived from the qal stem, see Brichto, The Problem of Curse, 18; Aitken, The Semantics, 230–242. Regarding the exegesis of 16:12, see Kitz, Cursed are You, 161: “Ultimately, it is viewed as Yhwh’s curse.” So too, Aitken, The Semantics, 241 (A.6), cf. Ibid., 248, (A.4). Aitken is still correct, however, that this term may refer to “a negative state or an expression of denigration by someone” (Ibid., The Semantics, 249). See too, Deut 23:6.

274

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

7.3.7 2 Sam 17: Absalom Defeated It is essential to ground the discussion of 2 Sam 17 within the progression from 2 Sam 16. In 16:22, partial fulfillment of the retributive actions of Yhwh against David are fulfilled (cf. 2 Sam 12:11–12). On account of Ahitophel’s advice, ­Absalom pitches a tent upon the roof, and has intercourse with David’s concubines in the eyes of all of Israel (‫)לעיני כל־ישראל‬. This action by Absalom signaled David’s ultimate deposition.117 In 16:23, the writer further states that in those days the advice of Ahitophel (‫ )עצת אחיתפל‬was of the same eminence as the word of God (‫)דבר האלהים‬. This text elucidates the semantic qualities of ‫ דבר‬and ‫עצה‬, namely, it is through the prophetic utterance (‫ )דבר‬or through the word of the “sagacious statesman” (‫ )עצה‬that policy was ultimately implemented by the tribal chieftain.118 Furthermore, adherence to ‫ דבר‬or ‫ עצה‬by the chief results in success (divine blessing), whereas the spurning of either ‫ דבר‬or ‫ עצה‬brings Yhwh’s judgment.119

7.3.7.1 2 Sam 17:7 ‫ויאמר חושי אל־אבשלום לא־טובה העצה אשר־יעץ אחיתפל בפעם הזאת‬ And Hushai said to Absalom: “The policy, which Ahitophel has advised this time, is not good.”

Hushai—David’s privy counselor—suggests that the effectiveness of Ahitophel’s policy is not good.120 His denunciation of Ahitophel’s ‫ עצה‬by declaring that it is ‫ לא טובה‬is a cunning attempt by Hushai to dissuade Absalom from following the policy of Ahitophel.121 Furthermore, it has been said before that Hushai’s policy seemed wiser than Ahitophel’s policy, thus rendering Absalom’s final decision as disposed toward Hushai and his ‫עצה‬.122 In 17:14, the narrative will reveal whose ‫ עצה‬leads to the blessing and whose leads to the curse of Yhwh.

117 Walton, Chavalas and Matthews, IVP: Bible Background Commentary, 345, and too, 2 Sam 12:11. 118 William McKane, Prophets and Wise Men, SBT 44 (London: SCM, 1965), 55–56. In addition to these is the priestly oracle as well. 119 Ibid., Prophets and Wise Men, 56, esp. 65–68. 120 McCarter, II Samuel, 372. 121 Cf. Conroy, Absalom, Absalom, 114. 122 Song-Mi Suzie Park, “The Frustration of Wisdom: Wisdom, Counsel, and Divine Will in 2 Samuel 17:1–23,” JBL 128 (2009): 455.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

275

7.3.7.2 2 Sam 17:14 ‫ויאמר אבשלום וכל־איש ישראל טובה עצת חושי הארכי מעצת אחיתפל וה׳ צוה להפר את־עצת אחיתפל‬ ‫הטובה לבעבור הביא ה׳ אל־אבשלום את־הרעה‬ And Absalom said, and all the people of Israel agreed: “The policy of Hushai the Archite is better than the policy of Ahitophel.” For Yhwh shattered the good policy of Ahitophel in order that Yhwh might bring upon Absalom the disaster.123

The TSN juxtaposes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬once again. I contend that the phrases ‫טובה עצת‬ ‫חושי הארכי‬, “the good advice of Hushai the Archite,” and ‫עצת אחיתפל הטובה‬, “the good policy of Ahitophel,” should be interpreted within the framework of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. Just as the cunning ‘bad’ advice (‫ )עצה‬of Hushai would bring Yhwh’s curse upon Absalom (a ‘good’ for David), so too would Ahitophel’s ‘good’ advice (‫ )עצה‬bring Yhwh’s blessing upon Absalom (an ‘evil’ for David). This text does not allow for ‘mechanical’ retribution, but it certainly shows why ‘mechanical’ retribution is assumed. Within the narrative, the employment of human wisdom in political action is the divine agency behind the ensuing result of blessing and cursing. In this case, however, this ‘advice’ is employed in the context of human and divine retribution. Important to the literary aspects of 2 Sam 17:14 is the employment of ‫ להפר‬in the phrase, ‫וה׳ צוה להפר את־עצת אחיתפל הטובה לבעבור הביא ה׳ אל־אבשלום את־הרעה‬, “For Yhwh shattered the good policy of Ahitophel in order that Yhwh might bring upon Absalom the disaster.” This particular root of ‫פרר‬, “to break, declare invalid,” occurs in its hifil and hofal stems often to denote the breaking, the suspension, or the destruction of a covenant by either party.124 Furthermore, while Absalom seeks the course of action that will substantiate Yhwh’s approval of his coup for all concerned, Yhwh has sent forth another messenger to shatter said policy. Ignoring Ahitophel’s policy, Absalom and all of Israel agreed to the ‫ עצה‬of the messenger of Yhwh, which leads to Absalom’s demise.125 However, Absalom’s rise to power (and his ultimate demise) is retribution against David for his crimes against Uriah the Hittite according to the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution.126 Consider the similarity between 2 Sam 17:14bβ and Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 12:11aα: 123 See esp., Rosenberg, King and Kin, 185. 124 Winfried Thiel, “Hēfēr Berît: Zum Bundbrechen im Alten Testament,” VT 20 (1970): 214–229; “‫ ”פרר‬HALOT 3:976. See e.g., Lev 26:44. 125 See Rosenberg, King and Kin, 184–185: “‘Good and Evil,’ at any rate, do not appear here as an opposition after all, but as a kind of internal bifurcation: what people judge good may bring them evil; what might have brought them good would have entailed the triumph of evil” (185). 126 Contra Schücking-Jungblut, “Political Reasons,” 11: “By adding those two sentences, the redactor makes Yhwh the decisive agent and his intervention accordingly becomes the essential factor for the failure of the uprising.” I disagree on account of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution as a structuring element to these narratives (so Bodi, see § 3.2.2 above), and too, the central movement of this narrative—in light of Yhwh’s ‫ רעה‬and his curse

276

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

‫הביא ה׳ אל־אבשלום את־הרעה‬‎(17:14bβ)

127 ‫כה אמר ה׳ הנני מקים עליך רעה מביתך‬.‎ (12:11aα)

In the following narrative (2 Sam 18), David will do all that he can do to ensure that his son, Absalom, survives in the ensuing battle.

7.3.8 2 Sam 18: David’s Good and Bad News The similarity of the scene in 2  Sam  18 to that which took place in 2  Sam  11 (the murder of Uriah the Hittite) is often overlooked in the secondary literature. In a comparison of the beginning two verses of said narratives (2 Sam 18:2 and 2 Sam 11:1), it is clear that the tribal chief (David) is re-enacting the military scene of 2 Sam 11. In both accounts, David is the one sending the troops (especially Joab) into battle: ‫וישלח דוד את־העם‬‎ (2 Sam 18:2) ‫וישלח דוד את־יואב ואת־עבדיו עמו ואת־כל־ישראל‬‎ (2 Sam 11:1aβ)

In 2  Sam  18:2, David has chosen to go out to battle with his troops, which is opposite his decision in 2 Sam 11. Thus, the tension and juxtaposition of the two narratives is centered upon David’s going out or his remaining behind in the city. The following verses (2 Sam 18:3–4) will confirm that although David states his desire to go out with the troops, he must remain behind in the city once again.

7.3.8.1 2 Sam 18:3–4 ‫ויאמר העם לא תצא כי אם־נס ננוס לא־ישימו אלינו לב ואם־ימתו חצינו לא־ישימו אלינו לב כי־עתה כמנו‬ 128‫עשרה אלפים ועתה טוב כי־תהיה־לנו מעיר לעזיר‬ And the men said: “You shall not go out! For if we flee, they will not give care to us, and if half of us should die, they will not give care to us. But now, you are like ten thousand of us. Thus, it is good for you to be for us from the city [in order] to help.

Here, the text states that the men have real concern for David and his survival in this conflict.129 They suggest that it is good (‫ )טוב‬for David to remain behind in order for him to help from the city. Their will is accomplished, and David complies with their request in the following verse (18:4): of 2 Sam 12:10–14—already assumes the rebellion of Absalom as divine retribution sent forth against David for his crimes against Uriah the Hittite. There is no reason to assume the work of redactor at this juncture in the narrative. 127 Brueggemann, David and His Theologian, 38–39. 128 It is better to amend MT’s ‫ לעזיר‬to the expected ‫לעזור‬. 129 Conroy, Absalom, Absalom, 48; Cf. Gunn, “David and the Gift,” 23–24.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

277

‫ויאמר אליהם המלך אשר־ייטב בעיניכם אעשה ויעמד המלך אל־יד השער וכל־העם יצאו למאות ולאלפים‬ And the king said to them: “That which is good in your eyes, I will do.” And the king stood by the gate-complex, while all of the men went out by hundreds and by thousands.

There are two important sentences in 18:4 that are pertinent to this study. The first phrase to consider— ‫אשר־ייטב בעיניכם אעשה‬, “That which is good in your eyes, I will do.”—is similar to the legal phrase ‫יטב‬/‫ טוב בעיניו‬that Bovati suggested could appear in either the mouth of the accuser or in the mouth of the accused (see e.g., § 6.3.7 and § 7.3.5.3 above).130 The life of the king is at stake, and so too, the body politic.131 After David agrees to their request, he stands by the gate complex.132 The gate (‫ )שער‬has played a prominent role in the TSN.133 Thus, the narrative has come full circle and David is now standing as the one to hear, albeit, to hear the decision of Yhwh’s judgment.134 Either David’s remaining in the city, or his going out to battle with his troops, will result in ‘good’ being bestowed upon him. However, David’s remaining solidifies the demise and death of Absalom. In 18:5, David commands his soldiers to protect (‫ )לאט‬his son, Absalom, from harm.135 David continues to seek the welfare and not the harm of his sons.136 This command is very different from the one he sent by the hand of Uriah to Joab in 2 Sam 11:15. The narrative returns to the retributive punishment against David in that his sons contending for succession have lost their rights to be his successor, which leads to Solomon’s ascension to the throne.137

130 Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, 162. Cf. 2 Sam 3:36. 131 So Anderson, 2 Samuel, 224: “The king was believed to be the life of the people (21:17) and the source of their wellbeing; therefore the above request is plausible.” 132 For my translation of gate-complex, see Frese, “A Land of Gates,” 36. 133 See e.g., 2 Sam 15:2. 134 Cf. 2 Sam 15:3; Kitz, Cursed are You, 100, n. 13. 135 Instead of reading MT’s ‫ לאט‬as a prepositional phrase, “Deal gently” (e.g., JPS, NRSV, NET), McCarter suggests reading ‫ לאט‬as an infinitive absolute of ‫לּוט‬, “wrap closely, tightly, enwrap envelope, cover.” Thus, “Protect for me!” This was first suggested by Paul Haupt, “Deal Gently with the Young Man,” JBL 45 (1926): 357. See McCarter, II Samuel, 405; Steven T. Mann, Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20), Siphrut 10 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 136, n. d. Cf. 2 Sam 19:5; “‫אט‬-I,” HALOT 1:37; “‫אט‬,” BDB 31; “‫ לוט‬and ‫לֹוט‬-I,” HALOT 2:523; “‫לּוט‬,” BDB 533. For infinitive absolute as imperative, see GKC § 113bb and Joüon, § 123u. 136 Cf. my comment on 2 Sam 13:21 above (§ 7.3.3.2). This was true of the child who was born to him by his illicit union to Bathsheba, as well as his stance toward Amnon after his crimes against Tamar. 137 Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil,” 50.

278

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

7.3.8.2 2 Sam 18:9 ‫ויקרא אבשלום לפני עבדי דוד ואבשלום רכב על־הפרד ויבא הפרד תחת שובך האלה הגדולה ויחזק ראשו‬ ‫באלה ויתן בין השמים ובין הארץ והפרד אשר־תחתיו עבר‬ And Absalom happened to come before David’s servants. Absalom was riding upon the mule, and when the mule went under the branches of a large terebinth tree, his head became stuck in the terebinth, and he hung [was set] between heaven and earth, and the mule under him continued on [from him].

The narrative brings Absalom’s rebellion to its climactic moment; Absalom is suspended from a tree, denoting the very essence of Yhwh’s curse (Deut 21:23): ‫לא־תלין נבלתו על־העץ כי־קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא כי־קללת אלהים תלוי‬ His corpse shall not remain upon the tree, for you shall burry him on that same day, because cursed is one who hangs [from a tree].138

In addition to this pericope in which Absalom hangs from a tree, the motif of the passing along of the royal mule symbolizes the kingdom leaving the self-appointed tribal chieftain and is an all too subtle echo of the kingdom being stripped of Saul (e.g., 1 Sam 15:28).139 These two verses advance the narrative of the curse against David’s house. Absalom meets his death at the hands of Joab and his servants, who do not obey the command of David (contra his command regarding, Uriah) to protect his son, Absalom.

7.3.8.3 2 Sam 18:27 In 2 Sam 18:24, David is sitting (‫ )יושב‬between two gates (‫ )שני השערים‬waiting for word from the watchman that a messenger has arrived to give a report concerning the battle.140 In v. 24, the watchman on the “roof of the gate” (‫ )גג השער‬lifts his eyes

138 The LXX supplies “on a tree” in this verse. See Long, “2 Samuel,” 2:468. Also, the text states that a large pile of stones covered the pit in which Absalom’s body had been cast, which is a literary allusion of the curse, see McCarter, II Samuel, 407. In 2 Sam 14, David swears on oath that not one hair of the banished woman’s son will fall to the ground, which some interpreters suggest alludes to Absalom’s hair described in 2 Sam 13 and in this passage, wherein not one hair of Absalom falls to the ground. See esp., Pyper, David as Reader, 129–130. 139 Conroy, Absalom, Absalom, 60; McCarter, II Samuel, 406; Walton, Chavalas and Matthews, IVP: Bible Background Commentary, 347. I am indebted to Professor Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer for suggesting to me this contrast with the Saul narrative. 140 This could signify a canopied throne where the king sat between the outer and inner gates, see Long, “2 Samuel,” 2:470 and Avraham Biran, “Dan,” NEAEHL 5:1688–69; Cf. Frese, “A Land of Gates,” 36, n. 9.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

279

to see two runners who are approaching, each running alone and separate.141 In v. 27, the watchman gives a description of the messengers: ‫ויאמר הצפה אני ראה את־מרוצת הראשון כמרצת אחימעץ בן־צדוק ויאמר המלך איש־טוב זה ואל־בשורה‬ ‫טובה יבוא‬ The watchman said: “I see that the running of the first one is like the running of Ahimaaz son of Zadok.” And the king replied, “This is a loyal (good) man, and so he comes in concern of good news.”

The first phrase, ‫איש טוב‬, “a good man,” is a statement about Ahimaaz’s faithfulness and loyalty to David, as opposed to any sort of moral quality.142 This translation of “loyal” is consistent with the employment of ‫ טוב‬as emphasized in this research. Furthermore, the latter phrase, ‫בשורה טובה‬, “good news,” is the assumed result of a loyal follower of David as the one dispatched by Joab to inform David.143 The ‫בשורה‬, i. e., the good news of victory in a military campaign, is accompanied by the adjective ‫טובה‬, which implies that David expects the victorious report to include good news apropos Absalom. However, Ahimaaz is not privy to the information that David seeks.

7.3.8.4 2 Sam 18:31–32 ‫והנה הכושי בא ויאמר הכושי יתבשר אדני המלך כי־שפטך ה׳ היום מיד כל־הקמים עליך‬ Then suddenly the Cushite came, and he [the Cushite] said: “Victorious news for my lord the king! For today Yhwh has vindicated you from the hand of all those who would rise up against you.

2 Sam 18:31 employs ‫ בשר‬in its hitpael form indicating that the usurpation against David has been nullified. Moreover, the root ‫שפט‬, with Yhwh as its subject, furthers the narrative’s thematic element that is centered upon those who render justice. However, consider the final phrase of this verse: ‫כל־הקמים עליך‬, “all who rise up against you.” The qal masculine participle of the root ‫קום‬, which when followed by the particle ‫על‬, gives the sense of “rising against.” This phrase is similar to Nathan’s prophetic oracle against David in 2 Sam 12:11: ‫כה אמר ה׳ הנני מקים עליך רעה מביתך‬. 141 The Hebrew word ‫גג‬, “roof,” only appears four times in the entirety of the 2 Samuel narrative. Twice in 2 Sam 11:2 (David and Bathsheba), once in 2 Sam 16:22 (Absalom taking David’s concubines), and once here in 2 Sam 18:24. 142 McCarter, II Samuel, 409. 143 For ‫ בשורה‬as denoting a “reward,” see 2 Sam 18:22. Concerning the root ‫ בשר‬and its use to name a specific type of messenger sent to bring the good news of victory in a military campaign, see R. W. Fisher, “The Mubassiru Messengers at Mari,” in Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies, ed. Gordon D. Young (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 113–20; Long, “2 Samuel,” 2:469.

280

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

The major difference in 2 Sam 12:11 is that ‫ קום‬is employed in its hifil form with Yhwh as the subject. In addition to 2 Sam 12:11, the following verse of 2 Sam 18:32 includes the same phrase, albeit, with the appearance of ‫רעה‬: ‫ויאמר המלך אל־הכושי השלום לנער לאבשלום ויאמר הכושי יהיו כנער איבי אדני המלך וכל אשר־קמו עליך‬ ‫לרעה‬ And the king said to the Cushite: “How is the welfare of the young man Absalom?” The Cushite responded: “May the enemies of my Lord the King be like that young man, and [so too], all who rise up against you to do you harm (‫)הער‬.

The question posed by the tribal chieftain to the Cushite demonstrates once again David’s disposition of fatherly concern for Absalom, indicated by the word ‫שלום‬. The Cushite’s response (18:32) employs the similar phrase from 18:31: ‫וכל אשר־קמו‬ ‫עליך לרעה‬, “and all who rise up against you for harm.” The contrast between the narrative’s employment of ‫ שלום‬to describe David’s concern for Absalom, and the employment of ‫ רעה‬to describe the harm intended by David’s usurpers, rightly points toward Yhwh as the active subject in this particular ‫ריב‬, who brings forth both extremes, i. e., ‫ שלום‬and ‫רעה‬. Consider the juxtaposition of ‫ שלום‬and ‫ רע‬that appears in Isaiah 45:7: ‫יוצר אור ובורא חשך עשה שלום ובורא רע אני ה׳ עשה כל־אלה‬ One who forms light and one who creates darkness; one who makes peace (‫ )שלום‬and one who creates calamity (‫ ;)רע‬I am Yhwh, who does all these things.144

Moreover, this proposal concerning ‫ שלום‬and ‫ רעע‬is also confirmed in the narrative by the final phrase in 2 Sam 18:32: ‫וכל אשר־קמו עליך לרעה‬.145 The Cushite is not privy to Nathan’s oracle against David given in 2 Sam 12:11: ‫כה אמר ה׳ הנני מקים עליך‬ ‫רעה מביתך‬. Ironically, Nathan’s oracle against David is textually reminiscent of the Cushite’s devastating news that he reports to David. Thus, David’s response in the following verse (19:1) is one of bitter weeping and crying out.

144 See too, Isa 41:23; 47:10–11; Zeph 1:12; 3:15. Most important to note is that this verse in Isa 45 is part of a larger polemic that declares Yhwh’s uniqueness as creator and king. See e.g., Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion, 128, and her reference to Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 105–108 (esp. 105); Moshe Weinfeld, The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel, VTSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 113; cf. Dohmen and Rick, “‫רעע‬,” TDOT 13:575–576; Ibid., “‫רעע‬,” ThWAT 7:598–599; Lindström, God and the Origin of Evil, 178–179; Schmid, “Genealogien der Moral,” 94–95 (esp. 95). For an analysis of ‫ שלום‬in the Absalom rebellion, see Brueggemann, David and His Theologian, 96–98. 145 For a very helpful overview of ‫שלום‬, especially in the story of Jehu, see Wray Beal, The Deuteronomist’s Prophet, 157–173.

Divine Retribution and ‫   דהערו בוט תעדה‬

281

7.3.9 2 Sam 19: David Weeps for His Son, Absalom The 2 Sam 19 narrative brings to a close the rebellion of Absalom.

7.3.9.1 2 Sam 19:1 ‫בני אבשלום בני בני אבשלום מי־יתן מּותי אני תחתיך אבשלום בני בני‬ O my son, Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! If only I would have died in your place. Absalom, my son, my son!

This verse (19:1) illustrates clearly that David considers the loss of Absalom to be a great disaster (‫ )רעה‬for himself.146 I suggest that the juxtaposition of ‫שלום‬ (e.g., wellbeing of Absalom) and ‫רעה‬‎ (2 Sam 18:32, see above) in the narrative is synonymous with the extremes of Yhwh’s retribution (‫ טוב‬and ‫)רעע‬. At one and the same time, Absalom is bringing harm / misfortune against David, but he does so as the materialization of Yhwh’s curse unleashed against David for his (David’s) crimes committed against Uriah the Hittite. Absalom will not be David’s successor, for Yhwh determined to bring ‫ רעה‬upon him (2 Sam 17:14), which this verse in 19:1 confirms to be a calamity for David.

7.3.9.2 2 Sam 19:8 In 19:2, Joab is informed of David’s weeping and mourning for his son. In 19:3, the day turns from victory into mourning because of the king’s actions, and in 19:4, the troops “stole” (‫ )ויתנגב‬into the city as soldiers “steal in” (‫ )יתנגב‬ashamed as they flee from war.147 This is followed by Joab’s insistence in vv. 6–7 that David has brought shame upon his troops; upon those who have saved his life and the lives of all within his home.148 These verses (vv. 6–7) place the narrative within the larger context of covenantal and “political loyalty” discussed up to this point.149 Joab then declares the death of Absalom as a disaster (‫ )רעה‬for David (v. 8): 146 Cf. 2 Sam 19:8 below. 147 Brad E. Kelle, “Postwar Rituals of Return and Reintegration,” in Ancient Israel and its Literature: Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, eds. Brad E. Kelle, Frank R. Ames and Jacob L. Wright, AIL 18 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 218, n. 38. 148 For shame as a marker of covenant infringement, see Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant,” esp. 208–209. 149 McCarter, II Samuel, 409; Long, “2 Samuel,” 2:471. Consider, e.g., EA 286. See Rainey, The El-Amarna Correspondence, 1106–1107; Cochavi-Rainey, To the King My Lord, 212–13; Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, 860; Moran, The Amarna Letters, 326. It is well known that the words “love” (‫ )אהב‬and “hate” (‫ )שנא‬are unique to covenant loyalty terminology in the ANE. However, the modern words “love” and “hate” may be insufficient in conveying the sort of political discourse that is intended by these two texts, i. e., 2 Sam 19:7 and EA 286. See too,

282

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

‫ועתה קום צא ודבר על־לב עבדיך כי בה׳ נשבעתי כי־אינך יוצא אם־ילין איש אתך הלילה ורעה לך זאת‬ ‫מכל־הרעה אשר־באה עליך מנעריך עד־עתה‬ And now, rise and go out and speak to the heart of your servants! For I swear by Yhwh that if you do not go out, not a man will stay with you this night, and this disaster would be greater than all the disaster which has come upon you from your youth until now.150

In this particular verse, Joab confirms that Absalom’s death is indeed a ‘disaster’ (‫ )רעה‬that has come upon David (i. e., ‫עד־עתה‬, “until now”); an ‘evil’ from his own house (e.g., ‫ )מביתך‬and an allusion to Yhwh’s curse (e.g., 2 Sam 12:11).151 This leads to the final apposition of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in this chapter (19:36).

7.3.9.3 2 Sam 19:36 ‫בן שמנים שנה אנכי היום האדע בין טוב לרע אם־יטעם עבדך את־אשר אכל ואת־אשר אשתה אם־אשמע עוד‬ ‫בקול שרים ושרות ולמה יהיה עבדך עוד למׂשא אל־אדני המלך‬ I am 80 years old today; Can I know the difference good and evil? Is your servant able to taste that which he eats and that which he drinks? Am I able to still listen to the voice of singing men and women? Why must your servant still be a burden to my lord the king?

Barzillai is offered by David a place next to him in his court in v. 34, which he refuses in v. 36. What is agreed upon in the literature is that this phrase, ‫האדע בין‬ ‫טוב לרע‬, appears in a short narrative segment in which Barzillai considers himself unfit for court life. But what of its meaning? Some have suggested that this phrase should be translated as, “Can I discern what is pleasant and what is not?”152 I contend that it is essential to the narrative to interpret this verse in light of

Ibid., “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” 77–87 (79); Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 191–192; Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 168; Ackerman, “The Personal is Political,” 437–458 (438, 440); Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Feeling our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69; John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1996), 42. 150 Swearing by the name of Yhwh is not as common in the HB as one might assume, see Mann, Run, David, Run, 148, n. 12.  151 In 2 Sam 19:28, Mephibosheth is relinquishing his right to defense in using this satisfaction phrase,‫( ועשה הטוב בעיניך‬cf. 2 Sam 15:26). 152 See NRSV (19:35), Anderson, 2  Samuel, 239, and McCarter, II Samuel, 422, n. 36. ­McCarter states: “But it is not moral discernment he has lost. It is something else accompanying the transition from childhood to adulthood, viz. sexual potency.” Cf. Smend, Lehrbuch, 120, n. 1; Ehrlich, Genesis und Exodus, 9; Stoebe, “Gut und Böse,” 201, esp. 195–201; Skinner, Genesis, 95 (footnote); Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, Genesis 1–6:8, 112.

1 Kings 1–2: The Climax of the TSN    

283

this study and the narrative’s employment of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬as the extremes of the divine and human retributive process. Thus, Barzillai is unfit in his old age to participate in the knowledge of retribution as it pertains to David’s court. On one level, discernment is suggested by 19:36; however, it is discernment in the whole of the retributive process expected of a member in the court. Finally, in vv. 38–40, David bestows a blessing upon Barzillai.153 What must now be considered is the conclusion to the TSN in 1 Kings 1–2, wherein Solomon becomes the successor to David, but only in perpetuity after ‫ רעה‬is found in Adonijah.

7.4 1 Kings 1–2: The Climax of the TSN  The first two chapters of 1 Kings are thought by some to be the denouement to the TSN, whose final scenes narrate Solomon’s accession to David’s throne. As a result, this continuation of all that proceeded 1 Kings 1–2 found in 2 Samuel 11–20 is evident in the thematic elements unique to said narrative.154

7.4.1 1 Kings 1: Solomon Anointed King; Adonijah is Rejected The main action of the narrative in 1 Kings 1 concerns who it is of David’s remaining sons in the narrative will become David’s successor: Adonijah or Solomon. In 1 Kings 1:5, Adonijah exalts himself (‫ )מתנשא‬declaring that he will become tribal chieftain. His actions of preparing for himself chariots, horsemen (‫)פרשים‬, and fifty runners to go before him are reminiscent of Absalom’s similar actions in 2 Sam 15:1.155 It can be safely assumed that Adonijah’s claim to the throne is legitimate on at least one level, namely, that he is older than Solomon and therefore, next in line to David.

153 Consider these verses in light of 2 Sam 15:26. Regarding the blessing, see Brueggemann, David and His Theologian, 17–18. See too, 20:6 wherein David seeks to curb Bichri’s potential disaster (‫ )ירע‬that he would bring upon David and his house in his similar rebellion to that of Absalom. Brueggemann labels it a “curse,” (Ibid., David and His Theologian, 17–18). 154 DeVries, 1 Kings, 8. 155 The major difference is the employment of terminology unique to Solomon’s reign such as ‫פרשים‬, “horsemen,” in 1 Kings 1:5 as opposed to Absalom’s ‫ססים‬, “horses,” in 2 Sam 15:1. See Cogan, I Kings, 157, and his citation of Tomoo Ishida, History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel: Studies in Biblical Historiography, SHCANE 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 173. For this ancient Near Eastern practice as “royal behavior,” see my comments on 2 Sam 15:1 (§ 7.3.5).

284

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

7.4.1.1 1 Kgs 1:6 ‫ולא־עצבו אביו מימיו לאמר מדוע ככה עשית וגם־הוא טוב־תאר מאד ואתו ילדה אחרי אבשלום‬ And his father never disciplined him all of his days, saying, “Why have you done this?” He also was very stately in appearance, and she bore him after Absalom.

The first phrase that gives an allusion to the TSN as a whole is the phrase: ‫ולא־עצבו אביו מימיו‬ And his father [David] never disciplined him [Adonijah] all of his days.

This phrase is similar to the LXX’s reading of 2 Sam 13:21, which is confirmed by 4QSama (13:22): [‫]ולא עצב את רוח אמנון בנו כי אה]בו כי בכור[ו] [הוא‬ And he did not rebuke the spirit of Amnon, his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn.156

David—as ‫שפט‬, and more importantly, as father—has refused to bring appropriate retribution against his sons, which in this case leads to Adonijah’s attempt to become David’s successor.157 In addition to this phrase’s allusion to David’s similar dealings with Amnon and Absalom is a phrase that employs ‫ טוב‬as a description of Adonijah: ‫וגם־הוא טוב־תאר מאד‬ Moreover, he was very good in appearance.158

This is the only occurrence of this phrase in the HB.159 It is already reminiscent of 2 Sam 14:25 in which Absalom is described by the text as the most beautiful man in all of Israel, (i. e., ‫ ;)וכאבשלום לא־היה איש־יפה בכל־ישראל‬indication of the narrative’s 156 See my comments on 2 Sam 13:21 (§ 7.3.3.2). 157 DeVries, 1 Kings, 13. 158 Most translations read ‫ טוב־תאר מאד‬as “very handsome.” One may be able to translate ‫ טוב־תאר מאד‬as “exceedingly stately,” see “‫תאר‬,” HALOT 4:1,676, and the corresponding bibliography for the translation of the Phoenician tʾr as “stately appearance” in Eshmunʾazar 12, “Eshmunʾazar of Sidon,” trans. by Franz Rosenthal (ANET, 662); cf. “The Sarcophagus Inscription of ʾ­ Eshmunʿazor, King of Sidon,” trans. P. Kyle McCarter (COS 2.57:182–183), who simply translates tʾr as “form.” Greenfield understands the word tʾr as meaning “not only good appearance but also a special transcendent quality,” so “‫תאר‬,” HALOT 4:1,676 and Jonas C. Greenfield, “Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. Hans Goedicke, JHNES (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), 265. Cf. Saul’s description in 1 Sam 9:2. 159 Cf. the more common, ‫( יפת תאר‬e.g. 1 Sam 25:3).

1 Kings 1–2: The Climax of the TSN    

285

ironic rejection of David’s “handsome” and “beautiful” sons as his successors.160 The text’s description of Adonijah as ‫—טוב־תאר מאד‬i. e., “very beautiful” or “very stately in appearance,”—is the continuation of the TSN’s juxtaposition of the blessing and the curse within David’s house. Adonijah should be David’s obvious successor after the violent deaths of Amnon and Absalom (he is ‫ טוב־תאר מאד‬afterall), but his good looks are an ironic indication of Yhwh’s continued retribution against David for his crimes against Uriah the Hittite. This will be fully revealed in this narrative in 1 Kgs 1:52 (see § 7.4.1.4 below).

7.4.1.2 1 Kgs 1:42 ‫עודנו מדבר והנה יונתן בן־אביתר הכהן בא ויאמר אדניהו בא כי איש חיל אתה וטוב תבשר‬ While he (Joab)  was still speaking, behold, Jonathan, son of Abiathar the priest arrived. Adonijah said, “Come! For you are a worthy man, so it is good which you will announce.161

After the narrative’s setup of David’s soon and coming death in his old age (1 Kgs 1:1–4), the narrative tells of Adonijah’s self-proclamation as David’s successor, which is met with the support of Joab and Abiathar (1:7). In sacrificing at En-rogel, Adonijah solidifies his political support from the “people of Judah” (‫ולכל־אנשי‬ ‫)יהודה‬, which is similar to Absalom’s rebellion in 2 Sam 15:1–12 (6b) wherewith Absalom stole the support of the people of Israel (‫)ויגנב אבשלום את־לב אנשי ישראל‬. Then, Nathan the prophet and Bathsheba work together toward Solomon’s accession to the throne. This begins with Nathan reporting to Bathsheba that Adonijah had become king (1:11) and that in order to save both Bathsheba’s and her son’s life, he would offer her his political advice (‫)עצה‬, which involved Bathsheba appearing before David (1:15–17) in order to remind him of his promise (‫ )אתה נשבעת בה׳‬to her concerning Solomon’s succession, which would guarantee the safety of Solomon and Bathsheba (1 Kgs 1:21). David then assures Bathsheba (1:30) that as Yhwh lives, so will Solomon rule as his successor. He summons Nathan the prophet, Zadok the priest, and Benaiah, who together in 1:38–39, lead Solomon to Gihon as he rides on David’s mule, which is a sing of royalty.162 There, he is anointed by Zadok the priest. The accession scene ends in 1:40 with great celebration and accompaniment, and it is followed in 1:41 by describing Adonijah’s and Joab’s inquiry into the noise of the celebration. 160 Cf. DeVries, 1 Kings, 13. 161 That ‫ איש חיל‬can refer to “the wealthy land-owning classes who were liable for military service,” see John F. A. Sawyer, “The Ruined House in Ecclesiastes 12: A Reconstruction of the Original Parable,” JBL 94 (1975): 525. It can also imply that a person has unique abilities, so C. L. Seow, “Qohelet’s Eschatological Poem,” JBL 118 (1999): 216; Cogan, I Kings, 163. For the translation of ‫ וטוב תבשר‬as, “so it is good which you announce,” see DeVries, 1 Kings, 18. 162 See e.g., Bodi, “The Story of Samuel, Saul, and David,” 213–214.

286

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

This scene in 1 Kgs 1:42 has affinities with the messenger scene of 2 Sam 18:27. Just as David perceives that Ahimaaz is a loyal man (‫ )איש טוב‬and thus believes him to be bringing good news (‫)בשורה טובה‬, so too does Adonijah judge Jonathan (the messenger and son of the priest Abiathar) to be a worthy man (‫)איש חיל‬ and so assumes him to arrive with good news (‫)טוב תבשר‬. The latter phrase, ‫טוב תבשר‬, “good which you will announce,” is the continued use of irony by the narrative to express the curse as punishment against David for his crimes. Adonijah does not receive the blessing (i. e., ‫ ;)טוב‬rather, he learns that his younger half-brother, Solomon, is the successor backed by David. Adonijah’s life is now in danger.

7.4.1.3 1 Kgs 1:47 ‫וגם־באו עבדי המלך לברך את־אדנינו המלך דוד לאמר ייטב אלהיך את־שם שלמה משמך ויגדל את־כסאו‬ ‫מכסאך וישתחו המלך על־המשכב‬ Moreover, the servants of the king came to bless our lord King David, saying: “May your God make the name of Solomon more renowned than your name, and may his throne be greater than your throne.” The king worshipped upon the bed.163

The phrase ‫ ייטב אלהיך את־שם שלמה משמך‬is a blessing bestowed upon David and Solomon, but not upon Adonijah, to whom the report has come. The form ‫ יֵ ֵיטב‬is a hifil conjugation of the root ‫ יטב‬with ‫אלהיך‬, “your God,” as its subject, which is to say, that the active agent of the ‘good’ is Yhwh, ‫אלהיך‬. Furthermore, that which is a spoken blessing (‫ )לברך‬upon Solomon, i. e., ‫ייטב אלהיך את־שם שלמה‬, becomes a threatened curse in the hearing of David’s final heir, Adonijah. Thus, in the consistent use of ‫ טוב‬throughout the TSN in having connotations unique to blessing and cursing, it is no surprise that here in 1:47, the text has employed a form of ‫טוב‬, i. e., ‫יטב‬, as a descriptor of the “good name” that Solomon would come to acquire.164

7.4.1.4 1 Kgs 1:52 Appearing within v. 52 is the only appearance of ‫ רעע‬in the chapter. After Adonijah is left alone at the report of Solomon’s reign, he flees to the tent in order to take hold of the horns of the altar in seeking safe refuge (1:51).165 In 1:51, ‫ בחרב‬is indication of the weapon by which Solomon would have Adonijah put to death. 163 A similar blessing of the name is perceived in ARM I 3:20’, see Ibid., “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History,” 289: “[I], (acquired) a lasting [name]”; Sasson, From the Mari Archives, 238. 164 DeVries, 1 Kings, 18. Compare Höver-Johag, “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:303, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:322–323. 165 See e.g., Burnside, “Flight of the Fugitives,” 420.

1 Kings 1–2: The Climax of the TSN    

287

This phrase is reminiscent of the curse spoken against David by Nathan the prophet in 2 Sam 12:10. The sword of David’s own house is now held by the son born to him through the wife of Uriah, which is threatening David’s other remaining son, Adonijah. However, Solomon’s response in 1:52 is—to Adonijah—full pardon with conditions: ‫ויאמר שלמה אם יהיה לבן־חיל לא־יפל משערתו ארצה ואם־רעה תמצה־בו ומת‬ Then Solomon replied, “If he is a worthy man, no hair will fall from his head to the ground. But if evil is found in him, then he will die.”

Solomon is not concerned with the moral behavior of Adonijah, but with his loyalty to him (Solomon) as David’s successor.166 Thus, Solomon is the judge of said loyalty, and so, the assumed result of disloyalty (‫ )רעה‬will be an execution of Adonijah at the word of Solomon.

7.4.2 1 Kings 2: Adonijah is Executed 7.4.2.1 1 Kgs 2:18 The second chapter of 1 Kings opens with the story of the death of David and the establishment of Solomon’s reign (2:12). Adonijah then requests to have Abishag as wife, which is understood by some scholars to be an attempt at seizing the throne from Solomon by taking from David’s harem.167 The narrative has cast Adonijah as “an Absalom redivivus,” which brings the TSN to its final scene of the death of David’s remaining heir to the throne.168 The demise of Adonijah is initiated when he comes before Bathsheba to make his request of Abishag the Shunammite. In v. 13, the scene opens with the air of hostility still present between the house of Solomon and that of Adonijah. The hostility between both parties is evident in Bathsheba’s greeting to Adonijah, i. e., ‫השלום באך‬, “Have you come in peace?” Adonijah’s response acknowledges her concern and explains with full assurance that he has come in peace. In v. 14, Adonijah brings a case before Bathsheba, one that recounts (1 Kgs 2:15–16) his ascension and fall from the kingship.169 In similar fashion, the TSN has again brought a case (‫ )דבר‬before a person of political sovereignty who is expected to hear and render a judgment.170

166 DeVries, 1 Kings, 20; Cogan, I Kings, 164; Robert L. Hubbard, “The Hebrew Root pg‘ as a Legal Term,” JETS 27 (1984): 131; Walter Brueggemann, “Life and Death in Tenth Century Israel,” JAAR 40 (1972): 106–07. 167 Bodi, Warlord, 83–84; Monson, “1 Kings,” 3:18. 168 Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil,” 50; Blenkinsopp, “Another Contribution,” 58. 169 Cf. Lam 1:12 and “‫אל‬,ֶ ” HALOT 1:50. 170 See 2 Sam 14:1–23; 15:1–4 (§ 7.3.4 and § 7.3.5).

288

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

After Adonijah makes his request for Abishag the Shunammite, casting it as a sort of repayment for his misfortune, Bathsheba replies in 1 Kgs 2:18: ‫ותאמר בת־שבע טוב אנכי אדבר עליך אל־המלך‬ And Bathsheba replied, “Good. I will speak to the king on your behalf.”171

Bathsheba simply agrees by saying, ‫טוב‬, “good,” or “very well.”172 On the one hand, she has agreed to bring Adonijah’s ‫דבר‬, “case,” before Solomon, the very person to whom Adonijah lost his place on the throne. Yet, on the other hand, Bathsheba’s willingness to take Adonijah’s request before Solomon is suspicious because of the part she played, along with Nathan the prophet, in Solomon’s succession to the throne.173 Indeed, Adonijah’s request is perceived by Solomon to be a request for the kingdom itself (1 Kgs 2:22): ‫ויען המלך שלמה ויאמר לאמו ולמה את שאלת את־אבישג השנמית לאדניהו ושאלי־לו את־המלוכה כי הוא‬ ‫אחי הגדול ממני ולו ולאביתר הכהן וליואב בן־צוריה‬ And King Solomon answered and said to his mother, “Why have you requested Abishag the Shunnamite for Adonijah? So, request for him the kingdom because he is my older brother! Ask for him, and for Abiathar the priest and Joab the son of Zeruiah as well!

Solomon’s response indicates that Adonijah’s request is not for Abishag as wife, but for the kingdom based upon his birth order that privileges him to the throne before Solomon. Thus, Bathsheba’s request on behalf of Adonijah is certain death for Adonijah spoken on oath by Solomon in 1 Kgs 2:23–24: ‫ וישבע המלך שלמה בה׳ לאמר כה יעשה־לי אלהים וכה יוסיף כי בנפשו ִּד ֶּבר אדניהו את־הדבר הזה‬‎ (23) ‫ועתה חי־ה׳ אשר הכינני ויושיביני על־כסא דוד אבי ואשר עשה־לי בית כאשר דבר כי היום יומת‬‎ (24) ‫אדניהו‬ (23) Then King Solomon swore by Yhwh saying, “So shall God do to me, and so may he add, because against his life Adonijah has spoken this case.” (24) And now, as Yhwh lives, who has established me and caused me to sit upon the throne of my father David, and who has built me a house as he spoke, so shall Adonijah be put to death today!

171 For a similar account of one speaking on behalf of another in a legal case, see David D. Frankel, “The Speech about God in Job 42:7–8: A Contribution to the Coherence of the Book of Job,” HUCA 82–83 (2012): 26–28. 172 See Höver-Johag, “‫טוב‬,” TDOT 5:313, and Ibid., “‫טוב‬,” ThWAT 3:333. 173 Brueggemann, “Life and Death,” 107; DeVries, 1 Kings, 37. Consider too the possibility of Bathsheba’s role as ‫גבירה‬, “queen mother,” in pre-Davidic, Jebusite Jerusalem, so Wyatt, “Araunah the Jebusite,” 46–47.

Conclusion    

289

Adonijah’s case (‫)הדבר הזה‬, which he brought before Solomon through Bathsheba, renders a judgment that requires the life of Adonijah.174 Thus, the execution of Adonijah appears in the following verse in which Solomon sends Benaiah son of Jehoiada “to execute” him. This legal term ‫פגע‬, “to execute, to put to death,” is present in 1 Kgs 2:25 and is further indication that this is a judicial matter in which Solomon has accused Adonijah of an act of ‫רעה‬‎(e.g., 1 Kgs 1:52, ‫)ואם־רעה תמצה־בו‬.175 I suggest that the execution of David’s one other remaining heir (in the narrative) to the throne is the continued and final result of Nathan’s spoken curse against David in 2 Sam 12:10 (‫ )ועתה לא־תסור חרב מבתיך עד־עולם‬and in 2 Sam 12:11 (‫כה אמר ה׳‬ ‫)הנני מקים עליך רעה מבתיך‬. This episode ends the TSN, and it ends this discussion of Yhwh’s curse brought forth against David for his crimes against Uriah the Hittite, which culminated in the assurance of Solomon’s succession.

7.5 Conclusion There is no doubt that the structuring element of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution is the essential constituent to the TSN as a historiographical narrative telling the story of Solomon’s ascension to the throne. Not one of David’s sons ‘in this narrative,’ born before his crime committed against Uriah the Hittite, succeeded him to the throne. Only Solomon, the son born to David after his marriage to Bathsheba—the wife of Uriah—succeeded him as Yhwh’s chosen tribal chieftain.176 The curse against David that culminates in the death of his sons is cast by the narrative as Yhwh’s retributive punishment enacted against David for his murder of Uriah, who remained without progeny in Israel; one of the most detrimental curses to befall a man in the ANE.177 Thus, the TSN provides a unique perspective apropos the legal principle of the levirate, which serves to provide Uriah the Hittite with a continuing name in Israel within this narrative. Yet, at the same time, the narrative continues Yhwh’s faithfulness to David regarding his future dynasty (e.g., 2 Sam 7). Furthermore, the permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in the TSN attest to the structuring element of the hermeneutical principle of divine 174 Ishida, History and Historical Writing, 132, n. 80; Whitelam, The Just King, 152; Brueggemann, “Life and Death,” 106. 175 See Hubbard, “The Hebrew Root pg‘ as a Legal Term,” 129–133 (129). Note too, Judg 15:12. 176 For a possible allusion to Jebusite succession, see, Bodi, Warlord, 191; Wyatt, “Araunah the Jebusite,” 39–40, 47; Yeivin, “The Beginnings of the Davidids,” 64; Gordon, “Tablets from Ugarit,” 132; Simon, “Ewe-Lamb,” 208; Ben-Dov, “Poor Man’s Curse,” 431–451. Cf. Matt 1:6. 177 Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa, 92–103; Hoftijzer, “David and the Tekoite Woman,” 422 and n. 1; Fensham, “Common Trends,” 159; Davis, “Fulfillment of Creation,” 529, n. 41: “The child of David’s passion dies (2 Sam 12:18) but the child conceived at its death (2 Sam 12:24) as a comfort to Bathsheba is more truly the child of Uriah than of David under the outlook of the rabbinic theory of retribution.”

290

Divine Retribution in the Throne Succession Narrative     

retribution in this story. Therefore, these examples inform the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN suggesting that the most reasonable interpretation is the divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment (‫ ;טוב ורע‬retribution) as defined by this research.

8. Concluding Remarks

In the exegetical work employed in this research on the many texts from the DtrH and Genesis, it is clear that an analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, reveals that these lexemes overwhelmingly refer to the whole process of divine retribution (reward and punishment; ‫טוב‬ ‫)ורע‬. Permutations of either lexeme, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, often refer, in the DtrH and in Genesis, to Yhwh’s evaluation of a human action as being moral or immoral as well as to Yhwh’s evaluation of human action as being obedient or disobedient to his will. Furthermore, the data reveals that these lexemes do not only function textually as discrimination. They also function as the textually described result of a divinely willed retributive action to the discrimination of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬by Yhwh, thus textually signifying Yhwh’s reward and punishment. Therefore, this analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫רעע‬, when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes, in Genesis and the DtrH, confirms that the function is the same to Yhwh’s similar actions of blessing and cursing (‫ טוב‬and ‫ )רעע‬gleaned from my analysis of the same in the EN (see § 4.4 and § 4.5). Likewise, it was also demonstrated that these same lexemes function in a similar way to the human characters in the DtrH and in Genesis, showing how the humans have become like Yhwh with respect to ‫ טוב‬and ‫( רעע‬Gen 3:5, 22) and the whole process for carrying out retribution. Due to this extensive analysis of ‫טוב‬ and ‫ רעע‬in the DtrH, the book of Genesis, and the EN, and too, due to similar Dtn and Dtr theology evident in the EN (§ 4.2.2), and also, due to the need for more representation and analysis of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬outside of the EN for the interpretation of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, it is safe to apply this data to our investigation of the interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the EN. In many respects, the whole of the history of research comes to the fore at the end of this study. There is no doubt that the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬do carry the very basic notion of ‘beneficial’ and ‘harmful,’ which was suggested by Wellhausen. However, it was argued for as an interpretation of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬by Stoebe, Zimmerli, and Westermann (among others) with attuned focus upon the ability to discriminate between the ‘beneficial and the harmful’ (§ 2.2.1). Such human discrimination would clearly be active in the implementation of a knowledge for administering reward and punishment, especially with regard to the will of an authority. Be that as it may, this study has shown unequivocally that the Hebrew lexemes ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬do carry a moral connotation often throughout the HB. In this sense, Driver, Niditch, and Mendenhall (among others; § 2.2.2) have rightly emphasized divine ‘discrimination’ between ‫( טוב‬moral good) and ‫( רעע‬moral evil). Likewise, moral discernment, as gleaned throughout these many narratives,

292

Concluding Remarks   

is essential for the proper use of ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as reward and punishment. Here too, divine discrimination and moral discernment (Budde, Delitzsch, Asselin, and others; § 2.2.8), as interpretations for this phrase, reveal but one part of the wholly implemented process of human and divine retribution. The same can be said regarding both interpretations of omniscience (Major, Cassuto, Wallace, and others; § 2.2.4) and cultural knowledge (Wellhausen, Reicke, Kennedy, and others; § 2.2.5), whereas both the former and the latter function for the telos of righteous true judgments (i. e., the eyes of Yhwh, so omniscience) and the maintenance of the created moral order required for the existence, building, and continuance of civilization (e.g., Jer 18:7–10; Ps 82). Furthermore, moral autonomy (Dohmen, § 2.2.8, n. 139, and Clark, § 2.3.1.1) and Maturity (Buchanan, Gunkel, Bechtel, and others; § 2.2.7) are clearly assumed in divine and human retribution, obviously the former but especially the latter with regard to the authorized use of reward and punishment in human societies, communities, and family units. That brings the discussion to one of the three most suggested interpretations remaining, namely, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as sexual knowledge (§ 2.2.6). Why is it, for example, that 1QSa 1:10–11 forbids a man to have sexual relations with a woman before the full age of twenty, when he possesses the knowledge of ‘good and bad / evil’? I suggest it could be for the purpose of provision and discipline in the rearing and raising of children (e.g., David and his sons in the TSN). Turning to the second remaining interpretation, i. e., magic (Greßmann, Hooke, Stordalen and others; § 2.2.9), I suggest that what is perceived as ‘magic’ in this interpretation is simply the function of divine blessing and cursing in divine reward and punishment (e.g., in legal and covenantal texts) and its assumed authorized role in the materialization of divine retribution through human retribution in the ANE. That leaves the interpretation of wisdom (§ 2.2.3). On one level, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as human and divine retribution / justice is clearly a type of wisdom; a wisdom that is to be employed for the governance of human and earthly society. However, on another level, the sort of wisdom defined in the history of research is often depicted as a knowledge needed for living autonomously. However, it is difficult to see how this knowledge of wisdom to live autonomously would be forbidden by Yhwh, especially when it is so positively praised throughout the HB (e.g., Prov 4:7). Thus, my suggested interpretation would mean that this wisdom to live autonomously is needed in order to live properly under the authority of one who has and is able to enforce ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬successfully (contra mechanical retribution). In this way, ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬, as divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment, has implications for how one should live (i. e., wisdom) under the rule and authority of another who has the divine knowledge of good and bad / evil, whether, as is the case in the HB, that authority is Yhwh or human. In this way, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is not wisdom for living under the reign of another. Rather ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬is political knowledge (so Sacks) to be implemented by mature and righteous authorities (so Machinist) that promotes the need for wisdom and ensures a particular order in the social sphere.

  Concluding Remarks  

293

Therefore, I contend that in light of this study, the best interpretation possible for ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬in the Eden Narrative is the knowledge of good and bad / evil as the divine knowledge necessary for administering reward and punishment. In this way, the semantic range of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in Hebrew—i. e., the beneficial / harmful and the moral / immoral—finds its clearest expression as evidenced in the semantic range of their permutations in the many narratives studied in this research. What cannot be neglected in this interpretation, however, is the essential contextual components (retribution, blessing and cursing, legal and covenantal traditions) that are unique to the ANE and the HB, as demonstrated throughout this study. Moreover, in my methodological approach to this study (§ 2.4), I suggested that there were three parameters which any interpretation would need to adhere to in order to be considered the most reasonable: P1 addresses ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as divine knowledge; P2 addresses the function of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬when Yhwh is the subject or causation of these extremes; and P3 addresses the forbiddenness of ‫הדעת טוב ורע‬. In light of this study, ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬as the divine knowledge for administering reward and punishment adheres to all three parameters:

294

Concluding Remarks   

In the remainder of this final chapter, I will suggest several questions that arise due to the completion of this project, and too, I will propose several avenues of new research that can now be considered.

8.1 Further Questions Moving Forward There are several questions that are raised in light of this thesis. The first question that immediately surfaces is, what are the theological implications of this study? These implications would be relevant to the theological traditions of Judaism and Christianity, as well as to the discipline of biblical theology. The second question that is raised addresses a common misconception in English with regard to the word, retribution: How has the deflation of the English word for retribution, as presently referring primarily to ‘punishment,’ impacted the field’s own understanding of divine retribution (‘reward and punishment’) in the HB? The third question concerns this interpretation and its novel characteristics: Is there any evidence for a similar interpretation as this one in the reception history for ‫ ?הדעת טוב ורע‬Said history is massive and would require an almost impossible undertaking. Still, the question should be asked. A fourth area of interest that rises to the fore concerns how it is that ‘good and bad / evil’ function as reward and punishment in literary documents from the ANE, especially with a locus of study centered upon the divine realm and not simply for a study of ‘theodicy’. A final question concerns the TSN and why the Chronicler bypasses the David-Uriah-Bathsheba story altogether. Could it be that the Chronicler was aware of the implications of the Samuel tradition with regard to Solomon’s ascension to the throne as being a form of retributive justice on behalf of Uriah the Hittite? These questions, among others yet to be spoken, begin to move the discussion forward in light of this project. There are two avenues of research that I consider pertinent and possible after the completion of this study. The first avenue concerns the use of other permutations of other lexemes in Hebrew that function synonymously with permutations of ‫ טוב‬and ‫ רעע‬in narrative contexts of divine and human retribution. The scope of this study did not allow for such a comparison. However, it would be instructive to consider how the basic notions of ‘good and bad / evil’ function in narrative contexts of divine and human retribution in the HB through other permutated lexemes, especially for the interpretation of the ‘textually-signified’ effects of the divine blessing and curse. The TSN allowed for that sort of comparison more than other narratives studied in this thesis. Similarly, but with a slight nuance, this study opens up a second avenue of research important for moral theology and biblical studies, which would help to elucidate the notion that there is substantive ‘good and evil’ out there somewhere. If the human experience of ‘good and bad / evil’ is often times (but not always) a

Further Questions Moving Forward    

295

literary allusion in the HB to the ‘effects’ of the divine blessing and curse, then further study is needed to work out those particulars, especially in light of the way in which ‘natural phenomenon’ and human acts of retribution were interpreted in certain contexts by these ancient peoples to be the materialization of the divine blessing and curse. Moreover, within that discussion, I contend that the most important avenue of research that opens as a result of the completion of this study is how to understand human legal and political decisions, especially within the context of ‘reward and punishment,’ as interpreted in these texts of the HB to be an interplay between Yhwh and the human characters. For example, Absalom’s acceptance of Hushai’s ‫עצה‬, “political advice,” is said by the TSN to be the result of Yhwh’s ‘shattering’ of Ahitophel’s ‘good’ political advice, for the purpose of bringing ‫ רעה‬upon Absalom as punishment against David for his murder of Uriah the Hittite. In this way, there needs to be further delineation of how it is that some actions within human jurisprudence and the implementation of some judicial decisions in the HB were interpreted by these writers to be a reciprocation between the divine and human realm, albeit, at times in the narratives unbeknownst to the human characters (so Absalom), but knowable and understandable to the writer. Phenomenologically, the experience of these ancient peoples in relation to ‘good and bad / evil,’ in the context of human retribution, allowed for said experiences to be interpreted as judicial decisions from the divine realm, but not in every experience of ‘good and bad / evil’, nor in every successful act of human retribution (e.g., Uriah the Hittite). This brings this study to a few final comments. When I began investigating ‫ הדעת טוב ורע‬for this larger work, I did not necessarily expect that the study would lead toward a larger discussion about divine retribution in the HB. However, it quickly became evident that the forbidden divine knowledge in the Eden Narrative concerned the notions of reward and punishment. Thus, this divine knowledge is clearly amalgamated with Yhwh’s narrative actions of social control through divine retribution, alluding to the notion of ‫ משפט‬and the doing of justice in Israel and the world. It begs the question: How did these ancient peoples acquire divine knowledge of ‫ טוב ורע‬through an act of disobedience to the command of Yhwh becoming like the divine beings of Ps 82, Gen 3:5 and 3:22? The woman in the Eden Narrative has already provided us an answer brimming with truth and wisdom regarding this very essential and necessary question through her confession to Yhwh in Gen 3:13b: ‫הּנָ ָחׁש ִה ִּׁש ַיאנִ י וָ אֹכֵ ל‬,ַ “The nāḥāš tricked me, and I ate.”

Bibliography Abasili, Alexander I. “Was it Rape? The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-examined.” VT 61 (2011): 1–15. Abusch, Tzvi. “The Socio-Religious Framework of Maqlû.” Pages 1–34 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Edited by Tzvi Abusch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Ackerman, James S. “Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2.” JBL 109 (1990): 41–60. Ackerman, Susan. “The Personal Is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (ʾĀHĒB, ʾAHĂBÂ) in the Hebrew Bible.” VT 52 (2002): 437–58. Aernie, Matthew D. and Donald E. Hartley. The Righteous & Merciful Judge: The Day of the Lord in the Life and Theology of Paul. SSBT. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2018. Aitken, J. K. The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew. ANESSup 23. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Albertz, Rainer. “Chancen und Gefahren der Zivilization–Kulturarbeit und technischer Fort­ schritt nach der biblischen Urgeschichte Genesis 1–11.” Pages 88–113 in Der Mensch als Hüter seiner Welt. Alttestamentliche Bibelarbeiten zu den Themen des konziliaren Prozesses. CTB 16. Stuttgart: Calwer Taschenbibliotek, 1990. Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. ConBot 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1967. Albright, W. F. “Historical and Mythical Elements in the Story of Joseph.” JBL 37 (1918): 111–43. ———. “The Goddess of Life and Wisdom.” AJSL 36 (1920): 258–94. Allen, Ronald B. “‫ערה‬.” TWOT 2:854–856. Alonso–Schökel, Luis. “Sapiental and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3.” Pages 456–68 in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Edited by Harry M. Orlinsky. LBS. New York: Ktav, 1976. Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 24E. Garden City: Doubleday, 1974. Anderson, Arnold A. 2 Samuel. WBC 11. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. Anderson, Jeff S. “The Social Function of Curses in the Hebrew Bible.” ZAW 110 (1998): 223–37. ———. The Blessing and the Curse: Trajectories in the Theology of the Old Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2014. Ariel, Donald T. and Joseph Naveh. “Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in the Upper Galilee.” BASOR 329 (2003): 61–80. Arneth, Martin. Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt: Studien zur Entstehung der alttestamentlichen Urgeschichte. FRLANT 217. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Arnold, Bill T. Genesis. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Aron, Lewis. “The Tree of Knowledge: Good and Evil: Conflicting Interpretations.” PD (2005): 681–707. Artzi, Pinhas. “The ‘Good Day’ Festivity of Amenophis III.” [Hebrew] Beer-Sheva 3 (1988): Asselin, David T. “The Notion of Dominion in Genesis 1–3.” CBQ 16 (1954): 277–94. Aster, Shawn Zelig. Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1–39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology. ANEM 19. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Bailey, John A. “Initiation and the Primal Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2–3.” JBL (1970): 137–50. Baker, David W. “‫רעע‬.” NIDOTTE 3:1,151–1,155. ———. “Isaiah.” Pages 1–228 in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel. Edited by John H. Walton. Vol. 4 of ZIBBCOT. Edited by John H. Walton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

298

  Bibliography  

Baker, John. “The Myth of Man’s ‘Fall’—A Reappraisal.” ExpTim 92 (1980): 235–37. Baldwin, Joyce G. 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by Wiseman, D. J. TCOT 8. Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 1988. Balentine, Samuel E. “The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment.” JBL 103 (1984): 161–73. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Das Zweite Buch Samuel: ein narratologisch-philologischer Kommentar. BWA(N)T 181. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009. Barmash, Pamela. “Blood Feud and State Control: Differing Legal Institutions for the Remedy of Homicide During the Second and First Millennia B. C.E.” JNES 63 (2004): 183–99. Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. London: SCM Press, 1992. ———. “Is God a Liar? (Genesis 2–3)—and Related Matters.” JTS 57 (2006): 1–22. Barrett, Rob. Disloyalty and Destruction: Religion and Politics in Deuteronomy and the Modern World. LHBOTS 511. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Bartlett, John R. “Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite.” ZAW 88 (1976): 205–26. Barton, George A. A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious. 2nd ed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1902. Barton, John. “Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament.” JTS 30 (1979): 1–14. ———. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1996. Bauer, Hans. “Ein aramäischer Staatsvertrag aus dem 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Die Inschrift der Stele von Sudschīn.” AfO 8 (1932): 1–16. Bauks, Michaela. “Text- and Reception-Historical Reflections on Transmissional and Hermeneu­ tical Techniques in Genesis 2–3.” Pages 139–68 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ———. “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors.” JAJ 3 (2012): 267–301. ———. “Erkenntnis und Leben in Gen  2–3: Zum Wandel eines ursprünglich weisheitlich geprägten Lebensbegriffs.” ZAW 127 (2015): 20–42. Beach, Eleanor F. “The Samaria Ivories, Marzeaḥ, and Biblical Text.” BA 56 (1993): 94–104. Beattie, D. G. R. “What is Genesis 2–3 About?” ExpTim 92 (1980): 8–10. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming.” JSOT 16 (1991): 47–76. ———. “Genesis 2.4B-3.24: A Myth About Human Maturation.” JSOT 67 (1995): 3–26. Bellefontaine, Elizabeth. “Customary Law and Chieftainship: Judicial Aspects of 2  Samuel 14.4–21.” JSOT 12 (1987): 47–72. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “The Poor Man’s Curse: Exodus XXII 20–26 and Curse Literature in the Ancient World.” VT 56 (2006): 431–51. Benedict, Ruth. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1946. Bennett, William H. Genesis. CB 20. Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1904. Berg, Shane. “Ben Sira, the Genesis Creation Accounts, and the Knowledge of God’s Will.” JBL 132 (2013): 138–157. Biddle, Mark E. “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization.” JBL 121 (2002): 617–38. Biran, Avraham. “Dan.” NEAEHL 5:1686–1689. Blank, Sheldon H. “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath.” HUCA 23 (1951): 73–95. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2  Sam. XII 2 ff) and the Yahwist Corpus.” Pages 44–57 in Volume du congrès: Genève 1965. VTSup 15. Leiden: Brill, 1966. ———. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

  Bibliography  

299

———. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with introduction and Commentary. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002. ———. “Another Contribution to the Succession Narrative Debate (2 Samuel 11–20; 1 Kings 1–2).” JSOT 38 (2013): 35–58. Boardman, John and I. E.S. Edwards. The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East: From the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC. CAH 3, pt. 2. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Bodi, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. OBO 101. Göttingen: Veandenhoech und Ruprecht, 1991. ———. “Outraging the Resident Alien: King David, Uriah the Hittite and an El-Amarna Parallel.” UF 35 (2006): 29–56. ———. Demise of the Warlord: A New Look at the David Story. HBM 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010. ———. “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History: Yasmaḫ-Addu’s Letter to Nergal (ARM I 3) and Adad’s Message to Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968).” ARAM 26 (2014): 285–300. ———. “The Story of Samuel, Saul, and David.” Pages 190–226 in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Bodner, Keith. “The Royal Conscience According to 4QSam(a).” DSD 11 (2004): 158–66. Boecker, Hans Jochen. Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East. Translated by Jeremy Moiser. London: SPCK, 1980. Boling, Robert G. Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Edited by Freedman, David Noel. AB 6A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975. ———. Joshua: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 9. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982. Boomershine, T. E. “The Structure of Narrative Rhetoric in Genesis 2–3.” Semeia 18 (1980): 113–29. Booth, Osborne. “The Semantic Development of the Term mišpāṭ in the Old Testament.” JBL 61 (1942): 105–10. Boström, Lennart. The God of the Sages: The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs. CBOT 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990. Botterweck, J. “‫ידע‬.” ThWAT 3:479–512. ———. “‫ידע‬.” TDOT 5:448–481. Bovati, Pietro. Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts, and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 105. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Bowling, Andrew. “‫טוב‬.” TWOT 1:345–346. Brand, Miryam T. Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature. JAJSup 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Brett, Mark G. Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity. OTR. London: Routledge, 2000. Brichto, Herbert. The Problem of ‘Curse’ in the Hebrew Bible. JBLMS XIII. Philadelphia: SBL, 1963. Bright, John. “The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah.” JBL 70 (1951): 15–35. Brueggemann, Walter. “Life and Death in Tenth Century Israel.” JAAR 40 (1972): 96–109. ———. “On Coping with Curse: A Study of 2 Sam 16:5–14.” CBQ 36 (1974): 175–92. ———. David and His Theologian: Literary, Social, and Theological Investigations of the Early Monarchy. Edited by Hanson, K. C. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011. Buber, Martin. Good and Evil: Two Interpretations. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953. ———. Bilder von Gut und Böse. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Buchanan, George W. “The Old Testament Meaning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” JBL 75 (1956): 114–20. Budde, Karl. Die Biblische Urgeschichte: Gen. 1–12, 5. Giessen: J. Ricker, 1883. Bührer, Walter. “The Relative Dating of the Eden Narrative Gen *2–3.” VT 65 (2015): 365–76.

300

  Bibliography  

Burnside, Jonathan P. The Signs of Sin: Seriousness of Offence in Biblical Law. JSOTSup 364. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. ———. “Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical Law (Exodus 21:12–14) and the Davidic Succession Narrative (1 Kings 1–2).” JBL 129 (2010): 418–31. Butler, Trent C. Judges. WBC 8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009. ———. Joshua 13–24. WBC 7B. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Callender, Dexter E., Jr. Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human. HSS 48. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Carlson, Rolf A. David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel. Translated by Erick J. Scharpe and Stanley Rudman. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964. Carmichael, Calum M. “The Paradise Myth: Interpreting without Jewish and Christian Spectacles.” Pages 47–63 in A Walk in the Garden. Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Carpenter, Eugene. “Deuteronomy.” Pages 418–547 in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Edited by John H. Walton. Vol. 1 of ZIBBCOT. Edited by John H. Walton. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013. Carr, David. “The Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of Eden Story.” JBL 112 (1993): 577–95. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Adam to Noah, Genesis 1–6:8. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Perry Foundation Committee for Biblical Research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961. Chapman, Stephen B. “Reading the Bible as Witness: Divine Retribution in the Old Testament.” PRSt 31 (2004): 171–90. Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Charlesworth, James H. The Good and Evil Serptent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Charpin, D. and J. M. Durand. “La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim.” MARI 4 (1985): Chazon, Esther G. “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 13–23 in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays. Edited by Judith Frishman and Lucas van Rompay. TEG 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Clark, W. Malcom. “Legal Background to the Yahwist’s use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2–3.” JBL 88 (1969): 266–78. Coats, George W. “The God of Death: Power and Obedience in the Primeval History.” Int. 29 (1975): 227–39. ———. “The Curse in God’s Blessing: Gen 12,1–4a in the Structure and Theology of the Yahwist.” Pages 31–41 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff, Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. ———. Genesis: With and Introduction to Narrative Literature. FOTL 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Cochavi-Rainey, Zipora. To the King, My Lord: Letters from El-Amarna, Kumidu, Taanach and Other Letters from the Fourteenth Century BCE. The Biblical Encyclopedia Library 20, [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 2005. Cogan, Mordechai. “For in Him Alone of All the House of Jeroboam Has Some Good Been Found by Yhwh, God of Israel (1 Kings 14:13): On the Odyssey of Interpretations.” Pages 269–72 in Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible. Edited by S. Yonah, D. Sivan and Z. Talshir. [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2001. ———. I Kings. AB 10. Garden City: Doubleday, 2001. ———. Bound for Exile. Jerusalem: Carta, 2013.

  Bibliography  

301

Cogan, Mordechai and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB 11. Garden City: Doubleday, 1988. Cohn, Robert L. 2 Kings. Edited by Cotter, David W. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000. Cohon, Samuel S. “Original Sin.” HUCA 21 (1948): 275–330. Conroy, Charles. Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Cook, Johann. “The Origin of the Tradition of the ‫ יצר הטוב‬and ‫יצר הרע‬.” JSJ 38 (2007): 80–91. Cover, Robin. “Sin, Sinners (OT).” ABD 6:31–40. Coxon, Peter. “A Note on ‘Bathsheba’ in Samuel 12,1–6.” Bib 62 (1981): 247–50. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Harrison, R. K. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Crawford, Timothy G. Blessing and curse in Syro-Palestinian inscriptions of the Iron Age. AUSTR 120. New York: Peter Lang, 1992. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Crouch, Carly L. “ḥṭʾṯ as Interpolative Gloss: A Solution to Gen 4,7.” ZAW 12 (2011): 250–58. Crowley, A. E. “Cursing and Blessing.” ERE 4:367–74. Davidson, Robert. Genesis 1–11. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Davies, John A. “Discerning Between Good and Evil: Solomon as a New Adam in 1 Kings.” WTJ 73 (2011): 39–57. Davies, Phillip R. “Making It: Creation and Contradiction in Genesis.” Pages 249–56 in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson. Edited by David J. Clines, M. Daniel Carroll R. and John W. Rogerson. JSOTSup 200. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995. Davis, Charles T. “Fulfillment of Creation: A Study of Matthew’s Genealogy.” JAAR 41 (1973): 520–35. Day, John. From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11. LHBOTS 592. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Dekker, John. “Characterization in the Hebrew Bible: Nabal as a Test Case.” BBR 26 (2016): 311–24. Delitzsch, Franz. Die Genesis. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1852. ———. A New Commentary on Genesis. Translated by Sophia Taylor. 2 vols. New York: Scribner & Welford, 1889. DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. WBC 12. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985. Dillmann, August. Die Genesis. KEHAT 11. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1882. Dohmen, Christoph. Schöpfung und Tod: Die Entfaltung theologischer und anthropologischer Konzeptionen in Gen 2–3. SBB 35. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Dohmen, Christoph and D. Rick. “‫רעע‬.” ThWAT 7:582–611. ———. “‫רעע‬.” TDOT 13:560–588. Doi, Takeo. The Anatomy of Dependence. Translated by John Bester. Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1973. Dornseiff, F. “Antikes zum AT, I. Genesis.” ZAW 52 (1934): 57–75. Dossin, Georges. “L’inscription de Fondation de IAHDUN-LIM, Roi de Mari.” Syria 32 (1955): 1–28. Dragga, Sam. “Genesis 2–3: A Story of Liberation.” JSOT 55 (1992): 3–13. Driver, Samuel R. The Book of Genesis. WC. 12th ed. London: Methuen & CO., 1904. Duhm, Hans. Die bösen Geister im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904. Edwards, Douglas R. “Dress and Ornamentation.” ABD 2:231–238. Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bible: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. Genesis und Exodus. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908. ———. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bible: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. Jesaia, Jeremia. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912.

302

  Bibliography  

Eichler, Raanan. “When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden: A Forgotten Reading of Genesis 3:24.” VT 65 (2015): 20–32. Eiselen, Frederick C. “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” BW 36 (1910): 101–12. Emerton, John A. “The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel and Ancient Hebrew Writing.” Pages 33–49 in Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. PIASHUJ 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Engnell, Ivan. “Knowledge and Life in the Creation Story.” Pages 103–19 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley. Edited by Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. ———. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967. Feder, Yitzaq. “The Mechanics of Retribution in Hittite, Mesopotamian, and ancient Israelite Sources.” JANER 10 (2010): 127–135. ———. “Morality Without Gods? Retribution and the Foundations of the Moral Order in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 253–64 in Teaching Morality in Antiquity. Edited by T. M. Oshima and Susanne Kohlhaas. ORA 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Fensham, F. Charles. “Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament.” VT 13 (1963): 133–43. ———. “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah.” ZAW 75 (1963): 155–75. ———. “The Treaty Between Israel and the Gibeonites.” BA 27 (1964): 96–100. Fisher, R. W. “The Mubassiru Messengers at Mari.” Pages 113–20 in Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies. Edited by Gordon D. Young. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. BibOr 19. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. ———. “The Inscriptions of Bar-Gaʾyah and Matiʿel from Sefîre.” 2 (2002): Flanagan, James W. “Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2.” JBL 91 (1972): 172–81. Floyd, Michael H. “The ‫( ַמ ָשּׂא‬Maśśāʾ) as a Type of Prophetic.” JBL 121 (2002): 401–22. Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981. Forshey, Harold A. “Court Narrative (2 Samuel 9–1 Kings 2).” ABD 1:1,1,173–1,179. Fox, Michael. “Ṭôḇ as Covenant Terminology.” BASOR 209 (2003): 41–42. Frankel, David D. “The Speech about God in Job 42:7–8: A Contribution to the Coherence of the Book of Job.” HUCA 82–83 (2012): 1–36. Frankfurter, David. “Curses, Blessings, and Ritual Authority: Egyptian Magic in Comparative Perspective.” JANER (2005): 157–85. Frayne, Douglas R. Old Babylonian Period: 2003–1595 BC. RIME 4. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Frese, Daniel A. “A Land of Gates: Covenant Communities in the Book of Deuteronomy.” VT 65 (2015): 33–52. Fretheim, Terrence E. “‫ידע‬.” NIDOTTE 401–6. Frolov, Serge. “Succession Narrative: A “Document” or a Phantom?” JBL 121 (2002): 81–104. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “The Atrahasis Epic and Its significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1–9.” BA 40 (1977): 147–55. ———. “Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical Law.” BA 43 (1980): 230–34. Gammie, John G. “Theology of Retribution in the Book of Deuteronomy.” CBQ 32 (1970): 1–12. Gardner, A. “Genesis 2:4b–3: A Mythological Paradigm of Sexual Equality or of the Religious History of Pre-Exilic Israel?” SJT 43 (1990): 1–18.

  Bibliography  

303

Geddes, Arthur. “Creation, and the Blessing or the Curse Upon Fruitfulness: An Anthropo­ geographical Interpretation of Genesis I-III.” Man 45 (1945): 123–28. Gelander, Shamai. The Good Creator: Literature and Theology in Genesis 1–11. SFSHJ 147. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Gelston, Anthony. “The Repentance of God.” Pages 195–209 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katherine J. Dell and Brian A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2011. Gemser, Berend. “The RÎB-* or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality.” Pages 247–61 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley. Edited by Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Geoghegan, Jeffrey C. “Israelite Sheepshearing and David’s Rise to Power.” Bib 87 (2006): 55–63. George, Andrew R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Gerleman, Gillis. “Die Wurzel šlm.” ZAW 85 (1973): 1–14. ———. “Der Nicht-Mensch. Erwägungen zur hebräischen Wurzel NBL.” VT 24 (1974): 147–58. ———. “Schuld und Sühne: Erwägungen zu 2. Samuel 12.” Pages 132–39 in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Robert Hanhart, Herbert Donner and Rudolf Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Gevirtz, Stanley. “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law.” VT 11 (1961): 137–58. Gillingham, Susan. The Image, the Depths and the Surface: Multivalent Approaches to Biblical Study. JSOTSup 354. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Gordis, Robert. “The Significance of the Paradise Myth.” AJSL 52 (1936): 86–94. ———. “The Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls.” JBL 76 (1957): 123–38. Gordon, Alexander R. The Early Traditions of Genesis. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907. Gordon, Cyrus H. “Samsi-Adad’s Military Texts from Mari.” ArOr 18 (1950): 199–207. ———. Introduction to Old Testament Times. Ventnor, N. J.: Ventnor Publishers, 1953. ———. “Observations of the Akkadian Tablets from Ugarit.” RA 50 (1956): 127–33. ———. Ugaritic Textbook. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontificum Institute Biblicum, 1965. Gordon, Robert P. “‫טוב‬.” NIDOTTE 2:346–350. ———. “The Ethics of Eden: Truth-Telling in Genesis 2–3.” Pages 11–33 in Ethical and Unethical Behaviour in the Old Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue. Edited by Katharine J. Dell. LHBOT 528. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. ———. “‘Couch’ or ‘Crouch’: Genesis 4:7 and the Temptation of Cain.” Pages 195–209 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katherine J. Dell and Brian A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2011. Grabbe, Lester L. “Reflections on the Discussion.” Pages 339–50 in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. ———. “The Kingdom of Judah from Sennacherib’s Invasion to the Fall of Jerusalem: If We had Only the Bible….” Pages 279–316 in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. ———. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? rev. and enl. ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Gray, John. I & II Kings. OTL. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press LTD, 1970. Grayson, Albert K. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. From the Beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi I. RANE. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972. ———. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B. C. II, (858–745 BC). RIMA 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. ———. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

304

  Bibliography  

Grayson, Albert K., Thomas L. Thompson and Donald Lateiner. “Historiography.” ABD 3: 205–219. Greenfield, Jonas C. “Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions.” Pages 253–68 in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans Goedicke. JHNES. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971. ———. “Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty Insciptions.” Pages 22–39 in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Michael E. Stones and Avital Pinnick. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Greengus, Samuel. “Laws.” ABD 4:242–252. ———. Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the ancient Near East. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011. ———. “Covenant and Treaty in the Hebrew Bible and in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 91–126 in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Greenstein, Edward L. “Presenting Genesis 1, Constructively and Deconstructively.” Proof 21 (2001): 1–22. Greenwood, Kyle. “Tree of Knowledge.” n.p. [cited 11 Aug 2017]. Online: http://www.bibleodyssey. org/passages/related-articles/tree-of-knowledge. Greßmann, Hugo. “Mythische Reste in der Paradieserzählung.” AR 10 (1907): 345–67. Grintz, I. M. “The Treaty with the Gibeonites.” [Hebrew] Zion 26 (1961): 69–84. Grossman, Jonathan. “The Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle in the Narrative of Absalom’s Rebellion.” Bib 88 (2007): 558–66. Grundke, Christopher. “A Tempest in a Teapot? Genesis iii 8 Again.” VT 51 (2001): 548–51. Gubernatis, Angelo de. La mythologie des plantes, ou, Les légendes du règne végétal. 2 vols. Paris: C. Reinwald, 1878. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. HAT 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901. Gunn, David M. “David and the Gift of the Kingdom (2 Sam 2–4, 9–20, 1 Kgs 1–2).” Semeia 25 (1975): 14–45. ———. “Traditional Composition in the ‘Succession Narrative’.” VT 26 (1976): 214–29. ———. The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation. JSOTSup 6. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1978. Hallo, William W. “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case-Study in the Contrastive Approach.” HUCA 48 (1977): 1–18. ———. “Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach.” Pages 1–26 in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by William W. Hallo, Carl D. Evans and John B. White. PTMS 34. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: This Pickwick Press, 1980. Halpern, Baruch. “Sectionalism and the Schism.” JBL 93 (1974): 519–32. Halton, Charles. “Samson’s Last Laugh: The ‘Ś / ŠḤQ’ Pun in Judges 16:25–27.” JBL 128 (2009): 61–64. Harris, W. Hall. The NET Bible Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. Richardson: Biblical Studies Press, 2005. Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. London: Tyndale Press, 1970. Hartman, Louis Francis. “Sin in Paradise.” CBQ 20 (1958): 26–40. Haupt, Paul. “Deal Gently with the Young Man.” JBL 45 (1926): 357. Hempel, Johannes. “Die israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen.” BZAW 81 (1925): 20–110. Herring, Stephen L. Divine Substitution: Humanity as the Manifestation of Deity in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. FRLANT 247. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Hertzberg, Hans W. I and II Samuel: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. OTL. London: SCM Press LTD, 1964.

  Bibliography  

305

Hess, Richard S. “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ‘ādām’ in Genesis I-V.” Pages 1–15 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by John Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. ———. Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by Wiseman, D. J. TCOC 6. Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 1996. ———. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. ———. The Old Testament: A Historical, Theological, and Critical Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Hilber, John W. “Psalms.” Pages 316–464 in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Edited by John H. Walton. Vol. 5 of ZIBBCOT. Edited by John H. Walton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. Hill, Andrew E. and Gary A. Herion. “Functional Yahwism and Social Control in the Early Israelite Monarchy.” JETS 29 (1986): 277–84. Hillers, Delbert R. “A Note on some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament.” BASOR 176 (1964): 46–47. ———. Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. BibOr 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Hobbs, T. Raymond. 2 Kings. WBC 13. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985. ———. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12. WBC 6B. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Hoftijzer, Jacob. “Absalom and Tamar: A Case of Fratriarchy?” Pages 54–61 in Schrift en Uitleg. Studies … aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. W. H. Gispen. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1970. ———. “David and the Tekoite Woman.” VT 20 (1970): 419–44. Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of North–West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. Hermeneia. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Hooke, Samuel H. In the Beginning. CBOT 6. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947. Horst, F. “Recht und Religion im Bereich des AT.” EvT 16 (1956): 49–75. Höver-Johag, I. “‫טוב‬.” ThWAT 3:315–339. ———. “‫טוב‬.” TDOT 5:296–317. Howard, David M., Jr. “David, Sons Of.” ABD 2:67–69. Hruška, B. “Einige Überlegungen zum Erraepos.” BiOr 30 (1973): 3–7. Hubbard, Robert L. “Is the ‘Tatsphäre’ Always a Sphere?” JETS 25 (1982): 257–62. ———. “The Hebrew Root pg‘ as a Legal Term.” JETS 27 (1984): 129–33. Huddleston, Neal A. “Deuteronomy as Mischgattung: A Comparative and Contrastive Discourse Analysis of Deuteronomy and Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2015. Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. HSS 45. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Huffmon, Herbert B. “The Treaty Background of Hebrew yāda’.” BASOR 181 (1966): 31–37. Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. VTSup 52. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Hulin, P. “A Hemerological Text from Nimrud.” Iraq 21 (1959): 42–53. Hundley, Michael B. Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the ancient Near East. WAWSup 3. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. Hurvitz, Avi. “The History of a Legal Formula: kōl ʾašer-ḥāp̱ēṣ ʿāśāh.” VT 32 (1982): 257–67. Hutton, Rodney R. “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited (Lev. XXIV 10–23).” VT 49 (1999): 532–41. Ishida, Tomoo. History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel: Studies in Biblical Historiography. SHCANE 16. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

306

  Bibliography  

Izre’el, Shlomo. Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death. MC 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Janzen, David. “The Condemnation of David’s ‘Taking’ in 2 Samuel 12:1–14.” JBL 131 (2012): 209–20. Jeffers, Ann. Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. SHANE 8. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Johag, Ingeborg. “ṭôḇ  – Terminus technicus in Vertrags- und Bündnisformularen des alten Orients und des alten Testaments.” Pages 3–23 in Bausteine biblischer Theologie: Festgabe für G. Johannes Botterweck zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schülern. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry. BBB 50. Bonn; Cologne: Hanstein, 1977. Joines, Karen R. Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament: A Linguistic, Archaeological, and Literary Study. Hadenfield, NJ: Hadenfield House, 1974. Jordan, James B. “Merit Versus Maturity: What Did Jesus Do for Us?” Pages 151–202 in The Federal Vision. Edited by Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner. Monroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2004. Kallai, Z. “Punishment and Guilt in Biblical Historiography.” in Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible. Edited by S. Yonah, D. Sivan and Z. Talshir. [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2001. Kelle, Brad E. “Judah in the Seventh Century: From the Aftermath of Sennacherib’s Invasion to the Beginning of Jehoiakim’s Rebellion.” Pages 350–82 in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. ———. “Postwar Rituals of Return and Reintegration.” Pages 205–41 in Ancient Israel and its Literature: Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle, Frank R. Ames and Jacob L. Wright. AIL 18. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Kennedy, James M. “Peasants in Revolt: Political Allegory in Genesis 2–3.” JSOT 47 (1990): 3–14. Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by Wiseman, D. J. TCOT 1. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008. Kitchen, Kenneth A. and Paul J. N. Lawrence. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East—Part 1: The Texts. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. ———. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East—Part 2: Texts, Notes and Chronograms. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. ———. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East—Part 3: Overall Historical Survery. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Kitz, Anne Marie. “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua.” JBL 119 (2000): 601–18. ———. “An Oath, Its Curse and Anointing Ritual.” JAOS 124 (2004): 315–21. ———. “Curses and Cursing in the Ancient Near East.” RC 1 (2007): 615–27. ———. Cursed Are You! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. ———. “Naboth’s Vineyard after Mari and Amarna.” JBL 134 (2015): 529–45. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Knierim, R. Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965. Knoppers, Gary N. Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. Edited by Cross, Frank Moore. HSM 52. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. ———. “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy.” Pages 392–410 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Knudtzon, J. A. Die El-Amarna Tafeln. VAB. Liepzig: Hinrichs, 1915. Koch, Klaus. “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” ZTK 52 (1955): 1–42. ———. “Der Spruch “Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt” und die israelitische Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut.” VT 12 (1962): 396–416.

  Bibliography  

307

———. “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” in Theodicy in the Old Testament. Edited by James L. Crenshaw. IRT 4. London: SPCK, 1983. Korošec, Viktor. Hethitische Staatsverträge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Juristischen Wertung. LRS 60. Leipzig: T. Weicher, 1931. Korpel, Marjo C. A. and Johannes C. de Moor. Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A New Beginning. HBM 65. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014. Kuemmerlin-McLean, Joanne K. “Magic: Old Testament.” ABD 467–70. Kuntz, J. K. “Retribution Motif in Psalmic Wisdom.” ZAW 9 (1977): 223–33. Kutscher, E. Y. “New Aramaic Texts.” JAOS 74 (1954): 233–48. Kuyper, Lester J. “To Know Good and Evil.” Int 1 (1947): 490–92. LaCocque, André. “Cracks in the Wall.” Pages 3–29 in Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies. Edited by Paul Riceour and André LaCocque. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. ———. The Trial of Innocence: Adam, Eve, and the Yahwist. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2006. Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Creation Myths. Mesopotamian Civilizations. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Lambert, W. G. and Albert K. Grayson. “Akkadian Prophecies.” JCS 18 (1964): 7–30. Landy, Francis. Paradoxes of Paradise. BLS 7. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Lanfer, Peter. Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Lang, Berhnhard. “The Forbidden Fruit: An Ancient Myth and Its Transformation in Genesis 2–3.” Pages 111–26 in Hebrew Life and Literature: Selected Essays of Bernhard Lang. SOTSMS. Farnham: Ashgate, 2008. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Feeling our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69. Larue, Gerald A. Introduction to Ḥesed in the Bible, by Nelson Glueck. Translated by Alfred Gottschalk. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011 Lasine, Stuart. “Melodrama as Parable: The Story of the Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb and the Unmask­ ing of David’s Topsy-Turvy Emotions.” HAR 8 (1984): 101–24. Layton, Scott C. “The Steward in Ancient Israel: A Study of Hebrew (’ăšer) ‘al-habbayit in Its near Eastern Setting.” JBL 109 (1990): 633–49. Leach, Edmund. Genesis as Myth and Other Essays. CE 39. London: Jonathan Cape, 1969. Lee, Chee-Chiew. “Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael of ‫ ברך‬in the Abrahamic Blessing for the Nations.” JSOT 36 (2012): 279–96. Leggett, Donald A. The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament: with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth. Cherry Hill, N. J.: Mack Pub. Co., 1974. Leshem, Yossi. “‘She Painted Her Eyes with Kohl and Dressed Her Hair’.” [Hebrew] HUCA 76 (2005): 1–10. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 4. Garden City: Doubleday, 1993. ———. Prolegomenon to Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, by Yochanan Muffs. HdO 66. Leiden: Brill, 2003 Levy, Ludwig. “Sexualsymbolik in der biblischen Paradiesgeschichte.” Imago 5 (1917): 16–30. Lewis, Jack P. “‫ידע‬.” TWOT 2:366–368. Limburg, James. “Root ‫ ריב‬and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches.” JBL 88 (1969): 291–304. Lindström, Fredrik. God and the Origin of Evil: A Contextual Analysis of Alleged Monistic Evidence in the Old Testament. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. ConBOT 21. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983. Livingston, G. Herbert. “‫רעע‬.” TWOT 2:854–856.

308

  Bibliography  

Lohfink, Norbert. Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer: Christliche Auseinandersetzungen mit dem Alten Testament. Frankfurt: Joseph Knecht, 1965. Long, V. Phillips. “1 Samuel.” Pages 266–412 in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel. Edited by John H. Walton. Vol. 2 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. Edited by John H. Walton. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013. ———. “2 Samuel.” Pages 412–91 in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel. Edited by John H. Walton. Vol. 2 of ZIBBCOT. Edited by John H. Walton. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 21A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1999. Lyke, Larry L. King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative. JSOTSup 255. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Machinist, Peter. “Rest and Violence in the Poem of Erra.” JAOS 103 (1983): 221–26. ———. “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic Restructuring.” Pages 189–240 in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism. Edited by Beate Pongratz-Leisten. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Macholz, Georg C. “Die Stellung des Königs in der israelitischen Gerichtsverfassung.” ZAW 84 (1972): 57–182. Mafico, Temba L. J. “Judge, Judging.” ABD 3:1,104–1,106. ———. “Just, Justice.” ABD 3:1,127–1,129. Magonet, Jonathan. “The Themes of Genesis 2–3.” Pages 39–46 in A Walk in the Garden. Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Major, Henry D. A. “Contributions and Comments: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” ExpTim 20 (1909): 427–28. Malamat, Abraham. “Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy.” Pages 163–98 in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader. Edited by Edward Fay Campbell and David Noel Freedman. BAR 3. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1970. ———. “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents.” Pages 33–52 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by S. Dean McBride, Paul D. Hanson and Patrick D. Miller. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. Mari and the Bible. SHCANE 12. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. CHANE 7. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Mann, Steven T. Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20). Siphrut 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Margalith, Othniel. “The kelābīm of Ahab.” VT 34 (1984): 228–32. Markl, Dominik. “No Future without Moses: The Disastrous End of 2 Kings 22–25 and the Chance of the Moab Covenant (Deuteronomy 29–30).” JBL 133 (2014): 711–28. Marzal, Angel. “The Provincial Governor at Mari: His Title and Appointment.” JNES 30 (1971): 186–217. Marzel, Y. “The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – Recognition of Life and Death (Genesis 2–3).” [Hebrew] Beth Mikra 29 (1983): 352–60. Matsushima, Eiko. “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: their Fashioning and Clothing and their Interaction with the Society.” Pages 209–19 in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East—The City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 20–22, 1992. Edited by Eiko Matsushima. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1993. Matthews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1–11:26. NAC 1A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996. Mayer, G. “‫יכח‬.” TDOT 5:64–71. McAffee, Matthew. “The Good Word: Its Non-Covenant and Covenant Significance in the Old Testament.” JSOT 39 (2015): 377–404.

  Bibliography  

309

McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 8. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984. ———. II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 9. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984. McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. OBO 36. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. AnBib 21A. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978. McDowell, Catherine L. The Image of God in Eden: The Creation of Mankind in Genesis 2:5—3:24 in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Siphrut 15. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. McKane, William. Prophets and Wise Men. SBT 44. London: SCM, 1965. McKenzie, John L. “The Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2–3.” TS 15 (1954): 541–72. ———. The Two-Edged Sword: An Interpretation of the Old Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1959. Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” BA 17 (1954): 49–76. ———. “The Shady Side of Wisdom.” Pages 319–34 in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Meyers. Edited by Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim and Carey A. Moore. GTS 4. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. Mendenhall, George E. and Gary A. Herion. “Covenant.” ABD 1:1,176–1,202. Mercer, Samuel A. B. “The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions.” JAOS 33 (1913): 33–50. ———. “The Malediction in Cuneiform Inscriptions.” JAOS 34 (1915): 282–309. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. ConBOT 8. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. ———. Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Middleton, J. Richard. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005. Milgrom, Jacob. “Sex and Wisdom: What the Garden of Eden Story Is Saying.” BAR 10.6 (1994): 21, 52. Miller, Patrick D., Jr. Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis. SBLMS 27. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Mitchell, H. G. “The Fall and Its Consequences according to Genesis, Chapter 3.” AmJT 1 (1897): 913–26. Mittermayer, Catherine. “Gut und Böse: Anforderungen an menschliches Handeln im Beziehungsgefüge zwischen Göttern und Menschen in den mesopotamischen Mythen.” Pages 31–50 in Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt: philosophische und religiöse Konzeptionen vom Alten Orient bis zum frühen Islam. Edited by Henz-Günther Nesselrath and Florian Wilk. ORA 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Moberly, Walter. “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” JTS 39 (1988): 1–27. ———. “Did the Interpreters Get it Right? Genesis 2–3 Reconsidered.” JTS 59 (2008): 22–40. ———. Review of The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, by James Barr, JTS 45 (1994): 172–75. Monson, John. “1 Kings.” Pages 1–110 in 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Edited by John H. Walton. Vol. 3 of ZIBBCOT. Edited by John H. Walton. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Moore, Michael S. “Jehu’s Coronation and Purge of Israel.” VT 53 (2003): 97–114. Moran, William L. “A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefîre Stelas.” JNES 22 (1963): 173–76. ———. “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. ———. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

310

  Bibliography  

Moriarty, Frederick L. “Word as Power in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 345–62 in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in honor of Jacob M. Meyers. Edited by Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim and Carey A. Moore. GTS 4. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. Morrow, William. “The Sefire Treaty Stipulations and the Mesopotamian Treaty Tradition.” Pages 83–99 in The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Language and Literature in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion. Edited by P. M. Michèle Daviau et al. JSOTSup 326. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Muffs, Yochanan. Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine. HdO 66. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Mullen, E. Theodore. “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings.” JBL 107 (1988): 193–206. Müller, Hans-Peter. Mythos – Kerygma – Warheit: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament in seiner Umwelt und zur Biblischen Theologie. BZAW 200. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. Murphy, Roland E. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1996. Na’aman, Nadav. “Game of Thrones: Solomon’s ‘Succession Narrative’ and Esarhaddon’s Accession to the Throne.” Tel Aviv 45 (2018): 89–113. Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Newsom, Carol. “Common Ground: An Ecological Reading of Genesis 2–3.” Pages 60–72 in The Earth Story in Genesis. Edited by Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst. Earth Bible 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Nicol, George G. “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations On Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative.” JSOT 22 (1997): 43–54. Niditch, Susan. Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation. SPSHS 6. Chico, CA: Shcolars Press, 1985. Niehaus, Jeffrey. “In the Wind of the Storm: Another Look At Genesis 3:8.” VT 44 (1994): 263–67. Noort, Ed. “Yhwh und das Böse. Bemerkungen zu einer Verhältnisbestimmung.” Pages 120–36 in Prophets, Worship and Theodicy: Papers read at the join British-Dutch Old Testament conference held at Woudschoten. OtSt XXIII. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Noth, Martin. Könige. BKAT 9. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968. Odell, Margaret S. “An Exploratory Study of Shame and Dependence in the Bible and Selected Near Eastern Parallels.” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Edited by K. Lawson Younger, William W. Hallo and Bernard Frank Batto. Scripture in Context 4. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1991. Oden, R. A. “Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1–11.” ZAW 93 (1981): 197–216. Oduyọye, Modupẹ. The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men: An Afro-Asiatic Interpretation of Genesis 1–11. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984. Olyan, Saul M. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment.” JBL 115 (1996): 201–18. ———. “Theorizing Circumstantially Dependent Rites in and out of War Contexts.” Pages 15–24 in Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle, Frank R. Ames and Jacob L. Wright. AIL 18. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Oppenheim, A. Leo. “Akkadian pul(u)ḫ(t)u and melammu.” JAOS 63/1 (1943): 31–34. ———. “Siege-Documents from Nippur.” Iraq 17 (1955): 69–89. ———. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. ———. “On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia.” JNES 24 (1965): 328–33. ———. Letters from Mesopotamia: Official Business, and Private Letters on Clay Tablets from Two Millennia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. ———. “The Eyes of the Lord.” JAOS 88 (1968): 173–80. Otto, Eckart. “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung

  Bibliography  

311

in ihrem religionschistorischem Kontext.” Pages 167–92 in ‘Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit …’: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weishet Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Anja A. Diesel. BZAW 241. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Pardee, Dennis. “The Preposition in Ugaritic.” UF 8 (1976): 215–322. Park, Song-Mi Suzie. “The Frustration of Wisdom: Wisdom, Counsel, and Divine Will in 2 Samuel 17:1–23.” JBL 128 (2009): 453–67. Parker, Simon B. “Jezebel’s Reception of Jehu.” Maarav 1 (1978): 67–78. ———. Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Patrick, James E. “The Prophetic Structure of 1–2 Samuel.” PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2016. Paton, W. R. “The Pharmakoi and the Story of the Fall.” RAr 9 (1907): 51–57. Pax, E. “Studien zum Vergeltungsproblem des Psalmen.” SBFLA 11 (1960): 56–112. Pedersen, Johannes. Der Eid bei den Semiten. SGKIO 3. Strassburg: Trübner, 1914. ———. Israel: Its Life and Culture. 4 vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1926. ———. “Wisdom and Immortality.” Pages 238–46 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley. Edited by Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Phillips, Anthony. “Nebalah: A Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct.” VT 25 (1975): 237–42. Piers, Gerhart and Milton B. Singer. Shame and Guilt: A Psychoanalytic and a Cultural Study. American Lecture Series, 171. New York: Norton, 1971. Plassman, Thomas. “The Semitic Root brk.” CBQ 11 (1949): 445–46. Plöger, Josef G. Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium. BBB 26. Bonn: Hanstein, 1967. Polzin, Robert. “Curses and Kings: A Reading of 2 Samuel 15–16.” Pages 201–26 in New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by David J. Clines and J. Cheryl Exum. JSOTSup 143. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Porteous, Norman W. “Royal Wisdom.” Pages 247–61 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley. Edited by Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Postell, Seth D. Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011. Pritchard, James B. “Man’s Predicament in Eden.” RR 13 (1948): 5–23. Provan, Iain W. 1 and 2 Kings. NIBC. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Pyper, Hugh S. David as Reader: 2  Samuel 12:1–15 and the Poetics of Fatherhood. BibInt 23. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Raabe, Paul. Obadiah. AB 24D. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Rad, Gerhard von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958. ———. Theologie des Alten Testaments. EETh 1. 2 vols. München: C. Kaiser, 1958. ———. Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis. OTL. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. ———. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. ———. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. OTL. 3rd ed. 2 vols. London: SCM Press LTD, 1972. ———. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by James D. Martin. London: SCM, 1972. Radner, Karen. “The Reciprocal Relationship Between Judge and Society in the Neo-Assyrian Period.” Maarav 12 (2005): 41–68. Rainey, Anson F. The El-Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna Based on Collations of all Extant Tablets. Edited by Schniedewind, William M. and Zipora Cochavi-Rainey. HdO 110. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

312

  Bibliography  

Rankin, O. S. Israel’s Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on Theology and the History of Religion. New York: Schocken, 1969. Reicke, B. “The Knowledge Hidden in the Tree of Paradise.” JSS 1 (1956): 193–201. Reventlow, Henning Graf. “Sein Blut komme über sein Haupt.” VT 10 (1960): 311–27. Richardson, Alan. Genesis 1–11. TBC. London: SCM Press LTD, 1953. Robinson, H. Wheeler. Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964. Rogerson, J. W. “Genesis 1–11.” CurBS 5 (1997): 67–90. Rösel, Hartmut N. “Why 2 Kings 17 Does Not Constitute a Chapter of Reflection in the ‘Deuteronomistic History’.” JBL 128 (2009): 86–90. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma.” JSJ 39 (2008): 513–39. Rosenberg, Joel. King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible. ISBL. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1986. Rosenthal, Franz. “yôm ṭôḇ.” HUCA 18 (1943): 157–76. Rost, Leonhard. The Succession to the Throne of David. HTIBS 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1982. Roth, Martha. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Edited by Michalowski, Piotr. WAW 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Roth, Wolfgang M. W. “NBL.” VT 10 (1960): 394–409. Rottzoll, Dirk U. “… ihr werdet sein wie Gott, indem ihr Gut und Böse kennt.” ZAW 102 (1990): 385–91. Sacks, Robert D. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. ANETS 6. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990. Saggs, H. W. F. The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel. JLCRS XII. London: The Athlone Press, 1978. Sailhamer, John. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. LBI. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. JPSTC. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Sasson, Jack M. “welō’ yitbōšāšû (Gen 2,25) and its Implications.” Bib 66 (1985): 418–21. ———. “Yarim-Lim’s War Declaration.” Pages 237–53 in Miscellanea Babylonica. Mélanges offerts à M. Birot. Edited by J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1985. ———. “About ‘Mari and the Bible’.” RA 91 (1998): 97–123. ———. From the Mari Archives: An Anthology of Old Babylonian Letters. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Savran, George. “Beastly Speech: Intertextuality, Balaam’s Ass and the Garden of Eden.” Pages 296–318 in The Pentateuch: A Sheffield Reader. Edited by Johns W. Rogerson. BibSem 39. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, 1996. Sawyer, John F. A. “The Ruined House in Ecclesiastes 12: A Reconstruction of the Original Parable.” JBL 94 (1975): 519–31. ———. “The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents and the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Pages 64–73 in A Walk in the Garden. Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup, 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Saydon, Paul. “Meaning of the Expression ‫עצור ועזוב‬.” VT 2 (1952): 371–74. Scharbert, Joseph. Solidarität in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt. BBB 14. Bonn: Hanstein, 1958. ———. “Das Verbum pqd in der Theologie des AT.” BZ 4 (1960): 209–26. ———. “šlm im Alten Testament.” Pages 209–29 in Lex tua veritas: Festschrift fur Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 8. August 1961, dargeboten von Kollegen,

  Bibliography  

313

Freunden und Schulern. Edited by Hubert Junker, Heinrich Gross and Franz Mussner. Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1961. ———. “Das Verbum pqd in der Theologie des AT.” Pages 278–99 in Um das Prinzip der Ver­ geltung in Religion und Rech des Alten Testaments. Edited by Klaus Koch. WF 125. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972. ———. “‫ארר‬.” TDOT 1:405–418. ———. “‫ברך‬.” TDOT 1:279–308. Schipper, Bernd U. “Gut und Böse im Alten Ägypten.” Pages 7–30 in Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt: philosophische und religiöse Konzeptionen vom Alten Orient bis zum frühen Islam. Edited by Henz-Günther Nesselrath and Florian Wilk. ORA 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Schipper, Jeremy. Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Schlimm, Matthew R. “At Sin’s Entryway (Gen 4,7): A Reply to C. L. Crouch.” ZAW 12 (2012): 409–15. Schmid, Konrad. “Genealogien der Moral. Prozesse fortschreitender ethischer Qualifizierung von Mensch und Welt im Alten Testament.” Pages 83–102 in Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt: philosophische und religiöse Konzeptionen vom Alten Orient bis zum frühen Islam. Edited by Henz-Günther Nesselrath and Florian Wilk. ORA 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Schmitt, Götz. Der Landtag von Sichem. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964. Schottroff, W. “‫ דעת‬,‫ידע‬.” TLOT 2:508–522. Schücking-Jungblut, Friedrike. “Political Reasons for the Success and Failure of Absalom’s Rebellion (2 Sam 15–19).” VT 68 (2018): 1–12. Schüle, Andreas. “Made in the ‘Image of God’: The Concept of Divine Images in Gen 1–3.” ZAW 117 (2005): 1–20. Schwemer, Daniel. “The Ancient Near East.” Pages 17–51 in The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West: from Antiquity to the Present. Edited by David J. Collins. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Scott, Robert B. Y. “Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel.” Pages 262–79 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Essays presented to professor H. H. Rowley. Edited by Martin Noth and Winton D. Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Scullion, John J. “Genesis, The Narrative of.” ABD 2:941–956. Sekine, Seizo. Transcendency and Symbols in the Old Testament: A Genealogy of the Hermeneutical Experiences. BZAW 275. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Selman, Martin J. 2 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by Wiseman, D. J. TCOT 11. Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 1994. Selms, A. van. “The Best Man and Bride-From Sumer to St. John with a New Interpretation of Judges, Chapters 14 and 15.” JNES 9 (1950): 65–75. Seow, C. L. “Qohelet’s Eschatological Poem.” JBL 118 (1999): 209–34. Simon, Uriel. “Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb.” Bib 48 (1967): 207–42. Skinner, John. A Critical Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910. Smend, Rudolf. Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. Freiburg: Mohr, 1893. Smith, Duane E. “The Divining Snake: Reading Genesis 3 in the Context of Mesopotamian Ophiomancy.” JBL 134 (2015): 31–49. Smith, Mark S. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. ———. The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2019. Smith, Morton. “The Present State of Old Testament Studies.” JBL 88 (1969): 19–35. Smoak, Jeremy D. “May Yhwh Bless You and Keep You from Evil: The Rhetorical Argument of Ketef Hinnom Amulet I and the Form of the Prayers for Deliverance in the Psalms.” JANER 12 (2012): 202–36.

314

  Bibliography  

Soggin, J. A. “The Fall of Man in the Third Chapter of Genesis.” Pages 88–111 in Old Testament and Oriental Studies. Edited by J. A. Soggin. BibOr 29. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975. Sonik, Karen. “Bad King, False King, True King: Apsû and His Heirs.” JAOS 128 (2008): 737–43. Speiser, E. A. “The Durative Hithpa’el: A tan-Form.” JAOS 75 (1955): 118–21. ———. “An Angelic ‘Curse’: Exodus 14:20.” JAOS 80 (1960): 198–200. ———. Genesis. AB 1. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964. Sprinkle, Joe M. “Law and Narrative in Exodus 19–24.” JETS 47 (2004): 248–49. Stamm, J. “Der Name des Königs Salomo.” TZ 16 (1960): 285–97. Steinkeller, Piotr. “Luck, Fortune, and Destiny in Ancient Mesopotamia—Or How the Sumerians and Babylonians Thought of Their Place in the Flow of Things.” Pages 5–24 in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Warsaw, 21–25 July 2014. Edited by Olga Drewnowska and Malgorzata Sandowicz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017. Stern, Herold S. “The Knowledge of Good and Evil.” VT 8 (1958): 405–18. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. ISBL. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Singer, Graciela Gestoso. “Fortunes and Misfortunes of Messengers and Merchants in the ­Amarna Letters.” Pages 143–161 in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Warsaw, 21–25 July 2014. Edited by Olga Drewnowska and Malgorzata Sandowicz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Vier Gestalten einer Totenerweckungserzählung (1 Kön 17,17–24; 2 Kön 4,8–37; Apg 9,36–42; Apg 20,7–12).” Bib 80 (1999): 43–77. Stoebe, H. J. “‫ יפה‬,‫ יטב‬,‫טוב‬.” TLOT 2:486–495. ———. “Gut und Böse in der Jahwistischen Quelle der Pentateuch.” ZAW 65 (1953): 188–204. ———. “‫רעע‬.” TLOT 3:1,249–1,254. Stokes, Ryan E. “Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner.” JBL 133 (2014): 251–70. Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. CBET 25. Belgium: Peeters, 2000. Stratton, Beverly J. Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2–3. JSOTSup 208. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988. Surls, Austin. Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus: From Etymology to Literary Onomastics. BBRSup 17. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017. Sweeney, Marvin A. “King Manasseh of Judah and the Problem of Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 264–76 in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Swidler, L. J. “The Garden of Eden Story—Source of Often Mis-Read Wisdom: A Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” JES 46 (2011): 143–49. Thiel, Winfried. “Hēfēr Berît: Zum Bundbrechen im Alten Testament.” VT 20 (1970): 214–29. Thistleton, Anthony C. “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings.” JTS 25 (1974): 283–99. Thomas, D. Winton. “A Note on ‫ דעת‬in Proverbs 22:12.” JTS 14 (1963): 93–94. Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy. TOTC 5. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974. Thompson, Richard J. Terror of the Radiance: Aššur Covenant to Yhwh Covenant. OBO 258. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Thureau-Dangin, F. “L’Exaltation D’IŠTAR.” RA 11 (1914): 141–58. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40–55. VTSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ———. Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report. LHBOTS 605. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

  Bibliography  

315

———. “Zechariah’s Spies and Ezekiel’s Cherubim.” Pages 104–27 in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. LHBOTS 475. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Toorn, Karel van der. Sin and sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study. SSN 22. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1985. ———. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Changes in the Forms of Religious Life. SHCANE 7. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Towner, W. Sibley. “Retributional Theology in the Apocalyptic Setting.” USQR 26 (1971): 203–14. Toy, Crawford H. “Analysis of Genesis II., III.” JBL 10 (1891): 1–19. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. OBT 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel.” JSS 3 (1958): 237–43. ———. “The Two Trees in the Garden of Eden.” [Hebrew] ErIsr Nelson Glueck Memorial Volume (1975): 40–43. Uehlinger, Christoph. “Was there a Cult Reform under King Josiah? The Case for a WellGrounded Minimum.” Pages 279–316 in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Ungnad, Arthur. “Die Paradiesbäme.” ZDMG 79 (1925): 111–18. Urbrock, William J. “Blessings and Curses.” ABD 1:755–761. Van Seters, John. “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King.” ZAW 101 (1989): 333–42. Vanderkam, James C. “Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study.” JBL 99 (1980): 521–39. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. Sheffield: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961. Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977. Veen, Peter van der. “Sixth-Century Issues: The Fall of Jerusalem, the Exile, and the Return.” Pages 383–405 in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Veenker, Ronald A. “Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near Eastern Sexual Metaphors.” HUCA 77 (1999): 57–73. Veijola, Timo. “Salomo–der Erstgeborene Bathsebas.” Pages 230–50 in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Vogels, Walter. “Like One of Us, Knowing ‫ טוב‬and ‫( רע‬Gen 3:22).” Semeia 81 (1998): 144–57. Vriezen, Th. C. Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude Semietische volken. Wageninben: H. Veenman and Zonen, 1937. ———. An Outline of Old Testament Theology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. Walker, Christopher and Michael B. Dick. “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mīs pî Ritual.” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the ancient Near East. SAALT 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Wallace, Howard N. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. ———. “Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life.” ABD 6:656–660. Walsh, Jerome T. “Methods and Meanings: Multiple Studies of 1 Kings 21.” JBL 111 (1992): 193–211. Waltke, Bruce. “Micah.” Pages 591–764 in Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. Edited by Thomas E. McComiskey. Vol. 2 of The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Edited by Thomas E. McComiskey. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. Walton, John H. Genesis. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. ———. “Genesis.” Pages 2–160 in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Edited by John H. Walton. Vol. 1 of ZIBBCOT. Edited by John H. Walton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.

316

  Bibliography  

———. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2015. ———. Review of What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?, by Ziony Zevit, RBL 01 (2015): 1–6. Walton, John H., Mark W. Chavalas and Victor H. Matthews. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Ward, Graham. “A Postmodern Version of Paradise.” JSOT 20 (1995): 3–12. Waterman, Leroy. “The Curse in the ‘Paradise Epic’.” JAOS 39 (1919): 322–28. ———. Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire. UMS.H XVII-XX. 4 vols. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1930. Watson, Wilfred G. E. and Nicolas Wyatt. Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Watson, Wilfred G. E. and Nicolas Wyatt. HdO 39. Boston: Brill, 1999. Weeks, Noel. Admonition and Curse: The ancient Near Eastern Treaty / Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships. JSOTSup 407. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient near East.” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203. ———. “The King-People Relationship in the Light of 1 Kings 12:7.” [Hebrew] Leshonenu 36 (1971): 3–13. ———. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. ———. “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West.” JAOS 93 (1973): 190–99. ———. “The Counsel of the ‘Elders’ to Rehoboam and its Implications.” Maarav 3 (1982): 27–53. ———. The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel. VTSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Weippert, Helga. “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher.” Bib 53 (1972): 301–39. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: Druck und Verlag von G. Reimer, 1883. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. Edited by Hubbard, David A. and Glenn W. Barker. WBC 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987. ———. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” Pages 399–404 in I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11. Edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. SBTS 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. ———. Genesis 16–50. Edited by Hubbard, David A and Glenn W Barker. WBC 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Wesselius, J. W. “Joab’s Death and the Central Theme of the Succession Narrative (2 Samuel IX-1 Kings II).” VT 40 (1990): 336–51. Westbrook, Raymond. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. CahRB 26. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. ———. “Adultery in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” RB 97 (1990): 542–80. ———. Property and the Family in Biblical Law. JSOTSup 113. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. ———. “Prolegomenon: The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law.” Pages 1–92 in vol. 1 of A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Edited by Raymond Westbrook and Gary M. Beckman. HdO 72. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11. EF 7. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972. ———. Genesis 1–11. Translated by John J. Scullion. 3 vols. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984. Whitelam, Keith W. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel. JSOTSup 12. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. Whybray, Roger N. The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1 and 2. SBT 9. London: S. C.M. Press, 1968.

  Bibliography  

317

Wikander, Ola. Drought, Death, and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel: A Philological and Comparative Study. ConBOT 61. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Wilder, William N. “Illumination and Investiture: The Royal Significance of the Tree of Wisdom in Genesis 3.” WTJ 1 (2006): 51–69. Wilkin, Robert N. “Repentance and Salvation Part 2: The Doctrine of Repentance in the Old Testament.” JOTGES 2 (1989): Willis, John T. “The ‘Repentance’ of God in the Books of Samuel, Jeremiah, and Jonah.” HBT 16 (1994): 156–75. Wiseman, D. J. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon.” Iraq 20 (1958): 1–99. ———. “Is it Peace?—Covenant and Diplomacy.” VT 32 (1982): 311–26. ———. “Mesopotamian Gardens.” AnSt 33 (1983): 137–44. ———. 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by Wiseman, D. J. TOTC 9. Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 1993. Wolde, Ellen van. Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11. BibInt 6. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. “Does ‘innâ’ Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word.” VT 52 (2010): 528–44. Wray Beal, Lissa M. The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10). LHBOTS 478. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Wright, David P. “David Autem Remansit In Hierusalem: Felix Coniunctio!” Pages 215–30 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Wyatt, Nicolas. “Interpreting the creation and fall story in Genesis 2–3.” ZAW 93 (1981): 10–21. ———. “‘Araunah the Jebusite’ and the Throne of David.” ST 39 (2008): 39–53. Yeivin, Shmuel. “The Beginning of the House of David.” [Hebrew] Zion 9 (1944): 49–69. Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. “The ‘Contextual Method’: Some West Semitic Reflections.” Pages xxxvi–liii in Archival Documents from the Biblical World, COS 3. Edited by K. Lawson Younger Jr. and William W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? London: Yale University Press, 2013. Zimmerli, Walther. 1. Mose 1–11: Die Urgeschichte. ZBK.AT. 3rd ed. Zurich: Zwingli, 1967. ———. “Zur Vorgeschichte von Jes. LIII.” in Congress Volume: Rome 1968. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup XVII. Leiden: Brill, 1969. ———. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Zuckerman, Bruce. “On Being ‘Damned Certain’: The Story of a Curse in the Sefire Inscription and Its Interpretation.” Pages 422–35 in Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Index of Scripture Old Testament Genesis 1–11 1–3 1:1–2:3 1:10 1:12 1:18 1:21 1:25 1:26–27 1:28 1:31 1:4 2–3 2:3 2:4b–3:24 2:4b–4:1 2:5–3 2:5–3:24 2:8–14 2:8–9 2:9 2:12 2:15 2:16 2:16–17 2:17 2:18 2:18–25 2:21–22 2:24 2:24 2:25 3 3:1 3:1–17 3:1–6 3:4

21, 43, 121 113, 135, 150, 151 124 110, 111, 166 110, 111, 166 110, 111, 166 110, 111, 166 110, 111, 166 135 52 111 69, 110, 111, 166 34, 39, 43, 58, 64, 124 151 27 207 124 136 38 27, 40, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 122, 150 109 136 37, 123, 125, 126 20, 21, 31, 70, 105, 107, 122, 124, 145, 151, 153, 158 27, 38, 40, 59, 105, 107, 109, 110, 115, 116, 117, 120, 125, 126, 134, 137, 148 110 52 110 135, 136 51, 52 51, 52, 58, 105, 134, 135, 136, 137 34, 203 38, 147 38 118 125

3:5 3:5–7 3:6 3:7 3:7–8 3:8 3:8–19 3:9–13 3–11 3:11 3:13 3:13–19 3:14 3:14–15 3:14–19 3:15 3:16 3:16–19 3:17 3:18 3:18–19 3:19 3:22

3:22–23 3:22–24 3:23 3:23–24 3:24 4 4:1 4:5 4:7 4:9 4–11 4:17

27, 40, 42, 68, 109, 110, 115, 116, 120, 126, 127, 132, 153, 291 105, 106 30, 47, 110, 130, 135, 151, 208 21, 73, 120, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 222 21, 105, 135, 137, 144 105 144 144 44 41 295 121 146, 147 148 21, 22, 69, 105, 118, 126, 144, 145, 150, 151, 152 146 37, 51, 147, 148 148 147, 148, 149 148 149 51, 148, 149 20, 25, 27, 33, 40, 42, 68, 69, 106, 109, 110, 115, 120, 125, 126, 127, 149, 152, 153, 291, 295 70, 126, 149, 150 39, 106, 126 149 144, 145, 153 152 44 48, 119, 120 112 69, 112, 162 120 43 119, 120

320 4:25 6–8 6:2 6:5 6:7 8:11 8:21 9:1 9:24 9:24–26 9:25 9:26 11 11:8 13:13 16:5 16:27 19:5 19:5–7 19:7 19:19 20:15 20:7 21:11–12 21:12 21:9 22 24 24:48–49 24:50 24:51 26:18–21 26:28–29 26:29 26:31 26:32 27 27:8 28:8 28:13–15 31:3 31:7 31:20 31:24 31:29 31:52 32 32:10

Index of Scripture    119, 120 117, 118, 151 112 69, 115, 116, 117, 118, 130, 158, 162 117 121 115, 117, 118, 202 46 121, 122 151 121, 122 121, 122 44, 46 46 162 243 243 49 48 42, 49 176 233 125 209, 210, 211 210 210 123 210 211 40, 41, 42, 65, 162, 210, 211 211 207 206, 211 206 207 207 159 123 233 159, 160 159, 160 161, 162 160 40, 41, 42, 65, 66, 72, 160, 161, 261 26, 41, 42, 65, 66, 72, 160, 161 161 159 159

32:12 32:13 34:18 34:18–31 34:30 37:2 37:20 37:33 38:7 38:10 39:9 40:7 40:14 40:16 41:3–5 41:19–22 41:24 41:26 41:35 41:37 43:6 44:4 44:4–5 44:29 44:34 45:16 45:18 45:20 45:23 47:9 48:16 50:15 50:17 50:20

159 159 212 212 212 158 158 158 93, 94, 104, 131 104, 131 162 158 158, 212 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 159 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 162 158 158 158, 159

Exodus 1:8 5:19 5:22–23 7:22 10:10 12:43 18:9 18:17 21:10–11 22:1 22:21–24 23:9 30:14 32:12 32:14

119 182 182 242 226 170 113, 159 111 210 255 249 249 53 201 201

321

Old Testament    32:22 34:7 38:26

117 190 53

Leviticus 5:4 10:19 10:19–20 19:18 19:31 24:16 26:14–46 26:29 26:44 27:3 27:12 27:14 27:33

40 131 272 158, 228 61 256 197 186 275 53 29, 42 29, 42 29

Numbers 1:3 1:20 1:22 1:24 1:28 1:30 1:32 1:34 1:36 1:38 1:40 1:42 1:45 10:29 10:32 11:1 11:10–11 11:15 14 14:7 14:27 14:28–30 14:29 14:37 16:15 20:15 22–24 23:13 24 24:1 24:4

53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 228 228 212 182 182 54 113 212 53 53 212 212 212 207 207 62 131 61

24:13 24:16 26:2 32:11 32:13 Deuteronomy 1:13 1:16 1:25 1:35 1:39 2:5 2:9 2:19 2:24 3:25 4:6–8 4:21 4:21–22 4:25 4:26 4:40 5:16 5:17 5:21 5:29 5:33 6:3 6:15 6:18 6:24 7:3 7:5 7:15 8:1–3 8:2 8:5 8:7 8:10 8:16 9:6 9:12 9:18 9:24 10:13 11:17 12:3 12:10

42, 61, 207, 211 61 53 53 131 242 243 113 113 26, 27, 28, 32, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 48, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 65, 66, 68, 72, 118, 243 191 191 191 191 111, 113 38 178 113 131 164, 176 234 234 183 183 234 165, 234 234 164, 176 113, 131, 234 234 172 178 192 123 124 79 113 113 123, 124 113 175 131 120 234 113, 164, 165, 176 178 169

322 12:11 12:25 12:28 13:6 16:21 17:2 17:7 17:12 17:17 18:10–11 19:13 19:19 20:14 21:21 21:23 22:7 22:21 22:22 22:23–27 22:24 22:25–27 22:26–27 22:27 22:29 23:6 23:7 24:7 24:16 25:5–10 25:6 26:6 26:11 27:19 27–28 28 28:7 28:11 28:15–68 28:20 28:21 28:25 28:26 28:37 28:47 28:48 28:49 28:53 28:59 28:63 29:20 29:23

Index of Scripture    162 131, 234 131, 193, 234 176 178 131 176 176 255 63 176, 234 176 54 176 178, 278 234 176 176 266 176 250 250 250 259 214, 273 212, 213, 214 176 190 266 252 212 228 249 198 156, 197 235, 236 167 157 81 164, 176 235, 236 176, 189 172 264 81, 142 187 186 192 176, 201 201 172

29:27 29:28 29:29 29:63 30:1 30:5 30:9 30:15 30:19 31:17 31:21 31:29 32:23 32:26 Joshua 6:26 21:45 22:30 22:33 23:11–12 23:13 23:14 23:15

164, 176 61 61 164 197, 198 228 201 42, 65, 66, 113, 118, 150, 157 157 81 116 131 81 176

24:15 24:20

208 177 272 272 172 113 156, 157, 161, 166, 179, 198 22, 150, 156, 157, 161, 166, 177, 179, 198 272 201, 272

Judges 2:11 2:14 2:15 2:20 3:7 3:8 3:12 4:1 6:1 6:25–26 8:35 9:56–57 10:6 10:16 11:1–28 11:7 11:10 11:13 11:27 13:1 15:3

131, 173 146 196 146 131, 173 146 80, 81, 131, 173 131, 173 131, 173 37 231 229 131, 173 146 209 224 243 209 209, 211 131, 173, 208 227

323

Old Testament    15:12 16:25 17:13 19:6 19:9 19:22 19:23 19:23–24 19–21 20:6 20:10 20:34–35 20:41

289 264 159 264 264 264 42, 49, 260 260 260 260 260 196 196

1 Samuel 1 2:30 12:17 12:23 12:25 13:22 14:39 14:44 15:19 15:28 16:14–16 16:14–17 16:23 18:10 19:4 19:9 20 20:1 20:3 20:7 20:13 22:16 23:2 23:4 23:7 23:8 23:9 24 24:4 24:5 24:7–8 24:9 24:10 24:12 24:13 24:17

211, 216 256 131 163, 165 234 28 125 125 131, 176 278 176 236 176, 236 176, 236 212 176 219 219 219 219, 220 219, 220 125 220 220 220 220 220, 222 221 221 221 222 221 221 221, 222 222, 223 223

24:18 24:18–20 24:19 24:20 24–25 25 25:3 25:4 25:7 25:8 25:10–11 25:11 25:13 25:14 25:15 25:17 25:18 25:18–20 25:21 25:22 25:22–25 25:26 25:27 25:28 25:30 25:30–31 25:32 25:34 25:35 25:36 25:37–38 25:38 25:39 25:40 25:41 25:42 26:16 29:6 29:7–10 2 Samuel 1–8 2:6 3:36 3:39 5:13–16 7 7:15 9–20 11

223 223 223 223 22, 227 230, 262 224, 284 224, 225 224, 262 225, 262, 263 225 225 225 225, 227 225 226, 227 227 226 226 227 227 227, 230 227 227, 228 228 228 228 228 264 228 229 229 229, 230 229 230 230 111 111 132 73 212, 230, 231 277 224 252 196, 289 256 20, 23, 71, 73, 245 73, 248, 252, 253, 258, 266, 276

324 11:1 11:2 11:4–5 11:14–17 11:15 11:25 11:27 11–12 11–14 12 12:5–6 12:6 12:7 12:8 12:9 12:9–11 12:10 12:10–11 12:10–14 12:11 12:11–12 12:13 12:14 12:18 12:24 12–19 13 13:6 13:12 13:16 13:21 13:22 13:23 13:28 13:29 13:36 13:39 14 14:1 14:1–4 14:1–20 14:1–23 14:5–17 14:11 14:17

Index of Scripture    276 279 253 253 277 73, 74, 253, 254 73, 131, 253, 254 249, 265 74 252, 254, 265 254 254 255 254 255 255 115, 264, 287, 289 271 273, 276 73, 74, 117, 145, 256, 258, 274, 275, 276, 279, 280, 282, 289 274 257 257, 258 258, 289 250, 251, 258, 289 250 74, 228, 258, 260, 278 258 259, 260 260, 264 260, 277, 284 42, 64, 261 225, 262, 263, 264 263, 264 264 264 264 72, 74, 264, 265, 266, 267, 278 265 266 254 287 242 265, 267 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 241, 267, 268

14:20 14:21 14:25 14:32 15 15:1 15:1–4 15:1–12 15:2 15:3 15:4 15:6 15:13 15:14 15:22 15:26 16 16:7 16:8 16:12 16:22 16:23 17 17:7 17:14 18 18:2 18:3–4 18:4 18:5 18:9 18:22 18:24 18:27 18:31 18:31–32 18:32 19 19:1 19:2 19:3 19:4 19:6–7 19:7 19:8 19:28 19:34 19:35

23, 26, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 267, 268 268 284 268 269 283 287 285 269, 277 269, 270, 271, 277 270, 271 285 271 271 256 271, 272, 282 272, 274 272 272 273 274, 279 274 274 274 274, 275, 276, 281 276 276 276 276, 277 265, 277 278 279 278, 279 278, 279, 286 279, 280 279 280, 281 281 280, 281 281 281 281 281 281 281, 282 282 282 32, 282

325

Old Testament    19:36 19:38 20:6 21:17 21–24 1 Kings 1 1–2 1:1–4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:11 1:15–17 1:21 1:30 1:38–39 1:40 1:41 1:42 1:47 1:51 1:52 2:12 2:13 2:15–16 2:18 2:22 2:23 2:23–24 2:24 2:25 2:32 2:32–33 2:37 2:38 2:42 2:44 2:44–45 2:45 2:46 3 3:7–9 3:9

23, 26, 28, 31, 41, 42, 48, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 65, 68, 72, 282, 283 265 283 277 73 252, 283 20, 23, 73, 155, 167, 176, 205, 211, 245, 248, 250, 283 285 283 284 285 285 285 285 285 285 285 285 285, 286 286 286 285, 286, 287 287 287 287 287, 288 288 288 288 288 289 79 79 125 217 217 229 229 229 229 205, 238, 239, 240, 267 238 26, 28, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 54, 56, 57, 58, 64, 65, 66, 72, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245

3:10 3:11 3:11–14 3:12 3:16–28 3:28 5:18 8 8:18 8:19 8:35 8:36 8:56 8:66 9 9:2–9 9:4–5 9:6 9:6–8 9:7–8 9:8–9 9:9 10:7 11 11–20 11:1–2 11:4 11:6 11:11 11:14 11:25 12 12:4 12:7 12:28 13 13:1–32 13:33 13:34 14 14:1–20 14:9 14:10 14:11 14:13 14:15 14:18 14:21–31 14:22 15:1 15:11

94, 104, 168 38, 242, 244 94 37 240, 241, 244 240 168, 169, 171, 174 162, 165, 172 162 162 165 163, 164, 165, 166 166, 177 167, 228, 264 171, 184 171 171 171 171 172 172 171, 172 167 169, 172 283 172 172 131, 172, 173, 174 173 169, 174 172, 173, 174 216 216 216, 217, 218 175 164 164 163, 164, 166 164 175, 178, 180 175 175, 180 176, 177, 180, 184 176, 184 177, 178, 180 178, 179, 180 177 175 131, 176 283 169, 171

326

Index of Scripture   

15:13 15:26 15:34 16:7 16:19 16:25 16:30 16:34 17 17:1 17:17–24 17:18 17:20 18:24 19:4 20:3 20:4 20:5–6 20:7 20:8 20:10 20:35–43 21 21:2 21:7 21:19 21:20 21:21 21:25 21:27 21:27–29 21:29 22 22:8 22:13 22:14 22:17 22:18 22:23 22:35 22:38 22:53 31:20

37 131, 176, 283 131, 176 131, 176 131, 176 131, 176 131, 176 208 180 182 180 181, 182 115, 181 217 111 232 231 232 231, 232 232 232 254 183, 185 111 264 183 131, 183, 184, 185 183, 184, 185, 189 131, 184 184 184 184, 185 185, 234 62, 234, 235 235, 236 236 236 236 236 237 234, 237 131, 176 234

2 Kings 1:4 1:6 2:19 3:1–3 3:2 3:19

125 125 208 188 131, 176, 187, 188 186

4:41 5:12 6 6:24–33 6:28–29 6:33 8:9 8:12 8:18 8:27 9–10 9:30 9:35–37 10:2 10:3 10:5 10:29 10:30 10:31 11:18 13:2 13:11 14 14:3 14:4 14:6 14:7 14:8 14:8–9 14:9 14:10 14:11 14:14 14:24 14:29 14:30 14:31 15:9 15:12 15:18 15:24 15:28 17:2 17:11 17:13 17:14–17 17:17 20:3 20:5–6 20:7 20:12–13

114 111 185 186 186 185, 186, 188 167 188 131, 176 131, 176 189 189 189 234 234 233 190 188, 189, 190, 234 190 189 131, 176 131, 176 191 190 190 190 190, 191 191 190 191 190, 192 192 192 131, 176 190 190 190 131, 176 189 131, 176 131, 176 131, 176 131, 176 176 163, 164, 166 164 131, 176 192, 193 193 232 194

327

Old Testament    20:14–18 20:19 21 21–25 21:2 21:3 21:4–5 21:6 21:7 21:9 21:10–12 21:11 21:12 21:13–14 21:15 21:16 21:17 21:19 21:20 21:21 22–23 22:16 22:20 23:29–30 23:32 23:37 24:9 24:19 25:24 25:28 Isaiah 1:4 1:29 5:20 5:21 5:23 7:15 7:15–16 7:16 10:13 13:11 14:20 20:1-5 29:13–14 31:2 38:3 41:23 45 45:1–7

194 194 195 195 131, 176, 195 195 195 131, 176, 195 195 176 195 195, 196 195, 196, 197 196 195, 196 131, 176, 195 198 237 131, 176, 202 196, 202 197 197, 198 180, 197, 198, 199 198 131, 176 131, 176 131 131 234 217, 218 49 61 42, 57, 64 38 64 44, 57, 58 26, 29, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 48, 54, 56, 68, 72, 118 28, 29 46 200 49 142 38 200 193 280 280 254

45:7 45:11 47:2 47:3 47:10–11 63:7 65:2

42, 280 74 142 142 280 167 111

Jeremiah 1:8 1:14 2:3 3:1–5 5:12 8:8–9 9:22–23 11:11 11:12 11:17 15 15:11 16:10 18:1–19:15 18:7 18:7–10 18:7–12 18:8 18:10 18:10–12 18:11 18:11–12 18:12 19:3 19:15 21:10 22:16 23:2 23:12 23:13 23:17 24:6 25:32 26:13 26:19 29:10 29:11 29:23 32:42 33:14 35:17 39:16

119 197 197 254 197 38 34 197 197 197 170 169, 170, 171 197 199 200 292 114, 199, 201 199, 200 200 199 197, 201 201 201 197 197 42, 197 108 229 197 257 197, 257 132 197 197 197 177 197 259 197 177 197 42, 197

328

Index of Scripture   

40:2 42:6 44:2 44:11 44:23 44:27 44:29 45:5 49:37 50:24 52:2

197 28, 42 197 197 197 42 197 197 197 191 131

Ezekiel 1:4 1:20 7:5 9:6 14:21–22 18:18 25:14 28 33:8 33:15

144 159 198 54 198 111 119 37 125 125

Hosea 2:2 8:3

142 56, 57

Joel 2:13

197

Amos 2:16 3:6 5:13 5:14 5:15 6:3 9:4 9:10

142 197, 200 197 56, 57 57 197 132 197

Jonah 3:10 4:2

197 197

Micah 1:11 2:3 3:2 3:11 4:6

142 117, 197 42 197 81

Nahum 3:19

224

Zephaniah 1:12 3:15

182, 280 280

Zechariah 1:13 1:15 2:2 4:10 8:14–15

217 180 180 132 201

Malachi 2:17

131

Psalms 8 8:6 31:20 36:5 37:27 52:5 82 82:1 82:2 82:3 82:4 82:5 82:6–7 83:16 83:20 107:25 115:3 139:2–4

137 137 113 111 42 42 67, 68, 69, 292, 295 67 67 67 67 68 67 54 232 144 233 268

Job 2:10 30:25 34:10 37:3

155 169 242 169, 170

Proverbs 4:7 8 15:3 15:18 16:29 17:26 18:5

39, 70, 292 39 132 191 111 111 111

329

Qumran    19:2 20:23 25:1 25:27 28:4 28:21 28:25 29:22 31:12

111 111 38 111 191 111 191 191 42

Ruth 1:21 3:10

114 131

Ecclesiastes 7:14 9:11 12:14

262, 263 168 42, 151

Lamentations 1:12 3:38 4:21

287 42, 81, 155 142

Esther 1:10 5:4 8:17 9:19

264 177 262 262

Daniel 11:10 11:25

191 191

Nehemiah 2:5 5:9

177 111

1 Chronicles 2:3 3:5–9 9:27 16:40 17:26 27:23

93, 131 252 170 124 252 53

2 Chronicles 9:6 14:1 16:9 21:6 22:4 24:16 25:5 25:14 25:18 25:19 25:20 25:23–24 29:6 33:2 33:6 33:22 34:24 35:20–24 36:5 36:9 36:12

167 131, 234 131 131 131 213 53 191 191 191 192 192 131 131 131 131 197 198 131 131 131

Qumran 1QSa 1:9–11 1:10–11

42, 50 50, 52, 53, 292

4QSama 12:9

255

12:14 13:21 13:22 13:39 16:12

257, 258 261 284 265 273

New Testament Matthew

1:6

252, 289

Author Index Abasili, A.  249 Abusch, T.  96, 99 Ackerman, J.  33, 73, 247, 248, 250, 260, 277, 287 Ackerman, S.  258, 282 Aernie, M.  144 Aitken, J. K.  96, 100, 101, 117, 146, 147, 208, 236, 255, 256, 257, 273, 297 Albertz, R.  38 Albrektson, B.  96, 129 Albright, W. F.  47, 48 Allen, R.  142 Alonso–Schökel, L.  37, 104 Anderson, F.  142 Anderson, A.  231, 251, 257, 268, 277, 282 Anderson, J.  96, 99, 101, 113, 162, 173, 202, 272 Ariel, D.  233 Arneth, M.  38, 130, 134 Arnold, B.  110, 111, 143, 145, 147, 148 Aron, L.  27 Artzi, P.  262, 263 Asselin, D.  58, 59 Aster, S. Z.  46 Bailey, J.  55 Baker, D.  114, 140 Baker, J.  63 Baldwin, J.  224, 225 Balentine, S.  181 Bar-Efrat, S.  251 Barmash, P.  266 Barr, J.  33, 143 Barrett, R.  96, 102, 157 Bartlett, J.  173 Barton, G.  47 Barton, J.  78, 79, 80, 282 Bauer, H.  214, 215 Bauks, M.  39, 42, 108, 124, 127, 143 Beach, E.  189 Beattie, D. G. R.  41 Bechtel, L. M.  55, 56, 134, 138, 140, 292 Bellefontaine, E.  266 Ben-Dov, J.  93, 289 Benedict, R.  138, 139, 140

Bennett, W. H.  47 Berg, S.  157 Biddle, M. E.  219, 225 Biran, A.  278 Blank, S. H.  97 Blenkinsopp, J.  37, 247, 280, 287 Boardman, J.  268 Bodi, D.  76, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 128, 151, 155, 167, 224, 225, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256, 266, 275, 285, 286, 287, 289, 299 Bodner, K.  194 Boecker, H. J.  269 Boling, R. G.  156, 166, 209, 264 Boomershine, T. E.  41 Booth, O.  242 Boström, L.  80 Botterweck, J.  26, 31, 119 Bovati, P.  270, 272, 277 Bowling, A.  109 Brand, M. T.  116 Brett, M. G.  39 Brichto, H.  97, 146, 236, 273 Bright, J.  175 Brueggemann, W.  247, 271, 272, 273, 276, 280, 283, 287, 288, 289, 299 Buber, M.  52, 63 Buchanan, G. W.  31, 53, 54, 55, 104, 160, 292 Budde, K.  45, 57, 58, 106, 227, 292 Bührer, W.  124 Burnside, J. P.  247, 267, 286 Butler, T. C.  156, 157, 209 Callender, D. E., Jr.  135 Carlson, R. A.  247, 256, 271 Carmichael, C. M.  33, 104 Carpenter, E.  178, 186 Carr, D.  38, 104, 241 Cassuto, U.  41, 106, 282, 292 Chapman, S. B.  80, 257 Charles, R. H.  54, 104 Charlesworth, J. H.  42 Charpin, D.  83 Chavalas, M. W.  186, 259, 268, 272, 274, 278 Chazon, E. G.  38, 116

332

  Author Index  

Clark, W. M.  25, 34, 63, 64, 65, 161, 211, 240, 241, 244, 261, 292 Coats, G. W.  34, 96 Cochavi-Rainey, Z.  262, 281 Cogan, M.  94, 168, 172, 173, 176, 177, 178, 182, 184, 186, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 217, 218, 231, 234, 235, 237, 241, 283, 285, 287 Cohn, R. L.  189, 191, 194, 233 Cohon, S. S.  28 Conroy, C.  161, 261, 274, 276, 278 Cook, J.  116 Cover, R.  82 Coxon, P.  255 Craigie, P. C.  186 Crawford, T. G.  96, 98, 99, 113 Cross, F. M.  175, 268 Crouch, C. L.  59, 112 Crowley, A. E.  97, 98 Davidson, R.  41 Davies, J. A.  39, 126, 238 Davies, P. R.  39, 104 Davis, C. T.  251, 289 Day, J.  34, 52 Dekker, J.  224 Delitzsch, F.  58, 104, 292 DeVries, S. J.  164, 172, 176, 181, 241, 244, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288 Dick, M. B.  135 Dillmann, A.  40, 58, 104 Dohmen, C.  26, 59, 79, 108, 114, 115, 119, 208, 280, 292 Doi, T.  139, 140 Dornseiff, F.  48 Dossin, G.  92 Dragga, S.  50, 51 Driver, S. R.  31, 32, 33, 40, 54, 291 Duhm, H.  60 Durand, J. M.  83 Edwards, D. R.  136, 142 Edwards, I. E. S.  268 Ehrlich, A. B.  47, 49, 282 Eichler, R.  145 Eiselen, F. C.  44 Emerton, J. A.  124 Engnell, I.  50, 52, 106, 239 Feder, Y.  62, 79, 81, 99 Fensham, F. C.  96,

Fisher, R. W.  279 Fitzmyer, J. A.  172, 212, 213, 214, 215 Flanagan, J. W.  247 Floyd, M. H.  132, 237 Fokkelman, J. P.  267 Forshey, H. A.  258, 259 Fox, M.  212 Frankel, D.  288 Frankfurter, D.  96 Frayne, D. R.  92 Frese, D. A.  269, 277, 278 Freedom, D. N.  91, 101, 233, 267, 289 Fretheim, T. E.  269, 277, 278 Frolov, S.  247 Frymer-Kensky, T.  82, 83, 117 Gammie, J. G.  78, 79 Gardner, A.  37, 38 Geddes, A.  50 Gelander, S.  39 Gelston, A.  199 Gemser, B.  269 Geoghegan, J. C.  225, 262, 263 George, A. R.  47 Gerleman, G.  251, 254, 257, 259 Gevirtz, S.  97, 98, 101, 102 Gillingham, S.  8 Gordis, R.  25, 26, 48, 49, 50 Gordon, A. R.  58 Gordon, C. H.  40, 170, 252, 289 Gordon, R. P.  39, 40, 109, 112, 122, 143 Grabbe, L. L.  11, 82, 106, 195, 196, 197 Gray, J.  173, 180, 182, 185, 191, 194, 198, 232, 236, 240 Grayson, A. K.  82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 141 Greenfield, J. C.  233, 284 Greengus, S.  82, 99, 100, 250, 252 Greenstein, E. L.  107, 110, 111, 113 Greenwood, K.  27 Greßmann, H.  60, 292 Grintz, I. M.  233 Grossman, J.  247, 248 Grundke, C.  145 Gubernatis, A. de  50 Gunkel, H.  55, 134, 152, 292 Gunn, D. M.  247, 250, 268, 276 Hallo, W. W.  106 Halpern, B.  174 Halton, C.  264 Harris, W. H.  149, 169, 171, 200

  Author Index   Harrison, R. K.  59, 186 Hartley, D.  144 Hartman, L. F.  26, 50, 142 Haupt, P.  277 Hempel, J.  97, 98, 113 Herion, G. A.  93, 99, 102, 152, 202 Herring, S. L.  135 Hertzberg, H. W.  269 Hess, R. S.  11, 100, 107, 111, 113, 208, 249, 282 Hilber, J. W.  140 Hill, A. E.  152, 202 Hillers, D. R.  186, 189, 212, 213, 215, 230, 231 Hobbs, T. R.  157, 163, 164, 186, 195, 197 Hoftijzer, J.  114, 160, 161, 242, 261, 264, 266, 267, 289, 305 Holladay, W. L.  132, 169, 201, 305 Hooke, S. H.  60, 61, 292 Horst, F.  78 Höver-Johag, I.  26, 109, 165, 270, 272, 286, 288 Howard, D. M., Jr.  252 Hruška, B.  89, 90 Hubbard, R. L.  77, 287, 289 Huddleston, N. A.  106 Huehnergard, J.  91 Huffmon, H. B.  120 Hugenberger, G. P.  143 Hulin, P.  262 Hundley, M. B.  136 Hurvitz, A.  233, 302 Hutton, R. R.  96 Ishida, T.  283, 289 Izre’el, S.  127, 128, 129 Janzen, D.  254 Jeffers, A.  96, 98, 113 Johag, I.  212, 270 Joines, K. R.  36 Jongeling, K.  114 Jordan, J. B.  66 Kallai, Z.  266 Kelle, B. E.  195, 197, 281 Kennedy, J. M.  45, 104, 292 Kidner, D.  63 Kitchen, K. A.  172, 177, 179, 187, 193, 212, 213, 237, 242, 250, 256 Kitz, A. M.  76, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 113, 121, 122, 147, 148, 157, 164, 179, 183, 202, 206, 207, 260, 272, 273, 277

333

Klein, R. W.  224 Knierim, R.  182 Knoppers, G. N.  172, 241 Knudtzon, J. A.  249, 281 Koch, K.  36, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 95, 182 Korošec, V.  100, 101 Korpel, Marjo C. A.  63 Kuemmerlin-McLean, J. K.  62 Kuntz, J. K.  79 Kutscher, E. Y.  191 Kuyper, L. J.  33 LaCocque, A.  42 Lambert, W. G.  87, 268 Landy, F.  45 Lang, B.  51 Lapsley, J. E.  282 Larue, G. A.  243 Lasine, S.  254 Layton, S. C.  233 Lanfer, P.  39 Lateiner, D.  82 Lawrence, P. J. N.  172, 177, 179, 187, 193, 212, 213, 237, 242, 250, 256 Leach, E.  50 Lee, C.  96 Leggett, D. A.  266 Leshem, Y.  189 Levenson, J. D.  111 Levine, B. A.  177, 215 Levy, L.  47 Lewis, J. P.  119 Limburg, J.  269 Lindström, F.  155, 280 Livingston, G. H.  114 Lohfink, N.  123, 124, 149 Long, V. P.  256, 257, 258, 269, 278, 279, 281 Lundbom, J. R.  169, 199, 200 Lyke, L. L.  264, 266, 289 Machinist, P.  25, 66, 67, 68, 69, 90, 118, 123, 125, 127, 151, 164, 241, 292 Macholz, G. C.  270 Mafico, T. L. J.  80, 151, 155, 242, 243 Magonet, J.  142 Major, H. D. A.  40, 42, 292 Malamat, A.  189, 190, 212, 213, 235, 257, 263 Mann, S. T.  277, 282 Margalith, O.  237 Markl, D.  197

334

  Author Index  

Marzal, A.  80, 155, 240, 242 Marzel, Y.  50, Matsushima, E.  136 Matthews, K. A.  26, 30, 107, 110, 111, 116, 118, 121, 127, 130, 145, 147 Matthews, V. H.  186, 259, 268, 272, 274, 278 Mayer, G.  271 McAffee, M.  111, 166, 177, 178, 179, 194, 212, 213, 215, 217, 218, 270 McCarter, P. K.  160, 161, 205, 212, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 245, 251, 253, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 264, 266, 267, 269, 272, 274, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284 McCarthy, C.  257 McCarthy, Dennis J.  100, 102 McDowell, C. L.  30, 37, 39, 124, 134, 135, 136, 137, 143 McKane, W.  274 McKenzie, J. L.  50 Mendenhall, G. E.  34, 35, 38, 99, 101, 102, 104, 240, 291 Mercer, S. A. B.  97, 98, 102 Mettinger, T. N. D.  21, 42, 106, 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 143, 145, 240, 241, 243, 244, 267, 268, 270 Middleton, J. R.  111 Milgrom, J.  27, 42, 51, 52, 104 Miller, P. D., Jr.  98, 99, 113, 117, 169, 247, 248, 256, 260 Mitchell, H. G.  58 Mittermayer, C.  62 Moberly, W.  122, 142, 143 Monson, J.  175, 176, 235, 287 Moor, J. C. de  63 Moore, M. S.  189 Moran, W. L.  212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 249, 258, 262, 263, 281 Moriarty, F. L.  96, 129 Morrow, W.  212 Muffs, Y.  192, 193, 215 Mullen, E. T.  188 Müller, H.-P.  61, 73, 104, 128, 207, 208 Murphy, R. E.  80 Na’aman, N.  247 Naveh, Joseph  233 Neusner, J.  54 Newsom, C.  30 Nicol, G.  249 Niditch, S.  33, 291

Niehaus, J.  144 Noort, E.  79 Noth, M.  177, 240 Odell, M. S.  134, 138, 139, 140, 141 Oden, R. A.  41 Oduyọye, M.  41 Olyan, S. M.  140, 141, 143, 190, 281 Oppenheim, A. L.  92, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 140, 186 Otto, E.  123 Pardee, D.  170 Park, S.-M. S.  274 Parker, S. B.  189, 269 Patrick, J. E.  247, 252 Paton, W. R.  47 Pax, E.  78, 79 Pedersen, J.  35, 36, 97, 98, 104, 127, 228, 270 Phillips, A.  259 Piers, G.  139 Plassman, T.  97 Plöger, J. G.  78, 79 Polzin, R.  96 Porteous, N. W.  239, 240, 241, 244 Postell, S. D.  143 Pritchard, J. B.  44 Provan, I. W.  189, 190 Pyper, H. S.  11, 254, 255, 264, 265, 267, 268, 278 Raabe, P.  79 Rad, G. von  41, 42, 78, 247, 250, 253 Radner, K.  255 Rainey, A. F.  262, 281 Rankin, O. S.  251 Reicke, B.  26, 44, 45, 52, 292 Reventlow, H. G.  78, 79 Richardson, A.  40 Rick, D.  26, 59, 79, 114, 115, 119, 208, 280 Robinson, H. W.  243 Rogerson, J. W.  34, 39 Rösel, H. N.  164 Rosen-Zvi, I.  116 Rosenberg, J.  19, 66, 106, 153, 221, 227, 247, 248, 260, 267, 275 Rosenthal, F.  262, 263, 284 Rost, L.  247, 250 Roth, M.  250 Roth, W. M. W.  259, 260 Rottzoll, D. U.  50

  Author Index   Sacks, R. D.  65, 66, 292 Saggs, H. W. F.  75, 76, 79 Sailhamer, J.  143 Sandmel, S.  312 Sarna, N. M.  42, 46, 107, 110, 116, 118, 126, 149, 158, 210 Sasson, J. M.  83, 84, 85, 86, 134, 224, 254, 286 Savran, G.  207, 208 Sawyer, J. F. A.  37, 285 Saydon, P.  176 Scharbert, J.  78, 96, 96, 98, 146, 147, 256 Schipper, B. U.  40, 240 Schipper, J.  253 Schlimm, M. R.  112 Schmid, K.  112, 280 Schmitt, G.  272 Schottroff, W.  26, 108, 119 Schücking-Jungblut, F.  248, 275 Schüle, A.  136 Schwemer, D.  62 Scott, R. B. Y.  62 Scullion, J. J.  64 Sekine, S.  26, 59 Selman, M. J.  192 Selms, A. van  256 Seow, C. L.  161 Simon, U.  254, 289 Singer, M. B.  139 Skinner, J.  40, 44, 282 Smend, R.  28, 282 Smith, D. E.  62, 93, 113 Smith, M. S.  34, 54, 59, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 124, 143, 146 Smith, M.  106 Smoak, J. D.  96 Soggin, J. A.  63 Sonik, K.  143 Speiser, E. A.  35, 63, 97, 107, 112, 118, 120, 125, 126, 127, 146, 160, 161, 193 Sprinkle, J. M.  210 Stamm, J.  251 Steinkeller, P.  76, 92 Stern, H. S.  25 Sternberg, M.  211 Singer, G. G.  100 Stipp, H-J.  181 Stoebe, H. J.  28, 29, 30, 109, 112, 114, 115, 119, 134, 282, 291 Stokes, R. E.  168, 169 Stordalen, T.  26, 61, 62, 73, 104, 106, 123, 127, 128, 135, 144, 207, 208, 292

335

Stratton, B. J.  39 Stuart, D.  42 Surls, A.  113, 170 Sweeney, M. A.  196 Swidler, L. J.  39 Tadmor, H.  186, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194 Thiel, W.  275 Thistleton, A. C.  96, 99 Thomas, D. W.  270 Thompson, J. A.  157 Thompson, R. J.  102 Thompson, T. L.  82 Thureau-Dangin, F.  47 Tiemeyer, L.-S.  11, 20, 132, 180, 236, 278, 280 Toorn, K. van der  77, 181, 193, 232, 237, 266 Towner, W. S.  79 Toy, C. H.  63 Trible, P.  52, 63 Tsevat, M.  63, 252 Uehlinger, C.  197 Ungnad, A.  63 Urbrock, W. J.  96, 99, 100, 113, 201 Van Seters, J.  37 Vanderkam, J. C.  273 Vaux, R. de  270 Vawter, B.  37 Veen, P. van der  196 Veenker, R. A.  42 Veijola, T.  247, 251 Vogels, W.  143 Vriezen, Th. C.  30, 60 Walker, C.  135 Wallace, H. N.  26, 42, 74, 107, 108, 130, 160, 161, 292 Walsh, J. T.  183 Waltke, B.  142 Walton, J. H.  39, 110, 111, 144, 145, 146, 186, 259, 262, 268, 272, 274, 278 Ward, G.  52 Waterman, L.  140, 268 Watson, W. G. E.  252 Weeks, N.  96 Weinfeld, M.  81, 113, 119, 163, 164, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 215, 216, 217, 218, 234, 237, 240, 280, 282

336

  Author Index  

Weippert, H.  175 Wellhausen, J.  28, 33, 39, 43, 44, 45, 57, 58, 227, 292 Wenham, G. J.  26, 27, 37, 52, 94, 107, 125, 126, 146, 149, 206, 207, 211 Wesselius, J. W.  247, 249, 250 Westbrook, R.  252, 256, 267 Westermann, C.  26, 30, 45, 106, 107, 125, 134, 291 Whitelam, K. W.  241, 267, 268, 269, 270, 289 Whybray, R. N.  247, 250 Wikander, O.  165, 181 Wilder, W. N.  39, 124, 126, 137 Wilkin, R. N.  94

Willis, J. T.  199 Wiseman, D. J.  135, 183, 186, 187, 189, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 208, 224, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237 Wolde, E. van  33, 106, 108, 249, 259 Wray Beal, L. M.  189, 280 Wright, D. P.  82, 254 Wyatt, N.  37, 252, 266, 288, 289 Yeivin, S.  266, 289 Younger, K. L., Jr.  106 Zevit, Z.  146 Zimmerli, W.  29, 182, 207, 291 Zuckerman, B.  96