Divine and Human Hate in the Ancient Near East: A Lexical and Contextual Analysis 9781463206956, 146320695X

Citation preview

Divine and Human Hate in the Ancient Near East

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 25

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

Divine and Human Hate in the Ancient Near East

A Lexical and Contextual Analysis

Andrew J. Riley

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC

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

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0695-6

ISSN 1935-6897

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

Divine and Human Hate in the Ancient Near East: A Lexical and Contextual Analysis

Do not delete the following information about this document. Version 1.0 Document Template: Template book.dot. Document Word Count: 12772 Document Page Count: 154

To my Beatrice ‫ֲהיִ ָפּ ֵלא ֵמיְ הוָ ה ָדּ ָבר‬

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Abbreviations and Symbols .................................................................. vii Preface ....................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................... 1 PART 1: HUMAN HATE Chapter 2: The Emotional Extreme of the Spectrum: Literal Hate ................................................................................................. 15 Hate in Non-marital Family Relationships ................................ 15 Hate Leading to Physical Harm and Murder in Nonkinship Contexts ................................................................... 18 Hate Speech .................................................................................... 20 Hate Designating an Enemy ........................................................ 21 Hate toward Vice ........................................................................... 22 Hate toward Virtue........................................................................ 23 Hate Magic...................................................................................... 24 Synthesis.......................................................................................... 25 Chapter 3: The Center of the Spectrum: Some Emotion and Some Metaphor ............................................................................. 27 Marital Hate Reflecting Demotion in Status ............................. 27 Ambiguous Marital Hate .............................................................. 30 Hate as a Term Indicating Marital and Family Divorce .......... 35 Synthesis.......................................................................................... 38 Chapter 4: The Nonemotive Extreme of the Spectrum: Metaphorical Hate ......................................................................... 41 Hate in a Covenant between Equals .......................................... 43 Hate in a Covenant between Suzerain and Vassal ................... 45 Hate Used as Hyperbole............................................................... 48 Hate Designating Rejection ......................................................... 49 Synthesis.......................................................................................... 49 v

vi

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

PART 2: DIVINE HATE Chapter 5: Hate as a Reflex to a Broken Covenant .......................... 53 Biblical Hebrew.............................................................................. 54 Akkadian ......................................................................................... 62 Synthesis.......................................................................................... 65 Chapter 6: Hate toward the Cult .......................................................... 67 Hate toward a Forbidden Cult Practice ..................................... 67 Hate toward an Accepted Cult Practice ..................................... 70 Chapter 7: Hate Toward Vice............................................................... 79 Biblical Hebrew.............................................................................. 79 Ugaritic ............................................................................................ 86 Akkadian ......................................................................................... 89 Synthesis.......................................................................................... 92 Chapter 8: Hate as Part of a God’s Unfavorable Portrait ................ 95 Ugaritic ............................................................................................ 95 Akkadian ......................................................................................... 97 Synthesis........................................................................................103 Chapter 9: Conclusion .........................................................................107 Appendix 1: Hate’s Word Field in Biblical Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Akkadian................................................................................111 Appendix 2: ‫ שׂנא‬in Mal 2:16 .............................................................113 Appendix 3: zêru in Nisaba and Wheat?............................................115 Bibliography ..........................................................................................117 Index .......................................................................................................137

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ABL AHw

ARM ARMT BDB BWL CAD CANE

CTU3

CH COS DUL

Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. Edited by R. F. Harper. 14 vols. Chicago, 1892-1914. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wolfram von Soden. 3 vols. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965-1981. Archives royales de Mari Archives royales de Mari, transcrite et traduite Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. W. G. Lambert. Oxford, 1960. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956–2010. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson, John Baines, Gary Beckman, and Karen S. Rubinson. 4 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places: Third, Enlarged Edition. Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 360/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013. (= KTU3) Code of Hammurabi The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Part One [ʾ(A/I/U)–K]; Part Two [L–Ẓ]. vii

viii

EA Foster, Muses3 HALOT JB JPS

MDP

MRS NIDOTTE NJPS

NRSV PRU RlA

RS RSV SAA TDOT

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 3d ed. Handbuch der Orientalistik 112. Leiden: Brill, 2015. El-Amarna Tablets Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. Benjamin R. Foster. 3d ed. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2005. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. Translated by J. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Jerusalem Bible The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse (= Scheil, 1908) Mission de Ras Shamra New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text New Revised Standard Version Le palais royal d’Ugarit (= Nougayrol) Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling et al. Berlin, 1928– Ras Shamra Revised Standard Version State Archives of Assyria Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David E. Green, and Douglas W. Stott. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974-2006.

ABBREVIATIONS TIM TLOT

TWOT VAT

[...] {...}

ix

Texts in the Iraq Museum Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Vorderasiastische Abteilung Tontafel. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin Brackets Half-brackets

PREFACE During spring quarter 1999, I was completing a bachelor’s degree in Hebrew studies in the Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Department at The Ohio State University. At that time, I had a conversation with a friend about divine hate. Being accustomed to the notion of divine love, I walked away from the conversation disturbed and uneasy. The discomfort that I felt and the questions that I asked that day eventually resulted in two independent studies: a master’s thesis from Ohio State on divine hate in Mal 1:3 and a dissertation from Hebrew Union College on divine hate in the Ancient Near East. This book is a significant reworking of these earlier studies, and many helped me along the way. From Hebrew Union College, I owe thanks to the late great Professor David Weisberg, my graduate school adviser and dissertation supervisor, and Dr. Samuel Greengus, my second dissertation adviser. Both professors were kind, generous, and helpful. From Ohio State, I thank Drs. Sam Meier, Reuben Ahroni, and Daniel Frank. Professor Meier in particular has continued to discuss the content of my book with me. Over the years, several people have read drafts of my work or provided fruitful discussion: Drs. Shawn Flynn, Klaus-Peter Adam, Tommy Beyl, Nancy Erickson, Angie Erisman, Kyle Greenwood, Charles Halton, Jack Maddex, Marvin Miller, Carl Pace, Grant Testut, Mr. Warren Keyes, Mr. Isaac Hallgrimson, and Ms. Liz Sauers. The advice and assistance of Drs. Yael Landman and Melonie Schmierer-Lee of Gorgias Press have been very helpful throughout the editing process. I am grateful for all of these people and acknowledge that full responsibility for everything written here is wholly mine. Much of the project’s transformation from dissertation to book occurred during a visiting professorship at the University of Oregon. I thank Drs. Deborah Green and Daniel Falk for the opportunity to research, write, and teach in that context. Finalxi

xii

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

ly, I thank my wife, Ginny, who also commented on book drafts over the years. Words only begin to express my gratitude and affection for you. The book is dedicated to you, with hope that we will remember the wonder.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Divine emotion is a ubiquitous feature of ancient Near Eastern documents. These texts ascribe the same constellation of feelings experienced by humans (for example, love, anger, joy, and many others) to the divine realm. In the present book, I study instances of divine hate. On seventeen separate occasions, the Hebrew Bible describes Yahweh as hateful (‫)שׂנא‬. But authors outside the biblical tradition assign hate to other ancient Near Eastern deities. Canaanite texts from Ugarit and Akkadian documents also characterize their gods as hateful (šnʾ and zêru, respectively). Consequently, I also scrutinize members of the Canaanite and Mesopotamian pantheons with reference to their šnʾ and zêru. Baal, Marduk, Enlil, and others receive due attention. 1 Modern scholarship focuses primarily on human hate in the Hebrew Bible and cognate texts and, therefore, lacks a comprehensive study on divine hate (‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru). A few books, articles, and unpublished dissertations address divine hate only in part. Gene W. Brice was the first to complete a broad study on ‫ שׂנא‬in his dissertation on human hatred and anger in the Hebrew Bible. 2 In this work he reconstructs the Sitz im Leben of every relevant passage that contains hate and anger vocabulary. Brice argues, ‘‫שׂנא‬ ranges in meaning from an objective expression of a covenantal abrogation and a technical meaning of divorce to the more emotional meanings, ranging from intense personal antipathy to com0F

The definition of deity in the present study is generous, including all superhuman beings. See Lambert, ‘Gott’, RlA 3, p. 543. 2 Brice, ‘A Study of Hatred and Anger in Old Testament Man.’ 1

1

2

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

plete indifference.’ 3 With these words, Brice becomes the first researcher to recognize ‫ שׂנא‬as part of covenant vocabulary, which I argue centers on ‫’שׂנא‬s metaphorical nuance throughout this monograph. Brice’s interpretation of ‫ שׂנא‬as covenant vocabulary, as correct as it is, is rather overlooked in a significant portion of scholarship. This valuable contribution by Brice aside, his study is of limited usefulness to the present book, because his topic orbits around human emotion. He deliberately excludes extensive discussion of divine ‫שׂנא‬. Robert D. Branson filled this lacuna left by Brice with a dissertation treating every occurrence of ‫ שׂנא‬in the Hebrew Bible, including divine ‫שׂנא‬. 4 His objective is to plot ‘the various semantic values of the concept represented by the root ‫ שׂנא‬as it is used in the Old Testament’. 5 While Branson provides a variety of interpretations for ‫( שׂנא‬for example, the emotive nuance), he argues in most instances that ‫ שׂנא‬is part of covenant vocabulary: ‘In the vast majority of contexts in which ‫ שׂנא‬occurs it has the semantic value of a breach or lack of covenant. An emotional connotation may secondarily be included in its meaning but its primary idea is a description of the breakdown of covenantal relationships.’ 6 In making this argument, he follows the trend started by Brice and which I follow in some interpretations of ‫שׂנא‬: this lexeme is metaphorical for a broken covenant, not an indicator of negative emotion. However, Branson takes the argument too far. The vast majority of ‫’שׂנא‬s instances reflect the emotive (not covenantal) nuance. Eventually, Branson updated his conclusions on ‫ שׂנא‬with an article: ‘The Polyvalent ‫שׂנא‬: An Emotional, Performative, and Covenantal Term.’ This article explains a few instances of Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬and some cognate Semitic evidence, but excludes Ugaritic and Akkadian material. Branson’s objective is to identify ‫’שׂנא‬s nuances, not to study divine ‫שׂנא‬. Regardless, this second study by Branson is considerably more balanced than his dissertation with Brice, ‘A Study of Hatred and Anger in Old Testament Man’, p. 5. Branson, ‘A Study of the Hebrew Term ‫שׂנא‬.’ 5 Branson, ‘A Study of the Hebrew Term ‫’שׂנא‬, p. 3. 6 Branson, ‘A Study of the Hebrew Term ‫’שׂנא‬, p. 78. 3 4

1: INTRODUCTION

3

reference to ‫שׂנא‬. In this article, he argues for a more emotional nuance to ‫ שׂנא‬than he does in his dissertation. J. A. Thompson’s article on certain occurrences of ‫( שׂנא‬human and divine) is similar to Brice’s and Branson’s perspectives. 7 Indeed, all three researchers recognize the covenant value of ‫שׂנא‬. But Thompson’s analysis is limited to a few occasions of divine ‫ שׂנא‬and excludes comparative Semitic evidence. Therefore, my study is set apart from the contributions of Brice, Branson, and Thompson, because they do not endeavor to situate Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬ within a comparative context. With that said, Brice’s, Branson’s, and Thompson’s interpretations of ‫ שׂנא‬are insightful and influence my interpretations. Andreas Wagner is another contributor to this discussion. His monograph on emotions and feelings in the Hebrew Bible possesses a study on hate: ‘Gefühle, in Sprache geronnen: Die historische Relativität von Gefühlen am Beispiel von “Hass”.’ 8 Adopting a multidisciplinary approach, he focuses on historical anthropology and historical philology and evaluates a few verses with human ‫( שׂנא‬for example, Lev 19:17) in light of modern German Hass (hatred). But Wagner excludes discussion of divine ‫ שׂנא‬and comparative Semitic material. However, a volume edited by Wagner (Göttliche Körper—Göttliche Gefühle: Was leisten anthropomorphe und anthropopathische Götterkonzepte im Alten Orient und Alten Testament?) considers evidence from the Hebrew Bible and cognate texts, but with very little information that bears upon my study. An exception is Melanie Köhlmoos’s chapter that includes ‫ שׂנא‬in a list of emotional sensations experienced by Yahweh, but with no extensive treatment. 9 Four other studies that focus on cognate texts are relevant to this history of research. Marjo C. A. Korpel wrote on Ugaritic and Hebrew descriptions of the divine. 10 In her third chapter (‘Anthropomorphic Descriptions of the Divine in Ugarit and Israel’), she Thompson, ‘Israel’s “Haters”.’ ‘Gefühle, in Sprache geronnen’ is the second study in Wagner, Emotionen, Gefühle und Sprache im Alten Testament. 9 Köhlmoos, ‘“Denn ich, JHWH, bin ein eifersüchtiger Gott”.’ 10 Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds. 7 8

4

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

provides a section on ‘Emotions’, within which is the subsection ‘Anger’. In this part she analyzes divine šnʾ and divine ‫שׂנא‬, by adducing instances from Ugaritic literature and a few references from the Hebrew Bible. Her study is important because it draws comparisons (albeit limited ones) between the Ugaritic corpus and the Hebrew Bible. Margaret Jaques published a book treating the vocabulary of feeling in Sumerian and Akkadian. 11 She devotes several pages to zêru, but comments on very few instances of divine zêru. Moreover, the instances that she discusses are featured without reference to Ugaritic or biblical material. With that said, Jaques is sensitive to instances of zêru that are comparable to the aforesaid instances of ‫ שׂנא‬with a covenantal semantic value. Finally, two independent studies, the first by Zvi Szubin and Bezalel Porten and the second by Alejandro Botta, comment on a small number of divine hate references in articles devoted to the legal use of Aramaic ‫ שׂנא‬in papyri from Elephantine. 12 Their primary purpose is to contribute to the discussion on Aramaic ‫’שׂנא‬s meaning in these documents, not to discuss divine ‫( שׂנא‬in Hebrew), šnʾ, and zêru at length. On the other hand, Szubin, Porten, and Botta are like several of the scholars cited above: they are aware that Hebrew ‫שׂנא‬ and zêru operate with nonemotive (that is, metaphorical) nuances at times. 13 Since several of the aforesaid researchers in essence provide word studies, it is appropriate to ask, what do lexica say about divine and human ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru? Do lexica perceive the metaphorical nuance highlighted by Brice, Branson, and others? Biblical Hebrew lexica endorse a broad scope of definition for ‫שׂנא‬. TLOT says, ‘The semantic scope of śnʾ reaches from the strongly affective 12F

Jaques, Le vocabulaire des sentiments dans les textes sumériens. Szubin and Porten ‘The Status of a Repudiated Spouse’; Botta, ‘Hated by the Gods and your Spouse.’ 13 Hélène Nutkowicz contributes to the same discussion that Szubin, Porten, and Botta participate in, namely, how one interprets Aramaic ‫שׂנא‬ in Elephantine texts, ‘Concerning the Verb Śnʾ.’ However, unlike Szubin, Porten, and Botta, Nutkowicz does not feature divine ‫( שׂנא‬in Hebrew) in her study. 11

12

1: INTRODUCTION

5

“to hate” . . . to a somewhat diluted “to feel aversion for, not want, avoid”.’ 14 NIDOTTE explains, It may express the most intense hatred of the enemies of God (Ps 139:21–22), or that of a violent enemy (25:19), but it may simply express that which is to be avoided, such as serving as a guarantor for a debt (Prov 11:15), the feelings of aversion for a poor man (19:7), or the aggravation of a neighbor who visits too often (25:17). . . . But on a less intense scale, hate may simply express the feelings of affection for one wife in contrast to the aversion for another (Deut 21:15, 17). 15

With reference to Ugaritic, DUL 2, p. 820 defines šnʾ ‘to hate, loathe’. Similarly terse, CAD Z, p. 97 defines zêru ‘to dislike, to hate, to avoid’. AHw 3, p. 1522 largely has the same definition for zêru, except AHw replaces ‘to avoid’ with ablehnen (to reject). In view of this data from lexica, it is clear that ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s gamuts of meaning are broad, containing on one end of the spectrum literal occasions and on the other end less emotional instances of ‫שׂנא‬ and zêru. (Throughout this book, I refer to instances of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru with reduced emotion as metaphorical.) Centering its definition on an emotive meaning, DUL does not support a wide semantic range for šnʾ. Taken collectively, this data from lexica indicates lexica are sensitive to the literal, emotive meaning of ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ and zêru. On the other hand, most sources (TLOT; NIDOTTE; CAD; AHw; and HALOT 3, pp. 1338–40) just scratch the surface of ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s metaphorical nuances. Some lexica overlook this nuance entirely. For example, TWOT states concerning ‫שׂנא‬, ‘It expresses an emotional attitude toward persons and things which are opposed, detested, despised and with which one wishes to have no contact or relationship.’ 16 This definition is too simplistic and general. In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ שׂנא‬attests to a much more significant semantic range. In the masterful TDOT, E. Lipiński provides the most extensive treatment of ‫( שׂנא‬with a cursory analysis of Jenni, ‘‫ שׂנא‬śnʾ to hate’, TLOT 3, p. 1278. Konkel, ‘‫’שׂנא‬, NIDOTTE 3, p. 1257. 16 Van Groningen, ‘‫שׂנֵ א‬ ָ (śānēʾ) hate, to be hateful’, TWOT 2, p. 880. ‘‫ ָשׂנֵ א‬hate’, BDB, pp. 971–2 is less precise than TWOT. 14 15

6

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

zêru), but his investigation of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru as metaphors is underdeveloped. 17 In sum, most of these lexica state ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s semantic ranges, but they do not adequately present the data in terms of literal uses and metaphor. Moreover, these dictionaries, with some exception, do not analyze divine hate within the context of comparative Semitic evidence. To sum up, this history of research shows that several researchers discuss human and divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru. But they do not execute their task in a comprehensive way by examining all instances of divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, or zêru. The sole exceptions to this statement are Branson’s dissertation, which explains every occasion of divine ‫שׂנא‬, and Korpel’s monograph, which evaluates all instances of divine šnʾ. But I emphasize that Branson’s and Korpel’s analyses do not investigate cognate texts with any depth. Put simply: there is no single source that examines every instance of divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru. This book satisfies this deficiency in scholarship. I follow Brice, Branson, and others with a lexical study methodology. Indeed, the present study is a lexical analysis of ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru originating in divine figures. But since the ancients expressed divine emotion with terms from their own experiences, human hate also receives attention. Contemplating human hate first fosters correct interpretation of divine hate. As just stated, several studies on human hate exist. However, my analysis goes beyond previous studies, by evaluating human hate on a meaning continuum. This continuum is necessary, because ancient texts are ambiguous sometimes. A cursory perusal of English Bible translations demonstrates the ambiguity and subsequent problems that lexemes like ‫ שׂנא‬pose to the biblical language specialists on Bible translation committees. For example, Prov 11:15 teaches one to express ‫ שׂנא‬toward ‫ערב‬ (cosigning). The following translations of Prov 11:15 underscore ‫’שׂנא‬s diversity of interpretation: ‘hate’ (RSV), ‘refuse’ (NRSV), and ‘spurn’ (NJPS). Does the sage suggest a negative emotional reaction to cosigning? Or does the sage intend refusal without emotion? On the basis of these translations, these questions go unanswered. Further, Gen 29:31 reports ‫ שׂנא‬within the context of Jacob and Leah’s 17

Lipiński, ‘‫’שׂנֵ א‬, ָ TDOT 14, pp. 164–74.

1: INTRODUCTION

7

marriage. Is Leah ‘hated’ (JPS), ‘unloved’ (NRSV), ‘disliked’ (Moffatt), or ‘neglected’ (JB)? Hating a person is radically different than simply not loving someone, and neglect is different than dislike. Certain instances of zêru parallel this ambiguous state of affairs represented in Biblical Hebrew. It is true that the researcher of ancient languages has more tools than translations to assist with interpretation. Lexica are the most obvious sources to mine for insight into a lexeme’s nuances, and I delineate above the current state of scholarship vis-à-vis lexica: lexica fail to explain adequately ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s metaphorical nuance, which other scholars like Brice and Branson recognize, but not in a way that accommodates these lexemes’ ambiguity. In view of ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s semantic ranges and ambiguity, a new approach to defining these lexemes is in order. 18 Therefore, this study adopts the ‘Meaning Continuum’ model articulated by David H. Aaron in Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery. Aaron’s model, based on linguist Ray Jackendoff’s work, is a spectrum and provides ‘an interpretive strategy that will allow for more accurate assessments of ancient utterances’. 19 Literal meaning is on one extreme end of the spectrum, and it reflects absolute clarity. The opposite extreme is nonsense, indicating complete obscurity. Between these poles, moving from literal to non-literal, one finds increasing shades of ambiguity and figurative speech. 20 Aaron asserts that ancient utterances (his focus is mostly those found in the Hebrew Bible) can be fuzzy and ambiguous. Indeed, this continuum provides the necessary framework for correct interpretation, because some of ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s occurrences in antiquity are metaphorical and, consequently, difficult to understand at first glance. Therefore, in order to achieve the most accurate interpreta17F

I deliberately omit šnʾ from these comments on ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s metaphorical nuance, because šnʾ occurs only twice in Canaanite texts. Such a limited corpus precludes confidently drawing conclusions on a lexeme’s metaphorical value. Indeed, šnʾ is never applied to humans in Ugaritic. 19 Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities, p. 99. 20 This spectrum appears as ‘Figure 1: The Meaning Continuum and the Relative Role of Ambiguity’, Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities, p. 112. 18

8

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

tions, this monograph isolates three fundamental parts of the spectrum. One extreme is literal: ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru with a negative emotional overtone. Chapter 2 addresses instances of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru that hover around this part of the spectrum. The opposite extreme of the continuum is metaphorical and discussed in chapter 4. The ancient authors cited in chapter 4 do not intend their statements about ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru to be interpreted literally. Indeed, emotion is mostly absent from these utterances. Between the two extremes is the central region of the spectrum, which is the subject of chapter 3. Occurrences of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru here are a blend of the extremes: some emotion is present, but a metaphorical nuance is present, too. These three chapters, which constitute this book’s analysis of human hate, might suggest that I endorse a tripartite framework for interpreting ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru. This is not the case. Three points on the spectrum are articulated and fleshed out, because this approach is the best way to accommodate occurrences of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru from antiquity. Aaron addresses this point: ‘It is not the purpose of this study to merely replace a binary categorization with a tripartite one. The principle of gradience implies a meaning continuum, not discrete semantic categories.’ 21 When Aaron refers to ‘binary categorization’, he is discussing the binary conceptualization for understanding metaphors, which he rejects. That is, when one encounters a metaphor in a document, one need not decide if it is figurative or literal (binary). Rather, the reader should employ a gradient or meaning continuum model, because a continuum provides a spectrum into which the metaphor fits. The purpose of the three chapter approach (chapters 2–4) is to provide three reference points on the continuum. Four, five, or more points could have been chosen, but three adequately accommodate and elucidate ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s semantic ranges. In addition to being a lexical analysis, this study also follows the lead of some of the aforesaid researchers (for example, Korpel and Botta) and is a contextual analysis of divine and human hate in Biblical Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Akkadian. A vocal champion of this methodology, William W. Hallo explains that the contextual approach involves conducting biblical exegesis in the light of compa21

Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities, p. 69.

1: INTRODUCTION

9

rable documentary evidence from the larger setting of the ancient Near East. 22 Therefore, the focus of subsequent chapters is comparing and contrasting instances of divine and human hate in Biblical Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Akkadian. The contextual methodology also considers the degree to which comparable texts influenced or responded to one another. For example, did an author borrow a hate motif from another document? If so, did the author refashion it for another purpose? Are instances of hate clear reactions against a hate motif elsewhere? Regardless of how these questions are answered in the following chapters, it must be underscored that Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬is of primary importance. Consequently, he is the focus. The larger discussion of human hate and divine hate of other Near Eastern gods orbits around him. This study is interested in how human hate and divine hate in Canaanite texts from Ugarit and Mesopotamian cuneiform literature illuminate Yahweh’s depiction as hateful. The fundamental question guiding this inquiry is: is Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬comparable to instances of divine šnʾ and zêru from the greater ancient Near East or is his ‫ שׂנא‬different? Some remarks on the contrast between modern and ancient usage of emotional lexemes like hate are in order. In modern discourse, hate often has two interpretations. The first understands hate as an expression of flippancy. For example, a child might glibly say, ‘I hate bathing.’ Or someone committed to nutrition may declare, ‘I hate unhealthy food.’ Not long ago, I encountered a fellow in public donning a shirt stating ‘I HATE WEEKDAYS’ (emphasis his). In these cases, the audience tends to interpret hate as Scores of studies employing the contextual approach exist. What follows here is a brief list of works, many by Hallo himself: Sandmel, ‘Parallelomania’; Hallo, ‘A Case Study in the Contrastive Approach’; Evans, Hallo, and White, Scripture in Context; Hallo, Moyer, and Perdue, Scripture in Context II; Hallo, ‘Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos’; Hallo, Jones, and Mattingly, The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature; Younger, Hallo, and Batto, The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective; Hallo, ‘Ancient Near Eastern Texts and their Relevance for Biblical Exegesis’ (COS 1, pp. xxiii–xxviii); Hallo, ‘One God for Many’; Hallo, The World’s Oldest Literature. 22

10

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

dislike and understands the statement as an exaggeration for rhetorical effect. The second modern interpretation of hate reflects a function of hate bordering on taboo. For example, proclaiming hate for types of people is deemed unacceptable and intolerant. In these instances, listeners tend to take hate seriously and understand the speaker to wish for the end of said types of people. President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union Address (27 January 2010) employs both extremes. When he said, ‘We all hated the bank bailout’, he meant we disliked it, but recognized its necessity. Then he referenced the hate crime legislation, which passed through the United States Congress. 23 A commonality is shared by each of these instances (from the child and her bath to hate crimes): all express a level of negative emotion. The fellow’s shirt implies that he does not feel good about weekdays. A negative emotional value (sometimes great, sometimes small) pervades modern usage of hate. Modern love statements are understood in the same way. ‘I love you’ insinuates I feel good about you. As stated earlier, research on ancient usage of emotional terms, like those under scrutiny in this book, shows a different state of affairs. Indeed, words like hate and love operate with a nonemotive (namely, metaphorical) nuance in certain ancient contexts. 24 In other words, sometimes hate does not carry a connotation of feeling in antiquity. Thus, at times there is considerable incongruence between ancient hate and modern usage of hate. The following chapters demonstrate sensitivity to this disparity. This sensitivity is fostered by the use of terms. For example, when referring to hate, the following chapters often use the relevant Hebrew, Ugaritic, or Akkadian lexeme (‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru), realizing the instance under consideration may or may not be emotionally charged. Using ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, or zêru in this fashion reminds the reader that this is a study on Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬or Marduk’s zêru, which The complete text of the speech is online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-stateunion-address (cited 28 January 2010). 24 In addition to the interpreters noted in this chapter’s history of research, see the following: Moran, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God’; Anderson, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance. 23

1: INTRODUCTION

11

may or may not be equivalent to the modern emotional interpretation of hate. Additionally, ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru may designate any part of speech in the respective language. Akkadian zêru (the verbal form) may refer to a verb (G or N stem), substantive (for example, zērāti), or adjective (for example, zāʾiru). Biblical Hebrew ‫ שׂנא‬may refer to a verb (qal, nipʿal, or piʿel), participle (qal, piʿel), substantive (‫)שׂנְ ָאה‬, ִ or adjective (‫)שׂנִ יא‬. ָ Ugaritic šnʾ may refer to a verb or participle. Following this introduction, there are two principal parts to this monograph. Part 1 (chapters 2–4) treats the semantic range of human ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru in Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian. (Ugaritic documents do not ascribe šnʾ to humans.) Human hate is the backdrop against which divine hate is best interpreted. Part 2 (chapters 5–8) addresses divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru in Biblical Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Akkadian. Following the conclusion (chapter 9), there are three appendices. The relationship of ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru to other negative emotional terms is important, so the first appendix discusses these lexemes as part of their respective word fields denoting divine antipathy. Second, many English Bible translations and interpreters of Mal 2:16 indicate that this verse communicates divine ‫שׂנא‬. The NRSV is representative and says: ‘I hate divorce.’ This translation does not accurately reflect the Hebrew text, so the second appendix explains why Mal 2:16 communicates divine displeasure toward certain types of divorce, but not Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬ toward divorce in general. Third, a possible instance of divine zêru is largely reconstructed in a lacuna in the fable Nisaba and Wheat. Since the reading is uncertain, it occupies the third appendix. Unless noted otherwise, all translations are my own.

PART 1: HUMAN HATE

13

CHAPTER 2: THE EMOTIONAL EXTREME OF THE SPECTRUM: LITERAL HATE The ancients expressed divine emotion with terms from their own experiences. Therefore, understanding first what the ancients meant when they ascribed ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru to humans is imperative for correctly interpreting these lexemes when applied to deities. When applied to humankind, ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru most often express a negative emotional overtone. Biblical and Mesopotamian texts indicate that this type of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru is often accompanied by hostility, which may manifest itself in physical harm or other negative sentiment toward the hated object. ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru reflecting such emotion function in numerous ways and contexts: the family/‫בּית ָאב‬,ֵ speech, hate resulting in harm or murder in non-familial ties, hatred toward vice or virtue, hate magic, and more.

HATE IN NON-MARITAL FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

Biblical passages focusing on the family/‫ ֵבּית ָאב‬indicate that the home should be a life-giving and nurturing setting, where the patriarch receives respect and the needs of its constituents are met. It is true that sometimes the Hebrew Bible does not portray families as such, but the occasions of a destructive ‫ ֵבּית ָאב‬should be interpreted as falling well short of ideal. ‫ שׂנא‬in the family appears in the Joseph story (Gen 37): 3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his brothers, because Joseph was the son of his old age. And he made a varicolored tunic for him. 4 When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated (‫ )וַ יִּ ְשׂנְ אוּ‬him and were unable to speak peacefully to him. 5 Thereafter, Joseph dreamed a dream, told it to his brothers, and they hated (‫) ְשׂנֹא‬ him more. . . . 8 Then his brothers said to him, ‘Are you indeed

15

16

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST to rule or have dominion over us?’ So they hated (‫ ) ְשׂנֹא‬him even more on account of his dream and words.

Following these verses, the narrator reports Joseph’s brothers’ jealousy (v. 11) and conspiracy to murder him (v. 18). Joseph’s near murder at his brothers’ hands shows that the only understanding of ‫ שׂנא‬in Gen 37 is literal negative sentiment felt by Jacob’s other sons. 1 Indeed, their ‫ שׂנא‬climaxes in their physical aggression toward him. Joseph’s brothers treat him as if he is their enemy. Such ‫ שׂנא‬is strong and intense. The tragedy in 2 Sam 13 illustrates more emotive ‫שׂנא‬. This chapter orbits around members of David’s royal household: brother and sister Absalom and Tamar, their half-brother Amnon, and cousin Jonadab. Upon observing lovesick Amnon, Jonadab suggests Amnon adopt the pretense of sickness in order to get physically close to Tamar (vv. 1–5). Amnon complies, and Tamar appears in his room as a quasi-nurse (vv. 6–10). Once alone, Amnon seizes and rapes her (vv. 11–14). This act generates negative emotion in Amnon toward his half-sister: ‘Then Amnon hated her (‫ )וַ יִּ ְשׂנָ ֶא ָה‬with a very great hatred (‫דוֹלה ְמאֹד‬ ָ ְ‫) ִשׂנְ ָאה גּ‬. For greater was the hatred (‫)ה ִשּׂנְ ָאה‬ ַ with which he hated her (‫)שׂנֵ ָאהּ‬ ְ than the love with which he had loved her. Then Amnon said to her, “Get up and go!”’ (v. 15). ‘Get up and go!’ smacks of emotional disgust and distaste. Certainly, the author underscores that this is not minimal ‫שׂנא‬, but very great ‫שׂנא‬. A literal interpretation of ‫( שׂנא‬that is, a strong negative emotion) is the only option. 2 25F

Westermann, Genesis 37–50, p. 37; von Rad, Genesis, pp. 350–52; Sarna, Genesis, p. 256; Becking, ‘“They Hated Him Even More”’, pp. 40– 47; Ben Yosef, ‘Joseph and His Brothers’, pp. 157–8; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, p. 351; Pirson, The Lord of the Dreams, pp. 37–40; Jacobs, ‘The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil in the Joseph Story’, pp. 309–38; Kaminsky, ‘Reclaiming a Theology of Election’, p. 138; Arnold, Genesis, pp. 318–9; Cohen, ‘Early Traditions on the Kidnapping and Sale of Joseph: Part I’, p. 106; Cohen, ‘Early Traditions on the Kidnapping and Sale of Joseph: Part II’, p. 144; McConville, ‘Forgiveness as Private and Public Act’, p. 638. 2 Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, p. 324; McCarter, II Samuel, p. 324; van Dijk-Hemmes, ‘Tamar and the Limits of Patriarchy’, pp. 135–56; Propp, 1

2: LITERAL HATE

17

Furthermore, Amnon’s conduct triggers Absalom’s ‫שׂנא‬: ‘As for Absalom, he did not speak to Amnon good or bad, for Absalom hated (‫)שׂנֵ א‬ ָ Amnon, because he had raped Tamar his sister’ (2 Sam 13:22). Lest one think that Absalom’s ‫ שׂנא‬operates without feeling, the narrator confirms that ‫ שׂנא‬is literal, when he reports that Absalom supervises Amnon’s murder (vv. 28–29). 3 Similar to Joseph’s brothers, Absalom conspires to kill his half-brother, and the text suggests Absalom’s personal vendetta, evidenced by ‫שׂנא‬, is the motivation. Like Joseph’s brothers’ treatment of Joseph, Absalom treats Amnon like an enemy in an armed conflict. Mesopotamian documents also portray zêru among family members. In Neo-Assyrian King Esarhaddon’s succession treaty, there is a stipulation ordering subjects to foster peaceful ties between Esarhaddon and his son Ashurbanipal: ‘You shall neither sow discord between him and his father, nor shall you cause hatred (ziʾāri) between them’ (lines 326–27). 4 The covenant context of this document aside, 5 the discord and quarreling that this treaty warns against indicate that zêru functions literally in this quotation. In other words, the author has negative sentiment in mind, and he does not want any competitor for the throne to provoke emotional strife between Esarhaddon and heir apparent Ashurbanipal. The incantation series Šurpu, which Mesopotamians used to facilitate physical healing and release from vexation, possesses another Akkadian example. Tablet II enumerates possible offenses that a sick man may have committed, thereby triggering divine ‘Kinship in 2 Samuel 13’, pp. 39–53; Matthews and Benjamin, ‘Amnon and Tamar’, p. 361; Mukenge, ‘Quand l’amour se change en haine’, pp. 51–76. 3 Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, p. 324; McCarter, II Samuel, p. 328; Anderson, 2 Samuel, p. 176; van Dijk-Hemmes, ‘Tamar and the Limits of Patriarchy’, pp. 135–56. See also Propp, ‘Kinship in 2 Samuel 13’, p. 43; Keefe, ‘Rapes of Women/Wars of Men’, p. 87; Mukenge, ‘Quand l’amour se change en haine,’ pp. 51–76. 4 For the transliteration, see SAA II: 6 (Parpola and Watanabe, NeoAssyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths). 5 The present monograph’s chapter 4 suggests zêru and ‫ שׂנא‬function without emotion in covenant contexts.

18

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

wrath: ‘He is disrespectful [toward] his father, hateful (zīrāti) toward his older brother. He has despised his father and mother, sinned against his older sister’ (lines 35–36). 6 Since more vocabulary for negative emotion, for example, mêšu (despise), is present in the text, the reader should interpret zêru with an emotive nuance. The author of this tablet portrays significant emotional discord in this patient’s family, indicated by zêru. These four cases of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru within families show that the result of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru may be physical harm or significant emotional strife. Each context indicates that ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru should be interpreted literally and supports the positioning of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru on the literal end of the meaning spectrum.

HATE LEADING TO PHYSICAL HARM AND MURDER IN NON-KINSHIP CONTEXTS

Hebrew legal material on the cities of refuge addresses killing motivated by ‫ שׂנא‬as a determining factor on who qualifies to live in such a city. This discussion in legal texts distinguishes slaying in which the motivation was ‫ שׂנא‬from that which was unintentional (without ‫)שׂנא‬. For example, Deut 19 states, 4 Now this is the matter of the manslayer, who might flee there and live. This is someone who kills his neighbor without premeditation, not hating (‫ )לֹא־שׂ ֹנֵ א‬him before. 5 For example, when someone would go with his neighbor in the forest to gather wood and the former takes the ax to cut down the tree. But the iron loosens from the wood handle and it strikes his neighbor so that he dies. He may flee unto one of these cities and live, 6 lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer (due to the anger of his heart), overtake him (because the way is long), and strike him, ending his life and depriving him of justice in his death, since he did not hate (‫ )ל ֹא שׂ ֹנֵ א‬him before.

These verses are instructive, because they indicate ‫ שׂנא‬does not animate the committer of manslaughter. The victim’s death is acci6

For the transliteration, see Reiner, Šurpu, p. 14.

2: LITERAL HATE

19

dental; the unintentional killer bears no ill will. 7 On the other hand, the Deut 19 narrator contrasts verses 4–6 with the following verses, ‘11 Now if it happens that a man hates (‫ )שׂ ֹנֵ א‬his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him, so that he dies, and then flees to one of these cities, 12 then the elders of his city should send for and take him from there that he may be given into the hand of the avenger of blood and die.’ In this case, the murderer, who acts out of ‫שׂנא‬, does not qualify for the city of refuge and can be killed by the blood avenger. Since the murderer’s ‫ שׂנא‬leads him to premeditated murder, ‫ שׂנא‬has a negative emotional overtone. 8 Akkadian sources also contain instances of zêru leading to some kind of physical harm. The first example is a letter (ABL 327) to Esarhaddon from the governor of Nippur. The letter requests water, because Nippur’s ties to Assyria have put Nippur’s citizens at risk of death due to thirst and murder. Indeed, it is likely that Nippur’s pro-Assyria posture incited the hostility of other Babylonian cities. 9 The governor writes: ‘The king knows that all lands hate us (izirrūnâši) on account of Assyria. It is unsafe for us in all lands. Wherever we go, we are killed with the statement: “Why have you taken hold of the feet of Assyria?”’ (obv. lines 11–17). 10 This example captures the emotive nuance of zêru because the zêru expressed by ‘all lands’ leads to physical violence. 31F

Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, p. 266. Barmbash, Homicide in the Biblical World, pp. 80, 122; Stackert, ‘Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge?’, pp. 37–38. For further discussion of the judicial distinctions between unintentional killer and murderer, see Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, p. 128. 9 For an overview of the letter’s context, see Frame, Babylonia 689– 627 B.C., pp. 83–86. 10 For the transliteration, see SAA XVIII: 70 (Reynolds, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon). 7 8

20

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Another Akkadian example is a letter (ABL 716) from Nabûbalassu-iqbi to Ashurbanipal. 11 The author is under duress and is, therefore, petitioning the king. Within this context Nabû-balassuiqbi notes his adversaries’ zêru: ‘Earlier I wrote on a writing board th{at} I sent to the king my lord: “There are people here who hate me (zēʾiranēa). Whether they create difficulties for me, because the king is not here, or make evil statements before the king, the king will kill me”’ (obv. lines 23–28). 12 Similar to ABL 327, zêru (of anonymous men in ABL 716) could lead to Nabû-balassu-iqbi’s physical harm. Each of the three texts (Deut 19, ABL 327 and 716) in this section employs the emotive dimension of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru, because the object of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru is either murdered or in jeopardy of physical harm. Therefore, the literal end of the meaning spectrum best accommodates these instances of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru. The contexts of each statement allow no other interpretation.

HATE SPEECH

An oft-discussed modern topic, hate speech was also part of the ancient world. 13 Both Hebrew and Mesopotamian sources bear witness to it. In Ps 109, the poet laments: 2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me, They speak against me with a lying tongue. 3 They have surrounded me with words of hatred (‫) ִשׂנְ ָאה‬, And attacked me without cause.

The wicked operate with intense negative emotion, because their deceit and ‫ שׂנא‬culminate in an attack on the psalmist. An Akkadian example of speech coupled with zêru is in a corpus of MesopoCommentators on ABL 716 disagree on the addressee. Frame maintains Ashurbanipal (Babylonia 689–627 B.C., pp. 217, 235), while Vera Chamaza suggests Esarhaddon (Die Omnipotenz Aššurs, p. 535). 12 For the transliteration, see SAA XVIII: 181 (Reynolds, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon). 13 See Britt, ‘Curses Left and Right’, pp. 633–61. 11

2: LITERAL HATE

21

tamian popular sayings from the reign of Sargon II. 14 One such statement is relevant: The slanderer [sp]eaks hateful words (zīrāte) before the rule{r}, He says cunning words and makes sla{nde}rous statements. The ru[l]er prays to Shamash as his reminder, ‘Shamash, may you know: make him pay for the blood of the people’ (rev. column IV, lines 11–14). 15

Does negative emotion fuel the speaker of hateful words in this document? It is very likely. Negative sentiment in general animates a slanderer, because such a person is often malicious. Since this text actually connects the slanderer to zêru, it is obvious that zêru functions here with an emotive nuance. Further, the harm that comes to the slandered through defamation supports a literal interpretation of zêru.

HATE DESIGNATING AN ENEMY

Numerous times the Psalter and other poetic texts link ‫ שׂנא‬directly to an enemy or adversary. In the following examples, ‫ שׂנא‬may occur in a parallel construction with ‫( או ֺיֵב‬enemy) or ‫( ַצר‬adversary), and it is clear ‫ שׂנא‬as enemy should be construed with a negative emotional overtone. The poem ascribed to David in 2 Sam 22 is a good example. Verses 18 and 41 state, 18 He delivered me from my strong enemy (‫ֹיְבי‬ ִ ‫)א‬, And from those who hate me (‫)שׂ ֹנְ ַאי‬, for they were stronger than I. ַ ‫ )א‬turn their backs to me, 41 You made my enemies (‫ֹיְבי‬ And I silenced my enemies (‫) ְמ ַשׂנְ ַאי‬.

The larger setting of 1–2 Sam indicates these enemies of David (especially Saul) had his destruction in mind. Therefore, these instances of ‫ שׂנא‬must be emotive. Ps 25:19 also is instructive on this point:

14 15

BWL, p. 211. For the transliteration, see BWL, p. 218.

22

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Look at my enemies (‫אוֹיְבי‬ ַ ) for they have multiplied, They hate me with violent hatred (‫)וְ ִשׂנְ ַאת ָח ָמס ְשׂנֵ אוּנִ י‬.

That ‫ שׂנא‬is qualified here by ‫( ָח ָמס‬violence) demonstrates that this is literal ‫שׂנא‬, because negative emotion is often required to harm someone physically. ‫ שׂנא‬coupled with harm (as shown in these examples) indicates the emotive nuance of ‫שׂנא‬. Similar to ‫שׂנא‬, zêru also can designate an enemy or enemies. In an 8th century letter (ABL 283) addressed to the chief eunuch, the sender (Bel-ibni) expresses concern that he is maligned before the Assyrian king. He writes, ‘Some enemy of mine (zēʾirānā), who is from Elam, relayed and sent a negative report concerning me to the palace’ (obv. lines 8–11). 16 Though this quotation is not an example of hate speech, ABL 283 is similar to the examples of hate speech discussed earlier. Both texts address slander. Since slanderers are ill-willed, and this enemy aims to harm Bel-ibni through slander, the emotive nuance of zêru is present in ABL 283. 39F

HATE TOWARD VICE

On several occasions ‫ שׂנא‬is directed toward people, behavior, or practices, which the Hebrew Bible deems evil or reprehensible. It is ambiguous if ‫ שׂנא‬in some of these cases is emotive or not, especially if the verse reference with ‫ שׂנא‬lacks contextual clues. (Again, chapter 4 clarifies the nonemotive nuance of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru.) However, the following examples express the emotive nuance. Ps 119:163 is relevant: I hate (‫אתי‬ ִ ֵ‫ ) ָשׂנ‬and abhor (‫ )וַ ֲא ַת ֵﬠ ָבה‬falsehood, But I love your Torah.

In this case, the parallelism of ‫ שׂנא‬and ‫( תעב‬abhor) confirms that ‫ שׂנא‬should be construed literally. 17 Similarly, Ps 139:21–22 states: 40F

For the transliteration, see SAA XVII: 53 (Dietrich, The Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib). A nearly identical quotation appears in SAA XVII: 52, also from Bel-ibni. 17 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 282. 16

2: LITERAL HATE

23

Do I not hate (‫ ) ֶא ְשׂנָ א‬your enemies (�‫) ְמ ַשׂנְ ֶאי‬, Yahweh? ָ ‫ ) ֶא ְת‬those who rise up against you? Do I not loathe (‫קוֹטט‬ ִ ֵ‫ ) ְשׂנ‬with colossal hatred (‫) ַתּ ְכ ִלית ִשׂנְ ָאה‬, I hate them (‫אתים‬ ִ ) to me. They have become enemies (‫אוֹיְבים‬

Since the poet parallels ‫ שׂנא‬with a lexeme derived from the root ‫( קוֹט‬loathe), it is clear that ‫ שׂנא‬is literal. To the poet, Yahweh’s enemies represent evil or reprehensibility and, as such, deserve ‫שׂנא‬. Qoheleth maintains that there is a time to hate (3:8), and the poets of Pss 119 and 139 undoubtedly share this opinion. Evidence like these verses from Psalms suggests that biblical authors understood an ethical dimension to ‫שׂנא‬. 18 Namely, there are times and instances where ‫ שׂנא‬is an appropriate response. These instances often orbit around behavior, like deceit in Ps 119:163, which the Hebrew Bible characterizes as sin. These comments about ‫’שׂנא‬s ethical dimension anticipate instances of divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru, as part 2 of this monograph shows. 19 42F

HATE TOWARD VIRTUE

Just as sin is the object of ‫שׂנא‬, the Hebrew Bible features virtue as ‫’שׂנא‬s object. In 1 Kings 22:8, King Ahab confesses ‫ שׂנא‬toward Micaiah the prophet because he never prophesies good concerning him, ‘Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is one other still by whom we may inquire of Yahweh, Micaiah son of Imlah. But I hate him (‫אתיו‬ ִ ֵ‫)שׂנ‬, ְ because he does not prophesy prosperity for me, but only calamity.” Jehoshaphat replied, “May the king not say such things”.’ The uprightness of Micaiah engenders this emotion in Ahab, and the rest of the chapter shows hostility toward Micaiah, as he experiences a blow to the face from

E. Lipiński devotes an entire page to discussing this topic under the heading ‘Ethical Considerations’, ‘‫’שׂנֵ א‬, ָ TDOT 14, pp. 167–8. 19 Akkadian texts bear witness to zêru directed at vice also, but the contexts of such instances do not clarify if the emotive nuance is intended. See, for example, SAA X: 294 (Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars), obv. line 26. 18

24

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Ahab’s agent (22:24) and incarceration at Ahab’s decree (22:27). 20 In Am 5:10, Israel possesses negative emotion toward the honest judge who rebukes sin: 10 They hate (‫ ) ָשׂנְ אוּ‬the one who reproves in the gate, And they abhor (‫ )יְ ָת ֵﬠבוּ‬the one who speaks honestly.

Since ‫ שׂנא‬is coupled with ‫( תעב‬abhor), it is clear that the prophet has feeling in mind. 21 The Israelites express ‫ שׂנא‬toward this person because reproving them equals calling them to account for their sin. Thus, the reprover’s virtue generates negative emotion in them.

HATE MAGIC

There is Mesopotamian evidence for a particular type of sorcery known as hate magic. Documentary sources referring to it suggest that the text insinuates a negative emotional overtone. According to Tzvi Abusch and Daniel Schwemer, hate magic was a type of witchcraft that ‘caused the victim to become the object of social isolation and hostility’. 22 More than one incantation counteracts such magic and the Maqlû incantation series features it several times. For example, tablet IV says, ‘The sorcery, rebellion, evil word, love, hate (zīru), injustice, murder-magic, aphasia, anger appeasement, disorientation, vertigo, and insanity that you concocted and brought on me, may Girra undo’ (lines 10–13). 23 Tablet V says, ‘Incantation—the hate (zīru) that you concocted and brought on Though Mordechai Cogan does not specify the nature of Ahab’s ‫ שׂנא‬toward Micaiah (1 Kings, pp. 487–98), Jack M. Sasson underscores the emotive nature of ‫ שׂנא‬in 1 Kings 22:8 (Judges 1–12, p. 423). On the other hand, Simon J. De Vries minimizes an emotive element to Ahab’s ‫שׂנא‬ (Prophet Against Prophet, p. 38). 21 Andersen and Freedman, Amos, pp. 498–9; Paul, Amos, p. 171. See also Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 246. 22 Abusch and Schwemer, Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals, p. 3. For further discussion on this phenomenon, see Abusch, Mesopotamian Witchcraft, pp. 57–58. 23 For the transcription, see Abusch, The Witchcraft Series Maqlû, p. 85. 20

2: LITERAL HATE

25

me is against you’ (line 61). 24 Beyond the intent to harm the patient, the specific nature of zêru as a magical tool is unclear. But because malice is involved, the emotional nuance of zêru is present.

SYNTHESIS

Chapter 1 explains that sometimes ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru operate in an ambiguous fashion. This reality necessitates a meaning spectrum in order to gain the most accurate interpretations of these lexemes. ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s ambiguity in the examples quoted above is very low or nonexistent. Indeed, the authors of the cited sources intend ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru to be understood literally, signifying intense negative emotion. Whether the actor is Joseph’s brothers or the practitioner of hate magic, ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru convey hostility in the one who hates. Thus, the literal end of the meaning spectrum is the best location for the biblical verses and Akkadian sources cited above. Concerning the contextual approach to the quotations with ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru cited above, the data suggest two separate deductions. First, four of the seven categories in this chapter possess instances of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru: Hate in Non-marital Family Relationships, Hate Leading to Physical Harm and Murder in Non-kinship Contexts, Hate Speech, and Hate Designating an Enemy. The authors quoted in each category use ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru in similar ways, but there is not clear evidence of influence from Akkadian to Hebrew or Hebrew to Akkadian. The authors simply use hate vocabulary to convey intense negative emotion within the context of human enemies or family. Second, the remaining three categories either have instances of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru, not both. Only extant Mesopotamian documents bear witness to Hate Magic, and only the biblical record has Hate toward Vice and Virtue. Hate magic likely is absent from the biblical tradition, because its authors generally censure magic (for example, Deut 18:9–12). ‫ שׂנא‬toward vice and virtue orbits around ethics, a topic that receives attention within Akkadian and biblical corpora. But when hate is used with reference to behavior or with105.

24

For the transcription, see Abusch, The Witchcraft Series Maqlû, p.

26

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

in an ethical context, the reference is found in the Hebrew Bible more than any other source from antiquity (chapter 7 addresses this at length). Now that a firm foundation of ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s literal nuance is in place, it is time to explore slightly more ambiguous (metaphorical) occasions of these lexemes.

CHAPTER 3: THE CENTER OF THE SPECTRUM: SOME EMOTION AND SOME METAPHOR ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru appear in narrative and legal documents pertaining to marriage and family. In these instances, ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru convey a moderate level of emotion. But the surrounding contexts of these lexemes indicate that the intense emotional overtone (literal ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru) present in chapter 2’s examples is absent from this chapter’s citations. In other words, these lexemes show signs of a metaphorical nuance. Therefore, the occurrences of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru covered in this chapter hover around the middle region of the meaning continuum. They are a mix of emotion and metaphor.

MARITAL HATE REFLECTING DEMOTION IN STATUS

A very famous example of ‫ שׂנא‬in marriage appears in Jacob and Leah’s relationship (Gen 29). Yahweh blesses Leah with fertility after observing that she is the object of Jacob’s ‫שׂנא‬: 31 When Yahweh saw that Leah was hated (‫נוּאה‬ ָ ‫) ְשׂ‬, he opened her womb. But Rachel was barren. 32 So Leah conceived and bore a son. She named him Reuben, for she said, ‘Because Yahweh has seen my affliction; certainly now my husband will love me.’ 33 She conceived again and bore a son. ָ ‫) ְשׂ‬, She said, ‘Because Yahweh has heard that I am hated (‫נוּאה‬ so he also gave to me this one.’ Then she named him Simeon.

If assessed in isolation, Jacob’s ‫ שׂנא‬in Gen 29:31 and 33 would be perplexing. Does he harbor intense negative emotion toward Leah? Or does ‫ שׂנא‬serve as a metaphor here for something unrelated, or obliquely related, to negative emotion? Since multiple sexual encounters characterize their relationship (at least four such encoun27

28

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

ters according to Gen 29:31–35), ‫ שׂנא‬likely does not equal hostility. Therefore, this lexeme is a metaphor. But for what? Before answering, another text requires attention. A related legal narrative is Deut 21:15–17, which protects the rights of a firstborn son who is the progeny of a hated wife: 15 If a man has two wives, one loved and the other hated ָ ‫) ְשׂ‬, and they both, the loved and the hated (‫נוּאה‬ ָ ‫)וְ ַה ְשּׂ‬, (‫נוּאה‬ have born sons to him and the firstborn is the son of the hated ָ ִ‫) ַל ְשּׂנ‬, 16 then it shall happen on the day he grants his wife (‫יאה‬ possessions to his sons as an inheritance that he cannot treat the son of the loved as firstborn over the son of the hated ָ ‫) ַה ְשּׂ‬, who is firstborn. 17 Indeed, he should recognize (‫נוּאה‬ ָ ‫) ַה ְשּׂ‬, giving to him a the firstborn son of the hated wife (‫נוּאה‬ double portion of all his possessions, because he is the firstborn son of his virility. The legal claim of the firstborn is his.

The marital profiles of Jacob and Leah (in Gen 29) and the husband and hated wife (in Deut 21) look identical. Both Jacob and the Deut 21 husband have favored and unfavored wives, Leah being the latter with respect to Jacob. But, as stated above, the contexts of these verses do not suggest that ‫ שׂנא‬equals a negative emotional overtone in Jacob or the husband in Deuteronomy. Neither man possesses an emotion that leads to the wife’s murder (comparable to the sentiment in the Deut 19:11–12 city of refuge example, cited in chapter 2). The husbands simply have multiple wives, whom they hold in different regard. ‫ שׂנא‬is the term used to convey the difference in regard, not intense negative emotion. What, then, is the nature of this difference in regard? Two interpretations of ‫ שׂנא‬in these Gen 29 and Deut 21 marital contexts help answer this question. First, ‫ שׂנא‬designates less affection or neglect toward the wife. 1 This perspective is accurate, 48F

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, p. 291; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, pp. 469–70; Sarna, Genesis, p. 206; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, p. 243; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, pp. 265–6; Tigay, Deuteronomy, p. 195; Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, p. 479; Branson, ‘The Poly1

3: EMOTION AND METAPHOR

29

because a moderate, not intense, level of emotion is implied in Gen 29 and Deut 21. 2 However, ‫ שׂנא‬designates more than emotion in these passages. Zvi Szubin and Bezalel Porten represent the second interpretation. They comment at length on hatred in marriage, primarily in the Aramaic legal documents from Elephantine, but also in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and biblical texts. They write, Similarly, in the Bible śnʾ appears frequently as a technical term with the meaning ‘to repudiate’ or ‘demote.’ It is a broad-based term effecting diminution of status in situations ranging the gamut from breach of a contractually stipulated agreement between man and man, be it filial, inter-sibling, marital or political, or a sacred covenant between God and man. . . . When juxtaposed to ʾhb, ‘love’ (= promotion to status of primacy), it often conveys the meaning of demotion, reduction of status . . . the ‘hated’ wife vis-à-vis the ‘beloved’ wife. Though demoted, her children’s inheritance rights were preserved (Deut. 21:15– 17), . . . The demoted wife remained within the matrimonial bond, akin to Leah who became ‘hated.’ Having initially been Jacob’s only wife, enjoying the status of primacy, she was demoted in status (Gen. 29:31–33) upon the subsequent entrance into the household of Rachel as the beloved=preferred (i.e., first-ranking) wife (Gen. 29:18, 20). 3

Szubin and Porten’s interpretation of Deut 21 and Gen 29 is persuasive. Both Leah and the wife in Deut 21 were demoted due to the introduction of a preferred wife in their marriages. As Szubin and Porten explain, the context of Gen 29 identifies the preferred, first ranking wife, Rachel. Thus, ‫ שׂנא‬in both of the aforesaid biblical passages should be understood as metaphorical for demoted. This conclusion is irresistible in light of hate’s metaphorical value outlined below in this chapter and chapter 4. valent ‫’שׂנא‬, p. 9; Nutkowicz, ‘Concerning the Verb Śnʾ’, p. 216, n. 17; Arnold, Genesis, p. 268. 2 Contra Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, pp. 282–3. 3 Szubin and Porten ‘The Status of a Repudiated Spouse’, pp. 58–59. Bruce Wells embraces Szubin and Porten’s interpretation, ‘The Hated Wife in Deuteronomic Law’, pp. 131–46; ‘First Wives Club’, pp. 101–29.

30

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Mapping ‫ שׂנא‬as a metaphor in Gen 29 and Deut 21 would be helpful. The source domain is vocabulary for hostile enemies. The target domain is marriage. 4 The authors of Gen 29 and Deut 21 use ‫ שׂנא‬not to describe these relationships as marriages between enemies (the source domain). As stated above, the larger contexts of Gen 29 and Deut 21 indicate normal sexual engagement between marriage partners. The authors employ ‫ שׂנא‬as a metaphor for marital demotion, not as a lexeme with an intense emotional overtone attached. But since the context is marriage, a setting often charged with sentiment, it is prudent to place these instances of ‫ שׂנא‬at the center of the spectrum to accommodate the moderate (not intense) feeling inferred in the narratives. Whether this emotion is best relayed by ‘less loved’ or ‘unfavored’ is not clear. But some sentiment is present due to the marital setting. The meaning spectrum is a helpful tool for interpreting these passages with ‫ שׂנא‬in marriage, because a spectrum fosters gradience. As one moves away from the literal extreme of the spectrum (the examples in chapter 2) toward the center of the spectrum (the examples in the present chapter), literal ‫ שׂנא‬decreases and ‫ שׂנא‬as figurative, metaphorical language increases. Put differently: ‫שׂנא‬ designating intense negative emotion decreases and the nonemotive nuance of ‫ שׂנא‬increases. Gen 29:31–33 and Deut 21:15–17 do not fit into an either-or interpretation of metaphor; that is, they are either metaphorical or literal. These passages are both-and; they have both metaphorical (nonemotive) and literal (emotive) nuances at the same time.

AMBIGUOUS MARITAL HATE

Deut 22 also includes ‫ שׂנא‬in marriage and addresses a wife who was charged by her defaming husband with prenuptial infidelity: 13 If a man takes a wife, goes in to her, hates her (‫) ְשׂנֵ ָאהּ‬, 14 charges her with shameful conduct, slanders her name, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I drew near to her, I did not find her to be a virgin’, 15 then the father and mother of

My understanding of ‘mapping’, ‘target domain’, and ‘source domain’ originates in Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason. 4

3: EMOTION AND METAPHOR

31

the girl shall take and bring out the proof of the girl’s virginity to the city elders at the gate. 16 Then the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter as a wife to this man, but he hated her (‫)וַ יִּ ְשׂנָ ֶא ָה‬. 17 Now he has just charged her with shameful conduct, saying, “I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.” But this is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 The elders of that city shall take the man and rebuke him. 19 They shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give it to the young woman’s father, because he slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

The circumstances of this case are different from those in Deut 21:15–17, because the marriage in Deut 22 actually terminates, if the woman’s family is unable to prove her premarital virginity. Szubin and Porten again provide a persuasive interpretation. They explain, Jacob’s treatment of Leah amounted to demotion by conduct, in contrast to demotion by declaration in the case of the defaming husband. He is a man who took a woman as his firstranking wife consistent with a stipulated agreement with her father and subsequently repudiated that agreement by demoting her (wśnʾh) for alleged cause. If his allegations were proven baseless, he was to be penalized (wysrw) and fined (wʿnšw) for baseless accusation as well as breach of contract. In addition to monetary compensation for unwarranted repudiation and penalty for defamatory accusation, the matrimonial bond became so affirmed that it might never be dissolved . . . Thus, cumulative evidence leads to the conclusion that repudiation (śnʾh) was not tantamount to divorce, though it might under certain conditions eventuate in total severance of the matrimonial bond. Such complete severance would require formal procedure, e.g. serving upon the woman a bill of divorce (spr krytt, ‘document of severance’ [Deut. 24:1–4; cf. Is. 50:1]). 5

Szubin and Porten, ‘The Status of a Repudiated Spouse’, pp. 59– 60. To supplement Szubin and Porten’s rationale, ‫ שׂנא‬is not tantamount 5

32

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

The husband in Deut 22 is similar to Jacob and the husband of Deut 21, because all effectively demote their wives. But to be fair to the narrative, the husband in Deut 22 goes beyond Jacob or the Deut 21 husband, because the defamation of Deut 22 may lead to the wife’s execution (v. 21). Therefore, the logical question is, does the husband in Deut 22 actually harbor intense negative feeling toward his wife, designated by ‫ ?שׂנא‬Since ‫ שׂנא‬results in death, one could answer this question affirmatively. However, due to the comparative evidence of ‫ שׂנא‬in marriage (Gen 29 and Deut 21 and 24), I maintain that this question is impossible to answer. Therefore, the center of the continuum accommodates Deut 22:13–17 the best, because a moderate level of emotion seems present in this scenario due to its appearance in marriage. At the same time, behavior (the husband’s demotion of his wife) is also at work. This behavior suggests that ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 22 is partially metaphorical and not fully literal. Indeed, Hélène Nutkowicz says ‫ שׂנא‬in this Deut 22 passage ‘is used for not loving any more’. 6 In sum, ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 22 is similar to ‫ שׂנא‬in Gen 29 and Deut 21. Each instance occurs on the meaning continuum between the literal pole and the metaphorical pole. ‫ שׂנא‬designates a moderate level of emotion and a metaphor for demotion in marital status. At this point, it will be helpful to recall Aaron’s observation (from chapter 1) that ancient utterances can be fuzzy and ambiguous. 7 As such, the meaning continuum is the best way to handle ‫’שׂנא‬s ambiguity in Deut 22 and in the following two passages from the Hebrew Bible. 53F

to divorce in Deut 22, because the narrative provides another word for divorce: ‫שׁלח‬. 6 Nutkowicz, ‘Concerning the Verb Śnʾ’, p. 216, n. 17. Comparing the husband in Deut 22 to Amnon’s emotional about face (2 Sam 13:15), Tigay says the Deut 22 husband feels aversion for his wife, Deuteronomy, p. 204. See also Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, p. 292; Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, p. 519. 7 Aaron addresses this at length in chapters 1–2 (‘Introduction: Ambiguity and Figurative Speech’ and ‘Distinguishing Metaphors from NonMetaphors’), Biblical Ambiguities.

3: EMOTION AND METAPHOR

33

Deut 24 features ‫ שׂנא‬in a situation that addresses multiple marriages and divorces. 1 If a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she does not find favor in his eyes, because he has found something indecent in her, and he writes a certificate of divorce for her, places it in her hand, and sends her out from his house, 2 and she goes out from his house and leaves and becomes another man’s wife; 3 and if the latter man hates her (‫) ְשׂנֵ ָאהּ‬, writes a certificate of divorce for her, places it in her hand, and sends her away from his house, or if the latter husband, who took her to himself as a wife, dies, 4 then her first husband, who sent her away, cannot return to take her to be his wife, because she has been defiled. Such a thing is an abomination before Yahweh, and you shall not bring sin to the land that Yahweh your God is giving to you as an inheritance.

A woman has become a divorcee due to some grounds, though they are unstated. She remarries and eventually is the object of her second husband’s ‫שׂנא‬. Reuven Yaron maintains the second husband’s ‫ שׂנא‬has a technical meaning of divorce. 8 Yaron’s interpretation understands verse 3 as follows, ‘And if the latter man divorces her (‫)שׂנֵ ָאהּ‬, ְ writes a certificate of divorce for her, places it in her hand, and sends her away from his house.’ In this case, ‫ שׂנא‬has a performative function and is a performative term for divorce, because the articulation of ‫ שׂנא‬in the first person makes the divorce a reality. Raymond Westbrook devotes an entire article to Deut 24:1– 4 and arrives at a different conclusion: ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 24:3 provides the motivation for the divorce but not the act itself. 9 Though Westbrook does not address the emotional level of ‫שׂנא‬, the implication of his conclusion is that there is a moderate level of emotion conveyed by ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 24:3. 10 57F

Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, p. 101. See also Wells, ‘The Hated Wife’, pp. 140–45. 10 Westbrook, ‘The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage’, pp. 401–3. Jacqueline E. Lapsley also understands Westbrook to imply a level of emotion, ‘Feeling Our Way’, pp. 358–9. By and large, Nutkowicz sympathizes with Westbrook’s conclusion on Deut 24:3 and maintains ‫ שׂנא‬in 8 9

34

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Before discussing Deut 24:1–4 further, Judg 15, a related narrative, requires attention. In this pericope, Samson’s father-in-law explains that he gave Samson’s wife away because he thought that Samson expressed ‫ שׂנא‬toward her: ‘1 It happened after some time, during the wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid. He said, “I wish to go my wife’s room.” But her father forbade it. 2 Then her father said, “Indeed, I had said that you really hated her (‫אתהּ‬ ָ ֵ‫)שׂנֹא ְשׂנ‬, ָ so I gave her to your friend. Is not her younger sister more beautiful than she? Please, may she be yours in her place”.’ Similar to his exegesis of Deut 24:3, Yaron says ‫ שׂנא‬in Judg 15:2 refers to divorce. Such an understanding renders 15:2: ‘Then her father said, “Indeed, I had said that you really divorced her ( ‫ָשׂנ ֹא‬ ‫אתהּ‬ ָ ֵ‫)שׂנ‬, ְ so I gave her to your friend”.’ 11 Szubin and Porten maintain the father-in-law understood Samson’s behavior as abandonment. Thus, he made her someone else’s bride. 12 Westbrook does not understand Judg 15 to be marriage, but ‘inchoate marriage’. He writes, ‘The “hatred” will . . . cause the marriage not to take place.’ 13 Nutkowicz primarily objects to Yaron’s interpretation of Deut 24 and Judg 15, writing ‘but in fact their contexts indicate emotional and affective dislike and hatred which may lead to divorce.’ 14 In view of such conflicting opinions, it is best to acknowledge that these instances of ‫ שׂנא‬are unclear in this marital context. Yaron may be correct and some of the Mesopotamian evidence explored below in this chapter indicates that in fact he is. On the other hand, echoing Aaron, ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 24 and Judg 15 is ambiguous. As such, the central part of the meaning continuum is the surest and safest interpretation. ‫ שׂנא‬here operates with some a marital context possesses a level of emotion, ‘Concerning the Verb Śnʾ’; see also Tigay, Deuteronomy, p. 222. On the other hand, Wells minimizes a literal interpretation of love and hate in legal contexts, ‘The Hated Wife’, p. 136; Wells, ‘Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape’, p. 59, n. 58. 11 Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, p. 101. 12 Szubin and Porten, ‘The Status of a Repudiated Spouse’, p. 58, n. 40. See also van Selms, ‘The Best Man and Bride’, pp. 65–75. 13 Westbrook, ‘The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage’, p. 402, n. 56. 14 Nutkowicz, ‘Concerning the Verb Śnʾ’, pp. 216–7.

3: EMOTION AND METAPHOR

35

emotion due to its presence in marriage, but behavior (like demotion or divorce) is also at work and limits a full expression of ‫שׂנא‬ with a negative emotional overtone. In other words, these husbands do not emotionally hate their wives like the murderer who harbors enmity towards his victim (Deut 19). Evidence for such strong emotion is lacking.

HATE AS A TERM INDICATING MARITAL AND FAMILY DIVORCE

In the following examples, ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru unequivocally designate divorce or the separation of parties who were bound in relationship. Law 142 of the Code of Hammurabi (CH—early eighteenth century) states, ‘If a woman hated (izērma) her husband and said, “You shall not be married to me”, then the particulars of her case shall be investigated in her city quarter. And if she is upright and without waywardness, but her husband goes about and treats her very badly, then that woman is without fault. She shall take her dowry and go to her father’s house.’ 15 Defending the view that ‫שׂנא‬ in the Aramaic marriage contracts from Elephantine indicates divorce, Alejandro Botta cites numerous Akkadian parallels, including CH 142 and others below. He shows that zêru and ‫ שׂנא‬often equal a termination of the relationship and separation of the parties. 16 Indeed, this nuance of zêru exists in CH 142, because the wife’s zêru and assertion that her husband will no longer have her result in her departure from her marital home provided the investigation returns an impeccable report. On the other hand, Westbrook disagrees and maintains zêru provides the motivation for the separation. 17 Szubin and Porten are also at odds with Botta’s stance. They state that zêru ‘signifies repudiation or rejection, the 63F

64F

15

p. 29.

For the transliteration, see Borger, Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke 1,

Botta, ‘Hated by the Gods and your Spouse’, pp. 105–28 (Botta addresses CH 142 on p. 111). See also Wells, ‘Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape’, pp. 57–61. Martha T. Roth translates zêru in CH 142 ‘repudiates’, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, p. 108. 17 Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law, pp. 22–23. 16

36

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

effect of which is tantamount to a breach of contract due to demotion of status within an existing relationship’. 18 In light of the comparative evidence discussed in the remainder of this chapter, Botta’s interpretation is the most persuasive. Another example of zêru as a term indicating divorce is in a Neo-Assyrian marriage contract (TIM 11 14), which outlines the agreement between Puṭu-Eši and Al-Ḫapi-Mepi. The divorce clause says, ‘If [Puṭu]-Eši [h]ates (izīara) [his] wife, Al-Ḫapi-Mepi shall pay 10 shekels of silver t[o] Puṭu-Eši. She may then go out and depart’ (rev. lines 5–9). 19 The meaning of this quotation is clear: zêru in this document equals divorce. On the other hand, what role does emotion play in the dissolution of the marriages in this contract and CH? This question is especially relevant if the marriages were arranged or conducted in a collectivist society, which is radically different than many modern societies. Song of Songs and other poems reflecting erotic love aside, emotion likely plays some role, since the context is marriage. Thus, the center of the meaning spectrum accommodates zêru in these instances best. Mesopotamian and biblical sources also portray zêru or ‫שׂנא‬ among family members who are not husband and wife. The final four examples below use these lexemes in a way that communicates separation or the breaking of a binding contract. CH 193 states, ‘If the son of a palace attendant or the son of a high ranking woman identifies with his father’s house and hated (izērma) the father who raised him or the mother who raised him and departed for his father’s house, they shall tear out his eye.’ 20 Again, zêru communicates separation. This interpretation of CH 193 and that of two texts from Ugarit below follow the reasoning of Botta: zêru equals the complete separation or divorce of the parties. 21 67F

68F

Szubin and Porten, ‘The Status of a Repudiated Spouse’, p. 55. For the transliteration, see SAA XIV: 443 (Mattila, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh). 20 For the transliteration, see Borger, Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke 1, p. 37. 21 Botta, ‘Hated by the Gods and your Spouse’, pp. 112–3. Identical to CH 142, Roth translates zêru in CH 193 ‘repudiates’, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, p. 120. 18 19

3: EMOTION AND METAPHOR

37

RS 15.92 and 16.344 are Canaanite texts written in Akkadian from the Late Bronze Age. The former is an adoption contract, in which Yaṣiranu adopts Ilkuya as a son. The latter is an adoption to brotherhood contract, in which Ilinergal adopts Artešub in brotherhood. Both contracts include zêru in the separation clauses: RS 15.92: From this day, before Niqmadu, son of Ammistamru, king of Ugarit, Yaṣiranu, son of Hallamanu, is bound to Ilkuya, son of Yašub-ilu, as his son. He has bound him as an adopted son. If in the future Yaṣiranu hates (izîr) Ilkuya, his son, he shall give 100 shekels of silver in his hand. And if Ilkuya hates (izîr) Yaṣiranu, his father, he shall wash his hands and be f[ree] in the street. On the other hand, if Yaṣiranu dies and his [wi]fe Mil[ka] . . . he shall n[ot] go out from her house. If Ilkuya hates her (izîrša), she shall take the 80 shekels of silver that she had b[rou]ght to Yaṣiranu and be fre[e]. And now Milka is free with the silver of her bride payment, which she has taken from her father’s house. In the wailing of her heart, she shall dwell in her father’s house. 22

RS 16.344: From this day, before Arḫalbu, son of Niqmadu, King of Ugarit, Ilinergal, son of Sudumu, binds Artešub in brotherhood. In the future, if Artešub hates (izîr) Ilinergal, his brother, by his ears, he shall take him and release him. But if Ilinergal hates (izîr) Artešub, his brother, he shall give 1000 pieces of silver in the hands of Artešub and in the hands of his son. And Artešub shall be free. 23

Again, zêru indicates the bond’s termination and equals the separation of the parties. But since the context is family, it is prudent to allow room for emotion. Thus, the center of the meaning continuum is the best place for these instances of zêru. Judg 11 recounts Jephthah’s story. This Israelite judge is of ignoble birth, so his half-brothers expel him from their father’s estate. Yet, due to his prowess as a warrior, Jephthah is eventually summoned to return. In Judg 11:7, Jephthah mocks the elders of 22 23

For the transliteration, see Nougayrol, PRU III, pp. 54–56 For the transliteration, see Nougayrol, PRU III, p. 75.

38

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Gilead, by suggesting that they scrapped any bond between him and them: ‘Then Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “Did you not hate me (‫אוֹתי‬ ִ ‫אתם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ) ְשׂנ‬and drive me out of my father’s house? So why have you come to me now when you are distressed?”’ In this case, ‫ שׂנא‬is related to and points to the termination of the relationship between Jephthah and his kin. Jephthah in effect says, ‘You shattered our relationship, when you expelled me.’ 24 This instance of ‫ שׂנא‬is metaphorical for an ended relationship, but some emotion is present due to its kinship context. 25 As a means to wrap up this section on marital and family divorce, it will be helpful to map ‫’שׂנא‬s and zêru’s metaphorical nuances. The source domain is vocabulary for enemies. The target domain is marriage and family. In each instance (CH 142 and 193, TIM 11 14, RS 15.92 and 16.344, and Judg 11), ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru primarily indicates the legal fracturing of the union. The authors of these documents do not use these lexemes to characterize the relationships as pervaded with malice, comparable to ties between Joseph and his brothers in Gen 37. With that said, since marriage and family are contexts laden with sentiment, allowing a moderate level of emotion in the interpretation of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru is appropriate. 72F

SYNTHESIS

This chapter surveys numerous biblical and Mesopotamian texts with ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru in marital and family contexts. The researcher’s interpretation of these terms always must account for their literalness. Does the lexeme reflect the emotion in a literal sense? Is the Brice, A Study of Hatred and Anger in Old Testament Man, pp. 11–13; Branson, ‘The Polyvalent ‫’שׂנא‬, p. 12. In two separate articles, David Marcus maintains Judg 11 implies that Jephthah’s brothers legally disinherited him in a court proceeding, ‘The Bargaining between Jephthah and the Elders (Judges 11:4–11)’, p. 98; ‘The Legal Dispute Between Jephthah and the Elders’, pp. 105–14. His evidence is ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru as they appear in legal contexts, communicating rejection between parties. See also Craig, ‘Bargaining in Tov (Judges 11,4–11)’, pp. 76–85. 25 Though Jack M. Sasson does not endorse metaphorical language in Judg 11:7, he understands Jephthah’s use of ‫ שׂנא‬to be hyperbole, Judges 1–12, p. 423. 24

3: EMOTION AND METAPHOR

39

lexeme a metaphor for something else? Does the context suggest that the term should be interpreted as a blend of metaphor and some emotion? The evidence adduced above answers only this last question positively. Consequently, the center of the meaning continuum is the best place for each instance in this chapter, since emotion likely plays a moderate role in marital and family ties. An inverse relationship between literal and metaphorical instances is in place on this spectrum. On the literal extreme (chapter 2’s examples), one finds a very high level of literalness and little or no metaphor. On the metaphorical extreme (chapter 4’s examples), literal understanding is nonexistent or significantly minimized and metaphor is very high. The middle of the continuum (the present chapter’s examples) possesses moderate levels of metaphor and literal expression. What can be said about the contextual approach to the examples outlined above? With the exception of this chapter’s final category, Hate as a Term Indicating Marital and Family Divorce, there is no overlap between the biblical and Mesopotamian worlds. Only the Hebrew Bible applies hate to marriage to communicate a wife’s demotion. Akkadian texts have no such parallel. As for this chapter’s final category, Hate as a Term Indicating Marital and Family Divorce, both Hebrew and Akkadian possess instances of this phenomenon, Judg 11 being the sole example in the Hebrew Bible. The author of Judg 11 is somehow under the influence of Akkadian for the following two reasons. The Akkadian texts that use zêru in this fashion predate the book of Judges. Second, there is an east to west influence (Akkadian to Hebrew) with reference to emotional terms. My opening comments in the following chapter bring this topic into greater focus.

CHAPTER 4: THE NONEMOTIVE EXTREME OF THE SPECTRUM: METAPHORICAL HATE 1 In chapter 1, I emphasize that hate in contemporary discourse always represents some form of emotional aversion. Modern hate is, therefore, comparable to ancient utterances of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru that hover around the literal end of the meaning spectrum (the evidence set forth in chapter 2). This literal nuance is absent from the appearances of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru treated in this chapter. Most of the following examples occur in covenant contexts and, consequently, are expressions of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru as covenant vocabulary. Additionally, some appear in non-covenant settings and indicate hyperbole or rejection free of negative emotion. In his now classic article on the love of God in Deuteronomy, William L. Moran shows that certain instances of ‫אהב‬, râmu, and rāʾimūtu (love) should be interpreted as metaphors for covenant loyalty and indicate a sound covenantal bond. In this capacity as covenant terms, these lexemes do not denote emotion, or at a minimum the sentiment of love is diminished. Moran culls examples from various covenant contexts in the Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamia to demonstrate that ‫אהב‬, râmu, and rāʾimūtu should characterize covenant partners, whether or not the partners are equals. 2 74F

Part of this chapter appeared originally as my contribution to the Samuel Greengus Festschrift: ‘Zêru, “To Hate” as a Metaphor for Covenant Instability.’ I thank Eisenbrauns for permission to republish. 2 Moran, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God’, pp. 77–87. The covenant relationships that Moran explores are between allied kings (brothers), sovereigns and vassals, and subjects and 1

41

42

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Love, therefore, in the ancient Near Eastern and biblical texts that Moran cites hovers around the metaphorical end of the meaning spectrum. In these instances, the literal (emotional) connotation is very low, and the metaphorical connotation (loyalty) is very high. Authors of these texts draw from the source domain of kinship vocabulary and apply them to the target domain of the political realm. In addition to love, another relevant kinship term is brother. When a monarch from antiquity identifies a neighboring king as brother, he is employing a metaphor for a political ally, not asserting shared parentage. (I discuss the kinship term brother further below.) My analysis of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru draws on principles set forth by Moran and maintains certain occasions of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru do not denote negative emotion but should be interpreted as metaphors for covenant disloyalty or instability. 3 A later article by Moran and William W. Hallo endorses this view in part. They comment briefly on zêru: ‘Zêru usually implies the repudiation of a prior personal bond (individual, familial, political).’ 4 Admittedly, a bond does not require a full-blown covenant agreement, but a covenant is a type of bond. With this as a background, the first two categories of ‫שׂנא‬ and zêru adduced below represent some sort of unstable or broken relationship. Some are full-fledged covenants and others represent less binding relational bonds. The final two categories discuss hyperbolic occasions of hate and hate equaling rejection. My fundamental argument is that the sentiment of hate is minimized or absent. Accordingly, the examples below represent the nonemotive end of the spectrum: metaphorical instances of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru. king. Love, says Moran, should typify such ties. See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, pp. 81–91, and Deuteronomy 1–11, pp. 351–2. 3 The following studies confirm this point with respect to ‫שׂנא‬: Brice, ‘A Study of Hatred and Anger in Old Testament Man’, pp. 10–25; Branson, ‘A Study of the Hebrew Term ‫ ;’שׂנא‬Branson, ‘The Polyvalent ‫’שׂנא‬, pp. 5–15. 4 Hallo and Moran, ‘The First Tablet of the SB Recension of the Anzu-Myth’, p. 68, n. 9. See also Jaques, Le vocabulaire des sentiments dans les textes sumériens, pp. 111–5, 147–61.

4: METAPHORICAL HATE

43

HATE IN A COVENANT BETWEEN EQUALS

Genesis 26 contains an instance of ‫ שׂנא‬between equals. 5 The chapter begins with Isaac moving to Abimelech’s territory, Gerar. While there, this patriarch adopts the pretense that Rebekah is his sister. Abimelech eventually learns the truth and prohibits his people from touching Isaac or Rebekah. This scenario affords Isaac adequate time to prosper in agriculture and animal husbandry. The net effect of this success is the expulsion of Isaac’s house from Gerar by Abimelech. Isaac’s problems multiply when disputes over wells erupt between Isaac’s servants and the local population in greater Gerar. Isaac then departs for Beersheba and Abimelech follows. Their encounter begins in Gen 26:27: 7F

27 Then Isaac said to them, ‘Why have you come to me? You hated me (‫אתם א ִֹתי‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ) ְשׂנ‬and sent me away from you.’ 28 Then they said, ‘We have indeed seen that Yahweh has been with you; so we said, “Please, let there be an oath between us, between you and us, in order to make a covenant with you, 29 so that you will do no harm to us, as we have not harmed you, but only done good and sent you away in peace. You are now blessed by Yahweh”.’ 30 So he made a feast for them and they ate and drank. 31When they arose early in the morning, each of them swore an oath. So Isaac sent them away and they departed from him in peace.

Isaac’s use of ‫ שׂנא‬refers to a broken covenant. The substance of his statement is, ‘Why have you come to me, seeing that you broke the covenant with me by sending me away from you?’ To what covenant is Isaac referring? The answer may be either the specific ‫( ְבּ ִרית‬covenant) long ago established between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen 21:27) or the establishment of an earlier covenant Claus Westermann writes concerning Gen 26, ‘Ch. 26 is a selfcontained piece constructed according to a definite literary plan and clearly recognizable as such, its purpose being to gather together the few Isaac traditions that have been preserved. It is a synthesis of a variety of traditions, but not a “mosaic” . . . not seven units . . . , but a deliberate composition’, Genesis 12–36, p. 423. 5

44

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

bond in Gen 26:11, when Abimelech guaranteed his protection. Whether it refers to one or both, the next development in the narrative underscores the covenant function of ‫שׂנא‬: the (re)establishment of covenant ties by oath swearing and feasting together. 6 This evidence suggests that ‫ שׂנא‬indicates the fracturing of a covenant, vow, oath, treaty, or relationship. RS 18.54A provides an example of zêru between equals. An anonymous king is the originator of this letter, the intended recipient of which is an unnamed king of Ugarit. The anonymous sender is ostensibly concerned about his relationship with Ugarit’s king, whom the author identifies as ‘my brother’, a designation of equality. After introductory matters, the document states, ‘And now concerning the king of Ugari[t]—my brother hates me (ittiya zāʾir) and he does not send his messenger to me’ (lines 7ʹ–10ʹ). 7 The nuance of zêru indicating covenant instability is present in this example. The sender identifies the king of Ugarit (the recipient) as brother, implying some sort of international bond. 8 This explains the writer’s incredulity at the suspected zêru of Ugarit’s king. Since allied kings (brothers) have a bond, love (loyalty) should define their relationship. Thus, this study observes a covenant function and metaphorical interpretation of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru vis-à-vis covenant partners who are equals. Do ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru bear an emotional value in these two citations? In Gen 26, Abimelech expels Isaac from the land. Does not expulsion suggest an emotional nuance to ‫ ?שׂנא‬Expulsion certainly can indicate negative sentiment, but the context of the chapter and Abimelech’s words suggest otherwise. This Canaanite simply says, ‘Go from us, because you have become too numerous for us’ (Gen 26:16). There is no trace of negative emotion or hostility. 9 Zêru in 81F

Brice, ‘A Study of Hatred and Anger in Old Testament Man’, pp. 10–11; Botta, ‘Hated by the Gods and your Spouse’, p. 118. 7 For the transliteration, see Nougayrol, PRU IV, pp. 228–9. 8 Mario Liverani writes on brotherhood as a metaphor for covenant partners, Prestige and Interest, pp. 197–202. 9 Contra Safren, ‘Ahuzzath and the Pact of Beer-Sheba’, p. 188; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, p. 206; Dieckmann, ‘Gen 26 als Segenserzählung’, p. 272. 6

4: METAPHORICAL HATE

45

RS 18.54A is comparable: the author of RS 18.54A uses this lexeme to communicate disloyalty, not emotion. Consequently, the nonemotive end of the meaning spectrum accommodates these instances of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru.

HATE IN A COVENANT BETWEEN SUZERAIN AND VASSAL

Deut 7 provides a relevant example of ‫ שׂנא‬between the vassal Israel and the suzerain Yahweh: ‘9 Know that Yahweh your God is God, the faithful God, who keeps covenant devotion to those who love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations, 10 and repays those who hate him (‫)לשׂ ֹנְ ָאיו‬ ְ to their faces to exterminate them. He does not delay, but repays those who hate him (‫)לשׂ ֹנְ אוֹ‬ ְ to their faces.’ The author associates ‘those who love him’ (‫ )או ֲֺה ָביו‬with two groups: those with whom Yahweh is in covenant and those who keep his commands. It is necessary to recall Moran’s aforesaid argument that ‫( אהב‬love) should characterize covenant partners. Indeed, for Israel as vassal to love (‫ )אהב‬Yahweh as sovereign in Deut 7 is to honor the terms of the covenant by keeping his commands and by consequence remaining in a covenant relationship. It is correct then to take this covenant definition of ‫ אהב‬and reverse its function with respect to ‫שׂנא‬. In other words, expressing ‫ שׂנא‬toward Yahweh is to be faithless to the covenant stipulations by failing to keep his commands. Thus, Yahweh’s haters in Deut 7 are excluded from the covenant relationship. The use of ‫ אהב‬and ‫ שׂנא‬in this passage shows that they are biblical covenant vocabulary words. 10 Further, the positive or negative sentiment associated with these lexemes is either absent or minimized. 11 That is, Yahweh’s haters in Deut 7 do not feel negative emotion. Rather, ‫ שׂנא‬is a metaphor for an unstable covenant relationship.

Branson, ‘The Polyvalent ‫’שׂנא‬, pp. 8–9. Jeffrey H. Tigay also observes the political connotations of ‫אהב‬ and ‫שׂנא‬. Concerning the latter, he writes, ‘It is unlikely that a polytheistic Israelite would literally hate, or even reject, the Lord; at worst one might worship Him together with other gods or ignore Him. However, since the Lord demands exclusive fidelity, the Bible views the worship of another god alongside of Him as tantamount to rejecting Him’, Deuteronomy, p. 66. 10 11

46

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

There are several occasions of zêru that are comparable to Deut 7’s use of ‫שׂנא‬. The following four instances of zêru appear in Akkadian letters, in which the author of the letter highlights the zêru of the recipient, who is sovereign to the sender. For example, ARMT 1.2 is from the vassal Abi-Samar to his overlord, YahdunLim (ca. 1810–ca. 1794), king of Mari. 12 Though the reason for the letter is not evident in the document itself, it may be related to the same scenario of ARMT 1.1, namely, Abi-Samar is still terrorized by Shamshi-Adad and needs the aid of Yahdun-Lim. 13 Abi-Samar writes in ARMT 1.2, ‘If you hat[e] (tezîr) Abi-Samar, do you also hate (tezîrm[a]) your ci[ti]es?’ (obv. lines 7–8). 14 (My explanation of zêru in ARMT 1.2 and the three following letters is below.) The Amarna texts (EA) of the Late Bronze Age provide similar evidence. The vassal Aziru of Amurru wrote EA 158 to Tutu, who serves as Aziru’s representative to the king. Evidently, others in the royal court were maligning Aziru to the king within earshot of Tutu. When Aziru heard this he was terrified. For much of this letter Aziru acknowledges his subordinate position to Tutu and requests that Tutu reprimand the slanderers. This culminates with the sum of all Aziru’s fears as he ends his letter, ‘But {if} the king, my lord, does not love me, but hates me (izeʾiranni), then what can I say?’ (lines 36–38). 15 EA 286 presents a similar case in which another vassal is fighting to keep himself on good terms with the king. Abdi-Ḫeba is the author of this letter, which serves two purposes. It is a defense against slander, for Abdi-Ḫeba informs the king three times that he has been maligned in the king’s presence, and it is a distress call for reinforcements. After spending several lines entreating the king and combating the vilification that has been brought against his name, 84F

85F

86F

On Abi-Samar’s status as vassal to Yahdun-Lim, see Finet, ‘Mari et le nord’, p. 66; Hawkins, ‘Karkamiš’, RlA 5, p. 426; and Gerstenberger, ‘Covenant and Commandment’, p. 42. 13 Finet, ‘Mari et le nord’, p. 66. 14 For the transliteration, see Dossin, Correspondance de Šamši-Addu et de ses fils, p. 24. 15 For the EA transliterations, see Izre‘el, ‘The Amarna Tablets.’ 12

4: METAPHORICAL HATE

47

he addresses the king’s commissioner(s), ‘Why do you lov[e] the ʿApiru but hate (tazaʾiarū) the may[ors]?’ (lines 18–20). Rib-Addi is responsible for EA 126, which also has two objectives. First, he wrote it to ease his anxiety regarding his inability to send ships for the king’s service. The second objective (and the primary purpose of the document) is to request a battalion of troops. He twice notes his unfulfilled request for soldiers (lines 23– 26, 38–40). This has perplexed Rib-Addi, ‘Why has the king given victuals to the mayors, my friends, but to me nothing?’ (lines 14– 18). The vassal’s suspicion is voiced toward the end of the letter, ‘If the king hates (zaʾir) his ci[ty], then he should abandon it, but if me, {then} he should send me away’ (lines 44–47). These four Mesopotamian examples are significant because the sender in each letter is a vassal who is concerned about the zêru of his suzerain (or the king’s representative in the case of EA 286). This concern is noteworthy because Moran demonstrates that sovereigns are to love (remain loyal to) vassals in treaty relationships. A superior failing to love his inferior arouses questions regarding the stability of their covenant relationship, and zêru is the appropriate term to express an unstable covenant union and not emotion. That zêru does not designate emotion in these letters can be proved by rephrasing the statements. Aziru says, ‘But if the king is not loyal to me, but is disloyal to me, then what can I say?’ (EA 158:36– 38). Abdi-Ḫeba asks, ‘Why are you loyal to the ʿApiru but disloyal to the mayors?’ (EA 286:18–20). Rib-Addi insists, ‘If the king is disloyal to his city, then he should abandon it, but if me, then he should send me away’ (EA 126A:44–47). Deut 7 has a similar interpretation. But in this case, the covenant instability is due to the vassal Israel expressing covenant disloyalty in the form of ‫ שׂנא‬toward the suzerain Yahweh. Deut 7:9– 10 is best phrased: ‘9 Know that Yahweh your God is God, the faithful God, who keeps covenant devotion to those who are loyal to him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations, 10 and repays those who are disloyal to him to their faces to exterminate them. He does not delay, but repays those who are disloyal to him to their faces.’ Consequently, this study recognizes a covenant function and metaphorical interpretation of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru with respect to ties between suzerain and vassal. Since ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru in these documents do not denote emotion, but have a high meta-

48

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

phorical value, the non-literal, metaphorical end of the meaning spectrum is the best place for these citations. What can be said about mapping these metaphors? The source domain for Deut 7:9–10, ARMT 1.2, EA 158, EA 286, and EA 126 is vocabulary for hostile enemies. The target domain is covenant relationships, which are to be defined by faithfulness to the covenant. The authors of these documents use ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru to communicate the tenuous bond between the covenant partners, not hostility between the parties.

HATE USED AS HYPERBOLE

Some contexts indicate the figurative use of ‫שׂנא‬. For example, in Prov 13:24, the sage equates allowing a son to go undisciplined with ‫שׂנא‬: The one who withholds his rod of training hates (‫ )שׂוֹנֵ א‬his son, But the one who loves him is intent on disciplining him.

The parent does not feel intense negative emotion for the child if the parent rejects corporal punishment. But the sage suggests negligence in home training is as caustic as expressing ‫ שׂנא‬toward the child. 16 In Prov 29:24, partnering with a thief is tantamount to hating one’s life: 8F

The one who partners with a thief hates (‫ )שׂוֹנֵ א‬his life, He hears the curse, but does not speak.

Again, the correct interpretation is not that one who joins with a thief feels negatively about himself. 17 But joining with a thief is equivalent to ‫שׂנא‬. In other words, the result of each is destruction: congruence of effect suggests congruence of cause, a metonymy of cause and effect. 18 90F

Fox, Proverbs 10–31, pp. 570–71. Contra Fox, Proverbs 10–31, p. 845. 18 Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 556.

16 17

4: METAPHORICAL HATE

49

HATE DESIGNATING REJECTION

Sometimes zêru means rejection free of emotion. In the Atrahasis Epic, Enki needs to relay instructions clandestinely to Atrahasis in order to save his life from the oncoming deluge. So he advises him with the following words: Flee the house; build a boat. Hate (zērma) possessions and preserve life (tablet III, column i, lines 22–24). 19

The sense here is not a negative emotional overtone towards material goods. On the contrary, these orders to Atrahasis are that he should simply reject his possessions and focus on what will preserve his life.

SYNTHESIS

This chapter demonstrates that some interpretations of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru from antiquity differ significantly from modern instances of hate, which are always laden with emotion. ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru as covenant vocabulary support the assertion that there are unemotional, metaphorical instances of hate. The biblical and Mesopotamian worlds’ utilization of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru to that effect is unequivocal. The non-covenant occasions of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru treated in this chapter are also sentiment free. As such, the metaphorical extreme of the meaning continuum is the choice locus for such usage. This metaphorical status of ancient emotional expressions should give pause to interpreters. Indeed, the researcher of ancient languages must consider the possibility that the emotional lexeme may not refer to the feeling of love, hate, or other emotions. Moran, whose study of the ancient Near Eastern understanding of love is also contextual, argues in favor of Mesopotamian literary influence on the biblical world. The Hebrew and Akkadian examples in this chapter’s first two categories (Hate in a Covenant between Equals and Hate in a Covenant between Suzerain and Vassal) attest to the same east to west influence, primarily because the Akkadian texts predate the Hebrew Bible. This chapter’s final 19

For the transliteration, see Lambert and Millard, Atra-Ḫasīs, p. 88.

50

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

two categories (Hate Used as Hyperbole and Hate Designating Rejection) only contain Hebrew or Akkadian examples, respectively. Therefore, nothing can be said about literary influence at this point.

PART 2: DIVINE HATE

51

CHAPTER 5: HATE AS A REFLEX TO A BROKEN COVENANT The previous three chapters explain the nuances of human ‫שׂנא‬ and zêru by employing Aaron and Jackendoff’s meaning spectrum. Thoroughly understanding how the ancients used human ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru is imperative for grasping their usage of divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru, since they described the divine world in terms of their own experiences. Charting instances of human ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru on the meaning spectrum is uncomplicated, because these lexemes are applied to humans scores of times in biblical and Mesopotamian documents. The researcher has a vast collection from which to choose. Plotting known instances of divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru on the continuum is not as easy, because there is a much smaller corpus of instances. All these instances must be treated in order to grasp the full picture of divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru. Therefore, the meaning spectrum serves a different purpose henceforth. On one hand, instances of divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru are analyzed in terms of literalness and metaphor. Doing so is necessary, because, as stated in previous chapters, modern hate is not bifurcated as such. Highlighting metaphorical instances of ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru allows us to understand ancient utterances best. On the other hand, a different taxonomy that categorizes divine ‫שׂנא‬, šnʾ, and zêru in four independent groups presents the data in the clearest way. This chapter evaluates the function of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru as a reflex to an unstable or broken covenant, hate’s so-called covenant function. The evidence is the Hebrew Bible (Deut 1:27, 9:28; Jer 12:8; Hos 9:15; Mal 1:3) and two Akkadian documents (an entitlement narû of Melišipak and the royal annals of Sargon II). 53

54

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

BIBLICAL HEBREW

Deut 1 contains a speech by Moses about the nation of Israel’s behavior after they left Mount Horeb. Verses 26–27 center on Israel’s conduct just prior to the wilderness wandering (recounted in Num 13–14). Within these verses Moses recalls the people’s incredulity, ‘26 But you were unwilling to go up and obstinate against the command of Yahweh your God. 27 You grumbled in your tents and said, “It is on account of Yahweh’s hatred (‫ ) ְבּ ִשׂנְ ַאת יְ הוָ ה‬for us that he has brought us from the land of Egypt to give us into Amorite hands to exterminate us”.’ Moses reminds Israel that she attributed ‫ שׂנא‬to Yahweh. But what is the reason for this attribution? Is it simply an Israelite distortion of divine love? 1 If the second question is affirmatively answered, it identifies only a secondary and not primary function of ‫שׂנא‬, for ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 1:27 is covenantal. In order to prove this claim, it is necessary to recall Moran’s argument on the ancient Near Eastern background of love (cited in chapter 4). Moran’s assertion that love should characterize covenant partners (in this case, sovereign Yahweh and vassal Israel) is relevant to Deut 1:27, because Israel apparently expects her sovereign’s love. 2 Yahweh’s restraint of love, indicated by ‫שׂנא‬, concerns the Israelites. 3 Such concern is understandable, because a sovereign failing to love a vassal raises questions about the stability of their treaty relationship and ‫ שׂנא‬is the appropriate term to express an unstable covenant union (‫’שׂנא‬s covenant function). Thus, on the basis of comparative evidence from the human realm adduced in chapter 4 (specifically, in chapter 4’s first two categories), ‫ שׂנא‬has a covenant function vis-à-vis Yahweh’s relationship with Israel. Mann, Deuteronomy, p. 27; Mayes, Deuteronomy, p. 129. Moran, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God’, pp. 77–87. 3 My argument contrasts with Robert D. Branson, who argues Yahweh’s hate in Deut 1:27 and 9:28 is primarily emotional, ‘The Polyvalent ‫’שׂנא‬, p. 10, but agrees with Jean L’Hour’s position, which also recognizes a covenantal coloring of ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 1:27, ‘Les interdits toʿeba’, pp. 487– 8, n. 30. 1 2

5: HATE AS A REFLEX TO A BROKEN COVENANT

55

Put differently: Israel is suspicious that her patron deity (and suzerain) is expressing ‫ שׂנא‬toward her in Deut 1:27. The reason is Yahweh’s failure to fulfill his covenant obligation to love his vassal (insinuated in Israel’s use of ‫)שׂנא‬. Similar to the examples of human ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru cited in chapter 4, there is little evidence pointing to a literal, emotional interpretation of ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 1:27. Thus, Deut 1:27 represents another metaphorical instance of ‫ שׂנא‬and must be placed on the nonemotive extreme of the meaning continuum. This nuance is best captured by rephrasing the verse: ‘27 You grumbled in your tents and said, “It is on account of Yahweh’s disloyalty to us that he has brought us from the land of Egypt to give us into Amorite hands to exterminate us”.’ In Deut 9 Moses recounts Israel’s activity while he was on Horeb receiving the law. He reminds Israel that she provoked Yahweh with the golden calf, Yahweh’s subsequent desire to destroy Israel, and his (Moses’) petition for mercy. Within this plea for mercy, Moses mentions divine ‫שׂנא‬: 25 Throughout the forty days and nights, during which I prostrated myself before Yahweh, I did so, because Yahweh had planned to destroy you. 26 So I prayed to Yahweh and said, ‘Lord Yahweh, do not destroy your people, your heritage, whom you redeemed in your greatness, whom you brought out from Egypt with a strong hand. 27 Remember your servants: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Do not concern yourself with the stubbornness of this people, their wickedness, and their sin. 28 Lest the land from which you have brought us may say, “Yahweh was unable to bring them to the land that he promised ָ ‫וּמ ִשּׂנְ ָאתוֹ‬ ִ ), them, and on account of his hatred for them (‫אוֹתם‬ he has brought them out into the wilderness to put them to death”.’

The statement containing ‫ שׂנא‬is complex: ‫ שׂנא‬is hypothetically credited to Yahweh by Egyptians in a Mosaic appeal to Yahweh’s reputation and personal renown. 4 What is the function of ‫שׂנא‬ here? Does Deuteronomy’s author understand ‫ שׂנא‬to be emotive? 4

Tigay, Deuteronomy, p. 103.

56

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

‫ שׂנא‬in 9:28 also is covenantal, because the verse provides another instance of a suzerain hating a vassal in a covenant context. To highlight this function of ‫שׂנא‬, it is appropriate to rephrase Deut 9:28, ‘Lest the land from which you have brought us may say, “Yahweh was unable to bring them to the land that he promised them, and on account of his disloyalty to them (this is, because he forsook his covenant with them), he has brought them out into the wilderness to put them to death”.’ Moses appeals not only to Yahweh’s renown, but also to his willingness to make good on his treaty obligation. As for the question of emotion, similar to Deut 1:27, ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 9:28 behaves metaphorically. If emotion is present, it is a secondary and minimized feature. The next three instances of ‫ שׂנא‬possess a more prominent emotional coloring than Deut 1:27 and 9:28. The first is in an oracle (Jer 12:7–13), which has the form of a divine lament over Israel. 5 The prophet portrays Yahweh speaking in the first person: 96F

7 I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage. I have given the beloved of my soul into the hand of her enemies. 8 My heritage has become to me like a lion in the forest; she has lifted her voice against me— ָ ‫את‬ ִ ֵ‫) ְשׂנ‬. therefore I hate her (‫יה‬ 9 Is my heritage a bird of prey or hyena to me? Does a bird of prey surround her? Go, gather all the animals of the field; bring them for food.

The object of ‫ שׂנא‬is ‘My heritage’, an appellation for Israel (see Jer 10:16, 51:19). 6 This passage has two interpretations relevant to this study. Some connect the entire oracle (12:7–13 at a minimum) with Jehoiakim’s covenant treachery in 2 Kings 24:1–2. Those promoting this 97F

Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 385; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, p. 651. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, pp. 260, 654; Deut 9:26, cited earlier in this chapter, also uses ‘my heritage’ to refer to Israel. 5 6

5: HATE AS A REFLEX TO A BROKEN COVENANT

57

perspective assign a ca. 600 date to the oracle. 7 2 Kings 24:1–2 says: ‘1 In his days King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up. And it happened that Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2 Then Yahweh sent against him Chaldean raiders, Aramean raiders, Moabites raiders, and Ammonite raiders. He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Yahweh that he spoke by his servants the prophets.’ Since 2 Kings 24:1–2 deals with a broken oath, and ‫שׂנא‬ can mark the fracturing or instability of an oath or covenant, the connection between Jer 12:7–13 and 2 Kings 24:1–2 is attractive. On a related note, Jean L’Hour submits that one can expect divine ‫ שׂנא‬toward actions or attitudes that generate a broken covenant. 8 Jer 12:7–13 and 2 Kings 24:1–2 meet all these requirements. Not only is Jehoiakim a vow breaker, Israel as a nation also is (an unfortunate reality noted throughout the prophets, for example, Jer 11:10). Furthermore, the rhetoric of Jer 12:7–13, which contains ‫שׂנא‬, reflects an unstable union: ‘I have forsaken my house’, ‘I have abandoned my heritage.’ Lastly, betrayal generates a broken alliance. Thus, Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬in Jer 12:8 is in response either to Jehoiakim’s betrayal of a covenant with Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:1) or Israel’s treachery in her covenant relationship with Yahweh (Jer 11:10). Whether his ‫ שׂנא‬is a reaction to one or both of these situations, ‫ שׂנא‬in Jer 12:8 operates with the covenant function. 9 That is, ‫ שׂנא‬appears in an oracle to communicate an unstable or broken covenant relationship. The second interpretation relevant to this study, while not mentioning the covenant function of ‫שׂנא‬, underscores Israel’s insolence in her relationship with Yahweh. Israel’s leonine behavior and loud voice are acts of pride, for Yahweh is typically the lion (see Am 1:2). Hence, Yahweh cannot stand Israel’s audacious mimicry against him. 10 10F

Feinberg, Jeremiah, p. 103; Achtemeier, Jeremiah, p. 67; White, The Indomitable Prophet, pp. 90–91. 8 L’Hour, ‘Les interdits toʿeba’, pp. 487–8, n. 30. 9 See also Thompson, ‘Israel’s “Haters”’, p. 204, on the covenant value of ‫ שׂנא‬in Jer 12:8. 10 Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 387. 7

58

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Jer 12:8 shows that divine ‫ שׂנא‬occurs in situations that have a fractured alliance. The comparable evidence of divine ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 1:27 and 9:28 suggests that this nuance of ‫ שׂנא‬is nonemotive and belongs on the metaphorical end of the meaning spectrum. ‫ שׂנא‬in Jer 12:8, however, contradicts this trend. Other sentiment laden vocabulary in Jer 12, namely, anger (‫)חרו ֺן ַאף‬ ֲ in verse 13, demonstrates that this is ‫ שׂנא‬with an emotive coloring. Jer 12:8 is the first example that communicates emotive ‫ שׂנא‬with the covenant function also apparent. Hitherto, the covenant function of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru in the human realm (for example, Deut 7:9–10, EA 158, EA 286, and EA 126) or divine realm (for example, Deut 1:27, 9:28) communicated disloyalty and not emotion. ‫ שׂנא‬in Jer 12:8 communicates disloyalty and emotion. As such, ‫ שׂנא‬in Jer 12:8 belongs on the emotional extreme of the continuum. Such an interpretation of ‫ שׂנא‬repeats itself in the prophets, who exploit divine sentiment in their oracles. Another example of covenant ‫ שׂנא‬appears in Hos 9:15, which is part of the 9:10–17 unit. 11 While Yahweh speaks in most of the oracle, the prophet’s voice appears as well (vv. 14 and 17). Verse 15 is in Yahweh’s first person voice: 102F

All their evil is at Gilgal; ִ ֵ‫ ) ְשׂנ‬there. for I hated them (‫אתים‬ On account of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from my house. I will not continue to love them; all their princes are rebels.

Similar to Jer 12:8, Hos 9:15 records Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬toward Israel. The genesis of ‫ שׂנא‬is associated with Gilgal, a site problematic for cultic reasons (Hos 4:15, 12:11; Am 4:4). 12 On the other hand, Gilgal is a problem because of its association with Saul (see 1 Sam 11 and 15). 13 Indeed, Gilgal is the locus of Saul’s coronation (1 Sam 11:15). A hybrid of both reasons for divine ‫ שׂנא‬at Gilgal is possible Wolff, Hosea, p. 162; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, p. 537. Mays, Hosea, p. 136; McComiskey, ‘Hosea’, p. 154. 13 Lohfink, ‘Hate and Love in Osee 9,15’, p. 417; Wolff, Hosea, p. 167; Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I, p. 83; Beeby, Grace Abounding, p. 124. 11 12

5: HATE AS A REFLEX TO A BROKEN COVENANT

59

in light of Hosea’s perennial indictments toward both the cult and leaders. But the balance is tipped toward Israel’s choice for Saul and consequent rejection of Yahweh. 14 Present here is, again, covenant faithlessness on Israel’s part 15 and Yahweh’s resulting ‫שׂנא‬. 16 Hosea construes Israel’s preference for a human king over Yahweh as treason. This prophet provides other statements vis-à-vis Israel’s treason (Hos 6:7, 8:1). Hos 9:15 is further proof (with Jer 12:8) that treachery to a covenant can engender divine ‫שׂנא‬. Does Hosea imply an emotional overtone to ‫ ?שׂנא‬This question is difficult to answer, because Hos 9:15 provides not one, but two possible metaphors: ‫ שׂנא‬and ‫( אהב‬love). Nevertheless, ‫ שׂנא‬in Hos 9:15, while serving as a metaphor for an unsound covenant relationship (disloyalty) between Israel and Yahweh, should be understood with an emotional nuance. This is based on, again, the prophetic proclivity to ascribe a plethora of emotions to the divine. In Hosea one finds ‫( ֶﬠ ְב ָרה‬anger, rage: Hos 5:10, 13:11) and ‫ ֲחרו ֺן‬or ‫( חרה ַאף‬burning anger: Hos 8:5, 11:9). As for ‫( אהב‬love), it is also likely that this lexeme refers to emotional love due to the conjugal imagery in the book. One of the most famous instances of ‫שׂנא‬, Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬directed at Esau, is in Malachi’s opening oracle. 2 ‘I love you’, says Yahweh. But you have said, ‘How do you love us?’ ‘Is not Esau brother to Jacob?’ declares Yahweh. ‘Yet ִ ֵ‫ ) ָשׂנ‬Esau; I have made his I love Jacob, 3 but I hate (‫אתי‬ mountains a desolation and his inheritance a wilderness for jackals.’ 4 If Edom says, ‘We have been shattered but we will return and build the ruins.’ Thus says Yahweh of hosts, ‘They may build, but I will destroy. They will call them the wicked territory, the people with whom Yahweh is indignant forever.’ 5 Your eyes shall see this, and you will say, ‘Great is Yahweh beyond the territory of Israel!’

Wolff, Hosea, p. 167. Thompson, ‘Israel’s “Haters”’, p. 201. 16 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, p. 545. 14 15

60

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Scholarly consensus on ‫ שׂנא‬in Mal 1:3 orbits around two primary interpretations. 17 The first perspective contends that ‫ אהב‬and ‫שׂנא‬ in Mal 1:2–3 refer to the divine election of Israel and the divine rejection of Esau/Edom. Malachi’s audience (the population of Judah) needed such reassurance, because their destruction and the colonization of Judah by Edom caused the people to fear that Yahweh had rejected them and chosen Esau/Edom. 18 The second perspective understands Malachi’s use of ‫ אהב‬and ‫ שׂנא‬as covenant terms. ‫ אהב‬indicates covenant devotion to Israel; ‫ שׂנא‬denotes a lack of covenant attachment to Esau. 19 These two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. But for reasons outlined below, I recognize the covenantal use of ‫ אהב‬and 10F

There are more minority views. For example, Paul L. Redditt maintains ‫ שׂנא‬in Mal 1:3 reflects the prophet’s feelings more than God’s, ‘The God Who Loves and Hates.’ Indeed, the prophet may feel negatively about Esau/Edom in Mal 1. But Redditt’s opinion is subjective and without grounds. A goal of exegesis is to identify the author’s intended meaning in a passage, and Mal 1’s author ascribes ‫ שׂנא‬to Yahweh. What did that author mean by Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬toward Esau? A second example is S. D. Snyman, who downplays ‫שׂנא‬: ‘To put it bluntly: not too much should be made of Yahweh’s hate for Esau/Edom in this pericope, being part of a chiasmus and considering the context of the statement, it is rather the love of Yahweh which is emphasized’ (‘Antitheses in Malachi 1, 2–5’, p. 438; Snyman renews this stance in Malachi). The context of Mal 1:2–5 makes dismissing Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬unattractive, because Yahweh’s negative emotion seems connected to Edom’s destruction, both of which are central features of the oracle. 18 Assis, ‘Why Edom?’, pp. 1–20; Assis, ‘Love, Hate and Self-identity in Malachi’, pp. 109–20. Others advocating the basic contour of the divine election/rejection argument include Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, pp. 221–3; Mason, The Books of Haggai Zechariah and Malachi, pp. 140–41; Smith, Micah—Malachi, pp. 305–6; Craigie, Twelve Prophets Volume 2, pp. 227–9; Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1284; Brown, Obadiah through Malachi, pp. 193– 4; Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, pp. 82–84. 19 McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes in Malachi’, p. 556; Achtemeier, Nahum—Malachi, pp. 173–7; Stuart, ‘Malachi’, pp. 1283–4; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, p. 170; Hill, Malachi, p. 152; Branson, ‘The Polyvalent ‫’שׂנא‬, p. 14. 17

5: HATE AS A REFLEX TO A BROKEN COVENANT

61

‫ שׂנא‬in Mal 1. Evidence suggests that divine ‫ שׂנא‬toward Esau in Mal 1:3 is for covenant reasons, namely, Esau/Edom 20 was faithless to a covenant and this perfidy aroused Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬. 21 Edom and Israel likely were in league prior to the destruction of Solomon’s temple. Proof for this includes ‘brother’ (‫)אח‬ ָ used to describe diplomatic relations between Edom and Israel (Num 20:14; Deut 2:4, 8; Am 1:11–12; Ob 10). 22 As discussed in chapter 4, this term can designate treaty partners and indicate brotherhood on the international scene. 23 Further evidence is from Jer 27, in which neighboring states (Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon) were in Jerusalem possibly consulting with Zedekiah about a joint rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar. If an oath sealed such a rebellion, then Jer 27 provides further proof for an Edomite-Judahite treaty. 24 As for evidence for an alliance between Edom and Yahweh, Linda Haney argues that behind Jer 49:7–22 is such a covenant. 25 Edom’s treachery during Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem (see Ps 137) would have voided any of these treaties. Furthermore, any of these possible covenant scenarios could trigger divine ‫שׂנא‬, for the Hebrew Bible describes Yahweh’s perspective of covenants or oaths, in which he is not a partner but instead appears as a witness. This perspective is important, because I use Esau and Edom interchangeably (contra McKenzie and Howard, ‘Covenant Themes’, p. 556), because the prophet does: the themes about Esau’s/Edom’s destruction and God’s negative feelings toward Esau/Edom are consistent throughout vv. 3 and 4. 21 Achtemeier, Nahum—Malachi, p. 176; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, pp. 169–70. 22 Fishbane, ‘The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11’, p. 315. See also Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, p. 49. David L. Petersen cites this Am 1 oracle as evidence for a covenant with Edom (personal communication—26 January 2006). 23 Fishbane, ‘The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11’, p. 314; Mario Liverani, Prestige and Interest, pp. 197–202. 24 Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, p. 51. See also Jason Dykehouse for another argument endorsing an Edomite-Judahite treaty, ‘Biblical Evidence from Obadiah and Psalm 137’, pp. 75–128. 25 Haney, ‘YHWH, the God of Israel…and of Edom?’ 20

62

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

overt biblical evidence of a treaty between Yahweh and Esau/Edom is lacking. Ezek 17:11–21 is the pertinent passage and contains an explanation of a parable that the prophet spoke to Israel. In this explanation Ezekiel says that the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and took her king and princes to Babylon (v. 12). The Babylonian king made a covenant with one of the royal family and put him under oath (v. 13). This royal family member broke the covenant and oath which he had made with the Babylonian king (vv. 15–18). These verses crescendo to verse 19 where Yahweh says: ‘19 Therefore, thus says the Lord Yahweh, “As I live, surely my oath which he despised, and my covenant which he destroyed, I will bring on his head”.’ Therefore, even though a covenant was not made with Yahweh himself, Yahweh understands them to be his covenant and his oath. 26 Consequently, divine ‫ שׂנא‬in Mal 1:3 is a fifth example of the covenant function of ‫שׂנא‬. Similar to Jer 12:8 and Hos 9:15, there is an emotive nuance to ‫ שׂנא‬in Mal 1:3. This interpretation is supported by Mal 1:4’s use of ‫זעם‬, which, on one hand, HALOT defines ‘curse, scold’ (the substantive is ‘cursed, curse’). On the other hand, ‫( זעם‬indignant) has a nuance of anger, as translated in verse 4. 27 Therefore, ‫ שׂנא‬in Mal 1:3 conveys emotion due to covenant disloyalty and requires placement on the emotive extreme of the meaning continuum.

AKKADIAN

The sixth example of divine hate (and the first instance of zêru) is found in a Middle Babylonian entitlement narû. This stone, dated to the time of King Melišipak (Melišiḫu, ca. 1186–1172), commemorates Melišipak’s land donation to his daughter ḪunnubatNanayya. 28 In a comprehensive study on cursing in the ancient Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, p. 52. See also Jer 34:8–22, in which Zedekiah and the people of Jerusalem covenanted together to release their Hebrew slaves (vv. 8–10). After all parties transgressed this pledge (v. 11), Yahweh rebuked them and identified the treaty as ‘my covenant’ (v. 18). 27 Keller, ‘‫’קלל‬, TLOT 3, p. 1143. 28 Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement Narûs (Kudurrus), pp. 44, 52, 258. 26

5: HATE AS A REFLEX TO A BROKEN COVENANT

63

Near East, Anne Marie Kitz explains that inscriptions on narûs were displayed publicly to guard an endowed area of land. Further, the type of curse found on a narû is protective. This protective nature is meant to ensure that the stone’s terms are honored, thereby safeguarding the endowment. 29 The imprecation section of Melišipak’s donation attributes zêru to Ninurta, god of war and agriculture. Ninurta’s role in agriculture is relevant to his appearance in the following citation, which is a curse about farming. The pertinent execration says, ‘May Ninurta, lord of the boundary stone, the splendid, the perfect, the offspring of E-kur, overthrow his territory, not create his seed, hate (lizīrma) his [mead}owland’ (Col. 4, line 20–col. 5, line 2). 30 With these words, the author proclaims divine zêru over the one who transgresses the terms of the stone. Designating Ninurta’s wrath, zêru here is part of divine curse vocabulary. But this lexeme communicates more than a curse; zêru in this narû underscores that a bond has been broken. Hallo and Moran state: ‘Zêru usually implies the repudiation of a prior personal bond (individual, familial, political).’ 31 What type of bond is present? The legally binding deed stated and established in the entitlement narû’s inscription. If one ignores that deed, one becomes a transgressor and can expect divine zêru. Like ‫שׂנא‬, zêru is a covenant term, denoting an unstable or broken contract. How are moderns to understand zêru in this text? Is it emotive or not? Susanne Paulus’s translation uses hassen (to hate), which reasonably reflects zêru’s negative emotional value in this citation. The tablet’s previous maledictions (by Anu, Enlil, and Ea) contain sentiment-laden vocabulary. For example, nekelmû (to look angrily, with disfavor) and ezziš (furiously, fiercely) appear in column 4, line Kitz’s chapter 10 (‘Barriers, Boundaries, and Written Display Curses’) addresses these issues at length, Cursed Are You! 30 For the transliteration, see Paulus, Die babylonischen KudurruInschriften, p. 396. I am grateful to Prof. Paulus for providing an advanced copy of this transliteration. For Paulus, this document is MŠ 3; Slanski uses MDP X 87. 31 Hallo and Moran, ‘The First Tablet of the SB Recension of the Anzu-Myth’, p. 68, n. 9. 29

64

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

11. 32 Ninurta’s zêru, therefore, is comparable to Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬in Jer 12:8, Hos 9:15, and Mal 1:3. Each of these instances conveys emotive hate with the covenant function also present and should be placed on the emotive extreme of the spectrum. The annals of Neo-Assyrian King Sargon II (721–705) provide the second example of divine zêru, the source of which is Marduk, patron god of Babylon. The pest Merodach-baladan (721– 710, 703), the anti-Assyrian Babylonia king, 33 causes the zêru. The document states, In the 12th year of my reign, Merodach-baladan of the tribe Bit-Yakin, king of Chaldea, whose settlements are located in the eastern coastal plain, trusted in the gulf and the mass of high water, and disavowed the agreement sworn by oath before the great gods. And he withheld his tribute. He turned to the Elamite Humbanigash for assistance. All the Suteans, the people of the steppe, he incited to rebel against me, and he assembled in battle array. He went down to the land of Sumer and Akkad and for 12 years (though it was against the will of the gods) he ruled and governed Babylon, the city of Enlil under the gods. Marduk, the great lord, saw Chaldea’s evil deeds, which he hates (izerru), and the removal of royal scepter and the throne of his kingship were declared on his lips (lines 254– 61). 34

Sargon’s scribe is unequivocal about the Babylonian’s treachery: he disavows an oath, fails to pay tribute, turns to a foreign alliance (namely, Humbanigash), and excites additional rebellion in the empire among the Suteans. I maintain Merodach-baladan’s faithlessness to his sovereign Sargon and insurrection aroused Marduk’s zêru. Again, this confirms the covenant function of zêru in Akkadian. ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru are part of covenant vocabulary in certain instances and can indicate a divine response to treachery. 32

‘avoid’.

However, CAD Z, p. 91 cites this text and translates zêru as

Brinkman, ‘Marduk-apla-iddina’, RlA 7, p. 375. This translation follows the transliteration of Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II, pp. 135–7. 33 34

5: HATE AS A REFLEX TO A BROKEN COVENANT

65

The extent to which one should understand an emotional component to Marduk’s zêru is unclear. On one hand, Sargon uses emotional terms like anger (uggatu, line 248) to describe himself. On the other hand, the scribe’s extensive use of zêru as a metaphor in this text (lines 72, 208, 243, 246) makes ascribing literal emotion to Marduk considerably more tenuous than previous examples in this chapter.

SYNTHESIS

The references of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru analyzed above possess a covenantal nuance. Most of the references are directed at one who ruptures a covenant (for example, Israel, Esau, Merodach-baladan). With respect to Hos 9:15, Israel’s selection of a human king and understood rejection of Yahweh is the apparent basis for Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬ and the prophet’s implication that Israel committed treason (Hos 6:7 and 8:1 also report Israel’s covenant disloyalty). Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬ in Jer 12:8 is similar to Hos 9:15 and is evidence for a shattered covenant and subsequent ‫שׂנא‬: Jehoiakim’s and Israel’s treachery (2 Kings 24:1–2 and Jer 11:10, respectively). As for Mal 1:3, the divine ‫ שׂנא‬is due to Edom’s perfidy to prior covenant ties with Israel/Judah. This trio of verses demonstrates that ‫ שׂנא‬can appear in the text when the author identifies Yahweh’s response to covenant disloyalty. Deut 1:27 and 9:28 are related to Jer 12:8, Hos 9:15, and Mal 1:3 insofar as the covenant function of ‫ שׂנא‬is present. But they differ, because Deut 1:27 and 9:28 express only the possibility of divine ‫שׂנא‬, as stated by incredulous Israel (Deut 1:27) and defaming Egypt (Deut 9:28). In other words, Yahweh is never on record in the biblical text declaring ‫ שׂנא‬for Israel in the wilderness narrative. ‫ שׂנא‬is assigned to Yahweh by Israel and Egypt. The occurrence of zêru in Melišipak’s entitlement narû pertains to this discussion, because an entitlement narû is a legally binding agreement between two parties. Though between two parties, society at large is expected to honor the terms of the document. With regard to one who may break this contract, the stone curses the transgressor with Ninurta’s zêru. In other words, a covenant exists, one breaks it by forsaking its terms, and the deity’s zêru is aroused. As for zêru in the annals of Sargon II, it is also covenant-based. The vassal Merodach-baladan is guilty of vow-breaking, withholding

66

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

tribute, seeking outside alliances, and rebellion-inducement. Said actions lack fealty and subsequently incite Marduk’s zêru. Since Mesopotamian and biblical authors ascribe the covenantal function of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru to their deities, can anything be said about influence or literary borrowing? There seem to be two possible answers. One, ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru as covenant terms belong to the shared cultural matrix of the ancient Near East. This perspective maintains that there is no borrowing either way. Or two, the influence is east to west. Biblical authors are indebted to Akkadian for their understanding of ‫’שׂנא‬s covenant function. This conclusion seems irresistible in light of two factors. First, Moran’s persuasive argument on love in Deuteronomy shows that Deuteronomy’s understanding of ‫ אהב‬as a covenant term is indebted to Mesopotamian usage of râmu and rāʾimūtu. Thus, maintaining that zêru’s usage influenced ‫’שׂנא‬s is reasonable. Second, many of zêru’s instances as a covenant term appear in documents that predate biblical texts. Finally, chapter 1 states a fundamental question guiding this study, a question on Yahweh’s singularity. Is Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬comparable to Ninurta and Marduk’s zêru or is his ‫ שׂנא‬different? The evidence set forth in the present chapter suggests Yahweh is comparable to these deities with reference to their response to covenant disloyalty. ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru is a negative response and a category of wrath. Such a reaction to the impropriety of covenant faithlessness was no doubt considered appropriate by the ancients. In antiquity, fulfilling covenant stipulations and honoring vows and treaties were of utmost importance. It is not surprising, therefore, that ancient texts portray deities as concerned about such things and reacting negatively, when a covenant, vow, or treaty is undermined. Such a response suggests an ethical deity.

CHAPTER 6: HATE TOWARD THE CULT The importance of worship for the ancients cannot be underscored enough. A primary means for connecting with a deity, the cult was an essential part of society and is, therefore, the topic of many texts. These texts may describe a practice that is mandated (like a festival devoted to Yahweh) or proscribed (like idolatry). Consequently, ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru toward the cult fall under two distinct headings: ‫ שׂנא‬toward a forbidden cult practice (Deut 12:31; 16:22; Jer 44:4) and ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru toward an accepted cult practice (Isa 1:14; Am 5:21; Dialogue Between (Aššur)-Enlil and Išme-Dagān). Each instance reflects the ethical dimension of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru, because the worshipers are misaligned with the requirements of the deity. Hence, the authors of these texts deem ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru an ethical response to the impropriety of the worshipers.

HATE TOWARD A FORBIDDEN CULT PRACTICE

Deut 12 enumerates worship and dietary regulations. The author cautions Israel to resist the allure of Canaanite practices: 29 When Yahweh your God destroys the nations, whom you are going to dispossess before you, then you shall dispossess them and dwell in their land. 30 Be careful lest you get entangled with them after their extermination before you and lest you seek their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations worship their gods that even I also may do the same?’ 31 You should not behave in this way toward Yahweh your God, because every abomination of Yahweh, which he hates (‫) ָשׂנֵ א‬, they do for

67

68

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST their gods. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

The author assigns ‫ שׂנא‬to Yahweh on the basis of illegitimate Canaanite religious devotion, 1 child sacrifice being the only specific infraction stated. One interpretation of ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 12:31 is that it is a covenant term (similar to the occurrences of ‫ שׂנא‬and zêru in chapter 5), since divine ‫ שׂנא‬is aroused by actions or attitudes that generate a broken treaty. Deut 17:2–3 buttresses this perspective, because these verses maintain that proscribed worship breaks a covenant. 2 These verses state, ‘2 If there is found among you or within your gates, which Yahweh your God is giving to you, a man or woman, who commits evil in the sight of Yahweh your God, transgressing his covenant, 3 by going and worshipping other gods and bowing to them—the sun, moon, or the entire heavenly host, which I have proscribed.’ While this interpretation (namely, ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 12:31 is a covenant term) is attractive, especially in light of Deut 17:2–3, it is problematic. Indeed, according to Deut 17, idolatry breaks the alliance between an Israelite and Yahweh, but to say that ‫ שׂנא‬is the cumulative effect in every instance of idolatry is unsupported by biblical evidence. If this interpretation were correct, one would expect divine ‫ שׂנא‬every time idolatry occurs. This simply does not happen. However, Yahweh’s negative feelings (for example, ‫ח ָמה‬,ֵ ‫געל‬, ‫כעס‬, ‫ )תעב‬often appear whenever the Hebrew Bible comments on his sentiment vis-à-vis idolatry. Deut 12:31 says Canaanite cultic practices are the objects of Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬, because the Hebrew Bible’s authors deem them wrong. The Israelites and ostensibly the ancient world in toto considered hating certain practices and behaviors, like covenant infidelity or corrupt worship, acceptable. Finally, the emotive component of ‫ שׂנא‬is also present here, because the narrator uses another word that conveys strong feeling: ‫( תּו ֵֺﬠ ָבה‬abomination). Thus, the emotive extreme of the meaning continuum best accommodates ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 12:31. Tigay, Deuteronomy, p. 127. Hall, Deuteronomy, p. 274. See also L’Hour, ‘Les interdits toʿeba’, pp. 487–8, n. 30. 1 2

6: HATE TOWARD THE CULT

69

Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 16:22 is similar to ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 12:31. Deut 16:21–22 says: ‘21 You should not plant any tree for yourself as an Asherah next to the altar of Yahweh your God, which you shall make for yourself. 22 Nor should you set up for yourself a standing stone that Yahweh your God hates (‫) ָשׂנֵ א‬.’ The object of Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬in 16:22 is the ‫( ַמ ֵצּ ָבה‬stone pillar). At times, the use of a ‫ ַמ ֵצּ ָבה‬is seemingly valid: for example, in the worship of both Jacob (Gen 28:18) and Moses (Ex 24:4). But because the line between its legitimate and illegitimate use is blurred, Deut 16:22 outlaws it. 3 The interpretation of ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 16:22 is similar to that of 12:31: Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬toward cultic impropriety is based on the belief that certain practices are abhorrent and consequently deserve wrath, in this case ‫שׂנא‬. But to what extent is ‫ שׂנא‬literal in Deut 16:22? This question is more difficult to answer than other occasions of ‫שׂנא‬, because there is no vocabulary for other negative emotions in the context surrounding Deut 16:22. On one hand, it seems likely that the author intends an emotive interpretation, since objects of idolatry are loathsome to biblical authors. On the other hand, Deuteronomy’s covenantal context, in which emotional metaphors are common, brings into question assigning an emotive understanding to ‫ שׂנא‬in Deut 16:22. The final instance of divine ‫ שׂנא‬toward a forbidden cult practice appears in Jer 44:4. This example is amidst an oracle delivered in Egypt to exiles from Judah. The prophet reflects on Judah’s destruction: 128F

2 Thus says Yahweh of hosts the God of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen all the evil that I brought upon Jerusalem and all the cities of Judah. Now consider them; they are desolate today without inhabitant in them. 3 This is on account of their evil that they have committed, so as to make me angry, going and offering incense and worshipping other gods, whom they have not known—neither they, you, nor your ancestors. 4 So I sent all my servants the prophets to them over and over again,

248.

3

Tigay, Deuteronomy, pp. 161–2; Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, p.

70

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST saying “You should not commit this abomination that I hate ִ ֵ‫) ָשׂנ‬.” 5 But they neither listened nor inclined their ears to (‫אתי‬ repent of their evil and cease offering incense to other gods. 6 So my wrath and anger were poured out and burned against the cities of Judah and against the streets of Jerusalem. They became desolated and devastated as they are today.’

A core tenet of Deuteronomistic ideology suffuses this passage: Israel and Judah were destroyed because of their cultic and idolatrous practices. 4 Is this, therefore, another occasion of divine ‫שׂנא‬ amidst covenant language? This question is relevant in light of the discussion about Deut 17:2–3 earlier in this chapter. While the covenant function of ‫ שׂנא‬may be present in Jer 44:4, 5 it is not the primary purpose. On the contrary, the prophet’s objective by attributing ‫ שׂנא‬to Yahweh on account of idolatry is simply to communicate that certain practices offend Yahweh and consequently deserve a negative response. The Hebrew Bible is unequivocal in requiring unmitigated, inexorable devotion to Yahweh. The worship of other deities is an affront to that requirement. Finally, the oracle’s vocabulary (for example, ‫ כעס‬in v. 3, ‫ ַאף‬and ‫ ֵח ָמה‬in v. 6) confirms that ‫ שׂנא‬possesses a negative emotional overtone and hovers around the literal end of the meaning continuum. To summarize, in Deut 12:31, 16:22, and Jer 44:4, idolatry has triggered Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬. This is no surprise, since biblical authors are clear on this cultic taboo. Israel should avoid idolatry, and when it is embraced, divine wrath is the result. A deity, whom texts portray as requiring the devotion of worshipers, is ethical in reacting negatively with ‫ שׂנא‬toward the impropriety of idolatry.

HATE TOWARD AN ACCEPTED CULT PRACTICE

The three instances of ‫ שׂנא‬toward an abominable cult practice adduced above are expected, because each affirms the basic biblical ideal of Yahwistic worship. The final three examples of divine hate Carroll, Jeremiah, p. 732. On the Deuteronomistic orientation of this section, see also Holt, ‘The Potent Word of God’, p. 163, and Hoffman, ‘History and Ideology’, p. 47. 5 L’Hour, ‘Les interdits toʿeba’, pp. 487–8, n. 30. 4

6: HATE TOWARD THE CULT

71

(two from the Hebrew Bible and one from Mesopotamia) are sui generis, because the passages contain very strong language toward an acceptable cult practice. Isa 1 is laden with pathos: wayward children (vv. 2–4), chronic ailments (vv. 5–6), and waylaid cities (vv. 7–9). In the wake of this calamity, the prophet’s judgment oracle about Israel’s worship appears (vv. 10–17): 10 Hear the word of Yahweh, leaders of Sodom, Listen to the Torah of our God, people of Gomorrah. 11 What is the abundance of your sacrifices to me? says Yahweh, I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and fat of fatlings. Blood of bulls or lambs or goats, I am not delighted by. 12 When you come to appear before me, Who requested this from your hand—the trampling of my courts? 13 You should cease bringing vain grain offerings, Incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and calling of an assembly— I cannot bear iniquity with the festive assembly. 14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates (‫;) ָשׂנְ ָאה‬ They have become as a burden to me, I am tired of bearing them. 15 When you spread your hands, I will hide my eyes from you, Even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen; Your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash and clean yourselves; Remove your evil deeds from before my eyes. Cease to do evil; 17 learn to do good. Seek justice; reprove the oppressor. Get justice for the orphan; contend for the widow.

The passage is famous, because it reflects prophetic critique of an ostensibly legitimate cult. Indeed, it endorses a perspective somewhat contrary to scores of passages in the Pentateuch that sanction the very things Isaiah rejects. The new moons and appointed festivals are identified as the objects of Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬, yet his disgust is directed at the entire cult: sacrifices and offerings (v. 11), Sabbath observance and assemblies (v. 13), and prayer (v. 15).

72

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

As far as the prophet is concerned, the apparent problem is that Israel has engaged in the ritual of worship and forgotten the marginalized (namely, the orphan and widow) and her (Israel’s) requirement to treat them with justice. Verses in Isaiah outside this oracle support the assertion that the mistreatment of needy people is the prophet’s fundamental concern (for example, 1:23, 3:14–15, 10:2). This infraction is serious enough to merit divine ‫שׂנא‬. Isa 1:10–17 underscores that biblical authors reckon allegiance to Yahweh’s cult futile when care for the needy is overlooked. Indeed, the end of the oracle states the prophet’s fundamental judgment: ethical behavior trumps sacrifice and other forms of cultic adherence. 6 This point is important and reappears with reference to Am 5:21–24 below. In order to confirm that this is literal ‫שׂנא‬, Isaiah ascribes more negative sentiment to Yahweh: abomination (‫ )תּו ֵֺﬠ ָבה‬in verse 13. Additionally, Yahweh feels a burden and is tired, according to verse 14. These realities suggest there is no hyperbole here: this is unmitigated ‫ שׂנא‬with a negative emotional overtone and belongs on the literal extreme of the spectrum. 7 The considerable thematic overlap between the Isa 1:10–17 and Am 5:21–24 is such that one expects them to receive equal attention in modern scholarship. Yet, this is not the case, because Amos receives the lion’s share. Perhaps this is due to its employment by proponents of social justice or liberation theologians. Perhaps interpreters give more attention to Amos’ oracle, because some consider Am 5:21–24 earlier than Isaiah and, subsequently, the skeleton of Isa 1:10–17. 8 A combination of these possibilities is likely the basis for this scholarly trend. With respect to theme and vocabulary, Am 5:21–24 is similar to Isa 1:10–17. 9 Despite this, the latter is not reliant on the former. 13F

132F

Williamson, ‘Biblical Criticism and Hermeneutics in Isaiah 1:10– 17’, p. 88; Vargon, ‘The Historical Background and Significance of Isa 1,10–17’, pp. 193–4. 7 Hans Wildberger says ‫ שׂנא‬is the harshest term to express divine aversion toward Jerusalem’s cult, Isaiah 1–12, p. 46. 8 Lafferty, The Prophetic Critique of the Priority of the Cult. 9 Paul, Amos, p. 189. 6

6: HATE TOWARD THE CULT

73

Both (along with Mic 6:6–8) are prophetic responses to people who prioritize ritual worship over ethical behavior. Am 5:21–24 states: 21 I hate (‫אתי‬ ִ ֵ‫) ָשׂנ‬, I despise your festivals, And I do not enjoy your festive assemblies. 22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I am displeased with them; And the peace offerings of your fatlings I will not regard. 23 Remove from me the noise of your songs; The melody of your harps I will not listen to. 24 But let justice roll down like water, And righteousness like a perpetual stream.

Is the interpretation of Am 5:21–24 similar to that of Isa 1:10–17? One group of researchers says no. This school of thought interprets Amos’ message as one of divine judgment. The prophet’s comments about justice and righteousness are not a prescription for the people. Rather, they are promises about the judgment/justice and righteousness that come from God. 10 I reject this argument and suggest an interpretation similar to that of Isa 1:10–17. Amos’ commentary of the cult is censure of cultic activities, ostensibly because the population ignores matters of justice and righteousness. Israel should enact justice and righteousness first and then offer worship. 11 This is the preferable interpretation, because elsewhere the prophet addresses the oppression of the impoverished (5:11–12) and the dearth of justice and righteousness in the land (5:7, 5:15). Therefore, Amos’ larger context suggests, like Isaiah, that a skewed ethic (namely, a lack of justice) is the ultimate problem. 12 Berquist, ‘Dangerous Waters of Justice and Righteousness’, pp. 54–63; Driggers, ‘Israel in God’s Country’, pp. 20–36. 11 Weiss, ‘Concerning Amos’ Repudiation of the Cult’, pp. 199–214. 12 In a completely different vein, John H. Hayes maintains that Amos objects to the simultaneous observance of the great fall pilgrimage festival at Bethel and Gilgal and the subsequent decline of Israelite society that this competitive observance engenders, Amos, the Eighth-Century Proph10

74

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

That this is ‫ שׂנא‬with a strong emotional component (and not mere rejection) is evident due to other vocabulary like ‫( מאס‬despise) in verse 21. Festivals are the objects of this strong ‫שׂנא‬, 13 which is located on the emotive extreme of the spectrum. Additionally, Yahweh takes no pleasure in festive assemblies (v. 21), burnt, grain, and peace offerings (v. 22), and musical worship (v. 23). The similarities to Isa 1:11–17 are noteworthy: Israel is faithful in fulfilling cultic obligations, Yahweh expresses ‫ שׂנא‬toward this activity, and a dearth of justice is the problem (not the cult itself). 14 Consequently, one must conclude that Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬is based on the vain ritual of religion while ignoring the societal need for justice. A significant contrast to Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬in Isa 1:14 and Am 5:21 appears in a text dubbed ‘Dialogue Between (Aššur-)Enlil and Išme-Dagān’, 15 which credits zêru to Ashur (syncretized with Enlil). Before 2009, this instance of divine zêru was published in W. G. Lambert’s RlA ‘Gott’ article. His purpose for providing the quotation is not to elucidate divine emotion; rather, his objective is to demonstrate that Mesopotamian literature (specifically a document from Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh) conflates deities. He writes: 140F

However, an unpublished epic fragment from the Aššurbānaplis libraries plainly takes them as one deity only: ‘…I am furious with my city, my temple, my house…I am fu-

et, pp. 172–3. Hayes’s reasoning is unconvincing, because the larger context of Amos suggests that a lack of ethical behavior in interpersonal relationships is the prophet’s concern. 13 Paul, Amos, p. 189, and Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets Volume One, p. 240, suggest the objects of this ‫ שׂנא‬are specifically the three pilgrimage festivals (Ex 23:14–16; 34:22, 25). 14 Mays, Amos, pp. 109–10. Mic 6:6–8 uses a similar theme (save ‫ )שׂנא‬in an indictment against Israel. 15 I am grateful for the assistance of Professors W. G. Lambert (personal communication—25 August 2009) and Eckart Frahm (personal communication—18 June 2014) with this document.

6: HATE TOWARD THE CULT

75

rious with Nippur…with Assur, I hate both my cult-centres.’ 81-2-4, 218, 10–12:

]x ta āli-ia é-kur-ia bīti-ia ra-’i-ba-ku ]x ka ta nippurki ra-ʿi-ba-ku ]x ka ta bal.tilki it-ti ki-lal-le-e ma-ḫa-zi-ia ze-ru(sic!)-ku. 16

Though the reading is questionable, Lambert ultimately understands the text to depict divine zêru. In 2009, Eckart Frahm published the entirety of this Nineveh document’s legible portion and a fuller duplicate (from Ashur), 76a (= 81-2-4, 218) and 76 (= VAT 14418), respectively. 17 He dates both tablets to the 7th century, but maintains the date of their original drafting is unknown. A conversation between Ashur/Enlil and Išme-Dagān (son of Shamshi-Adad, 18th century) is contained thereon and has divine zêru: [Išme-D]agān speaks a word to his lord: [‘ . . . ] why, oh our lord, are you angry?’ [ . . . ] he repeatedly goes after him. [. . .] he (the deity) opened his mouth to him: [‘. . .] I am furious with my city, my temple, my house. [The]re I am furious with Nippur. [He]re I hate (zērūku 18) Ashur my city 19 and both 20 my

RlA 3, p. 545. Frahm, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 3, pp. 20–21; 145–51. 18 One expects zērēku or zērāku for this stative, so ze-ru-ku is problematic, at first glance. While Lambert writes ‘sic’, Frahm communicates the quandary with his transliteration ze?-ru-ku and wrestles with options in his commentary, suggesting ge-ru-ku or ze-na-ku may be preferred over zeru-ku, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 3, p. 149. I prefer zērūku on the basis of Assyrian vowel harmony, whereby an accented, long a assimilates to the vowel in the final syllable (Ungnad—Matouš, Akkadian Grammar, §5b–d). Additionally, in the section ‘Allophones of /a/’, Mikko Luukko maintains /a/ > /u/ in long, open syllables, Grammatical Variation in Neo-Assyrian, p. 85. On the other hand, if Frahm is correct and zêru represents a scribal slip (the scribe intending gerû or zenû), the line still communicates strong negative emotion. 19 ‘My city’ only appears in 76 (= VAT 14418), not in 76a (= 81-2-4, 218). 16 17

76

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST cult centers, [be]cause the progeny of a foreigner has stopped the great offering {and} the great shrine of both my cult centers was destroyed’ (obv. lines 6’–14’). 21

The cities Nippur (chief cult site of Enlil) and Ashur (the locus of Ashur’s cult) are the objects of zêru, which is quite strong: zêru parallels ra’ābu, indicating the god’s fury. (Thus, zêru in this document appears on the literal extreme of the continuum.) Though there are lacunae, the reasons for the zêru are clear, at least in part: there is an absence of offerings and the cult centers are in ruins. Here the Mesopotamian deity’s response sharply contrasts Yahweh’s response in Isa 1:14 and Am 5:21. This contrast requires some discussion. Isaiah and Amos portray Yahweh disregarding the cult for ethical reasons. Yahweh effectively says: ‘Israel, you have confused your priorities. I desire sound ethics before I want ritual worship. Care about the needy, with whom I am concerned, prior to coming before me for devotion.’ Such a tone is absent from the dialogue between Ashur/Enlil and Išme-Dagān. Rather, Ashur/Enlil roars, ‘Feed me!’ This is reminiscent of Akkadian texts, in which a god requests more offerings through a prophet. 22 A deity demanding more offerings suggests that someone may be getting kickbacks from the enterprise. That Yahweh does not want offerings because needy people are overlooked suggests an ethical deity. The similarity between these instances of ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru toward an accepted cult practice is obvious: each reflects divine ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru toward worship. The comparison stops with this point, because the 20

14418).

‘Both’ only appears in 76a (= 81-2-4, 218), not in 76 (= VAT

This composite translation follows Frahm’s transliterations of 76 (= VAT 14418) and 76a (= 81-2-4, 218), Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 3, p. 146. 22 The governor Kibri-Dagan wrote two separate letters (ARM 26 220 and 221) to Zimri-Lim, 18th century king of Mari, in which the deity Dagan requests offerings. The documents appear in Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, as 30 (ARM 26 220) and 31 (ARM 26 221). 21

6: HATE TOWARD THE CULT

77

reasons for ‫ שׂנא‬or zêru are contrasted: worship concurrent with an absence of justice in Israel and an absence of worship in Ashur and Nippur. Such a contrast makes one wonder if the biblical material is reacting against this Akkadian tradition. Unfortunately, at this point, there is not enough data to answer with confidence.

CHAPTER 7: HATE TOWARD VICE Ethics is concerned with good and bad conduct, means, and ends. For much of western civilization’s history, those in the west have looked to the Hebrew Bible and other sacred texts in that tradition for guidance in ethics. 1 Though there is disagreement here and there, behavior lauded in these books is encouraged and actions censured are discouraged. Numerous instances of divine ‫( שׂנא‬Isa 61:8; Am 6:8; Zech 8:17; Pss 5:6, 11:5; Prov 6:16) are directed at discouraged conduct and, consequently, have an ethical nuance. This feature of hate is not as prominent in the cognate literature (Ugaritic and Akkadian). But this chapter’s Ugaritic example (CTU3 1.4 III 17) and two Akkadian instances (Epic of Gilgamesh III 54; Shamash Hymn 148) still represent šnʾ or zêru toward malfeasance. As such, they are relevant to the larger discussion of this chapter.

BIBLICAL HEBREW

Unlike Isa 1:10–17 (discussed in the previous chapter), Isa 61 is hopeful. The chapter begins with a description of an ideal prophet (vv. 1–3), which early Christian tradition applies to Jesus. Containing divine ‫שׂנא‬, verse 8 occurs amidst a series of verses, in which the prophet shifts between the third and second persons: 4 They shall build the eternal wastelands, The former desolations they shall raise up. The devastated cities they shall renew— The desolations of many generations.

For a recent perspective on this topic, see primarily the introduction in Unterman, Justice for All. 1

79

80

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 5 Foreigners shall stand and shepherd your flock, Foreigners shall be your peasants and vinedressers. 6 You shall be called priests of Yahweh, It shall be said about you: ‘Ministers of our God’. You shall consume the wealth of nations, And in their glory you shall pride yourselves. 7 In place of your shame shall be a double portion, In place of disgrace they shall shout for joy in their portion. Therefore, they shall inherit a double portion in their land, Eternal joy shall belong to them. 8 For I, Yahweh, love justice, I hate (‫ )שׂ ֹנֵ א‬robbery with wickedness; I will faithfully give their reward, And I will make an everlasting covenant with them. 9 Their progeny shall be known among the nations, And their descendants among the peoples; All who see them shall recognize them That they are a people whom Yahweh has blessed.

Similar to Isa 1:14, the prophet portrays Yahweh speaking in the first person, identifying the objects of his ‫שׂנא‬. In this case, one of the objects is unequivocal: ‫( גָּ זֵ ל‬robbery). The second object of ‫שׂנא‬ is ‫עוֹלה‬, ָ which I translate as wickedness. However, ‫עוֹלה‬ ָ is problematic, because it is often translated as burnt offering. Representing a minority view, W. A. M. Beuken reads it as such. 2 Does the prophet state that Yahweh hates robbery with a burnt offering? Mal 1:13 suggests a positive answer. On the other hand, some ancient versions (the LXX, Targum, Peshitta) and modern interpreters read ‫עוֹלה‬ ָ as ‫( ַﬠוְ ָלה‬wickedness). 3 Jan L. Koole maintains that wickedness is the correct interpretation, because ‫( ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬justice) and wickedness are contrasted not only in Isa 61:8, but elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Deut 32:4; Zeph 3:5). Further, he notes the larger

Beuken, ‘Servant and Herald of Good Tidings’, p. 430. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 370; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 225– 6; de Waard, A Handbook on Isaiah, pp. 207–8. 2 3

7: HATE TOWARD VICE

81

context does not address offerings. 4 Consequently, I recognize robbery and wickedness as the objects of Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬. A negative reaction toward such malfeasance is understandable. One expects it. Unfortunately, the larger context is little help in clarifying the literal or metaphorical nuance of ‫שׂנא‬. Due to the prophetic proclivity to apply emotion to Yahweh, the prophet likely intends an emotive nuance. On the other hand, is there more to ‫ שׂנא‬here than emotion? Is the covenant function present also? Indeed, the covenant-making context of verse 8 begs these questions. Jean L’Hour maintains that the deity expresses ‫ שׂנא‬toward robbery and wickedness because robbery undermines the solidarity or covenant ties between thief and victim. 5 It is true that robbery and wickedness destroy the solidarity between people (even in a general human sense, namely, the camaraderie that people experience by being members of the human family). But that is not the reason for Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬. Robbery and wickedness are objects of Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬, because such things are deemed harmful not only by the Hebrew Bible, but by society at large. Is there any known civilization that values theft among its constituents? Am 6:8 follows a series of verses (1–7), which are a prophetic indictment against Israel’s ostensibly elite, haughty, wealthy, lazy citizens. The prophet says: 1 Woe to those who are at ease in Zion, to those who are full of confidence in Mount Samaria. The first distinguished ones of the nations, to whom the house of Israel comes. 2 Pass over to Calneh and see; go from there to Hamath Rabbah; go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are they better than these kingdoms or is their territory greater than yours? 3 Those who reckon distant the day of calamity but bring near a violent seat. 4 Those who lie on ivory beds,

4 5

Koole, Isaiah III, p. 289. L’Hour, ‘Les interdits toʿeba’, pp. 487–8, n. 30.

82

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST sprawled out upon their couches, eating lambs from the flock and calves from the fattened ones. 5 Those who improvise to the sound of the harp, like David they compose for themselves upon musical instruments. 6 Those who drink from basins of wine and anoint with choice oils, but are not grieved over the collapse of Joseph. 7 Therefore, now they shall be exiled at the head of the exiles, And the cultic feast of those sprawled out shall cease. 8 The Lord Yahweh has sworn by his own soul. This is the declaration of Yahweh, God of hosts: ִ ֵ‫ ) ָשׂנ‬his fortified pal‘I abhor the pride of Jacob and hate (‫אתי‬ aces; and I shall surrender the city and everything in it.’

The prophet intends ‫ שׂנא‬to be literal, because ‫תאב‬, a biform of ‫ תעב‬6 (abhor), parallels ‫שׂנא‬. Therefore, this example of ‫ שׂנא‬hovers around the emotive end of the meaning continuum. Amos directs ‫ שׂנא‬at Israel’s ‫( ַא ְר ְמנו ֺת‬fortified palaces). It must be underscored that his protest is apparently not with the strongholds per se, but with the ‫( גָּ או ֺן‬pride) they represent. Hence, in addition to the vices enumerated in 1–7, he recognizes Israel’s constituency is plagued with pride 7 and the country’s (or Samaria’s 8) strongholds are a metaphor for that pride. 9 Accordingly, Yahweh directs ‫ שׂנא‬toward it. Elizabeth Achtemeier explains that divine ‫ שׂנא‬is toward pride, because this vice is the root of Israel’s sin, and Israel believes she can survive on her own self-sufficiency and not rely on God. 10 Hans Walter Wolff notes that Israel’s prophets are not the only ones to speak against pride. The sage declares in addition to his ‫ שׂנא‬for ‫( גָּ או ֺן‬pride) (Prov 8:13), that ‫ גָּ או ֺן‬is the prelude Paul, Amos, p. 213, n. 4. Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos, p. 229. 8 Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 281. 9 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets Volume One, p. 246. 10 Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I, pp. 214–5. 6 7

7: HATE TOWARD VICE

83

to destruction (Prov 16:18). 11 Am 6:8 is another example, in which the prophet ascribes ‫ שׂנא‬to Yahweh in view of the intrinsic evil of a destructive behavior, attitude, or practice. Further, Am 6:8 confirms that biblical authors accept and laud Yahweh’s negative reaction toward societal ills. Zech 8:17, part of the Zech 8:14–17 oracle, 12 further corroborates this feature of divine ‫שׂנא‬: 14 For thus says Yahweh of hosts: ‘Just as I planned to cause evil for you, when your fathers aroused my fury’, says Yahweh of hosts, ‘and I did not relent, 15 so again I have planned in these days to cause good for Jerusalem and the house of Judah. Do not fear. 16 These are the things that you should do: Speak truth to one another, render judgments of peace in your gates, 17 and do not plan evil in your hearts against one another. And do not love a false oath, because all these are things that I hate ִ ֵ‫) ָשׂנ‬.’ This is the declaration of Yahweh. (‫אתי‬

The objects of Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬are premeditated evil and perjury. 13 Though the passage lacks vocabulary that defines the nature of the sentiment, one surmises that ‫ שׂנא‬is charged with a negative emotional overtone on the basis of the appearance of divine ‫ שׂנא‬in other prophets. 14 Little needs to be stated about why the prophet depicts Yahweh as hating these phenomena: vindictiveness and deceit under16F

Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 282. Assis, ‘The Structure of Zechariah 8 and Its Meaning.’ 13 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, p. 428. Al Wolters correctly maintains the prophet has covenant obedience in mind with this exclamation of divine ‫שׂנא‬, Zechariah, p. 230. Therefore, ‫ שׂנא‬toward a false oath (‫)שׁ ֻב ַﬠת ֶשׁ ֶקר‬ ְ in Zech 8:17 is another example of ‫ שׂנא‬as a reflex to a broken covenant. But since the prophet couples false oath with premeditated evil, and both phenomena are examples of social vice, Zech 8:17 fits best within this chapter (and not chapter 5). 14 O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, pp. 225–6. Mark J. Boda also sees a strong emotional negative reaction here, The Book of Zechariah, p. 508. 11 12

84

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

mine social structures and relationships. 15 Further, understanding Yahweh’s opinion toward these vices helps people (in this case, the postexilic community) endeavoring to establish a theological ethic. 16 Three occasions of divine ‫ שׂנא‬appear in the Ketuvim: Pss 5:6, 11:5, and Prov 6:16. Ps 5 is ‘an individual complaint song’. 17 The relevant strophe says: 164F

5 For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil does not reside with you. 6 The deluded do not stand before your eyes; ָ ֵ‫ ) ָשׂנ‬all who commit wickedness. you hate (‫את‬ 7 You destroy those who speak lies; Yahweh abhors murderers and the deceitful.

The presence of ‫( תעב‬abhor) in the subsequent verse insinuates that ‫ שׂנא‬should be understood literally 18 and positioned on the emotive end of the spectrum. The objects of ‫ שׂנא‬are those who commit wickedness. This bodes poorly for humanity, since most people (including the psalmist) fit this profile. Despite that, the poet posits Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬for this type of person. Such a supposition contradicts the popular theology of today that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. 19 This is another example, in which Yahweh discloses ‫ שׂנא‬toward that which is reprehensible or vile. The genre of Ps 11 is a song of trust, which developed out of a lament. 20 The author credits ‫ שׂנא‬to Yahweh in verse 5: 4 Yahweh is in his holy temple; Yahweh is in heaven on his throne.

Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, p. 401; Brown, Obadiah through Malachi, p. 163. 16 Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 154; Barker, ‘Zechariah’, p. 653. 17 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, p. 121. 18 Broyles, Psalms, p. 59. 19 Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, p. 132. 20 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, p. 190; Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship 2, p. 131; Dahood, Psalms I, p. 68. 15

7: HATE TOWARD VICE

85

His eyes see humanity, his glances test them. 5 Yahweh tests the righteous and wicked, and his soul hates (‫ ) ָשׂנְ ָאה‬the one who loves violence. 6 He rains snares, fire, and sulfur on the wicked; a whirlwind shall be the portion of their cup. 7 For Yahweh is righteous; he loves righteous deeds; the upright shall see his face.

The vocabulary of wrath in this pericope (v. 6) suggests ‫ שׂנא‬possesses the emotive nuance here. The object of Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬is the lover of ‫( ָח ָמס‬violence). ‫‘ ָח ָמס‬is cold-blooded and unscrupulous infringement of the personal rights of others, motivated by greed and hate and often making use of physical violence and brutality’. 21 This individual is not violent per se; this person loves violence. Hence, this is another example, in which ‫ שׂנא‬is directed at evil. The preceding discussion identifies the objects of Yahweh’s ‫שׂנא‬: robbery and wickedness (Isa 61:8); human pride (Am 6:8); premeditated evil and perjury (Zech 8:17); doers of evil (Ps 5:6); the lover of violence (Ps 11:5). Collectively, the evidence indicates that the Hebrew tradition accepts divine ‫ שׂנא‬toward social vice that harms others. The Hebrew Bible’s final reference to divine ‫שׂנא‬, Prov 6:16, points to the same conclusion. This instance of Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬appears as a so-called numerical saying (x/x+1): 22 16 There are six things that Yahweh hates (‫) ָשׂנֵ א‬, seven that are an abomination to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that spill innocent blood, 18 a heart that contemplates wicked thoughts, feet that hurry to run to evil, 19 a deceitful witness who brings forth lies, and one who creates conflict among brothers.

169F

Haag, ‘‫’ח ָמס‬, ָ TDOT 4, p. 482. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament, pp. 86–87. For an enumeration of these sayings in the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Near Eastern literature, see Fox, Proverbs 1–9, p. 223. 21 22

86

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Similar to Am 6:8 and Ps 5:6, the semantic parallelism between ‫שׂנא‬ and ‫( תּו ֵֺﬠ ָבה‬abomination) in Prov 6:16 indicates sentiment-laden ‫שׂנא‬, which appears on the emotive extreme of the continuum. The first five items adduced refer to corrupt body parts and the final two refer to people. This occurrence of ‫ שׂנא‬is similar to Yahweh’s negative emotion toward the vices discussed above. The Hebrew Bible is clear: one should expect certain attitudes and actions to be the objects of divine ‫שׂנא‬. Furthermore, it is expected to feel negatively toward certain things. Indeed, Qoheleth accepts the propriety of ‫שׂנא‬, when he muses that there is a time to hate (Eccl 3:8). Before evaluating cognate evidence, a few general comments on Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬in this chapter are in order. Biblical authors interpret Yahweh’s reaction to be ‫ שׂנא‬in particular and negative in general when they describe his response to wickedness, similar to human ‫ שׂנא‬toward vice (outlined in chapter 2). ‫ שׂנא‬is not always the response when a vice is practiced. But it is reasonable to expect such factors to arouse ‫שׂנא‬. Further, the examples discussed above suggest that divine ‫ שׂנא‬usually possesses a negative emotional overtone and, thus, reflects Yahweh’s strongest sense of aversion. Divine ‫ שׂנא‬toward vice highlights two more realities. First, ‫ שׂנא‬is a sub-category of divine wrath. Several lexemes refer to Yahweh’s wrath, and ‫ שׂנא‬is a prominent member of that group (see appendix 1). Second, Yahweh’s ‫ שׂנא‬underscores the ethical dimension to ‫שׂנא‬. Namely, there are times and instances where ‫ שׂנא‬is an appropriate response.

UGARITIC

The appellation Baal refers to numerous deities in the ancient Near East from Mesopotamia to the Levant. In the Ugaritic corpus, it is the title of Hadad, the Syrian storm god. 23 The sole Ugaritic instance of šnʾ in this chapter is ascribed to him and appears in the fourth of the six-tablet Baal Cycle (CTU3 1.1–1.6), a myth about his enthronement. Archaeological and textual data suggest a ca. 1400– 1350 date for the document. 24 23 24

Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, p. 4. Smith, ‘The Baal Cycle’, p. 81.

7: HATE TOWARD VICE

87

Column III, line 17 contains Baal’s šnʾ. The pericope below follows a lacuna of over thirty lines, spanning the end of column II and the beginning of column III: 25 The very powerful Baal an[swered] 26, The rider of the clouds th[un]dered 27: ‘He {arose}, came forward, and opposed me, He {g}ot up and spat on me amidst the {assem}bly of the sons of El. I drank [ . . . ] 28 at my table, Humiliation {from} a cup I drank it. {Fo}r two feasts Baal hates (šna), Three, the Cloud-Rider: A feast of shame, a feast of {con}tention, And a feast of the whispering of maidservants. For in it shame indeed is obvious, For in it the whispering of maidservants’ (1.4 III, lines 10– 22). 29

Since this text suffers from lacunae, the following commentary is tentative. Baal’s šnʾ appears in the numerical saying format similar to Prov 6:16. 30 According to the translation above, feasts (dbḥm) excite Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume II, p. 469. Reconstructing y[ʿ]n with Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume II, pp. 457, 471. 27 Reconstructing y[r]ʿdd with Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume II, pp. 471–2. 28 Following Daniel Sivan, who does not reconstruct anything, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, p. 108. CTU3’s reconstruction is p[gl]t, ‘unclean offering’. 29 This translation largely follows the transliteration of CTU3 with variances noted. 30 Smith and Pitard contextualize this literary device in the Baal Cycle in the light of various Semitic texts: Mesopotamian, Aramaic, and Israelite (Prov 30; Sir 23:16; 50:25–26), The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume II, p. 475. Though they do not discuss literary borrowing from Ugaritic to He25 26

88

HATE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

his šnʾ. While dbḥ also means sacrifice, ‘feasts’ is the best translation here, because the context is a divine assembly occurring with a feast (lines 14–16 refer to a ‘table’ and ‘cup’). 31 Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard present two possible reasons for šnʾ. The first deals with some sort of sexual misconduct occurring amidst the feast. 32 The second (which is preferable) is contempt in the form of verbal insults and physical affronts directed at Baal by other participants in the divine assembly. Line 20’s ‘whispering’ suggests the verbal insults and line 13’s ‘spitting’ indicates the physical affront. According to Smith and Pitard, these participants are not identified by name, but Yam and the maidservants are possible culprits. 33 The theological portrait in this document confirms P. Kyle McCarter’s observation that Ugaritic texts generally portray negative divine emotion toward other members of the pantheon, not toward human beings. 34 In this case, Baal recalls Yam arising and spitting at him amidst his peers. This amounts to the cup of humiliation and feast of shame and is the reason for Baal’s šnʾ ostensibly with a negative emotional overtone (the literal extreme of the spectrum). It should be underscored that feasts are not necessarily wicked per se; rather, they are associated with Baal’s disgrace, which is evil. Indeed, Ugaritic documents depict gods as frequently

brew, such borrowing is unlikely. The Prov 6 author simply uses a motif that was current during the second and first millennia. 31 Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Volume II, p. 476. 32 This is the opinion of both van Zijl, Baal, p. 94, and Margalit, A Matter of >Life< and >DeathLife< and >DeathLife< and >Death